Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 20 September 22 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Beighton[edit]

Not notable for his waterskiing or his auto racing (all non-notable amateur competitions). Possible vanity. Drdisque 00:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. At best, he should be listed with the individual competition articles (if the competitions themselves are notable). --Alan Au 01:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly no notability is established. NTK 03:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Em-jay-es 06:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.UberCryxic 15:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - violates WP:N --Ineffable3000 21:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, nn-bio. RFerreira 04:29, 26 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. If this information isn't verifiable, it shouldn't be merged - some arguments below mention this explictly, but WP:V's non-negotiability makes it implicit anyway. As no source has been presented, and the list has severe problems (notably the lack of black casualties), and would have to be heavily condensed to be encyclopaedic, anything written on casualties in the relevant article would not contravene the GFDL license on the content here. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties of Nat Turner's Rebellion[edit]

  • Delete, This is not information on Nat Turners Rebellion its a Casualty list. And if this was made in rememberance of the lost people its a poor memorial. This should be deleted or the names of the deceased remain unamed.24.243.178.182 04:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Hickman (student)[reply]

Non-notable victims since they all died, no source, most children victims are Child 1, child 2, child 3.... and some don't have full names anyways Coasttocoast 00:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The rebellion itself might be notable, but the casualties are not. --Alan Au 00:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The rebellion itself is undoubtably notable, the casualty information could be purged and fit into it. FrozenPurpleCube 01:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no source. If a source is found it can be included in the books section of the rebellion article. Gazpacho 01:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge encyclopedic verifiable info. Condense the unnamed schoolkids, of course, but let's not trash this. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a trimmed version into a new article about the rebellion, created by moving parts of the Nat Turner article into a new title such as Nat Turner's Rebellion. Barno 01:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge only if a source is found. I suspect one exists; however, it isn't on the article right now. Crystallina 01:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what can be merged out of this? Are any of these people notable? An article about the rebellion would certainly be nice, but this is not what we want to base it on. Seems like an indiscriminate collection of information to me. -Elmer Clark 01:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The lead section, at least, seems like it could be useful with a source. Crystallina 01:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to the rebellion or its namesake. Quite important event in US history; the more detail provided by the parent article, the better. Xoloz 10:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the names and information are too useful to throw away. 129.98.212.164 19:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, victims not notable, but description of rebellion could be merged into Nat Turner article. Ramsquire 19:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Nat Turner or another related article. --Ineffable3000 21:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prune out repetition, and merge to new article about the rebellion. The source should also be stated, of course, but if we deleted all unsourced articles we'd lose much of the encylopedia's content. Espresso Addict 22:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (to either Nat Turner or a new article Nat Turner's Rebellion) This article, and its title, to me are too POV to retain. An article about Nat Turner exists. I agree that we should probably have an article about the incident itself, in addition to that one, if POV is a problem. But slavery and slave rebellions are too inflammatory, in my opinion, to have a new article for every side of the story. As the talk page of the article points out, there were non-white victims involved in the incident (and in slavery itself.) Delicate issues require delicate, consensus-building article discussions and non-POV article titles. And we need sources for these names, as well as some of the details of the article. Dina 03:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Dina; the omission of black casulties is very troubling. JCScaliger 03:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without smerge either to Nat Turner or prospective Nat Turner's Rebellion (unless sources provided) per WP:NOT (indiscriminate list/memorial). If smerged, names should not be included and additionally "casualties" should be comprehensive per Dina above. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only way this should be merged is if all the victims are included. to be worth including, it needs either a paragraph explaining the 200 plus murdered slaves and the individual names cutting, or the extra paragraph and ALL the names of the black victims. To name only white casualties is on the "we were right to annex the rhineland" side of POV. Boynamedsue
  • Comment I examined the Nat Turner page, and I felt it was too much of a copyvio and reported it. I did start a Nat Turner's Rebellion page from the start though, if anybody wants to edit and improve that.
  • Merge The nom didn't say whether this has already been tried. It shouldn't have come to an AfD. JASpencer 15:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. If the names were sourced with context I'd vote the other way. Arbusto 05:24, 27 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, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SLICS[edit]

This is shameless advertising of a non-notable chess program. Sorry. YechielMan 00:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.UberCryxic 00:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does nothing that wasn't possible 30 years ago. Gazpacho 01:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Makes no claim of notability. -Elmer Clark 01:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn notable advertising.--Shella ° 02:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.--Húsönd 02:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 03:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete shareware spam. Not a bad program, perhaps. but not notable either. NTK 03:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. MER-C 08:18, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Redman[edit]

Non-notable chess personality. I never heard of him. Being a past president of the USCF doesn't give you a free entry into Wikipedia. YechielMan 00:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; who is this guy? -- TheGreatLlama (speak to the Llama!) 00:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep if sufficient other information about the man can be gleaned from somewhere. If not, merge to Presidents of the United States Chess Federation and possibly review the other names on the list. FrozenPurpleCube 00:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it could be strongly argued that being USCF (the governing body of chess in the United States) president makes one inherently notable, and this guy also has the distinction of being the only person to serve twice. -Elmer Clark 01:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and redirect are mutually exclusive. Redirecting simply involves replacing the article text with a redirect tag. NTK 03:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If he has done anything significant in his capacity, then put that in the USCF article. NTK 03:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Elmer, president of a notable organization, only one to be elected twice. AmitDeshwar 03:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, stubby but the president (only one to be chosen twice) of a notable organization is notable too). If not kept as a stub, it can be redirected without the need for deletion. Mgm|(talk) 12:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep per above, but I think the article needs to be expanded. --mathewguiver 16:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article has not been expanded in the two months since it was created. If someone is willing to make it as encyclopedic as the other articles (like Leroy Dubeck, George Koltanowski or Maxim Dlugy) that are not red-linked on Presidents of the United States Chess Federation, then they can recreate it. (That list should probably be on the USCF page instead of its own, IMHO.) I mean, what's next, "Presidents of the Boy Scouts" and then pages for each of them? --72.75.117.73 18:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Twice president of a notable organisation. For 72.75.117.73s info, Chief Scout is already an article and most of them do have their own article.... Jcuk 20:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems to me that there is probably more than enough room at the organization's page to list all of these presidents, but they don't seem otherwise notable enough that they need an independent article. Peyna 22:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. No sources, no WP:V.... Arbusto 02:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, nothing wrong w/stubs. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to the United States Chess Federation article until something substantial can be written. Yamaguchi先生 23:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being President of the USCF does not make you notable in the least. - Joshua Johaneman 00:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Should be expanded, as Tim Redman's contributions to chess, especially at the college level, are notable. He has twice been the president of the USCF, and the chess program he started at the University of Texas at Dallas is one of only two officially designated (by the World Chess Federation) centers for chess education in the world. Personally, I know nothing about the chess world, but a quick google of his name alerted me to the fact that he certainly seems to be a notable person. Cfrydj 22:12, 25 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. Dakota 12:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma Scholastic Chess Organization[edit]

Again, a local chess organization with no claim to notability, and probably an agenda to promote its own website. Out it goes. YechielMan 00:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:NOT a directory, and unless the organization is notable for some other reason, I recommend that the article be deleted. --Alan Au 01:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete organizing scholastic chess tournaments is hardly a strong claim of notability. -Elmer Clark 01:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not local but state-wide. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonnotable. As a group, it needs to have actually done something notable. The fact that it is statewide is nice, but the article needs to establish a level of activity that brings it into greater prominence. NTK 03:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing especially interesting about it, and there are many similar ones. The only reason for keeping would be for the goal of "sum of all human knowlege", which is a stated goal of WP. Bubba73 (talk), 15:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable.UberCryxic 15:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What are the notability criteria for chess organisations? Unless or until we establish such criteria, I suggest keeping all such articles, to avoid having to recreate them once such criteria are established. Wiki not paper, sum of human knowedge et al.. Jcuk 20:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think WP:ORG would suffice to cover this discussion, no? Metros232 13:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; I also think Elmer put my argument quite succinctly. -- Kicking222 23:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Prolog 12:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In the absence of guidelines, notability would have to be demonstrated... it isn't. --Dweller 10:52, 26 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 with Semi-Slav Defence. Yes, I know I participated in this debate, but I am closing this anyway because there seems to be reasonable agreement that merging is a good option, and merging chess articles with chess notation and analysis is pretty difficult if one is not a chess player. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QGD; Semi-Slav 5.Bg5 dxc4[edit]

I make the same point here as for B50 (chess opening) - the variation is too minor, and if you won't keep all 500 openings of ECO, keep none. If the article isn't deleted, it could be renamed as D44 (chess opening), or better, merged into Semi Slav Defense. YechielMan 00:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Clearly YechielMan knows what he is talking about. Have the major categories of openings written up under their common names, don't include any of the ECO opening variations. NTK 03:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Would this not also qualify as being a game guide? Resolute 04:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's information here that isn't in Semi Slav Defense, and the nominator actually explains that xyr problem with the article can be solved by hitting the "move" tab and then the "edit" tab, to rename the article to D44 and then merge it into Semi Slav Defense. Therefore: Per the nomination, keep, and do the things that ordinary editors can do without administrators having to delete anything or even be involved in the process. I remind editors of the "minor branch of a subject" part of Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem_articles_where_deletion_may_not_be_needed. Uncle G 08:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the theory of chess is huge today and I suspect that YechielMan DOES NOT know what he is talking about here. It is better to have one general article about Semi Slav, and then detailed articles about the branches. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, it can contain millions of articles. And this is not a minor variation - Chessgames.com have more than 600 master games played with this opening. --Ioannes Pragensis 09:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect into Semi Slav Defense and redirect D44 to the same place. Separating it into this article is not a suitable way to go about it. Mgm|(talk) 12:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ioannes Pragensis. The analysis of chess openings is deep enough to support encyclopedic articles about these and similar lines of play. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Semi-Slav Defense. That article could still use some analysis. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since it has its own ECO code. As an alternative, merge with Semi-Slav Defense. Bubba73 (talk), 15:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC) I have changed my mind to merge with Semi-Slav Defense. Bubba73 (talk), 23:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Uncle G since D44 is already listed in Semi-Slav Defense as the Anti-Meran Gambit ... otherwise, we'll see articles for every variation in List of chess openings. (BTW, someone might want to check QGD; 3...Nf6, Grünfeld gambit, Nimzo-Indian, Three knights variation, and some of the other recent creations of WTHarvey, who appears to be doing just that!) --72.75.117.73 18:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Semi Slav Defense. I think we should have information about all 500 openings of ECO, although the nom is probably right that this variation is too minor to have its own article. Wmahan. 21:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes the theory is huge + Everyone loves the D44. Its such a beautiful complex opening. We should instead work to have a page on all the notable ECO codes.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 using Copyright Judo by MONGO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Whilst this isn't strictly within the bounds of the speedy deletion criteria, I don't think that there will be much disagreement over whether we need text that is a copy of a copyrighted ("Copyright © 2000 - 2006 LynxBanc®") non-GFDL web page, that is "used by permission", when we have a perfectly good free content article on the subject at adjustable rate mortgage. Uncle G 10:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Option arm definition[edit]

Appears to be an advertisement masquerading as an article. The material is apparently taken ("by permission," although this is dubious, being unsourced) from lynxbanc.com. Several {{prod}} notices have been placed on the article, and both were deleted without explanation. Switchercat talkcont 00:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete A8 as copyvio of [1]. --Alan Au 01:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Alan - speedy delete. Bigtop 01:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flag as copyvio. The speedy delete must be within 48 hours of creation. --Wafulz 01:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as copyvio with the likely intent of advertising. Just for your information though, you're not allowed to replace removed PROD tags. Removal, even without explanation, is considered a contesting of the tag (albeit a weak one), so the next step is AfD. In this case, speedy delete (which cannot be removed by the article creator) should have been used, but at any rate, don't replace removed PROD tags. -Elmer Clark 01:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Sorry. It looked like it might be unintentional, because it wasn't mentioned in the edit summary, but I'll try avoiding that next time. Switchercat talkcont 02:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and tagged as such. There is no need to clutter AfD with this obvious case. NTK 03:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm, just because an article is business-oriented doesn't make it "speedy-delete" "advertising". We already have something on this topic at Adjustable rate mortgage. I see no business name included in the article. Nevertheless, delete because the "used with permission" note at the bottom doesn't really suffice, and redirecting this article name is pointless. –Outriggr § 04:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, copyvio'd commercial content is speedy-able. See criterion A8. -Elmer Clark 04:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, whether copyvio or not, this is blatant, shameless advertising. JIP | Talk 06:30, 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. Dakota 19:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel and Death[edit]

Yet another flash game, notability is doubtful at best, google hits are to be expected since it's a free online game Equendil Talk 00:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 01:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Way too minor for an article- doesn't meet WP:WEB and is unverifiable. The Developer's site also has a fairly poor Alexa ranking- the majority of Google hits come from gaming directories and hosting sites.--Wafulz 01:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not really sure how an Internet flash game could ever achieve notability...I guess making the news somehow or being reviewed in a magazine would help, but whatever the proper criteria would be, this sure doesn't meet them. -Elmer Clark 01:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Elmer. —Khoikhoi 03:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sort of amusing but not at all notable. I would not agree with Elmer that a flash game is inherently nonnotable, but I would definitely agree that the vast majority of them are not, even ones that are relatively popular and well-executed, due to their ephemeral nature. NTK 03:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bejeweled is on here and no one has a problem with it. Over 25milliion plays within the first few months after release, if that doesn't qualify for notability then what does? Yes it would increase google rankings, but that isn't the purpose of the article. Anything on wikipedia will have it's google ranking raised, that doesn't mean that every Tom, Dick & Harry is using Wikipedia as an advertising method.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hechaos (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Above vote is from the creator of the article. Danny Lilithborne 20:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn game. Comparing this to Bejeweled? Bejewled became a huge hit and is also available on Xbox Live Arcade and many cell phones. TJ Spyke 06:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN. Not even checking with the figures, as a free-to-play game that downloads in seconds on broadband, it isn't surprising that it has spread like wildfire amongst these free gaming sites. What else is there to actually say about this game? The article itself repeats itself and doesn't make a great deal of sense. Is this 'road rage' a sega game I've never heard of or are we talking Road Rash? When was there a motorbike duel in Bladerunner? Seems gobbledegook to put a few sentences in an article that hasn't proven any need to exist. With the greatest of respect, Bejeweled isn't just a popular webgame, it springboarded Popcap games up into a company publishing and producing some polished games and established them as one to watch. Bejeweled has been ported to many formats and is also a commercial product (the deluxe version). If this game gets some press, takes the world by storm etc. then I'd welcome an article, but right now it reads like a nonsensical advert about a popular-enough game that's getting copied-and-pasted by its developers. QuagmireDog 10:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I know this one, but it's entirely unencyclopedic. Mgm|(talk) 11:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Asuasu1 18:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bejeweled is notable. This isn't. Delete. — Haeleth Talk 18:47, 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 redirect to QuickTime. Redirects are cheap and easy. :) - Mailer Diablo 16:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.mov[edit]

No vote. This was prodded on suspicion of a hoax, and it's difficult to find something in Google for this search term, for obvious reasons, but I did notice squatters on domains like dotmov.com and dotmov.org, which makes me doubtful. Can anyone confirm? - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per [2] - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - does exist as a proposal [3], but I doubt that gives it enough notability for its own article. Yomanganitalk 01:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - that proposal was from 1995, and it looks like no action has been taken since then on that and 50 or so other proposed TLDs, plus the article violates WP:V with the "A classified hollywood source" claim. Yomanganitalk 01:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How is this even possible? Wouldn't this be like using .mp3 as a TLD? Wouldn't the browser attempt to play .mov pages as movie files? If this is a real proposal, it doesn't seem like a very good one... -Elmer Clark 02:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Domains and file names are entirely separate things. Valrith 02:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand now, someone explained on my talk page. Of course, that was just my curiosity, and has little bearing on the discussion :) -Elmer Clark 02:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No verifiability via reliable sources. Valrith 02:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to redirect to QuickTime. No evidence that such a TLD would exist. --Kinu t/c 02:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete(edit conflict) I can't find any indication there's going to be a .mov TLD anytime soon. A defunct eleven year proposal is of questionable notability.-- danntm T C 02:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to QuickTime, no reason to lose a useful redirect because someone replaced it with a crappy article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy revert to redirect. A quick check of the article's history would have revealed that this should have been done rather than AfD. NTK 03:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to redirect per above. JIP | Talk 06:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, and reading the article that the film industry wants to get their own "place on the net" just as TV has.? That's because .tv was sold by Tuvalu as a domain for anyone esp. the TV industry, not because it was assigned that way. Nate 06:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to QuickTime —Jared Hunt September 21, 2006, 06:53 (UTC)
  • Redirect 82.55.199.200 14:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Quicktime per WP:NOT Crystal Ball. Mitaphane talk 01:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to redirect as above; failing that, delete and recreate as a redirect to QuickTime. And incorrect article too, .tv is not TV, nor is .fm FM radio, any more than .coop is for sole use of communal chicken farming. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to redirect as stated above. Even if we do decide to keep the present article (which looks unlikely) I think .mov should be a disambig page with links to both quicktime and .mov (domain) or something like that. Cool3 19:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Quicktime article like suggested above. Yamaguchi先生 23:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Until someone can find a reliable source for this, then it serves no purpose. Spartacusprime 20:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Quicktime article and protect from modification. RFerreira 22:55, 28 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 00:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Effective Microorganisms[edit]

  • Advertising. Unsubstantiated claims. NPOV. SPAM? I'm really unsure what to do about this article. Much of the material is pseudoscientific. No independant, peer-reviewed publications were found (the 700 supplied are by the people selling the products, or are not in scientific journals). I'm for deleteing (or at the very least very major rewriting) this article. MidgleyDJ 01:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most likely Spam, only even the slightest chance it is sufficiently notable. FrozenPurpleCube 02:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Effective Deletion spamvertisement. NTK 03:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Macrodeletion, Effective immediately per above --Richard 06:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Effective delete - spammy original research. MER-C 08:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Asuasu1 18:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete...snake oil, anyone? Byrgenwulf 18:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only AUTHENTIC EM has the EM logo. EM and 'Effective Microorganisms' are trademarked in the United States. Beware of other products claiming to be EM. If the bottle you buy does not say 'Effective Microorganisms', such as 'Efficient Microbes', then it is NOT authentic EM." If the vote you read does not say delete, then it is not authentic vote. Anville 20:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam, snake oil and bologna.--Shella * 22:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless independent evidence of notability can be produced. The current version seems wholly promotional. Espresso Addict 22:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rewrite, Wikipedia permits entries for Network Marketing companies and many of them have been called scams, snake oil and balogna too. The science of effective microorganisms works as described. What confirmation do you need? Urbanwild 08:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This appears to be an account created for the sole purpose of editing pages about Effective Microorganisms [4] Byrgenwulf 08:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I have many interests of which EM is only one. I have not created an ID until recently. If you can re-write the article so it doesn't look like spam, I would welcome it. I repeat: The science of effective microorganisms works as described. What confirmation do you need? Urbanwild 08:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's see if we can get it into shape first. I say don't delete it - at least, not yet. As it stands, it is spam, but the topic is quite interesting and it could be re-written to take most of the blatant advertising. I'm going to do this now, and remove the unsubstatiated claims - if there's anything left to work with once that's done, I say the article should stay. Gruffle Gaw 11:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment PubMed shows 11 articles on "effective microorganisms". It's interesting to note that these arent the best journals in their respective fields. The claims in the wikipedia article (in my experience) would warrant publications in very good journals. It speaks to me of smoke and mirrors. MidgleyDJ 11:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not experienced with PubMed, but I only found one, and not used in the sense of this article. Did you check that these articles were about the same thing or whether they simply contained the string "effective microorganisms"? NTK 00:55, 25 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. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 04:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Elbrick[edit]

Delete due to lack of evidence from WP:RS that subject meets WP:BIO. Non-notable CEO of company whose notability is not readily asserted. One Google hit. --Kinu t/c 02:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, consort of the Duchess of Belmonte -THB 17:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete"Aspen Capital Advisors" was incorporated on 28/2/06. Being married to a title does not confer notability. Ohconfucius 05:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Peta 04:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no independent Ghits for the guy and little for his company. No evidence of personal notability and marriage does not confer it. Bridgeplayer 20:14, 27 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 16:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OldVersion.com[edit]

Prod was removed by User:132.205.44.134. The subject of this article doesn't meet WP:WEB intrinsically, as it just redistributes software; that software isn't owned by the website itself. The article makes no assertions of notability, and isn't referenced at all. Mikeblas 02:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Simply not that popular. NTK 03:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 07:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Nigel (Talk) 12:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - count the Ghits. Improve the page. Not a "popular" site by it's very nature, a resource for those who find preference or necessity dictates using a previous version. Ace of Risk 15:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 558k ghits Computerjoe's talk 19:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Google Hits aren't relevant; incoming links aren't a part of WP:WEB. WP:WEB is about third-party media coverage, awards, or republishing. This site fails all three criteria. -- Mikeblas 15:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep probably a stub only explaining what it is and what it does. (sorry, forgot to sign) SirFozzie 06:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep — perhaps there should be an article about old version download websites and oldversion.com could be offered a mention. Or a comparison of good software download websites, if this were to be deleted. -Mardus 15:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please the site is very useful and notable too with over half million google hits Yuckfoo 01:17, 28 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 21:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boroline[edit]

non-notable; promotional Tom Harrison Talk 02:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Google does provide quite a few results for this.--Húsönd 03:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. First, reviewing the Google hits shows that only a fraction of the hits are for the cream—more of them seem to be for a Boroline Road in New Jersey. Secondly, not every commercial brand on earth for such a mundane product is notable, and it would take more than a few Google hits to show otherwise. NTK 03:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I filtered the New Jersey road results. I still got about 900 for the Indian medicine.--Húsönd 13:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears to be quite notable in India, if not in the US. -THB 17:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Market share of 21% among antiseptic creams in India. Also, a memorable advertising campaign featuring Riya Sen. (sigh). I'm not sure what 'fraction' of Google hits NTK was looking at. On google.co.uk, which I use, the first two pages are almost all about the cream or Boro Plus, a variant.Hornplease 02:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Hornplease 02:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well known brand in India -- Lost(talk) 02:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An article on the segment and market share is here. Definitely an iconic brand in the state of West Bengal and definitely the pioneer in the "antiseptic cream" market on an India-wide basis. Generations of Indians have used this cream for cuts, bruises, chapped lips, and as a general purpose moisturizer. --Antorjal 02:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Iconic is right. I can't get "Boroline - antiseptic cream - Bor-o-line!" out of my head now. Damn advertising jingles!Hornplease 03:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well known brand and a house-hold name in India (like Dispirin). It is a wonder as to how it was termed as non-notable  Doctor Bruno Talk 03:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Very well known brand in India. Needs to be expanded, though. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:13, 27 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 05:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's Up Guy[edit]

Non-notable forum that fails the WP:WEB criterias. No Alexa ranking [5].--TBCTaLk?!? 02:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom + vanity article.--Húsönd 03:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete —Khoikhoi 03:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What's up with this article? NTK 03:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, forum vanity, also looks like the forum isn't even finished yet. JIP | Talk 06:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 07:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Looks like NN info/rambling. It is being edited as we speak. JungleCat talk/contrib 17:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity article. -THB 17:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Ramsquire
  • Delete - violates WP:VAIN and WP:N --Ineffable3000 21:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity, nn notable.--Shella * 22:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.UberCryxic 23:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per... well, everything. Herostratus 06:14, 22 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 15:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Tucker[edit]

Disambiguation page with all red links. Mikeblas 02:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Is there any precedent for this? What if some or all of the referenced people are notable? NTK 03:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If some of the people on this list are notable, they will get their own article at some point. No sense having a disambiguation page listing several people not yet considered notable. Resolute 04:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - I think we might be able to call this housekeeping (csd g6). Tagged as such. MER-C 08:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It disambiguates between at least two people who have an article. Unless those are deleted, I don't see any reason to deleted a dab page. Redlinks can (I think) be removed according to the WP:MOS. - Mgm|(talk) 11:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nominator's rationale does no longer apply. Punkmorten 12:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perfectly good dab page. --Ezeu 15:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AFD is not cleanup. —Mitaphane talk 01:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Request. Please read before voting; at the time the AfD was opened, there were all redlinks. Deleting all the redlinks per the MOS would have left an empty article. Opening an AfD was the right thing to do. -- Mikeblas 06:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It wasn't the only choice, however. Seeing whether one could write a decent stub for one or more of the dangling links was another possible choice. Uncle G 11:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure. I might have taken that choice is I had known anything about the inovlved people (or, in a couple of cases, could even figure out which Mark they intended to refer to). Your suggestion, while possible, is impractical. -- Mikeblas 16:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is quite practical. "What links here" is your friend. Uncle G 08:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not sure what you point is. If you'd try using "WLH" for that article, you'd see that there's nearly no incoming links; the ones that exist aren't relevant. -- Mikeblas 17:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • The reason that there are no incoming hyperlinks is that editors had already helpfully arranged for all of the different Mark Tuckers elsewhere to hyperlink to individual articles that this article then listed, ready for people to write. In other words, they had already done some of the work of setting up a proper disambiguation, ready for others to then build upon. You could have used "what links here" for the redlinked articles that it disambiguated. You still can, in fact. "What links here", and assuming that editors might have created a disambiguation article as a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopaedia in collaborative fashion, are your friends. Uncle G 20:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No need to dab when it can be done at Tucker (surname). Ohconfucius 05:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If each of the articles would, in the absence of all of the others, otherwise have the title "Mark Tucker" or a redirect there, then there is a need to disambiguate. Please refresh your memory of Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Uncle G 11:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Was not before, but is now a valid Wikipedia:Disambiguation. --Satori Son 17:31, 25 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 00:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of terms from the Kingdom Hearts series[edit]

Unencyclopedic grab-bag of fictional people, places, and things in the Kingdom Hearts series, with no real-world context and no hope for real-world context, no sources and no hope for sources, and no encyclopedic content whatsoever. A similar AFD led to delete here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 06:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 06:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia articles are not collections of random facts from a fictional universe. (indiscriminate collection per WP:NOT) Mgm|(talk) 11:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article exists so that editors do not have to continually explain what certain terms mean in character articles and plot sections. It also serves as a merge target for stuff that kept getting articles, like "Keyblade". Interrobamf 11:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Kingdom Heart Series is notable enough that it will have minor entries associated with it that it would be better to have one complete article than a dozen little ones. Article does need some clean-up though. FrozenPurpleCube 15:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic fancruft. --Ezeu 15:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Asuasu1 18:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These minor entries are better in one article than a dozen little ones, but frankly the concepts in this article are divided into two types: important concepts that should be (and indeed are) explained adequately in the main articles -- like "Kingdom Hearts" itself and the "Heartless" -- and other concepts so minor that they don't need to be discussed on Wikipedia at all. — Haeleth Talk 18:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to have to go with Delete because I'm tired of reverting crap anon users add to it. The important stuff is already covered in the main articles and the rest is kind of pointless. However, I would like to point out this page that has some other game-related glossaries. Axem Titanium 21:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it then, I suppose. Interrobamf 01:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if only to avoid having to fix the links from other articles to sections of this one. For example, I just changed every link to Princesses of Heart into a link to this article's "P" section. Powers T 14:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Kingdom Hearts Series uses lots of confusing terms. This page REALLY helped me! I mean "Kingdom Hearts" I thought was just the title ^_^ --Zeldamaster3 10:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RexNL 19:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's related to the Kingdom Hearts series and effectively explain some key terms. mastertrickster6 00:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aberzombie[edit]

This has gone through both speedy and prod, both contested. (I apologize for the second prod in advance; I missed the first one in the edit history.) I believe that the sources provided still don't quite meet the guidelines in WP:NEO; if anything, it should be merged if the legal case is substantial enough. Crystallina 03:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Abercrombie & Fitch. However, it is not clear whether it should be under History, Lifestyle brand, Controversy and criticsm, a new section, or divided between several of the above. The neologism goes well under Lifestyle brand because that is largely what it is a direct reaction to and because it is more a criticism of the customers and the marketing allure than of the company itself. The WIPO case and the amberzombie.com company seem more likely to belong in a different section, but I'm far from certain. —BozoTheScary 03:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At best, this would be a weak wiktionary candidate. NTK 03:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NEO.--Peta 06:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Protologism. Danny Lilithborne 07:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Are all neologisms deletable or just those that haven't been used by a major media outlet (or other notability criteria)? Or do all neologisms belong on a different wiki regardless? The policy suggestions are not clear to me. — BozoTheScary 15:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Bozo; I would go with Transwiki to Wiktionary, but the discussion of the lawsuits probably wouldn't fit. JCScaliger 03:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per JC same!paradigm! 21:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)!paradigm![reply]
  • Transwiki to wiktionary. JASpencer 07:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no encyclopaedic value. Wiktionary candidate. TerriersFan 02:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, neologism, the lawsuit stuff can go into the Abercrombie and Fitch article. ~crazytales56297 00:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apse(band)[edit]

do not meet the notability criteria at WP:BAND; the closest it comes is to an "international tour" (the most debated criteria of WP:BAND) but that isn't even likely to happen until late October (and according to the blog at Myspace that's linked as the proof, who knows what countries the "tour" will even entail) ju66l3r 03:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete as nom. Also to add: the starting and primary editor has been a user named Apse...which really infringes on WP:AUTO. ju66l3r 03:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of this page, and I made some edits after this issue was brought up. After editing, I believe I have addressed some important issues:

As per Wikipedia's rules, a musical group is considered "notable" if they meet one of the criteria cited by Wikipedia itself. One such critera is that the band "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)...

-Keeping this in mind...consider that Apse is signed to Spanish label Acuarela Discos, and has currently completed two major releases for the label. You can find this information on Acuarela's website, or by confirming with them if you so desire. The external link at the bottom of the article now proves that Apse has two releases on Acuarela Discos. This label is an important indie label based in Madrid, with a large roster, and has been in existence for over 10 years. They have had releases by Xiu Xiu, members of Sonic Youth, and the Decemberists, all of which are large enough to be considered "notable".

-Further proof of Apse's European Tour can be confirmed by Acuarela Discos. On their webpage itself there is a link to the "Tanned TIn" festival website, held in Castellon, Spain, which has Apse's name on the banner. On it, it shows many other "notable" acts Apse will play alongside with. I have now included this link as a footnote in the biography section.

-Apse is also listed on AllMusic.com, which is noted on Wikipedia's own Notability page as "a good online resource for music and musicians". I have now put a link to Apse on allmusic.com, in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apse (talk • contribs) 05:12, 21 September 2006

  • I've changed the title properly by using the "move" button. Never cut and paste an article from one title to another, as doing so results in a non-continuous edit history. That having been said, I have no opinion on the article's merit. —freak(talk) 16:44, Sep. 21, 2006 (UTC)

thanks...this is the first time I've written a Wikipedia article....so please bear with me. I've also added some interviews with the band and another review of their first album. Apse 16:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also just added a footnote to one of the interviews where I got some of the information from, in the main biography (footnote 1). Apse 17:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just added a link to the myspace page after the mention of the European Tour, which now confirms many specific dates, locations, and venues. Apse 17:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC) -Also added a link to their label's page, which confirms some of the European dates as well. Apse 18:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup --Peta 04:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Super Smash Bros. Whispering(talk/c) 16:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blast-Line[edit]

The article talk page sums this one up nicely. Blast line is a term relevant to Super Smash Bros and Super Smash Bros Melee (its only links), and not much else. The information has already been added to the articles in question, and other terms from these games have already been deleted.  T.K.  TALK  03:47, 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 05:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wide Awakes Radio[edit]

Internet radio operating since July 2006, no non-trivial media coverage provided as evidence of notability. Delete --Peta 04:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Thryduulf 10:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom please together with its lovely collection of links! Nigel (Talk) 12:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.UberCryxic 15:10, 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 05:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QWERTY (song)[edit]

Article on a demo version of a song that might not even be commercially released. Until it's released as a single it doesn't deserve its own article. Wikipedia isn't an LP fansite. GrahameS 04:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, for the reasons mentioned above. --SayCheese 04:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Qwerty is the working title for an unreleased song" - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --IslaySolomon 09:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete crystal-ballery Mgm|(talk) 11:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on where is everyones sense of humour - great title for a song! Delete though of course Nigel (Talk) 12:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Have a nice day. --Dennisthe2 19:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's just a waste of space. Hello2112 22:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn notable .--Shella * 22:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although I don't see it as quite as obvious as the above commentors, as the song has apparantly generated some buzz due to its internet "release". Still not enough, though. Herostratus 06:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you guys serious? Mike Shinoda really seemed to insinuate that this was a song from their next album. Clearly, the whole crystal ball argument has absolutely nothing to do with this. Additionally, a band as famous as Linkin Park surely makes this notable. This definitely ought to stay.
  • Delete per nom. --Zimbabweed 22:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While it is a good song, it is still a live demo of a song that may not make it on LP's new album. It does not merit its own article. Some of this information could be placed in the main Linkin Park page, however. Falcon37 25 September 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily delete as nonsense. --Nlu (talk) 05:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gingervitis[edit]

Delete I feel that this article is pure nonsense, as it is based on a report that Eric Cartman gave in class during an episode of South Park. --Riley 04:17, 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 15:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adriano Valente[edit]

Did not compete in any racing other than Karts, which are the lowest level of motorsports. No evidence of claimed races in the US. Possible vanity. Drdisque 04:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Racers are not required to have competed in races in the US. Winning a major national title outside the US is also notable. - Mgm|(talk) 11:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was not saying that he was required to have participated in the US, I was saying that his claimed accomplishments in the US should not be considered because the series that the editor claims he raced in there are either indeciferable or do not exist. -Drdisque 12:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing that up. - Mgm|(talk) 21:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The lead makes enough claims: "Valente won the Italian Karting Championship (UISP) in the junior category in 1994, took part at the 1995, 1996 and 1997 European and World Karting Championships (FIA/CIK). He also tested a number of Formula-3 and Formula-3000 cars for different teams in Europe." And while karting may be the lowest level of motorsports, winning a national competition in it (even at junior level) would in my view be notable, but I have doubts it is verifiable and the image leads me to lean to vanity. - Mgm|(talk) 11:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - winning a junior competiton as a 13 year old does not convey notability and he seems to have achieved nothing significant since. Little in the way of relevant GHits. Bridgeplayer 20:21, 27 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. alphaChimp(talk) 20:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northcentral University[edit]

Appears to me to be non-notable diploma mill. Author effectively acts as he owns the article, and while I hesitated to propose it for deletion (because he took the "use my version or delete it" position, and I do not wish to further it), on second thought I felt that the organization is simply not notable enough. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, with a side of salt. For all we know, he'll upload his original draft once the article is deleted. I would also like to suggest fully protecting the page as it is now to prevent further disruption. Ryūlóng 05:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - isn't deleating at this point really just giving in to BertWoodall (talk · contribs)? I don't see how that meshes well with your statement that "[w]e will not bend to your demands". As an accredited school of higher learning, one would expect NCU to have a entry in Wikipedia -- for heavens sake we have thousands of articles about non-notable High Schools here at Wikipedia, and we are going to delete an entry about a controversial post-high school educational institution just because their PR man is being too noisy? That doesn't seem to make sense, but then I am just an anon coward, so what do I know... -- 63.226.38.202 06:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Nigel (Talk) 12:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Resolute 13:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in the strongest possible terms. This is an accredited university recognized by the United States Department of Education which has been the center of recent controversy. Silensor 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it appears to fail WP:NN. Google hits are misleading due to the paid online ads. JungleCat talk/contrib 18:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a regionally accredited university at the center of recent controversy it seems like a most ideal topic for Wikipedia. Deleting the article is just a PR guy's end run around the truth. I also agree with suggestion of fully protecting the page as it is now to prevent further disruption. Highperformanceauto 18:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, barely notable degree mill involved in a non notable controversy. Ramsquire 19:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's an accredited university, albeit online. --Myles Long 20:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Silensor. Derktar 21:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment - Doesn't WP:SCHOOLS apply to this article? -- 12.106.111.10 23:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If you could show me some (all verifiable) notable alumni or research done, or something worthwhile, I might change my input on this. JungleCat talk/contrib 23:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have changed my input on this to Neutral as a benefit of the "doubt". I would like to see some hefty references though. JungleCat talk/contrib 23:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Such an entry belongs in a place like Ripoffreport.com and not a forum guised as a source of valid information. Is the purpose of the Wikipedia forum to service individual vendettas, disgruntled employees, or un-informed individuals? This type of entry assumes much and does not serve as a source of valid information but as a tool of misdirection and assumptions. Silensor seems extremely un-informed with regards to the facts about NCU and can only assume that s/he has no experience with the institution directly and therefore is making unfounded blanket statements. S/he speaks of "recent controversy" as the ration for their view, but in fact the issues I can only assume s/he speaks about are historical because in truth they are related to NCU only through their former President Donald Hecht. There are no recent issues to speak of. I suggest s/he at least attempt a course so that they may avoid speaking from ignorance. There are other forums an individual may use for such recourse, this forum is inappropriate as Wikipedia might be misinterpreted to be a source of valid unbiased information on this subject. NCU has nearly 4000 students and over 600 affiliated staff. The information contained within this site serves no public interest, in only serves to satisfy a vendetta of a few individuals. If such a page must exist, it should be put under the heading of Donald Hecht as the topic and not NCU. Do the right thing. Delete this item. "B" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.71.38 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment 24.116.71.38 tracks back to CableOne.net in Arizona. This is the same IP used by Bert Woodall, paid NCU PR guy, who vandalized this site in the first place. This speaks for itself as a reason why this page should not be deleted but rather kept and protected. "Do the right thing," he says. What a joke. Highperformanceauto 01:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We always keep accredited institutions of higher education, and we tend to keep the more notorious diploma mills. Northcentral University is indeed in the database of accredited institutions kept by the United States Department of Education. If it is actually a diploma mill, being accredited makes it somewhat unusual. up+l+and 06:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and protect. Hecht's involvement would probably make it more than "just a diploma mill". It is probably notable to have been fined a cool $500k for breaches of the law. As we have seen, the page will continue to come under attack. I believe that the public has a right to know about the organisation and its founder. Wiki is WP:NOT censored. Ohconfucius 06:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Assuming that it really is accredited by North Central, then it can grant bachelor's degrees. We have tons of articles on elementary schools... I think most any college should have an article. The content of the article is another story. In a really bad case, which this appears to be, it might be OK to just delete the article to save everybody a lot of heartache. Still, the material at least has some references. I mean, the scandals and stuff just make the college more notable. I don't see how it can go. Herostratus 06:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ohconfucius and Herostratus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ohconfucius and Herostratus, accredited universities are absolutely notable, there is no need to be prejudicial against those that are on-line. Yamaguchi先生 23:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete General information to define NCU okay. Biased information designed to slander has no relevance here. Provides no useful information regarding the institute, only historical info about founder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.229.179 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete delete content under NCU. Keep content regarding Hecht under heading Don Hecht with link from NCU with valid NCU info. solution for both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.186.14 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep per Ohconfucius and Herostratus. JoshuaZ 23:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The information in the Northcentral article is accurate and should be kept. I understand that it may be unflattering, but this site is not meant to be a marketing tool. Students spend a lot of money working on their education. If the school has controversial practices, it may negatively affect their accreditation status, and thereby make degrees from the school of questionable value. Prospective students and others should be aware of this information. Bluecanada 18:13, 26 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 12:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Student Misconceptions About Chemistry[edit]

Another in the misconceptions series. Like the already deleted articles and an earlier deleted version of this article, these articles are unencyclopedic in tone and content. Delete --Peta 06:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as advertising. Gazpacho 08:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete This one is better sourced than most of the series, but still unencylopedic. It's instructional and belongs on wikibooks if anywhere. TheronJ 10:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks if they want it, otherwise delete. Thryduulf 10:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks if they want it, otherwise delete. Too instructional in nature. - Mgm|(talk) 11:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Ramsquire 19:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We have been here before. Misconceptions in chemistry is a quite legit area of research into chemical education and an article should exist to reflect that. This article, of course, is not it, but that is not a reason to delete it. I hesitate to say "Keep" however as I do not have the time right now to do anything about it. --Bduke 14:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibook then delete. Batmanand | Talk 10:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transwiki if desired. Cedars 05:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Os Gêmeos[edit]

Insufficient assertions of notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I listed two books they are featured in (one of which features their work on the front cover), along with quotes from both indicating their notability. I created this article.--duncan 09:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom .--Húsönd 14:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed stance to Keep following mistake in previous research.--Húsönd 14:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nom trivial press coverage. --Peta 04:24, 27 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. — CharlotteWebb 16:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Gonzales[edit]

Some claim of notability made, but I don't think quite enough. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This request is just absurd. He is probably the most notable skateboarder ever. Keep.--KoRnholio8 07:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You seriously nominated Gonzales and Templeton out of ALL the skateboarding articles on here? --Liface 08:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Highly notable within the field. Article could probably use a little cleanup. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he seems to be very notable in the skateboarding field, meeting the "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." criteria of WP:BIO. Thryduulf 10:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Psychotically strong, if not speedy, keep Not just is Gonzales one of the most well-known and influential skateboarders ever, but the article clearly states why. This is a rather ludicrous nomination. -- Kicking222 13:07, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Kilgallen[edit]

Insufficient assertions of notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She is included in the PBS series "art in the 21st century"[6], together with some 50 other artists; she has had a review in the New York Times[7]. There's also a book about her work[8]. Lots and lots more of links, but this is enough for me to keep the article. Fram 09:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete, based on what is in the article she is not notable but User:Fram's links suggests she might be. Put the evidence in the article and expand it so they are in context and I will reconsider. Thryduulf 10:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per Fram's links, although of course, they need to be included (if need be, contact me to close the AFD and do it myself). - Mgm|(talk) 11:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fram. Links/further reading added. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No doubt a notable artist that deserves an entry. Just needs more detailed page. 25 September 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.100.210.18 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep per Fram. Agent 86 22:13, 25 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 15:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Templeton[edit]

I don't think there's just quite enough notability shown, particularly since PEACOCK words were used. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep You seriously nominated Gonzales and Templeton out of ALL the skateboarding articles on here? --Liface 08:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is nothing in the article that shows he is notable enough for an article. If he is as notable as you [Liface] imply, then there will be plenty of evidence of it you can add to the article. Thryduulf 10:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep!! whats wrong with this? ive seen much worse on here!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.205.82 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep Templeton is a highly well-regarded skater who founded Toy Machine, perhaps the most famous and successful skateboard manufacturer ever, and won a Slam City Jam. That's all that needs to be said. -- Kicking222 13:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs improving, but there is no doubt he is nootable enough.--KoRnholio8 19:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Templeton has been a VERY important part of skateboarding since the late 1980's. Not to mention he is known internationally as a visual artist. I can think of several large scale magazines that Templeton is featured in on a monthly basis. Don't believe me? Pick up a copy of this month's Transworld... maybe Skateboarder then? ... how 'bout Thrasher... Juxtapoz, perhaps? All of these magazines circulate between 500 000 and 1 000 000 copies a month. Should I go into publications that are not printed in English as well? What the hell are you thinking? The fact that this article is being considered for deletion is absolutely ridiculous. The person who initiated this deletion vote obviously knows nothing about skateboarding, which makes me think that they should stick to deleting articles from subjects that they know something, if anything, about.

Sincerely, Phil Larin, AKA the guy who started this article.


P.S.


HEY ALL YOU WIKIPEDIA KNOW IT ALLS! YOU COULD HAVE JUST GOOGLED THE NAME 'ED TEMPLETON'!

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Ed+Templeton&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

HERE, LET ME DO IT FOR YOU. CHECK IT OUT!


http://www.famousveggie.com/edtempleton.cfm

http://www.newimageartgallery.com/templetonbio.html

http://www.peta2.com/OUTTHERE/o-spotlight702.asp

http://www.skateboarding.com/skate/stories/article/0,23271,1074559,00.html

http://www.toymachine.com

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1438842/

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4846941610358434576

http://www.skateboardermag.com/skateboarder-news-features/features/15thingsed_t/

http://www.caughtinthecrossfire.com/skate/interviews/28

http://emericaskate.com/team/ed-templeton/

http://www.cerysmaticfactory.info/templetone.html

http://www.amazon.com/Ed-Templeton-Golden-Age-Neglect/dp/8888493026

http://gvr05.etnies.com/regular/ed-templeton-2/

http://www.amazon.com/Ed-Templeton-Deformer/dp/0972778861

http://expn.go.com/athletes/bios/TEMPLETON_ED.html

http://www.fecalface.com/SF/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=55&Itemid=92

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEr9eIhmQ_g&mode=related&search=

http://www.skimthefat.com/skaters/showskater.cgi?skaterID=836

http://secure.giantrobot.com/products.php?code=CONTAG&catid=I004

http://www.skateboardermag.com/skateboarder-news-features/magazine/qaedt/

http://store.freestyleshop.com/riwhcoedte.html


YES, THESE ARE ALL SEPARATE LINKS THAT PERTAIN TO THE SAME GUY. TAKE SOME TIME TO LOOK AT THEM ALL. DON'T BE SHY. PLEASE REMEMBER TO DO YOUR HOMEWORK NEXT TIME BEFORE YOU COMMENT ON SOMETHING YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT. THERE YOU HAVE IT. HAVE A NICE DAY. --Phil Larin

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barry McGee[edit]

I don't think sufficient notability has been asserted or shown. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I don't think the article establishes sufficient notablity. The claim regarding the shoe art makes it non-speediable though imho. Thryduulf 10:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets the criteria of WP:BIO. Significant number of ghits, the first of which links to a biography of him on PBS. Agent 86 16:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Graffitti art is not my cup of tea, but this guy, like Neckface is one of the few present-day graffitti artists to emerge as serious artists. He's exhibited at major museums (LACMA, for one), and he did the licensing deal with Addidas. Gotta say, I think he meets notability crites. I do wish the quotes from him were sourced, though. Pleather 00:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Twist is one of the most famous graffit writers in history. Yes this page is done poorly. Someone with more information needs to come and clean it up a little. And source more quotes, trust me there is more. Also add more pictures. But KEEP definitelyGrits 14:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely a notable artist.--Fred 02:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Page does need some updating and more detailed bio. Artist is well-known and influential and should definitely have his own Wikipedia page. He was part of PBS's "art: 21" special on important artists of the 21st century. September 25, 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.100.210.18 (talk • contribs) .
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Dillard[edit]

No evidence that this guy meets WP:BIO, delete --Peta 04:15, 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 rapid deletion. —freak(talk) 17:45, Sep. 22, 2006 (UTC)

Begginer guide to Runescape[edit]

It's a guide, as stated in article name, and no I don't think we can speedy this. So lets start the 5 day discussion on a guide on runescape.--Andeh 06:52, 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 Keep, nomination withdrawn, good work by User:Edison. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carmelite Sisters of the Aged and Infirm[edit]

This is a non-notable organization (fails the proposed WP:ORG. Out of 41 unique search hits [9], I see nothing that may bolster notability to encyclopedic levels. Deprodded with the comment "The community will be happy to decide whether they're notable" and without any changes to the article. Erechtheus 06:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC) In light of the outstanding job done adding references not apparent via Google, I withdraw the nomination. Erechtheus 19:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is an order of Roman Catholic sisters that operates several homes for the aged. The article is a stub and should be expanded, but the group is notable both as a religious order and as a health care organization. --TruthbringerToronto (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) 07:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per TruthbringerToronto. Religious orders are usually notable, particularly if they've been around for 80-some years. Irongargoyle 13:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Existing or historical Roman Catholic religious orders are notable per se, and without regard to their Google presence. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What exactly is it that makes a religious order notable per se? Also note that this AfD does not seek to delete Carmelites, which would appear to be the article about the order. It seems that this is some suborder unless I just don't understand the organization right.Erechtheus 15:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepA religious order in operation since 1929, honored by Cardinals and Governors, with 29 or so homes in the U.S. and Europe, founded by a Sister proposed for beatification, whose case is working its way through the procedures of the Vatican, seems pretty notable.Edison 16:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks notable enough with references. Plus, it is part of the listing on Roman Catholic religious order article. JungleCat talk/contrib 18:17, 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 nomination withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 15:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Chacon[edit]

Not formatted correctly, sources not cited, and most likely a hoax, also it does not conform to a Neutral Point of View WilliamC24 07:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of the hoax can be found here: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_n3_v21/ai_19524413

All biographies are the same biography copied over and over again by PsiFactor fans.

I agree, I think the person whoever posted this should be put on probation if he returns. If that's what you mean. Also, the person who wrote this wrote another article that is a hoax, but I don't feel like reporting two deletions so close together. WilliamC24 02:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Are we sure this is a hoax? The article may not provide an accurate description of Chacon, but I have some evidence that he might actually exist. In the 1993 non-fiction children's book The Very Scary Almanac, author Eric Elfman includes an interview with one Christopher Chacon, whom he identifies as a member of OSIR. Elfman writes in the introduction to the interview:
"The Office of Scientific Investigation and Research (OSIR) is a private agency, based in Central California, that investigates paranormal occurrences around the world. Since 1985 OSIR has investigated hundreds of reports of poltergeists, apparitions, haunts, causes of demonic possession, UFO abductions, and the simply unexplainable. The OSIR staff also includes electrical engineers, geologists, biologists, and scientists from other disciplines. Christopher Chacon, the director of OSIR and a field investigator, is also a professional illusionist and magician, a useful talent when it comes to detecting fraud or trickery. In December 1992, he agreed to answer some questions over the telephone about his job as a real ghostbuster..." (pg. 41)

There's a brief excerpt from the interview here, just to prove that I'm not making this up. Elfman also includes an address for OSIR, namely PO Box 461779, Los Angeles, CA 90046. Zagalejo 01:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addendum: Chacon has an IMDB profile, fwiw. Although, doing a little Google search on OSIR, I really don't know what to think about this guy. I can't find any evidence online confirming that OSIR ever existed, although the 1993 book (which predates Psi-Factor) suggests that it did. *shrugs* Zagalejo 01:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I generally believe that Chacon is misrepresenting himself in all of the instances posted on the internet. Basically all of the biographies of Chris Chacon share exactly the same source. They are all structured the same and have exactly the same information, and I believe they are the same. Incorrect information, copied over 100 times still does not make the information correct. I believe that Chris Chacon is a fraud, and the information that is out on the internet neither proves nor disproves it's existence, leaving me to request a delete for this because their isn't enough information to write a credible, neutral article on Chris Chacon. WilliamC24 04:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – some research I found a few pre-1996 (ie, pre Psi-Factor) Factiva hits mentioning OSIR:

  • "Spook Stalker". People. 20 September 1993. p. 85
  • Carpenter, Richard P. "The hotel that inspired `The Shining'". The Boston Globe. 31 October 1993. p. B32.
  • "High-tech ghost-busters haunt Louisiana mansion". The Patriot Ledger (Quincy, Mass). 29 October 1994. p. 52.
  • "Ghosts and voodoo in bayou land". The Dallas Morning News. 30 October 1994. p. 13 g.
  • "Things that go bump in the Bayou". Los Angeles Daily News. 30 October 1994. p. T1

These specifically mention Chacon:

  • Hallisy, Erin. "Orinda's Real Ghostbusters / Every day is Halloween at the Office of Paranormal Investigations". San Francisco Chronicle. 29 October 1990. p. A5.
  • "Ghost busters never saw one". Los Angeles Daily News. 30 Ocober 1990. p. N3.
  • Saari, Laura. "Haunted? Who ya gonna call? // Ghostbusters discover the paranormal in OC". The Orange County Register. 31 October 1991. p. K01.
  • "Check out haunted hotels". Richmond Times-Dispatch. 23 October 1994. p. H3. (duplicated in several other papers)

So it seems that Chacon is a real ghost hunter, and that the OSIR actually existed, although the facts of the organization may have been exaggerated for the tv show. What do people think? Please relist this discussion at AfD if no one responds. Zagalejo 04:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will not let crap like this stand. If you can write a more comprehensive, neutral article, I'll remove the delete tag, other wise, I'll argue the point and let it stand. I have no access to such databases as of now, and all that stands online are the same articles copied over and over. While I believe that Chacon may be a one of these ghost hunters, like what you see on the SciFi channel, I believe that he has exaggerated his importance, and by the lack of any current information that I can find with my resources, I don't believe that he is active. I am a skeptic, and I don't believe that stating that the MiB, paranormal exists as a fact is a neutral point of view. WilliamC24 05:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have real homework I'm supposed to be doing... :). I don't really care if you delete it now, as it is currently useless, and I don't have time to clean it up. But I think there is some potential here for a future article. Zagalejo 05:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more comment Some of his television credits do appear legitimate; according to this and this, someone named Chris or Christopher Chacon appeared on the television series Sightings multiple times. I found a possible verification for the Connie Chung appearance as well - a December 30, 1993 TV listing from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution says, ""Eye to Eye With Connie Chung" 9 p.m. on Channel 5 (77301) - Segments include a report on safety at railroad crossings; the story of a dying woman's wish to reunite with her family; a glimpse into the secret training grounds of South Africa's neo-Nazis; and a look at real-life ghostbusters, the Office of Scientific Investigation and Research." I also found a 1994 KCAL news transcipt mentioning Chacon at Lexis Nexis. I'm fairly confident now that some of this is salvageable with a little effort, but considering I'm the only person who seems to have access to some of these sources, it might be easier to delete it and let me rewrite it at a later date. Of course, if someone else has access to the sources and wants to try to clean it up, feel free....Zagalejo 14:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as I have trimmed it down to a stub. I basically pared away everything I couldn't immediately verify with a trustworthy source. It's currently pretty short, but I think it has room for expansion. Zagalejo 18:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn? Just double-checking, as the AFD tag has been removed. Zagalejo 00:13, 28 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. Robdurbar 10:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Ignatenko[edit]

Vanity piece about an artist, does not assert importance. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-09-21 08:08Z

  • Speedy delete - CSD:A7 no notability asserted. Thryduulf 09:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm gonna close this as a speedy. --Robdurbar 10:44, 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 nomination withdrawn pending completion of the Wikipedia:SU cleanup project. Thryduulf 23:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kugel (onomastics)[edit]

1. Non-encyclopedic. This is a free-association list. 2. Most individuals referred to here are not notable. 3. The page is mostly redlinks, and nothing much else. I've copied any possibly notable non-redlink material to the appropriate pages, Kügelgen and Kugler. This is part of a cleanup of "onomastics" pages created by the problematic User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg, see:

WP:VPM#Onomastic_pages_created_by_Sheynhertz-Unbayg
Category_talk:Onomastics
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sheynhertz-Unbayg

All of the redirects S-U created for this page should also be deleted.

-- Batamtig 09:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Once the page has been replaced by disambiguation pages, it is no longer needed. However, the redirects should be dealt with individually (some might have better targets and all of the redirects need their incomings links checked). Once all of that is done, the page can be deleted. I think this can be done without AFD just by WP:IAR by people joining the S-U cleanup effort and yours truly acting as a rouge admin. Kusma (討論) 09:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until the cleanup is complete, inlcuding changing the targets of useful redirects, then nominate all the pages in one group AfD or possibly PROD them all. Once the pages are deleted, the redirects that are not useful can be speedied per CSD:R1. Thryduulf 10:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not mind if this page is deleted, but additional pages should not go through AfD, in my opinion. I suggest moving content to separate talk pages, this handles many of the redirects, and then deleting the content on the original page as you move it. That way, you'll keep your place if it is a long page and someone who comes along later will not check to make sure that all of the content has been moved to the other pages. -- Kjkolb 13:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup is coordinated at Wikipedia:SU. Please join! Kusma (討論) 13:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I withdraw my nomination in favor of the community consensus. I guess we should wait until the redirects are dealt with. --Batamtig 22:27, 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 05:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pink Mile[edit]

Delete Seems this area isn't known as the Pink Mile, the phrase was made up for the Wikipedia article. The article is likely to be an advertisement for a couple of the bars mentioned. A google search reveals only 69 unique hits, the vast majority of which are wiki mirrors. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:29, 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 05:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of multiplayer maps in Halo 2[edit]

Inherently a game guide, providing little meaningful material but that which appears to have been copied directly from the manual and various websites. Patent gamecruft. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 08:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This deletion is very similar to List of maps in Battlefield 2142 and List of maps in Company of Heroes, which I believe set a precedent for this to be removed. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 08:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is unencyclopaedic gamecruft. I'm also concerned that using that many screenshots in the article is probably not fair use. Thryduulf 10:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We're not a mapping resource for gameplayers. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I still despise the word cruft. But nominator has provided ample reasoning and precedent for deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 11:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 14:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom and per precedent. Ramsquire 19:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Khatru2 05:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --M8v2 19:57, 23 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 05:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gadwin prinstscreen[edit]

This article is about non-notable software (also fails the proposed WP:SOFTWARE standard). One unique search result [10] does nothing to augment notability. Deprodded by creator. Erechtheus 08:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable. MidgleyDJ 08:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Thryduulf 10:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this software does nothing tricky. Gazpacho 08:24, 23 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 05:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Synchronized Universe[edit]

Seems to be about some "What the Bleep Do We Know" style book The Synchronized Universe by Dr. Claude Swanson. The article is confused with little salvageable even if the subject is worth having an article about, which I don't think it does. No article on author. Book ranked 357,234 on Amazon [11]. The concepts described are nothing new and can be found much better explained elsewhere on Wikipedia. Delete Spondoolicks 08:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the book does not appear notable and each of the topics is better explained elsewhere. 10:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as non-notable bollocks. Byrgenwulf 18:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — each of the topics is described elsewhere, the book which lumps them together has nothing special to recommend it, and hey presto, almost everything the article indicates it says is wrong. ("Wrong, wrong and terribly wrong!" cackles the arrogant physicist who denies all other ways of knowing. "Moo hoo ha ha!") Our supply of 1s and 0s is better spent elsewhere. Anville 20:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think the book meets the proposed WP:BK. Pascal.Tesson 20:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. RFerreira 04:31, 26 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. — CharlotteWebb 23:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crime in South Africa[edit]

The "article" is not from a neutral point of view and only opinion (verging on a soaboax) on current affairs, violating guidelines (point 5. of Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought). Furthermore, large parts are not verifiable and factually incorrect. Deon Steyn 08:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep minus the inaccurate or subjective parts. Gazpacho 08:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Otherwise it jostles for space on the South Africa page. Wizzy…☎ 08:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are similar pages for other countries, but it needs a serious overhaul to make it a decent article. Cordless Larry 10:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The crime in a country like South Africa is verifiable, there are numerous news reports, see also [12]. If that's not enough, what is? FrozenPurpleCube 14:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the US government has something about crime on their consular info sheet doesn't make something a real issue. The issue is real, but not for that reason. Lionchow 20:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. That there is crime in South Africa is quite verifiable. If there is a problem with the article, it should be edited, not deleted. --Ezeu 16:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sourced, encyclopaedic. Anything that fails WP:NPOV requires editing, not deleting. WilyD 16:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just edit the article to fix the problems. Ramsquire 19:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it could be a good article if we take some time to present the issue accurately, and don't let extremists take it over. And please don't merge the farm murders page with the crime page. The farm murders page is such a joke it should be as ghetto-ized as possible. Lionchow 20:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - removing POV parts. --Richard 08:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as stated above. Yamaguchi先生 23:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - NPOV should be sorted out on the article, not through AfDs. JASpencer 08:52, 23 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 09:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gomek Records[edit]

Non notable "record label" (actually a website, kind of a free vanity publisher for bands). "Gomek Records" gets 22 distinct Google hits. Gomek gets a lot of unrelated hits. Threat signal (their notable artist) gets 21 distinct Google hits in combination with Gomek. In fact, Gomek is not a record label, but a kind of webhost. Everyone can place their demo's, songs, ... on their website if they match their quality requirements. There is no contract, no record, no promotion, no exclusivity. See [[13]]. As such, they have had until now one band wo put a previously released demo also on their website and later went on to record one album (which in itself seems not enough to match WP:MUSIC for that band. Some people have gotten to know the band through Gomek, which is good, but as can be seen from the Google hits, this is only a small part of the exposure the band has gotten and is hardly relevant in their career, let alone as a reason to have an article on this website. Fram 09:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it would probably be better if Gomek became a redirect to Crocodile (all info seems to be there already), or was just deleted, but that is a separate issue. I'm not against mass AfD's (I've donea few myself), but they should be about very similar articles (content and so on). These two have the same author, and one is named after the other, but they are completely unrelated and would have a quite different AfD logic. So I'm not going to include Gomek in this AfD. Fram 10:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yep, i completely agree. I only went to the other article because it was referenced in a way that suggested it was well known. But yes, it's not applicable to this AfD and i wouldn't want to confuse matters and subvert the AfD process. Onebravemonkey | blah blah blah 10:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Prolog 12:58, 22 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 05:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming Pool Construction[edit]

At present this consists of 1 paragraph defining what a swimming pool is (from the Swimming pool article), 1 paragraph of marketing speak about what is invovled with deciding to building a swimming pool, a series of headings with no content, a see also list of two items (Swimming pool and construction), and - what I suspect is the primary motive for the page - a long list of external links.

I don't see any potential in this for an encyclopaedic article. If there were any content here, I'd suggest moving it to Wikibooks where, by my understanding of their policies, it would fit on their "howtos" bookshelf. There isn't anything to move, however, and so I think it should just be deleted. If for some reason it is kept, it should be moved to Swimming pool construction. Thryduulf 09:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - don't see the point of an article on this. Cordless Larry 10:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nominator's excellent and transparent reasoning. - Mgm|(talk) 10:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in complete agreement with Mgm. Nigel (Talk) 12:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 12:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, without prejudice. Were the blanks filled in, with specifics about different methods of pool construction, this might be different. Good to know that building a swimming pool requires proper project management skills, as opposed to the building of a suspension bridge, which has no such requirement. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.--Húsönd 14:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am still in the process of writing the article. Is it too much to ask for a little patience before you pass final judgement? This if my first attempt at writing an article so if you have any suggestions as to the structure or content, I would appreciate it.
  • If an article is not ready for the primetime so to speak, it's best to keep it in your userspace. Smerdis has offered some idea on what we expect such an article to look like, and it doesn't include partial copies of existing articles. If you need a copy of this after it is deleted for another version of this article, there's enough administrators (including me) happy to help you out. Have you registered an account yet? - Mgm|(talk) 21:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine. Go ahead and delete it. If you feel like it is a worthy article then let me know and I will continue to work on it and post it when it is in a more finished state. If not, please let me know so I don't spend a lot of time putting together something that won't be published. Thanks for your patience on this. Also, I am registered but it looks like I neet to create a user page. My username is "caspecops".

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caspecops (talk • contribs) 07:36, 23 Sep 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suchita chaudhry[edit]

Former speedy, former prod. User page mistakenly created in main namespace. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Storkk 10:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm going by the creator of the article. I think a delete is preferable. Cordless Larry 11:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go to her user talk, click the image that orphanbot tagged, and look at the description. not 100% sure it's her, but close. --Storkk 13:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC) ok... according to moinjnu, it's not the same person. Storkk 13:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless user:Moinjnu wants it as their user page (in which case, usefy). Thryduulf 11:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it turns out I was wrong and User:Moinjnu is not Suchita chaudhry. I've advised User:Moinjnu to revise the article removing the NPOV and establishing notability (see my talk page), but I still feel the final result will be a delete. Cordless Larry 11:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable enough, yet (sigh). MidgleyDJ 12:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Listed here [14] as a graduate student. Last name plus "dengue" yields 0 hits on PubMed. Non-notable. --Antorjal 20:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Antorjal it is then. - Mgm|(talk) 21:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, fails the everything test for now. RFerreira 04:31, 26 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, prehaps one day it'll be notable. Yanksox 02:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MacDade Mall[edit]

A keep closure for this article at its previous AfD was overturned by DRV as improper. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 10:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, while it might possibly be notable in the local area this does not merit it a Wikipedia article. The article is also incredibly poorly written with many unsourced statements and even self-contradictorary paragraphs, e.g. "In 1995, the premiere store was a happening joint called "The De-Lousing Factory". It closed in June of 1977 after an 8 year-old boy was killed underneath the escalator." As it previously mentions it has only one storey, this makes me think this could be entirely made up. Thryduulf 11:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It fails to meet Wikipedia's recommended inclusion criteria. The links in the article and the link provided in the prior AFD discussion do confirm the existance of the Mall but all were the equivalent of minor stories in the business section of a local paper - not the kind of "multiple, independent coverage" that we normally expect. Lots of companies go out of business every year. There is nothing special about this one. Rossami (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A local newspaper's articles constitute independent coverage. There is a place in Wikipedia for notable failures, which includes this mall. --TruthbringerToronto (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) 12:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Local suburban newspapers really have nothing to say that is worthwhile. When you are in high school, you will see guys get in the local newspaper for coming first in the under-10 football competition or because they won some Freshman poetry competition in their local village etc. As was pointed out in the DRV, the newspaper had a very small circulation, less than the average spamvertisement by you rlocal member of congress/parliament who has 100,000+ constituents and uses his spamvertisement newspaper to plug local butchers who do fundraising for him.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I realize there is a trend of late, which includes some AfD precedent, to include articles on all shopping malls regardless of notability, but I disagree with that. A mall, like any other business, should meet one of the three notability criteria set forth in WP:CORP. This one clearly does not, and because of that insufficient notability, virtually none of the details in this article could ever be properly verified per WP:V. --Satori Son 12:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, especially Satori. -- Kicking222 12:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable per WP:CORP as the nominator of the first AfD and the editor who brought the subject to DRV. Erechtheus 15:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:CORP. Bwithh 15:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete malls aren't inherently notable, and this article doesn't do anything to establish notability. ~ trialsanderrors 16:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:CORP says: "A company or corporation is notable if it meets 'any of the following criteria: 1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." The article lists multiple non-trivial published works. Therefore, MacDade Mall passes WP:CORP. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply The criteria asks for non-trivial published works as references - the articles lacks these (a couple of small mentions of parts of the mall not the mall itself in one larger local newspaper; an article reporting on the mall closure in a small local newspaper (mentioned in the previous afd, not in article); a random Flickr photo account; a non-working link on a model railway hobbyists' website.) Also, even if better sources were found, WP:CORP is still a guideline subject to consensus interpretation. Bwithh 18:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sean Black's previous closure. Passes WP:V. Shopping malls are notable for being municipal landmarks, not corperations. This should not have been listed for deletion. You might as well be applying WP:CORP to a bridge, tower, lighthouse, or architectural feat. — CharlotteWebb 19:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If the mall is notable from some other perspective such as architecture, length, or height, by all means produce appropriate sources saying so. Contrary to the apparent opinion of those with mall fetishes, I am not out to get all malls. Carr Mill Mall is clearly significant for non-WP:CORP reasons, and I have done my bit to improve that article. Similarly, I am considering whether or not Chesterfield County, Virginia's Cloverleaf Mall is notable enough for an article due to the drawn out and well covered dispute over its redevelopment. There is no way that all malls are notable by default. I know of plenty of enclosed malls that should not be listed here. I'll note them here because I don't think that's a violation of WP:POINT: Tazewell Mall, Richlands Mall, Claypool Hill Mall, Mercer Mall, Jasper Mall. Those are just the ones off the top of my head. Erechtheus 19:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - this isn't a heritage listed landmark, this is just some block of concrete. As for schools, these usually last a long time and accumulate heritage and a community around them, unlike a convenience store, which has no sentimental value to those who attend it.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Also, the previous closure was overturned as improper, so it is not a valid reason to keep. --Satori Son 20:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets content policies. JYolkowski // talk 23:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - no more different than any random shopping mall and this isn't a business directory.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. I still see no reason to delete it, but if you want to, go ahead.--SB | T 02:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite TruthbringerToronto's grasping at straws, it does NOT have multiple NON-trivial media coverage. Hell, it barely has multiple TRIVIAL media coverage -- a suburban paper and a local business newspaper, and that's it? --Calton | Talk 07:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I encouraged relisting because of the new source that was found by the last contributor to the prior AFD, which needed evaluation by the community. My opinion is that this doesn't get the article to meet WP:CORP; only one of those sources is about the mall. The one on telemedicine could be a source for that article, which could use sourcing and improvement. The one on the lawsuit couuld be a source for an article about changing patterns of food distribution or on department stores in general. But neither of these are sources about the mall. GRBerry 16:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:CORP. Arbusto 22:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: At first, I thought: Why does anyone care about this mall? Then I saw the picture: . That is a pretty damn cool entrance. However, based on the number of cars outside, I would say it is not notable. But, if we can find a reliable source that that ridiculous entrance actually exists, and is not photoshopped out of a kids cartoon, then the page should definitely remain. NOTE: The article states "The Macdade Mall previously contained 2 indoor water fountains years ago." How many water fountains does it contain now!? —Centrx→talk • 08:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well at least somebody here is thinking in terms other than briefcases and billfolds. If we can keep from calling the Waldenbooks outlet a "cubicle", we might be make some real progress here. — CharlotteWebb 00:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commment: Although there doesn't appear to be many cars there, the shadows in that photograph are very long and I suspect it was taken early in the morning, which is not the busiest time of day for even the most notable malls. Thryduulf 17:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Arbustoo, GRBerry and Blnguyen. JoshuaZ 13:33, 27 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 09:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bullfrog programming language[edit]

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 10:33, 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. No cows please! - Mailer Diablo 12:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COW programming language[edit]

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 10:37, 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 13:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ETA programming language[edit]

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 10:40, 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 11:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joker Boy Studios[edit]

As far as I can tell, a recreation speedy doesn't apply here. The content is sufficiently different (expanded) and previous speedies are specifically not included in CSD G4. Still, the site claims to have under 150,000 and has no Alexa rank to at all. According to Google, no one is linking to the site [15]. I consider it unverifiable advertising, but let's finish this AFD, so we can speedy it as a G4 in the future. Delete. - Mgm|(talk) 10:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as per nom. PJM 14:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep hmmm...well, I think it should stay. If someone else comes up with a better article for the subject then we should just take down this one and add the other one. I mean, why not leave it up there? Unless it costs money to host this ONE extra article, I say keep it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Phreshman (talk • contribs)
Because advertising is not one of the goals of Wikipedia. Keeping this article violates policy and opens us up to arguments from other people who want their advertising kept too. - Mgm|(talk) 21:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 17:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I always laungh when somebody uses "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia" or something similar as a reason not to delete an article. TJ Spyke 00:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FiPL[edit]

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 10:46, 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 09:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flip (programming language)[edit]

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 10:50, 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 11:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References to Dragonball Z in Negima.[edit]

This article is purely Original Research, POV, unsourced and cannot be verified(due to the fact that the author of such series did not and is not likely to admit making reference to other series by different authors). The creator of this page created it just because the same content was deleted in the main article of Negima in the Trivia section by the same reason. MythSearcher 11:01, 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 15:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CompWebChess[edit]

There's no notability for an experimental chess program. Only operational, well-known or historically significant chess computers should be on Wikipedia. YechielMan 23:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree with nomination on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with YechielMan. In the future, it may be notable enough to be included. Bubba73 (talk), 15:11, 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 Speedy delete a7, group of friends pretending to be a record label. NawlinWiki 14:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D-Unit Records[edit]

Entirely non-notable, entirely unencyclopedic, entirely unverifiable. It appears to be some high school kid writing about an inside joke with his friends vandalizing other pages. Anyone disagree? Steve McLinden 15:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as per nom. Unsourced and nonsensical. PJM 12:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. A vaguely racist inside joke, but more importantly it's also complete bollocks. Onebravemonkey | blah blah blah 12:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - proposed albums are not an assertion of notablity. Tagged as such. MER-C 12:45, 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 11:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GuruDutt Redkar[edit]

Delete This article, I believe is fake. However, if not it is pure vanity. I googled the name and not much info came out. This article has been tagged for referencing since April. It is time to go... GuruDutt Redkar Todd661 08:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - almost is a speedy A7. Not notable, vanity. MER-C 12:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, time for it to go. Punkmorten 18:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vain vanity in vain. Danny Lilithborne 20:57, 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 11:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masonic Restoration Foundation[edit]

This group is not known at all outside of its small circle (the claim that it serves 2 million Masons is ludicrous, and not supported by their website). Furthermore, it has only five lodges under it, is only five years old, and has no material on it available that is not self-published. It fails WP notability guidelines and sourcing guidelines. MSJapan 23:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn ALR 07
05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 12:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Blueboar 15:17, 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 speedy keep. — CharlotteWebb 21:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

467 BC[edit]

Nothing happened, blank article, nn-year. - FrancisTyers · 11:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom. - FrancisTyers · 11:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not established as notable, an empty article. Recreate it when there is something significant to write about that year. --dcabrilo 11:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ... Yes, we'll wait until something interesting happens in 467 BC. — Werdna talk criticism 12:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Calendar...marked. PJM 12:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. It lists at least 3 events in ancient Greece or Roman Empire. The top one is notable - no doubt. The other events probably as well. - Mgm|(talk) 12:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All of it unreferenced. These events could easily have happened in 466 BC or 468 BC. - FrancisTyers · 12:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Then what about this event?. Apparently, User Skoglund deleted this event. Further research is needed here. Moreover, this webpage states that By 467 BC, all the Aegean was controlled by the Greek Confederacy under the heading of The Persians and Macedonians. In addition, Hiero I of Syracuse died in this year as well. In this webpage it is also stated that the Persians were defeated once more by Athenians at Termydon under the sub-heading of Chronology for Anatolia. The play of Aeschylus was also created in 467 BC. The reference is in this webpage. Thus it is technically incorrect to state that nothing happened. This article has the potential for expansion. A google search shows thousands of unique hits as well. This is clearly not a non-notable year. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure the google test is really appropriate for a year, a quick flick through the results shows mostly garbageish results. I would also suggest that rather than giving random information on the AfD, you actually add it to the article. I was very tempted to slap a {{sofixit}} in the place of this comment. — Werdna talk criticism 14:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, thank you for your kind suggestion. I was actually waiting for the response of other users before attempting to improve the article. Moreover, at least I gave a brief overview in stating that notable events did happen during this year with some specific references. Anyway, this problem had been addressed and quite a few events are being stated in the article itself. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I'm a little baffled as why this year has been singled out for deletion. It's not a blank article and contains at least as much info as other entries for the 5th century, if not more. Onebravemonkey | blah blah blah 13:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was blank. [16] Some uncited information has since been added. - FrancisTyers · 13:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, i noticed that just after i posted...ack. Previous comment still stands, though. OBM | blah blah blah 13:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep contentful - years are inherently article worthy, whatever else floats your boat. WilyD 16:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, could you support your statement with references to this project? In notability criteria, I can't seem to find any statements officially supporting this view. Please correct me if I am wrong. (Although at a personal point of view I agree with your statement totally, from an impartial point of view, I cannot agree with this view). --Siva1979Talk to me 13:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I can't since there's exactly zero relevent policies on notability and years - i.e. years don't need to be notable (Whisky Tango Foxtrot that means) to be included. They need to be encyclopaedic and verifiable which this is. WilyD 21:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It ain't blank now. --Ezeu 16:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I'm agreeing with WilyD, years in which human civilization existed are inherently notable, less we flood AfD with years that are poorly referenced.-- danntm T C 17:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep; it is a good idea to have articles for every year, especially for the last two thousand years. — Deckiller 20:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed; as long as the information is verifiable. The problem with this is that the further we go back in time, the harder it is for historians to verify historical information. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course. Gazpacho 20:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - it now has about as much content as the other years in its decade. Furthermore, we should have every year at least after 1000 BC because something notable happened in each one of them and if we don't have events listed, that means we need to do more work and find them, not that events didn't take place. Biruitorul 23:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others. Arbusto 02:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone. Maxamegalon2000 02:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WilyD. Every year since the birth of civilization is notable. --- The Bethling(Talk) 03:41, 22 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. No article, no problem. - Mailer Diablo 11:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert_Larzelere[edit]

This is a non-notable personality. A google search for "Robert Larzelere" produces only 100 results, and it is not at all clear that any of them (apart from the wikipedia link!) refer to the person featured here. Most seem to relate to a reputable clinical psychiatrist at the University of Nebraska.

On the face of it the article is libellous, both to Dr Larzelere, and to Werner Erhard. The article contains very little content of substance, and appears to be almost entirely written by a single editor, user:smeelgova. The article does not meet wikipedia's criteria for verifiability, especially in respect of potentially defamatory personal allegations. The sole source for the contentious material is Pressman's book [Outrageous_Betrayal]. This does not appear to satisfy the reliable source guidelines as it fails to provide footnotes, bibliography or references to the primary sources on which it draws, so the assertions cannot be checked. Although written in a matter-of-fact narrative style, it appears to draw substantially on off-the-record unattributable conversations. The account of the incident featured (and much else in the book) is directly contradicted by attributable eye-witness reports in 60 minutes and the assasination of Werner Erhard, Jane Self Ph.D, 1992 ISBN: 0942540239, which - in contrast - contains over 250 footnotes giving full detail of individuals interviewed and publications quoted. DaveApter 11:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE I concur- this article is clearly not designed as an encylopedia article, but rather a "tabloid article" . It is patently sensational. I have no pbjective to people freely posting what they think is a good article in good faith even when I disagree with them but this is not done- in my opinion - in this case. Alex Jackl 14:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree as well. This person seems very minor to not relevant to the background and an encyclopedia. Spacefarer 19:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 20:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete utterly tangential. Sm1969 05:55, 22 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. — CharlotteWebb 08:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish national identity[edit]

POV essay, unencyclopedic, unverified and unverifiable. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Made redundant by many (better) articles including Politics of Scotland, Culture of Scotland, History of Scotland, Scottish Nationalism, Walter Scott and, bizarrely, Loch Ness Monster. IslaySolomon 11:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Merge to Culture of Scotland, since we already have better articles on the topic. Recury 14:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be less than a mess than Scottish people, and most claims appear verifiable. RandomP 14:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the article contains original research or is non-neutral, then take this, this, this, this, this, this, and this (and the book by Donald Dewar which discusses scottish national identity that it cites) for starters; and, with sources to back you up, go and make the article better. Deletion doesn't do that. Keep. Uncle G 14:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (after edit conflict) And I'm sure, using those sources, you could produce a very thorough and engaging piece of work with the title "Scottish Nation Identity". But it would be an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. People's personal feelings on unionism/nationalism or Scottishness/Britishness are a matter of the Politics of Scotland and the extent to which Scottish people identify with traditional Scottish symbols is a part of the Culture of Scotland.
The title of this article is far too broad and open to interpretation and I think it will always end up either repeating reams of content from other articles or it will become original thought, drawing its own conclusions. At present it seems to do a little of both.
Incidentally, Donald Dewar's remarks about the Scottish national identity in A Lifetime of Opportunity seem to have related to his feelings on the political climate of Scotland in the late 1990. I think they'd be better referenced in Politics of Scotland or in fairly slender article on the man himself.--IslaySolomon 17:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article as it stands is a mess, but it is a valid topic. BTLizard 17:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - OK, so the article really ought to be improved (esp. refs) and expanded, but hey, we can say that about 99.9% of Wikipedia articles. It is certainly a valid encyclopaedic topic, and a very interesting and complex one at that. --Mais oui! 21:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the Oxford Companion to Scottish History has eight pages on national identity, making it one of the longest articles in the book. If the contributors to that can write an encyclopedic article on Scottish national identity, so can we. If someone writes a snappy introductory paragraph or two expanding on the idea that Scottish national identity formed over the past millennium and has not always been the same as it is today, I'll fill in the tedious detail. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Angus McLellan, no need to say more. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Angus McLellan, a notable subject we should provide coverage on. Yamaguchi先生 23:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid topic. POV and WP:V issues should not go through AfDs. JASpencer 10:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Henderson[edit]

non notable band, per WP:MUSIC Dweller 12:04, 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 Speedy Delete under WP:CSD:G4 Gwernol 13:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adams Grammar School Arts and Debating Society[edit]

Non-notable School Society, probably falls under WP:VAIN. Article on same subject has already been deleted: [17]

Thus I vote Delete --LukeSurl 12:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - CSD G4 (repost). Tagged as such. MER-C 12:36, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MetroHorse[edit]

Advertising for nonnotable company/website. Also including duplicate page Metrohorse. NawlinWiki 13:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this and Metrohorse. Non-notable company, blatant advertisement.--Húsönd 14:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP IT ON Known company MetroHorse.com located at 1 University Plaza, Hackensack, NJ 07601 The company was covered and accredited by major publications such as The StarLedger, The Record, NJBiz, New York Post and many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toledonyc (talk • contribs) (article author)
    • Response Can you provide citations to those publications' references to your company? That might make a difference. NawlinWiki 15:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response If you google metrohorse you will get all the publications and articles about metrohorse, here I'm attaching one article for your review http://njbiz.com/article.asp?aid=68106
      • The article you provided does not conform to the criteria established per WP:CORP: "publications where the company or corporation talks about itself [shall not serve as an independent published source]". The 500 Google results are not convincing me. Anyway the article needs a massive rewrite, it reads like an advertisement.--Húsönd 18:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, the article is acceptable as a source because it is an independent site. The article includes an interview with a company executive, but this is to be expected. A web page or booklet published by the company itself would not qualify. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Similarly, a press release would not qualify, even if it were reproduced on another company's site, but an article by a staff writer of a news outlet would qualify. --TruthbringerToronto (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) 19:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hmm, you might be right. Ok, I hereby change my stance to Neutral. Will change stance to keep if the article is rewritten. --Húsönd 19:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources demonstrate notability. Article needs to be rewritten, though. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep two sources from New Jersey newspapers on a New Jersey based website barely meets CORP. More convincing sources would be best.Arbusto 22:10, 22 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 11:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Master Spas[edit]

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 13:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was almost swayed by the prospect of a pop-up TV with floating remote control but, er, no. Delete. OBM | blah blah blah 13:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the name of the creator? Masterspas, of course! Single purpose account, too. Surprise surprise. Delete per nom. BTLizard 17:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spammity spam. --Dennisthe2 19:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete treet. Danny Lilithborne 21:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. RFerreira 04:29, 26 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. — CharlotteWebb 23:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudomathematics[edit]

There are around 850 google hits for this topic, of which over a third appear to be from Wikipedia articles and mirrors. Around 130 unique hits. The article itself is unreferenced, in that the few references mentioned do not appear to mention the term. Some of the article is concerned with bona-fide mathematics, unprovable thjeorems etc., but most of it reads very much like original research, possibly as a thinly-veiled attack on certain controversial individuals. In any case this looks like a substantially unreferenced article under a neologist title. Guy 13:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as per nom, unless proper sources are provided. PJM 14:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: useful topic, well-written article. The name of the article may not be the best one, but the content is good. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there's lots of encyclopaedic content in there, and I'm sure we can dig up a few citations (I'm pretty sure I have at least one or two at home). It certainly is a real phenomenon (albeit the name choice is slightly odd) and it isn't really an attack page against anyone, for instance we do have Pseudoscience, a perfectly neutral term (if one is honest). WilyD 17:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it needs references, but the content itself appears to be worthwhile in principle.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.212.164 (talk • contribs)
  • keep presuming that it gets better sourcing. Underwood Dudley wrote a series of books about this and related topics which would probably provide good sourcing [18] [19] [20] . The idea also shows up in John Allen Paulos' "A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper" JoshuaZ 20:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What, no mention of the 0.99999...≠1 cranks? Anyway this article describes a widespread and notable phenomenon; keep. Many of the topics are adequately sourced via the links to other more specific WP entries, but more sourcing would help. —David Eppstein 01:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's badly named, but Keep it. I just added the Dudley and Pickover refs. Michael Kinyon 12:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you suggest the correct title? Guy 12:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I've changed my mind. A search on Google Scholar [21] suggests that perhaps the name is not so bad. In any case, I cannot think of a more viable alternative. The meaning is clear; it's just pseudoscience restricted to the domain of mathematics. Michael Kinyon 16:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed my mind as well; I think the name's pretty good. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: it needs more work, but that's no reasons to wipe it. - Palfrey 02:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. This covers the mathematics of pseudoscience and while the term may not be overly common on google (and lets face it - those who engage in it are hardly likely to describe their work as "pseudo-") the concept is still relevant. michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 22:12, 26 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. Notability is, as pointed out below, demonstrated by specific coverage in reliable third-party sources, not by our own opinion on how big "big" is. For much of this AfD that was completely ignored by the 'keep' side. Later sources started to be mentioned, but only two third-party sources relating to the same assertion of notability have so far been referenced enough for anyone to actually be able to find and read them. If they were significant enough I could default to keep on the basis of insufficent discussion - however, they consist of an interview and a MobyGames listing showing that a special edition of Ultima IX was named after them, which is a point of minor trivia that might merit a mention in Ultima IX: Ascension, and in terms of WP:WEB qualifies the interview and game listing as passing mentions (they total exactly four sentences in an 11-page interview, one of which is "Yeah", plus the one line in the MobyGames listing). They are therefore not sufficient.

It has been asserted that they received other coverage in some other magazines, but no mention of when or where. That's too vague. If the actual articles can actually be tracked down, so that they can be referenced with issue number and article title, then deletion review can consider them (once they are able to actually read them). At this point in time this is still an article on a website with no adequately verified assertion of notability, and policy requires its deletion. Articles are not innocent until proven guilty - the burden is on the editors of the article.

Incidentally, in my experience your neighbour's Amiga can be crashed by coughing too loudly. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultima Dragons[edit]

Fan club for the Ultima series of games, fails WP:V by not having multiple independent, reliable, third-party sources available for it. Recury 14:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Quoting my earlier deprodding rationale: "Any active club, run since 1994, that has a membership roster huge enough to crash your neighbour's Amiga, is probably notable". As for verifiability, we can trust the site itself as a primary source. I'm pretty sure I've seen mentions of the group in mags, just can't remember where right now, it's been years. The bottom line is, anyone who's interested of Ultima series of games is bound to run to these people sooner or later. (disclusure: I happen to be a member, just not an active participant in the inner workings of the group or anything.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:V says, "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." "Mentions" would not be sufficient, as they are considered trivial coverage. Recury 14:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. Here's a small question that came in mind, though - exactly what in the article is questionable enough to warrant verification from third-party sources? Please be specific. (My favorite part from RS: "Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence".) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sure it's all true enough, but that doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on it in the first place. Recury 14:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • And exactly why shouldn't we have an article in the first place? I believe you just shot your arguments: We have here a group that quite likely satisfies notability criteria, and there's not much to complain about verifiability either, if you can't find anything that really needs strict verifying from third parties. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 06:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The newsgroup exists, that is a given, and participation on it continues. You can also find mention of it in the Ultima Online for Dummies book as I recall. Possibly some others. If there's anything in the article that's disputed though, delete it. FrozenPurpleCube 14:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't doubt that it exists, only that having an article on it agrees with Wikipedia policy. I should also emphasize that I don't contest any of the information that is in the article itself. Recury 14:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, given that there's no contentious information in the article, self-published sources are fine with me, and like I said, I think it is in Ultima Online for Dummies. Possibly in some of the other for Dummies books, I don't know for sure. Might even have been included in some Origin products, as a link to their fanclub, but I'm not sure. Oh, and I just found this: [22] which mentions that there was a tribute to the club in the form of the Dragon Edition of Ultima IX. And Origin links to them [23] which seems to make them an official club as well. FrozenPurpleCube 15:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, mentions are not good enough. Recury 16:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not enough for what? Your question is about verifiability, but you aren't disputing anything that can't be observed on the Web by anyone. Heck, you might even find them mentioned in the Special Thanks section of some of the games or their manuals. Do you really need more? FrozenPurpleCube 16:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • The article goes into detail about the club's origins on Prodigy. Where on the World Wide Web might this be observed? The article tells us what the customs of the club are. Where on the World Wide Web have these customs been documented and fact checked? Uncle G 17:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • On the Web, where you can read the UDIC's account of it. Possible on google groups if they've got the postings announcing the formation of the news group. See also WP:RS about Self-published sources when providing an account of themselves. If you want to provide any other account, I suggest you find your sources. FrozenPurpleCube 20:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • "On the Web" is not an answer to my questions. Please answer my questions. Uncle G 20:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Sigh, is someting about an autobiographical entry not clear to you or what? Do you have a sincere dispute with the account given by the club about their existence or what? Seriously, if somebody wanted to verify this in the way you wanted, they could, since this is a factual account but that would be way outside the needs of Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 14:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • You are now actively avoiding answering the questions. Please point to where on the World Wide Web the club's origins on Prodigy may be observed and where on the World Wide Web the customs of the club have been documented and fact checked. Lack of an answer, having been asked three times in a row, will strongly indicate that your assertion of verifiability is a false one. Uncle G 23:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:V. TJ Spyke 21:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has notability, don't think WP:V applies in this case. (signing) SirFozzie 23:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:V doesn't just apply when you feel like it. It's a goddamn policy. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the various Wikipolicies quite wisely acknowledge they aren't an iron-clad straitjacket. Besides, the group has been around since at least 1996 according to the IAW. Do you think they've been lying for 10 years? I think given the lack of any claims that any information in the article is wrong, given the lack of any comments on the Internet that they're wrong, that well, the principle that a person's account of themself can be reliable about themself. FrozenPurpleCube 00:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A direct quote from WP:V: "Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policies. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these three policies are based are negotiable only at the foundation level, not at the level of the English-language Wikipedia." (Emphasis mine) -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 02:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • And if you read further down on the page: Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as: (blah, blah, all things relevant and not in dispute here). The fact is, there are things that need robust verifiability, and things that don't. Given that anybody can check their website, I'm not seeing any problem with verifiability. FrozenPurpleCube 03:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you want to use the site in that manner, you'll need to preface every piece of information extracted from the site with a phrase like "The Ultima Dragons website claims that...", in order to bring it in line with that kind of usage. And of course, there's still the bit of WP:RS that says, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Maybe it would be different if there were reliable outside sources, but there aren't. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 09:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Note the word largely. That means there are exceptions, doesn't it?. This, I contend is a clear exception. Why? Because the article is autobiographical. Since this information has been presented for at least 10 years according to the Internet Wayback machine, I doubt they're making it up. And seriously, you can check the internet for Ultima Dragons sites. There are plenty of people who claim membership. Do you think they'd exist if the club didn't? FrozenPurpleCube 19:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't assert notability. Arbusto 02:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability was not listed a reason for the nomination, but I assert notability as it is a large club of several thousand members of a clearly notable family of games, and it has long-standing existence. FrozenPurpleCube 03:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's not notable. It's a damn fan club for a video game. I am questioning the notability of it, I'm just doing it by saying it isn't important enough for anyone not associated with it to have written about it. Recury 13:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I found some posts on Usenet that indicate that Richard Garriott in several interviews mentioned that the Dragon Edition of Ultima IX was named after him. Pity they didn't say what months, it might make searching easier(still, I will try, so cut me some slack on looking for them, if you please). But still, I think it indicates that notability does exist. After all, if the creator of a well-known game series mentions them as the reason to make a collector's edition of a notable game, that is something substantial. FrozenPurpleCube 19:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the grand scheme of things, it really isn't. It's cool and all that they seem to recognize you guys, but it's still just a fan club for a video game. Try to look at this from the point of view of someone who doesn't play video games. I still stand by the argument that if you haven't been written about, (not just mentioned, but discussed) then you aren't notable, which is one that Wikipedia policy agrees with. Recury 20:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You guys? First, I am not, nor have I ever been an Ultima Dragon(I have, however, played the Ultima games). Second, looking at it from the point of view of someone who doesn't play video games(let alone hasn't played the Ultima series), I realize that that person wouldn't know about the importance of the Ultima series, let alone the fans of it, so IF for some reason they were looking for it, explaining what it was would be quite important. I certainly would't say such a person has any standing to question their notability. They just wouldn't know enough about the subject. Especially one like this one which doesn't always attract that much journalistic or academic interest. (Though Richard Garriot, who does attract that interest, has apparently spoken about them, at least according to what I've found on the usenet site. Now I just need to find the articles. It may take some time, since I'm searching the Wayback machine to see if I can find the old articles.).

FrozenPurpleCube 03:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I did find mention of them in an interview with Lord British through the Wayback machine [24]. It's possible there are others, but I don't want to dig around on old gaming sites if there's either no need, or no point. FrozenPurpleCube 03:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment However, on examining the article, and the UDIC website, I felt it was a copyvio so I have purged several sections of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FrozenPurpleCube (talk • contribs) .
    • Ehhh... I wrote the "Membership" and "Customs" sections myself. I believe I didn't copy any passages directly from the web site. Granted, it was some spectacularly garbageful stuff from years back... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 06:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it felt a little close to it for me, and a little rewriting won't hurt, especially since some of the article was more conversational and friendly than I'd recommend. FrozenPurpleCube 14:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And a random comment, putting it here just because I feel the need to ramble a bit: I don't believe verifiability is reason for deletion if the notability can otherwise be established from the sources. In AfD, notability is much more of a factor. We're supposed to be debating whether or not this topic needs to exist as a stand-alone article. Lack of verifiability is a cleanup issue: You can remove unverifiable material from the article, and merge the rest if the article isn't big enough. Lack of verifiability is only an issue when there's absolutely no material that would speak for the notability, for example, saying that a book is a bestseller without telling the book's ISBN or even publisher, and then finding less than 10 google hits for the author, all unrelated. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 06:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addiotion to that, there's a difference between verifiability of a theory, and verifiability of a fact. There's little, if any theory in the article (nothing like say, Ultima Online's success killed Ultima X), and mostly non-contested facts of an autobiographical nature. Even if the facts aren't verified robustly, that they could be (because they are facts) is a reason to not delete. FrozenPurpleCube 19:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Descriptions of a club's origins, and of the customs of a club, are not facts. They are syntheses and analyses of raw data. They are required to be verifiable, as is everything in Wikipedia. Uncle G 23:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • A club's origins are facts as they would be events that exist. They can be observed, remembered, and written about. Same with customs. And they have been reported on the club's website. Do you want some scholarly report on it, with peer-review and extensive studies? That seems excessive to me when you haven't even articulated how anything in the article itself is actually in error. FrozenPurpleCube 20:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Though I admit bias. However, WP:V is NOT a valid grounds for deletion. - -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 20:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Failure to be verifiable is one of the primary reasons for deletion, per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Please read it. Asserting that the verifiability policy does not apply to content will get you exactly nowhere as far as arguing for keeping an article is concerned (or indeed as far as most discussions here in Wikipedia are concerned). If you want to make an argument for keeping that actually holds water, please cite the sources that FrozenPurpleCube is actively avoiding citing, above, to demonstrate that the article is verifiable. Uncle G 23:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Failure to be verifiable is a reason to delete an article - if you can't find any mentions at all from any source whatsoever that seems remarkable. However, in this case, there's absolutely no reason not to believe the primary source, because even casual digging reveals that the group has been in existence for a long time and their own arguments seem to hold water. This is where this debate turns controversial: The primary source holds water, unlike in many other random sites that tend to get slapped "not verifiable" etc; this is where your friendly hey-we-just-opened-a-website-yesterday tactical nuke of two-penny-website smiting turns into the evil cruftbane of stacked charges, a tool to get articles deleted because of a technicality rather than what plain ordinary common sense says.
        Also, as Wizardry Dragon says below, we're facing a small dilemma here. People who toss around "not verifiable" usually follow it up with "two google hits". In this particular case, "not verifiable" is followed up with "23,100 google hits", which in this case isn't followed up with "...but most are irrelevant". this is a little bit of a contradiction and a reason for doubt. There's reasonable doubt that "not verifiable" is bunk, no matter how you put it. "Not verifiable" in this case needs clear demonstration and clear example proving otherwise, because the group has visibility. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I rather think the person saying it's unverifiable should prove that it is, rather than the other way around. We live in a world where it is guilt that must be proven, not innocence.

In either event if the current version of an article is not of good quality, it should not be deleted, but improved. Deleting content simply because it is unfinished is not good editorial process no matter what way you spin it. - -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I know for a fact that there are plenty of third party sources that mention the Ultima Dragons, they've been mentioned in quite a few pieces of gaming literature. The problem is no one's really gone to the effort to track them down and properly write that information in and cite it. I myself have added information on some of the projects that they've participated in. One of them Ultima V: Lazarus got a lot of coverage in the gaming and general media, including PC Gamer, Slashdot, and Computer Gaming World. By association with the many projects like that alone I'd think the group is notable. As to verifiability, it's a valid complaint that it hasn't been properly cited or verified, but it can be. How about letting those of us editing it do that instead of just deleting it because it isn't up to snuff? -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 00:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Obviously, I was the one who prodded it in the first place. I believe they exist, but I just don't see them as notable enough that there needs to be an article on them. A brief mention in the Ultima article would be sufficient. Nandesuka 11:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree - I believe the UDIC fufills the criteria for notability of internet content. They've been the subject of several magazine articles, interviews, etc. all of independant, third-party sources. Yes, the article doesn't reference them and I'm working on fixing that myself, since few others seem inclined to fixing it, however, it is true, and that is -exactly- one of the three criteria for governing such content. See WP:WEB and also the proposed WP:ORG. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 19:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must also disagree. The article itself is sufficiently long that it wouldn't fit well in the main Ultima article, and trimming it to fit would be removing too much useful information. FrozenPurpleCube 17:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator appears to be violating WP:POINT and WP:SOCK. — CharlotteWebb 00:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Formula One season[edit]

Wikipedia is Not crystal ball--W36 14:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Two-Three years is a bit long, but since Formula One has been around for 50+ years, and information about it currently exists (regarding the status of the teams and the races), it should remain. FrozenPurpleCube 14:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Some members, namely me, would prefer it to stay as if the FIA gives out a regulation for the 2009 season, it would become useful for the article. One might as well ask to delete the article on the 2020 Olympic Games.--Skully Collins 15:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - From the length of current contracts, and the time required to plan things, it is more than just crystal ball gazing. Ace of Risk 16:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful and will be expanded, and hopefully sourced, as many rule changes made for 2008 also include 2009. Prolog 22:01, 22 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 16:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wah Fu[edit]

No such area. The content of this article is just copied by its nearby places like Waterfall Bay and Kellett Bay. According to zh article, it is part of the Kellett Bay. Of course we can redirect this to Wah Fu Estate. --minghong 14:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Is the topographical name used to refer to the vicinity of the Wah Fu Estate, e.g. the Wah Kwai Estate? If the decision is not to keep, then merge and redirect. Don't delete. — Instantnood 20:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Wah Fu exists in Hong Kong. It should be kept seperately from Wah Fu Estate. In the case of redirecting and merging the content, we can keep the content in the redirected/merged article instead of removing some information. --Terence Ong (T | C) 08:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GdayPal[edit]

Nonnotable web forum, Alexa ranking of 2,108,258. Note: All images in article were deleted under speedy category i3, licensed "for Wikipedia use only", not under GFDL. NawlinWiki 14:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Anybody want to guess what the creator this article is calling himself? Yep, it's Gdaypal. Delete - vanity and spam. BTLizard 17:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet criteria in WP:WEB, and doesn't have any reliable sources to verify information.
  • G'nite Pal. Delete Danny Lilithborne 21:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity & WP:V. Jpe|ob 00:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello all, I'm the creator of the page in question and operator of the GdayPal website. I urge you to consider the GdayPal forums as a distinct and valuable entry into wikipedia as the largest open free gay forums to men in Australia. I'll concede the fact the website isn't well know out side of Australia but neither is OUTeverywhere.com a UK website similar to our own list on Wiki, and I feel both website deserve mentioning. I started the page in the hopes that our members would also contribute. The site is a valuable resource to all gay men living in Australia as it cover opinions and fact face gay men in a modern western society. Never the less I will happily take the page down if that is the consensuses of this forum. | 00:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gdaypal (talk • contribs) .
    • The fact that the site is unknown elsewhere in world is usually not a problem, as long as the local notability is somehow demonstrated. It's usually not difficult to fulfill the requirements of website notability criteria if, for example, the local media has covered the website to some extent. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 00:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. --Roisterer 12:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The website has appeared in the premier Australian gay publications SX National, Bent Mag and Sydney Star Observer consistently over the past 12 months. Is seen by 400,000 views every week on OutTV and SelectTV on QueerTV in Australia and Canada. But the real value of the discussions themselves are what stand out as unique and unadulterated critical opinion on Australian gay cultural issues. Researchers searching wikipedia, looking to understanding Australian gay culture, would find GdayPal an essential social knowledge resource. These are the largest community gay forums available to men in Australia, I urge you to seriously consider keeping this list.| 10:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC) --Gdaypal 10:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gdaypal[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge into The Reincarnation of Benjamin Breeg. Please edit as necessary. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Breeg[edit]

This article was previously deleted for failing WP:V and WP:RS (here) and was recreated hours later and later survived a not-terribly-active afd with a no consensus vote (here). Suggest deletion with protection from recreation. Recury 14:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to the relevant Iron Maiden album, not sure what it's called but the most recent one. Ac@osr 17:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete information? I see nothing wrong with this entry.

  • Merge to The Reincarnation of Benjamin Breeg, the article on the song. I also suggest that the material be condensed down to a brief summary - it consists of a bunch of speculation, trying to figure out who or what Benjamin Breeg is supposed to be or represent. Brianyoumans 20:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing but speculation on a fictional character in a song, with sources being the band's website and a fan page in the name of the character. No content from this is really worthy of even a merge. It is all, to quote from the article itself, "heightening suspicions of a marketing ploy even further." Guyanakoolaid 07:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge You can't talk about speculation. The writer clearly states that the character of Benjamin Breeg is fictional. This is useful information for those interested.
  • Merge --Peta 04:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This is useful for those interested. A summary of the information and the external links should be added to The Reincarnation of Benjamin Breeg. --Lennertcollee 12:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Michaelas10 15:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zippy (SWG) rev 2[edit]

Deprodded by PlantersNut (talk · contribs · count) whom created their account 2 minutes earlier. I'm guessing this is fancruft by members of "the Imperial forces of Wanderhome, a server on the MMORPG Star Wars Galaxies". A user made mod.

Probably best you read the article itself to understand why Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Also note the infobox is information regarding the game, not the character.--Andeh 14:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - looks like a joke page to me. Artw 14:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Also; this page (in it's original form) was deleted yesterday, hence the rev 2. This does not fill me with joy. OBM | blah blah blah 15:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't delete! The voices will yell at me if I have to make rev 3...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.68.239.252 (talk • contribs) .
    • Then I suggest that you explain how this is an encyclopaedia article, rather than a never-before-published original biography and history of a fictional pet animal invented by one of the players in a rôle-playing game. Uncle G 15:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as recreated and probably salt, per yesterday's decision. Yomanganitalk 15:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the last AFD by the way: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zippy (SWG) - Yomanganitalk 15:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There isn't a speedy deletion criterion that covers fictional pet animals, and that AFD was closed after a mere 2 hours. Uncle G 15:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But there is one (WP:CSD G4) that covers recreated articles, and the place for discussing restoring articles after AFD is deletion review. Yomanganitalk 16:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This article was speedily deleted before, with the AFD discussion closed after a mere 2 hours. G4 does not apply. Uncle G 16:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Pardon what may seem like impudence, but as near as I can tell a G4 applies to circumstances where a deleted article is reposted - but in my own experience (and QED here, apparently), this is apparently not always the case. So that said, when doesn't a G4 apply to a previously deleted article? --Dennisthe2 19:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • When the article is deleted through an uncontested prod or a speedy delete, rather than an AfD. And if you read the link to the previous AfD, it was closed because it was speedily deleted. Danny Lilithborne 21:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • The basic idea is that administrators can speedily delete content that has previously gained a rough consensus to delete — i.e. it has been through a full discussion in one of our normal (non-speedy) deletion processes — and therefore been examined by several pairs of eyes. Speedy deletions are things that we entrust to the judgement of just one pair of eyes. (And thus our speedy deletion criteria are narrow, limiting speedy deletions to solely those areas where we trust that that one pair of eyes will make the correct decision almost all of the time.) If some content was speedily deletable under another criterion once, if reposted it will be speedily deletable under that same criterion again. So there is no need for G4 to apply to speedy deletions. In this case, there wasn't a speedy deletion criterion that covered the article. Uncle G 09:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after full five days of AFD, so there is absolutely no question about future G4's. Per my nom in the first AFD: Apparently, a character created by a gamer on one server of the SWG MMORPG, unknown outside that server. Fails WP:FICT and WP:WEB. Fan-1967 16:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable and the article seems to be functioning as an attack page as well.BTLizard 17:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable fan-created character -THB 17:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as a G4, per the author's own admission even. See above. --Dennisthe2 19:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatting error corrected. --Dennisthe2 19:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, original title already salted, which is why we have "rev 2". A strong message should be sent that recreation under any title will be regarded as Vandalism. Clearly it's a sock of the same author, as content is identical. -- Fan-1967 13:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No, don't delete! I thought everyone knew about Zippy... 203.208.28.171
    Sorry, but I don't believe the average person plays on "the Imperial forces of Wanderhome, a server on the MMORPG Star Wars Galaxies". Unless you have evidence to proove otherwise.--Andeh 13:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A OR biography about player's pet on a single server of an MMO doesn't satisfy WP:FICT. --- The Bethling(Talk) 05:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - some virtual mascot on some server; not all players play on the server, probably not all who play on the server care either, and no one outside of the game probably has any interest. Yep, I'm all for relisting it here, let's humour the proponents of the article by giving it a fair shot at AfD. Then let's delete and salt the darn thing. I find it highly unlikely there will be any... media developments. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't believe you people censor something just 'cause you don't care about it. I hope this guy reposts the article a million times, because this is wrong. 202.30.206.156 (talk
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Transwiki to Wiktionary. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Informationism[edit]

Neologism with less than 1000 google hits, many of which have divergant meanings. Cited definitions in the article come from urban dictioanry and wikiblogs. Artw 14:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Ezeu 16:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Transwiki to Wiktionary; if not a transwiki, then Abstain. --Dennisthe2 19:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wryspy 19:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many wikipedia articles have less that 1000 google hits for instance 'Lefkochori' and 'Shawreth' (random article search) --Andrewrutherford 06:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A nonce word without any real contextual meaning is still a nonce word without any real contextual meaning, despite the number of google hits. --Ezeu 15:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your use of nonce doesn't fit with the Wikipedia definition, but then maybe you have a nonce definition of it. --59.17.183.223 14:02, 29 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. — CharlotteWebb 16:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of special forces units[edit]

There is no guidance on the qualification for inclusion, a suggestion that some constraint be applied has been unanswered for a week now. As it stands the article is merely fodder for anyone whose armed forces contain mildly irregular units to add them, indeed some of the country entries are getting ridiculous. Justification for deletion include:

  • Verifiability WP:V: The accuracy of a statement is generally inherently not verifiable.
  • WP is not a List WP:NOT: The article does not contain any elaboration.
  • Its a cruft maget for any old fanboy cruft.
  • Special Forces in general are just about adequately discussed in the Special Forces article and in a number of specific articles which are developing an improving level of verifiability and reliabale sources. ALR 15:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the accuracy of this article is verifiable, all you have to do is look for the respective government's own documents in many cases. Furthremore, Jane's Amphibious and Special Forces is a reputable external source. If you've got a problem with fanboys adding bad content, try dealing with it directly. FrozenPurpleCube 15:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is more related to the Elite units, which appear in that source. Any old unit with a line in balaclavas and mirror shades seem to fit into that, so you end up with some countries listing justabout every tinpot outfit. The only one I can say is accurate is the UK, and even then a couple of editors insist on listing a whole host of dross on a regular basis, that's pretty clear cut because whilst the UK does not have official policy, there is mention of the make-up of DSF in a Hansard (parliamentary) comment.
In which case, your concerns are best addressed on the talk page of that article. FrozenPurpleCube 20:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You'll note if you review it that nobody actually engages on the talk page, many of the edits are fly-by additions, I'm tempted to cite request everything and then delete everything without a reference in about a week. But to be honest the page adds no value without some form of QA, and there is no motivation behind adding that.ALR 20:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you might wish to look and see if adding a header on the page to inform people not to just add stuff? FrozenPurpleCube 22:16, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban Insurgency resurgent since September 13, 2006[edit]

There's no reason for this seperate article to exist, it should simply be part of the main Taliban insurgency article. A Clown in the Dark 15:47, 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 No consensus. The arguments on both sides of the keep-delete debate were well-balanced. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Lytton-Cobbold[edit]

This page is redundant. The current owner of Knebworth House is already listed on the Knebworth House page. Nekohakase 16:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Appears non-notable, except for the Knebworth connection; mentioning him there seems sufficient. Brianyoumans 20:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As heir to the Cobbold Baronacy, he will have his own article when his father dies anyhow, so it seems pointless to delete it, only to recreate it when the time comes. Page should be moved to Henry Fromanteel Lytton-Cobbold, though, as that is his full name. Jcuk 21:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment that's crystal-ball stuff. he should get his page when he deserves it. Nekohakase 21:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment its only crystal-ball in so far as assuming the Prince of Wales will become king on the death of his mother is crystal-ball. He will one day become Baron Cobbold. Jcuk 14:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The material is duplicated elsewhere and there's no reason to have a page at this time. Even if he does inherit his father's title, I'm not sure that there's any reason to have automatic entries for minor English peers with no other notability criteria. Espresso Addict 23:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Wikipedia:Notability (royalty) (proposed policy) suggests that British Peers and holders of courtesy titles (i.e. heirs apparent) ..... are automatically notable. Jcuk 14:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added more data to the article on his screenwriting career. Note that his professional credits seem to be mostly under the name of "Henry Cobbold", rather than "Henry Lytton-Cobbold". They seem somewhat marginal, but re-examination may be warranted. (Incidentally, unless there's some other Henry Lytton-Cobbold he has to be disambiguated from, the page should not be moved to include his middle name.) Choess 05:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Per the IMDb credits for 'Henry Cobbold', I don't feel he's currently notable as a screenwriter. The Healey article you reference is so sycophantic that I don't consider it a creditable source; The Shooting Party assistant work appears in the IMDb under 'Henry Ditton-Cobbold', and that entry doesn't list Water.) Espresso Addict 21:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, as I said, the professional credits are marginal, but at least know they're mentioned. I assume "Henry Ditton-Cobbold" is a typo in the database for "Henry Litton-Cobbold"; people on this side of the water seem to have a great deal of trouble with his name. Choess 22:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete screenwriting credits are trivial, the prospect of owning a notable house does not confer notability any more than owning it would, being heir to a barony is of no importance whatsoever (nor, re crystal ball gazing, will being baron thingy confer notability in my view). The proposed policy is just that, proposed: anyone can write an essay. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As creator of the page, I agree with Jcuk comments. I think being heir to a famous title and the owner of a famous house is sufficient to justify a page to record what is know about the man. People can then decide for themselves if he deserves the title and the house! Nwsmith 00:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- a necessary and informative page. The family is well-known and he is the owner of a famous concert venue. What purpose is served by deleting it? The only one I can think of is the deletion of noteworthy information. 76.16.75.77 04:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Davies Photographer[edit]

Delete. Subject does not meet criteria of WP:BIO. No sources given for claim of international award. "Benjamin Davies"+ANZANG does not come up with anything in Google; neither does "Benjamin John Davies"+ANZANG. "Benjamin Davies"+Photographer only shows 54 Ghits, none of them particularly helpful. Prod tag removed. ... discospinster talk 16:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep this is one of the world's most talented photographers. Igbogirl 02:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The award is the only influence. Without it he would be below the radar. I've wikified a little, and flagged it for expansion. Creator is a one edit wonder and thus appears to have no interest in expansion, but as a stub it's ok. Fiddle Faddle 15:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Igbogirl, I highly disagree with you. NauticaShades(talk) 16:33, 28 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 09:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Tucker[edit]

  • Delete Non-notable youth footballer playing for third-level Scottish club. Forbsey 16:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay I don't really get the whole European Soccer scene, but doesn't this guy pass WP:BIO? WilyD 16:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Definitely not. Found no related google hits. Forbsey 16:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking about Ghits but Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activites that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles. Third party verification from a reliable source outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized as performing at the highest level. WilyD 16:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
okay firstly the Scottish Second Division is not 'fully professional' - Brian Tucker's club, Greenock Morton, are, to the best of my knowledge, the only full-time professional club in the league. The article states that Tucker is a player playing at youth team level, i.e. he is not listed as being part of the first team squad, as shown here and here. I understand that Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate however in my opinion Greenock Morton are not of a sufficient stature to warrent articles on youth players - i.e. most first team squad players don't even have articles! Forbsey 17:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would say that the above might be applicable if he was in the first team, but he's not; he's in the youth side. Although Greenock Morton does have a team in the Scottish Football League Second Division, that's not the team that he's playing in. BTLizard 17:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not meet WP:BIO. Morton are in the third-tier of Scottish football. This chap is not even in the first team. Catchpole 21:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Scottmsg 22:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I created this article on the basis that even though he (Brian Tucker) was a part of the U-18 youth sqaud this also made him third choice goalkeeper for the first team and in the event of an injury to the first 2 keepers he would have played. However we (Greenock Morton) have signed a new 3rd choice 'keeper. Therefore even though I created the article I now agree there is justification for deleting it.Jonathan Mitchell 02:05, 22 September 2006
  • Delete, not notable (yet), article has no content apart from name, position and the team he plays for, anyway. Qwghlm 08:44, 22 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 13:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Cooke (opera singer)[edit]

Questionable notability. I don't think he's a very well-known opera singer here, unless someone can fill in some links or something significant. Nekohakase 16:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak delete He seems to be a second-rank singer in Europe. He has some significant roles in his reportoire, but I don't see where he's sung them - I'd guess in what we used to call 'provincial houses'. His CV is [here].
    • Oops. Last comment was mine and I forgot to sign it. Sorry! Bpmullins 18:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • very weak keep, member of Bavarian State Opera Chorus, is on several recordings.
  • Keep If he's part of a notable Opera group and has recordings and TV appearances that should be enough. Mgm|(talk) 21:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability provided.--Peta 04:24, 27 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 is to KISS, delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Engineerboards.com[edit]

Speedy deletion tag removed. No Google hits for (link:www.engineerboards.com) and Alexa traffic rank of 1,290,522. Fails: Wikipedia:Notability (web). --  Netsnipe  ►  16:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no reliable sources WilyD 16:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:WEB and being blatant WP:SPAM. Prolog 16:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Do all of you work for PPI? Road guy 17:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Qui? WilyD 18:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • by the way who are PPI? Nigel (Talk) 19:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete please can't find anything polite to say so will keep quiet --Nigel (Talk) 17:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is there a way to make this page temporary while we work on it?Road guy 20:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. However, you can move it out of the encyclopedia proper and into your userspace (see Wikipedia:Userfication) which will automatically end this current review. You can continue to work on the article there before you move it back into the main encyclopedia at which point the article may be reviewed again. --  Netsnipe  ►  20:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it's a conspiracy to keep the little man down. Danny Lilithborne 21:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • True Story Even if this gets deleted it doesnt change the fact that most of you havenot kissed a girl before[citation needed]Road guy 12:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Does anyone else find this comment from a person who runs an engineering web forum kind of ironic? = ) --  Netsnipe  ►  14:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe - do you have reliable sources about engineers success with members of their preferred gender versus that of internet geeks? I can't seem to estimate it from first principles. WilyD 16:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While most engineers are "nerds" they make $$$$, unlike internet wikipedia admin wannabees (i read some of your pages)Road guy 19:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks anyhow, but I'm an astronomer, not an engineer, so I'm not really qualified to join ;) WilyD 20:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I be part of this please - I'll kiss her tonight when I get home I promise --Nigel (Talk) 13:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, Astronomers dont really do anything to help society, thus there is no need for you to have a PE LicenseRoad guy 13:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It certainly is the case that no one without a PE licence ever does anything useful for society. WilyD 23:34, 23 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 16:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quincy Grays[edit]

Nonnotable amateur baseball team. NawlinWiki 16:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per nom. The league itself is barely notable enough for an article; individual teams (hell, even a 146-peat league champion) do not need their own articles. This is the only team in this league that has its own article, and there's a good reason none of the other teams do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kicking222 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as insufficiently notable organization. As such, there are no credible, third-party sources available as required by WP:V. See 19 unique GHits here. --Satori Son 01:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Glen 12:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bradman: The Movie[edit]

unreferenced, appears non-notable - CobaltBlueTony 16:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 21:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See related AfDs for Bradley Laborman and Tonight with Bradman.Hornplease 03:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Could this be merged with either of the above? Maybe keeping one page, not three? American007 16:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unreferenced. --Dweller 10:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ATTENTION This is actually Bradley Laborman, I was notified about this situation a while back and I just want to tell my fans thank you. I want to point out however, the people who run Wikipedia have a better understanding of what is notable and what is not. I am grateful for everyone who has spoke up for me and my work, but if Wikipedia does not wish for my account to be on here, I would respect that. I have alot on my plate with the application to NBC and other networks talking to me. If I am not on now, please believe me someday I wil be on the pages of Wikipedia, until then, please respect the site and respect the show by being appropriate fans and not terrorist. I also see now that FACEBOOK is now open to anyone, I would invite fans who do not have facebook to join that and join our many fan groups there. I frequesnt those alot. Thank you. BradmanTWB
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all into Stupid Dream. However, if anything notable can be written about the two singles (Pure Narcotic (song) & Stranger by the Minute (song)) that is long enough that they require their own articles, I don't see why they can't have their own articles (but only if such content will be too much to include in Stupid Dream). Deathphoenix ʕ 19:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even Less (song)[edit]

Non-notable song. Unlikely to ever be more than a stub. Any unique information should be merged into the article for the album. —Wrathchild (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for songs from the same album for the same reason:


  • SPEEDY KEEP notable band, notable album to notable songs.--Zhanggu 17:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any useful content into Stupid Dream. These articles are mostly made up of editorial opinion (one of the songs is "a nice poppy tune with wonderful close harmony vocals") and unnecessarily large unsourced quotes. Apparently "Piano Lessons", "Pure Narcotic" and "Stranger by the Minute" were released as singles, but only the Stranger by the Minute (song) article contains any information on the single release besides "It was the xth single". Extraordinary Machine 18:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all into the album. It's pretty clear that only very, very noteable songs are to have their own articles. Never heard of any of those, not to mention the band itself. --SeizureDog 20:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (and redirect) all into the Stupid Dream album article. Songs are only supposed to get an article when there's more to tell about them than can be logically fitted in the related album or band article. Mgm|(talk) 22:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect after merging any useful content into Stupid Dream. Most of the articles (including Stupid Dream) appear to be huge chunks lifted out of the band's website - direct quotes from Wilson (copyvio?) - Needs a complete rewrite after merger. Ohconfucius 07:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the released singles for completion and expand those, merge the rest to the album. Singles should have articles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if such articles contain no information on the song's single release beyond "It was the xth single from the album"? Extraordinary Machine 20:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. At the very least, it can be expanded somewhat, but I've found that "released single" is a fine compromise when it comes to individual songs. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:10, 22 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.--Andeh 22:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Water warz[edit]

Contested prod. One-person company, renting water balloon launchers for parties in Orlando. Nowhere close to meeting WP:CORP. Company website is a blogspot.com page. -- Fan-1967 16:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable spamvertiser. —Wrathchild (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, but I'm having trouble deciding between A1 and A7. Leaning towards A7. --Dennisthe2 19:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither really applies, per WP:CSD. A7 has almost never been accepted for companies, no matter how small. And the article's not really empty. Fan-1967 20:05, 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 09:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supermarketpage[edit]

Non-notable website. Nekohakase 16:49, 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 09:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mico32[edit]

Non notable product, fails WP:CORP. LatticeMico32 gets 28 distinct Google hits. Mico32 gets 59 Ghits, many unrelated to the product. No independent professional reviews. Was prodded. Fram 17:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Information and product released to the market on Sept 18 2006. It needs a few days to get some additional traction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kphowell (talk • contribs)
  • Delete being non-notable product that doesn't meet the notability requirements in WP:CORP. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 21:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How So In what whay does it not meet the requirements? As far as low hit count 9/21/06 Google: "Results 1 - 10 of about 122 for LatticeMico32. (0.26 seconds)" Not bad for being available for 4 days.
In what way? There are two criteria given for products, and it doesn't come close to any of those. It may be good enough for an article later on, but we only have articles after the fact, we don't have articles for every person, band, product, book, company, ... that may become notable one day. Look around at other Deletion discussions and you'll get an idea which companies and products get deleted. Fram 05:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Article can be recreated if/when product attains widespread notability. --Alan Au 16:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice against future recreation if the core becomes notable. Normally I'd be biased in favor of anything open source, but I don't think this is established enough for an article yet. I tried downloading the software and not everything is actually open source. The proper approach is to write an article after a product gains "additional traction", not before. Wmahan. 20:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can be considered a corporate product. As someone with electrical engineering background, I recognize what this product is. Its some company's implementation of the Harvard architecture, and it fails WP:CORP for reliable sources verifying it. Furthurmore, things like this come out all the time, and there's a mess of companies. We need substantial proof of a company's particular product's 'notability' to warrent an article on it, and there's already articles on FPGA, Harvard architecture, and microcontroller of which microcontroller could be expanded to mention "soft" ones if proper sources can be found. --Kevin_b_er 01:09, 23 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 and redirect. Please smooth over as necessary.  ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up[edit]

Subject does not warrant its own article (merge with Fagan inspection). Title is ambiguous and there is no context, so if kept I recommend moving the page and adding {{context}}. HappyDog 17:12, 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. There have been no reliable sources presented showing verifiability. If anyone wishes to transwiki, feel free to message me and I'll give you a copy. Wickethewok 16:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Footmen Wars[edit]

Footmen Wars is a type of multiplayer mode made up by fans for a computer game. The top Google results are to this article and a load of forums. There is absolutely no evidence of it being the subject of multiple non-trivial works (WP:WEB).
Also nominating: Footmen Frenzy. -- Steel 17:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Battle.net is a trivial work. It has featured footies. --Adam Wang 17:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both I hope the editors of these pages can find a good gaming wiki to tranfer this information, but it doesn't belong here. "Footmen Frenzy" gets 491 unique Gogle hits and "Footmen Wars" gets 246. Wikipedia is not a video game guide applies here, as much of the content is needlessly specific and of a tone more appropriate for an FAQ walk-through. Neither article has established notability, therefore both fail WP:WEB. -- Scientizzle 17:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not a video game? What about the other articles like World of Warcraft? Yes WoW is more popular than Footmen Frenzy, but Footmen Frenzy is notable too. --Adam Wang 17:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, Wikipedia is not a video game guide. WoW has demonstrated notability, therefore merits an article. These two works have not demonstrated notability. -- Scientizzle 17:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both per nom. Danny Lilithborne 21:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep both of them. its wrong to say that wikipedia aint the place for videogames. wikepedia is a place where u should be able to find information about everything in the world including videogames—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.233.235.184 (talk • contribs) . No contributions but this AfD.
  • Keep. If you search "Footmen Frenzy" on Google, the first link is to the NoHunter's website. Nohunters Clan is the creator of Footmen Frenzy. Footmen Wars gets 293 000 hits, and Footmen Frenzy gets 103 000 hits. --Adam Wang 21:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ummm, yeah, I covered the Google hits angle--the vast majority of those hits are not unique. Also, why does the creation of the game by the NoHunters Clan make the game notable? -- Scientizzle 22:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not what I meant. I just wanted to inform you of that, just in case.
  • Delete Both for the reasons listed. However, I think there should either be a separate article listing and briefly describing the major Warcraft III custom games, or somebody should clean-up the already existing list on the Warcraft III article. Other articles to delete (some of which are already AfD) are listed here. Mipchunk 01:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And isn't this a case of "been there, done that"? As in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Footmen Frenzy & Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Footman Wars? --Calton | Talk 07:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you delete Footmen Wars and/or Footmen Frenzy, then why not delete Defense of the Ancients and other Warcraft Custom Games? There is a Category named Category:Warcraft custom games Category:Warcraft custom games. --Adam Wang 14:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I suggested above, I think that a single page should be devoted to briefly describing the major Warcraft maps. By brief, I mean about one paragraph (or less). You can see that such a list already exists on the main Warcraft III article. Mipchunk 15:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly. I suggested something similar here. I tried to convince the editors of Footmen Frenzy to transwiki the article. I envision a single article discussing the phenomenon of user-made maps in general with subsections on specific games that have a significant presence of user-made maps. Each of those subsections could then link to the proper gaming wiki with all the details concerning each of the maps. -- Scientizzle 16:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why though? Each of these games is notable. Dota and Footmen Frenzy, are equally popular, or more popular, than the Actual Online Game itself. Dota and Footmen Frenzy have huge fanbases in North America and Europe- especially Germany and Sweden. Basshunter made a song on Dota. Dota and Footmen Frenzy videos are on Youtube and other sites. Both have been featured by Battle.net as the Top 3 Most Popular Custom games. Clan HALP Tournuments are always full- they are now into Week Five. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for notable information. Dota and Footmen Frenzy are notable. --Adam Wang 23:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • DotA at least has a claim to notability ("DotA Allstars v5.84c was featured in the Malaysian and Singaporean World Cyber Games 2005 national finals and the Cyberathlete Amateur League now runs both Open and Main divisions using DotA v6.32b"). Footmen Wars & Footmen Frenzy don't, and nothing has been presented here to meet WP:V & WP:RS to rectify that. Instead of just telling us that these are notable, find something to meet WP:WEB. -- Scientizzle 17:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Scientizzle. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, still not encyclopedic. -- nae'blis 21:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing how you guys are determined to remove valuable information from Wikipedia, please tell me how to put this on a Gaming Wiki. What are some gaming wikis? thanks. --Adam Wang 23:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't really call this valuable information, but StrategyWiki seems to be the popular gaming wiki. -- Steel 23:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I"ll start transferring. --Adam Wang 17:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nice work on the transwiki. -- Scientizzle 03:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Other Warcraft III custom maps are being permitted to stay. I feel as though there's a bit of hypocrisy. It seems as though, if this is deleted, the other articles for those maps should be deleted as well.--BGBkstroke 01:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You basically argued the same thing on the AfDs I initiated for "other Warcraft III custom maps," Dark Deeds & Eve of the Apocalypse. (This strikes me as a ridiculous contradiction to your own argument: don't delete this article becuase other Warcraft III custom map articles exist, then you vote to keep the other articles, too?!) The discussion here is about Footmen Wars, and Footmen Wars should be considered in its merits alone. There is no "fairness" involving Wikipedia articles--a subject either merits an article, according to Wikipedia policies & guidelines, or does not. If other Warcraft III custom maps have articles, they are to be considered on their merits. -- Scientizzle 03:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:N and more seriously WP:V. JoshuaZ 03:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does it fail WP:V? --Adam Wang 14:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both I had also been thinking of the suggestion Mipchunk had. I will see if I can post this suggestion to some talk pages and see what we can come up with. Altair 15:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of Warcraft deletions. Altair 15:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Altair 15:39, 28 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 - socking is futile.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay West[edit]

Australian Idol contestant who did not make it to the finals. Page history suggests article created by whoever runs his website. Serserse 17:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A look at the Beyond Idols section clearly shows he hasn't done anything outside the show to warrant an article (at least not yet). If the songs he did on the show aren't in the Australian Idol page, they can be merged, but that's about it. Mgm|(talk) 22:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 00:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not even good enough to get onto Idol? Sorry then, but you're not good enough to have an article about you. Lankiveil 09:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, the fact is that the contestant WAS on Idol. That can't be debated. The article is as warranted as any of the other Idol related contestants' articles. It makes no false claims as to the achievements of the contestant. User:www.lindsaywest.net 9:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC). — Www.lindsaywest.net (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep, WHy delete it?It shouldnt be deleted. Its info about a celebrity who is trying to make it in the music industry. Dont delete it. — 58.165.34.75 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - Regardless of whatever Lindsay's results were or were not on Idol, he is still a working musician within the Melbourne and Australian music industry and has just as much right to his place in popular cultural history as anyone else. So therefore, the article should remain. — Bacibella (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - Lindsay West is an Australian artist who is trying to make it in the music industry. He appeared on Australian Idol in 2005 and got as far as the wildcard stage, one stage before being in the finals. This article is not rude or innapropriate in any way - those are the ones that need to be deleted. All it is is a short biography on an Australian musical artist, who may not have a number 1 song, but who has done well and worked hard for his achievements. Surely this can be acknowledged in an article in Wikipedia. — 61.68.231.124 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete -- not notable enough for inclusion. - Longhair 06:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. QazPlm 06:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Given some of the topics and subjects that currently have a page on Wikipedia, I can see no reason why this page should not be allowed to exist. Australian Idol is a show that generates a lot of talk, and thousands of people every year apply for a shot at the big time. The fact that Lindsay got to the final 30 entrants in 2005, and the manner in which he got that far, is surely reason enough to keep this page active. Itswin 01:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC) — Itswin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - If this artist were to be deleted, then ALL noteable Australian Idol contestants not reaching first or second place status would need to be deleted. Wikipedia is a resource, therefore isn't it in everyone's best interest to keep it as abundant in information as possible? And I see this artist's listing is clearly up-to-date and accurate. There are other vocalists who reached the same stage of competition in Idol (eg: Ngaiire Joseph) who are making their mark gradually, and we don't see them being unfairly deleted from discussion pages. West is a singer-songwriter first and foremost, and active in the Australian music scene in more than one capacity, and that's credibility enough to remain here, in my books. Every artist has something unique to offer, there's room for all. Surely you people have more pressing matters than to be as petty as requesting fatuitous deletions from websites! Really!!! Lahelia 07:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC) — Lahelia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - So Lindsay West is not a hugely famous recording artist (yet!!). But what he is, is a very talented singer-songwriter making a go of it out there in one of the worlds hardest industries. I fail to see any reason why his entry should be deleted. We should be getting behind such people and supporting them in their efforts to make something of themselves and share their talents with the world. Surely Wikipedia can assist him with this by including his article.Supporting Australian Artists 00:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC) — Supporting Australian Artists (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • KEEP -Hey now! What’s the dealio?? Im sorry but isn’t the purpose of Wiki (being an encyclopedia and all) to be used as a valuable source of information for individuals to go to and find out more on things?? Hmm.. I think YES!! So then, doesn’t this indeed mean that it should contain as much information for people to search specific subjects? I MUST say… I think deleting West’s page defeats the purpose of this site entirely! Why have the site at all if you’re going to go and delete pages that don’t count to YOU? What about all the Lindsay supporters? As a supporter of both Lindsay’s AND Wikipedia’s I am most outraged that the even thought of deleting such a great musician’s page has even been put across in the first place! What a JOKE! This guy works just as hard, if not, harder than any other muso out there… therefore I do believe he deserves to have his page kept! I bet if we were talking about a million dollar international artist, this “deletion” thing would never of even come up at all! He should most definately NOT be deleted. What about all the people who come onto your site to view his page! He is an interesting and inspiring person to many people, I really do feel it isn’t fair for his page to go! All I’ve got to say is “GO Lindsay! Keep rockin! You got loads of support!!” Cuddly giggles 03:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Cuddly giggles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Delete This guy has done nothing besides appear on a talent quest TV show. Come back when he has some hits on the chart. --Michael Johnson 04:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn game show contestant. Is every person who achieves minor success on TV important enough for an entry? MichelleG 08:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete As per above. A Google search indicates no notability outside of the website dedicated to him and Australian Idol. Even within Australian Idol his notability is questionable as the wiki page fails to mention him. JGardner 09:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to correct idol series. --Peta 08:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to the proper Idol series, per Petaholmes. Yamaguchi先生 22:03, 29 September 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zi-Com Productions[edit]

this NON-NOTABLE "company" is so tiny that they haven't even made anything yet. Nekohakase 17:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom--Jusjih 19:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the Google search is pretty catastrophic. Any info would be utterly unverifiable. Pascal.Tesson 03:13, 22 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 16:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X Constant[edit]

Non-notable band. Nekohakase 18:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom--Jusjih 18:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom--MikeBrandt 20:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, almost a speedy-music. Pascal.Tesson 03:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. --Storkk 08:37, 22 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 16:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RedDevil[edit]

Non-notable aspiring wrestler. WP:VAIN, WP:BIO. Author removed speedy and prod tags. --Onorem 18:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom--Jusjih 18:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wryspy 19:35, 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. Glen 12:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Laborman[edit]

appears non-notable; part of series of articles cleverly plugging this person and his show - CobaltBlueTony 18:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom 263 Ghits--Jusjih 18:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradman: The Movie. Danny Lilithborne 21:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I appologize if this looks like a 'Clever plug' But I am seriously just a fan who felt his was notable. I have other articles, but I am not sure what you consider credible sources.MarySwope
  • Comment. Like MarySwope I also am a concerned fan. Could we just merge his other two articles, Tonight with Bradman and Bradman the Movie into this one? That seems most fair to everyone involved. American007 16:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Would that be allowed? If it would I would say you should do that, Bradman is a good entertainer, don't judge him too fast.12.214.20.35
  • ATTENTION This is actually Bradley Laborman, I was notified about this situation a while back and I just want to tell my fans thank you. I want to point out however, the people who run Wikipedia have a better understanding of what is notable and what is not. I am grateful for everyone who has spoke up for me and my work, but if Wikipedia does not wish for my account to be on here, I would respect that. I have alot on my plate with the application to NBC and other networks talking to me. If I am not on now, please believe me someday I wil be on the pages of Wikipedia, until then, please respect the site and respect the show by being appropriate fans and not terrorist. I also see now that FACEBOOK is now open to anyone, I would invite fans who do not have facebook to join that and join our many fan groups there. I frequesnt those alot. Thank you. BradmanTWB
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Catchpole 21:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Wesolowski[edit]

non-notable. Nekohakase 18:20, 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 keep. —Mets501 (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youare.tv[edit]

Per WP:CORP and the precedent guide to deletion of corporate articles:

"Small companies are not generally notable" Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents#Companies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikebrandt (talk • contribs) 18:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • I second the vote to delete this article 135.245.8.37 19:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Satisfies WP:WEB #1--Irishpunktom\talk 20:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - YouAreTV provides a service specifically to indepedent filmmakers and television show makers. Because it is niche does not mean that it should not be documented. Additionally, the site is documented in congressional hearings for Net Netrality, as well as appeared in an article in the Independent Film Magazine. Would the Wikipedia been written up in the Wikipedia before it was big even though it was a very profound idea and provided a service?
  • Keep - This article has multiple connections to Network Neutrality and this entity has appeared in Congressional testimony before the US Senate Committee.
  • Keep - Satisifies WP:ORG #1 and #2, Noted in multiple 3rd party publications.

I vote to keep this article. The digital media space is in a tipping point and all references to companies dealing in this space should be kept for informational purposes

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

The result was Delete. Glen 12:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's Diatribe Magazine[edit]

non-notable student paper. Nekohakase 18:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom--Jusjih 18:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Third-largest student paper at the college, defunct after producing two issues. Herostratus 06:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge more than delete (though I could live with delete). There might be some solid references somewhere with enough stuff to have a passing mention, say, in Alma Mater Society or something of the sort. Pascal.Tesson 03:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Peta 04:24, 27 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. - Bobet 22:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rowwen Hèze[edit]

no assertion that meets WP:MUSIC - CobaltBlueTony 13:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found nothing at Allmusic, but lots of google hits referring to reviews and discography. I do not speak Dutch.  :) Dlohcierekim 01:04, 14 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, Ezeu 18:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of the Netherlands-related deletions. -- Ezeu 19:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pretty famous over here in the Netherlands. Should easily fulfill Music guidelines by albums and notable record label alone. I suggest you drop this off at the music album wikiproject or the Dutch Wikipedian noticeboard for cleaning up. It takes about 30 seconds to verify they're famous (if you know Dutch). The band name might be misspelled though... - Mgm|(talk) 21:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this one was translated from the Dutch pedia. Indeed not much assertions yet, but if that article has been around for a while without getting deleted, it should speak for its notability too. - Mgm|(talk) 21:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Google News. They had an album enter on #1 in the Dutch Top 100. - Mgm|(talk) 07:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup --Peta 04:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MediaZilla[edit]

Surely MediaWiki's bug site isn't notable. It is worth noting its Alexa rank (558) is shared by Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Meta-Wiki and Wikispecies Computerjoe's talk 19:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, MediaWikicruft. This is a part of infrastructure that everyone interested can find out about on their own. We don't have article for "The lucky shoes Jimbo wears in TV interviews". In TV interviews, people are listening to Jimbo and not looking at his shoes, you know. At best, this is worth an external link on MediaWiki article; perhaps, if we're getting really carried away with interesting trivia, a mention like "MediaWiki developers use Bugzilla to track bugs" in that article would be sufficient. (And while I have absolutely nothing against AYBABTU, I don't mind if MediaZilla motto is changed to "The lucky shoes Jimbo wears in TV interviews".=) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self-referential, unnecessary, and only linked to from the AfD and a template talk page. --Roninbk t c # 23:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (was rewriting something when you edit conflicted me). Anomo 16:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please could you explain the relevance to this deletion debate? Computerjoe's talk 16:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Because edit conflicts show how popular and controversial this AfD debate is. Whoever closes this debate eventually will have considerable trouble following all these complex developments, turns of phrases, and ignoring the thinly veiled sarcasm that is completely inappropriate in AfDs. =) "And in the next article in WikiTruth/WikipediaReview collaboration series, the AfD debate that shall forever live in infamy..." =) (Sorry, a long day.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although even saying "mediawikicruft" is sacrilege, Bugzilla makes you have to create a username to actually see anything which has always annoyed me a lot. The forced logging in to read reduces notability. Anomo 16:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But that is irrelevant. This debate is purely about where MediaZilla is notable enough to warrent a Wikipedia article. Computerjoe's talk 17:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Gray Porpoise 23:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep or possible merge with BugZilla Changed vote to keep because recently (last 12 hours I'm guessing) someone turned on the ability for people not logged in to view the bug reports. If it stays that way it should be good. A website that's a gated community to view it gets bad google rank simply. Anomo 13:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikipedia: namespace. This site is not notable for the main namespace, as no non-trivial publication about it exist, however it can be of some use as a help page. MaxSem 07:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Changed to delete per below. MaxSem 14:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Bugzilla already exists. --Gray Porpoise 10:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bugzilla also exists as an article. Wikipedia:MediaZilla with our without the strange capitalization redirects to Wikipedia:Bugzilla. Anomo 11:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cedars 05:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete (sorry Brad - maybe after NBC?). Glen 12:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tonight with Bradman[edit]

non-notable cable access show - CobaltBlueTony 18:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Tonight with Bradman is broadcast not only on cable access, but syndicated around the United States. A Search for "Tonight with Bradman" on Goolgle brings up well over 700+ sources of where TWB can be seen. It is also featured on iTunes, YouTube and other online boradcast services. There are several programs, Any Milinokis, etc. who wilm at a Public Access facility for syndication. The program has hosted Britney Spears, Playboy, Girls Gone Wild, Kenny Kramer, Wink Martindale, and many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarySwope (talk • contribs) 14:18 September 21, 2006
  • Comment. What steps are keeping this from being removed from the delete list? I added notable guest.MarySwope
AfDs are usually closed after five days. --Ezeu 21:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 21:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and also delete Bradley Laborman, as the person himself (along with his show) have absolutely no notability. Both articles contains one link to a "reliable source", that being the same article in the Des Moines Register, and the article is only half about the man and his show. The Tonight with Bradman page has no assertions of notability besides claims that are unverified (such as having Britney Spears on the show- until I see video of it, I'll refuse to believe that Britney Spears went to Iowa to appear on a cable access / Internet show), and the claims of celebrity guests probably wouldn't be enough to qualify it for a WP article, anyway. -- Kicking222 23:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A link to the image ...Does that look like Britney to you? Danny Lilithborne 00:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It could be a Britney, but it surely ain't Spears. --Ezeu 14:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two more news articles have been added since you wrote that. Uncle G 20:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all The whole point of the Iowa newspaper article is that any ol' local cable access host can now go nationwide on the Internet. That doesn't give any such host, or his show, notability. And it doesn't look like Britney to me, either. NawlinWiki 03:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concern Is this more because of the fact that he is from Iowa? I was watching his program last night, and a person called with concerns about the Wikipedia editing. October 8, 2006 is going to be announced by Mayor Ross Wilburn as "Bradman Day". I am not sure if you realize this, but Bradley Laborman kept a town in complete communication when a tornado struck Iowa City this fall, and no network affiliates were there to cover it. Also if you want an answer to the question of notability, I guess, if you don't feel he's notable maybe Wikipedia isn't an accurate source for information.128.255.107.80
  • FAN COMMENT As a fan of Tonight with Bradman, I have put this message on this page in support of Bradley Laborman and Tonight with Bradman. By putting this here I feel both subjects are noteworthy of your know-all website. THANK YOU 128.255.107.80
    • Reply. Instead of being hostile and demeaning, please respect our procedures for verifying claims (WP:VERIFY and WP:CITE) and do the research to prove it. That's how anything gets placed here, because it comes from third-party reputable sources. - CobaltBlueTony 17:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • ReplyI find it hard to be told not to be demeaning when all I hear are comments about how being from Iowa makes you not-notable. I find it amazing that people who have not done anything to help a community and make a difference can decide if someone who has made a difference is notable or not.128.255.107.80
        • Comment. Hi there! Nobody is saying that being from Iowa makes someone nonnotable. We have articles on plenty of people from Iowa!! The problem with your article is that you havent't verified any claims that you have made. If you can add sources to the article to back up your claims, it may very well be able to stay. Srose (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FAN COMMENT As a fan of Tonight with Bradman, I have put this message on this page in support of Bradley Laborman and Tonight with Bradman. By putting this here I feel both subjects are noteworthy of your know-all website. THANK YOU 65.110.244.107
  • FAN COMMENT As a fan of Tonight with Bradman, I have put this message on this page in support of Bradley Laborman and Tonight with Bradman. By putting this here I feel both subjects are noteworthy of your know-all website. THANK YOU 71.213.204.49
  • FAN COMMENT As a fan of Tonight with Bradman, I have put this message on this page in support of Bradley Laborman and Tonight with Bradman. By putting this here I feel both subjects are noteworthy of your know-all website. THANK YOU 128.255.203.67
  • FAN COMMENT* As the Director of Tonight with Bradman, I have put this message on this page in support of Bradley Laborman and our television show: Tonight with Bradman. By putting this here I feel both subjects are noteworthy of your know-all website.With the help of many TWB was able to keep the town of Iowa City in the know for 5..Yes FIVE hours after a tornado ripped through the town. This is not your average Public Access Television show! THANK YOU 216.51.196.88 Director Little Nicky of Tonight With Bradman.
  • COMMENT I am the orignal author of this text, I appologize for any other comments that are inapproriate, that comes with the audience base. I just want help in preserving this page abd the Bradley Laborman page. I feel he is notable, I have other articles, but I am confused because I have already used two papers, and the google searches, in what you consider notable. The Wiki help section cannot assist me. Please I ask for assistance.MarySwope
    • This is a television show that is broadcast over Internet. The policies and guidelines that apply are thus Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Notability (web). Your best course of action is to cite sources to demonstrate that the primary notability criterion is satisfied — in other words that people independent of the show and its creators/promoters have written and published non-trivial works about the show itself. The Register article contains only a couple of sentences that are actually about the subject of this article. The Press-Citizen and Daily Iowan articles are far more what you should be looking for, because they are substantial, detailed, and not simple rehashes of publicity blurb. They demonstrate that something is notable because it has been noted. (And remember that books, journal articles, and suchlike also count. "Published works" means all forms of published work.) Uncle G 19:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Press-Citizen and Daily Iowan articles show that the primary notability criterion in WP:WEB is just about satisfied, although more is always better. Weak keep. Uncle G 19:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Thank you for the help, I appreciate it..MarySwope
  • FAN COMMENT As a fan of Tonight with Bradman, I have put this message on this page in support of Bradley Laborman and Tonight with Bradman. By putting this here I feel both subjects are noteworthy of your know-all website. THANK YOU 12.217.252.184
  • FAN COMMENT Although 'Tonight with Bradman' may not be nationally or internationally known, it in fact IS a big deal in the Iowa City area. It is, as far as I know, the only public access show that people will make time in their schedules to watch each week. Also, I believe that one of the reasons it has not gotten more press coverage is for the simple fact that it's a public access show. It might be worth a one-time feature article, but the newspapers would feel that any more would be kind of a waste of space for a public access show, no matter how big it is (unless it was a state-wide phenomenon or something). Despite it's relative 'smallness', I personally believe the show should at least be allowed a spot on Wikipedia. Thank you. 63.252.23.150
  • FAN COMMENT As a fan of Tonight with Bradman, I have put this message on this page in support of Bradley Laborman and Tonight with Bradman. By putting this here I feel both subjects are noteworthy of your know-all website. THANK YOU 12.217.241.2
  • Comment. An article about this show came up on AfD before, and was deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TONIGHT WITH BRADMAN (TWB). Maybe the show has become more notable since then, I'm not sure. But I would like to get some clarfication on the first comment above. Does the show actually air on broadcast or cable television anywhere besides Iowa City? Or is it seen outside Iowa City only via the Internet? Also, to anyone planning to submit another identical FAN COMMENT, please give us reasons why this show is notable in your own words instead. --Metropolitan90 02:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FAN COMMENT As a fan of Tonight with Bradman, I have put this message on this page in support of Bradley Laborman and Tonight with Bradman. By putting this here I feel both subjects are noteworthy of your know-all website. THANK YOU 128.255.177.25
    • Copying and pasting this text serves no purpose. All of these comments, which contribute nothing to the discussion because they are simply the expressions of personal wishes rather than arguments based upon our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines that demonstrate an understanding of what the purpose of this project actually is, will be ignored by the closing administrator. The only useful contribution to this discussion from a fan has been from MarySwope (talk · contribs). Please follow xyr example. Uncle G 20:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FAN COMMENT As a fan of Tonight with Bradman, I have put this message on this page in support of Bradley Laborman and Tonight with Bradman. By putting this here I feel both subjects are noteworthy of your know-all website. I think that Brad and the show are great and should get paid for what they do. THANK YOU 70.142.45.254
  • FAN COMMENT As a fan of Tonight with Bradman, I have put this message on this page in support of Bradley Laborman and Tonight with Bradman. By putting this here I feel both subjects are noteworthy of your know-all website. THANK YOU
  • INPUT I'm currently studying in Germany and was introduced to TWB through a friend. Since then I have enjoyed watching what I can on their main website, along with downloading podcasts and recommending the show to other friends. So far it seems that the main argument for not allowing TWB a wikipedia page is that the show is viewed as being insignificant or trivial. May I please remind you that all things start out small and it's only when they're given the chance to grow that they evolve into something of the "repute" wikipedia seems to desire. For what it's worth, TWB appears to be quite popular (or at least well known) among Iowa City Residents and as it's being viewed by people in multiple countries (let alone continents) I fail to see why it does not deserve a wikipedia page. Surely if Page France and the definition of 'Bank Reserve' get a page, a great show with a fanbase like that of Tonight with Bradman should deserve one also.--132.180.252.57 11:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ATTENTION This is actually Bradley Laborman, I was notified about this situation a while back and I just want to tell my fans thank you. I want to point out however, the people who run Wikipedia have a better understanding of what is notable and what is not. I am grateful for everyone who has spoke up for me and my work, but if Wikipedia does not wish for my account to be on here, I would respect that. I have alot on my plate with the application to NBC and other networks talking to me. If I am not on now, please believe me someday I wil be on the pages of Wikipedia, until then, please respect the site and respect the show by being appropriate fans and not terrorist. I also see now that FACEBOOK is now open to anyone, I would invite fans who do not have facebook to join that and join our many fan groups there. I frequesnt those alot. Thank you. BradmanTWB
  • Delete per WP:TV and WP:N. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study[edit]

Redundant article on nonnotable organization as per Talk:Myron Evans CH 19:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hehe - I read 't Hooft's essay a few weeks ago, and was wondering when the ECE was going to become an issue here. It is interesting to see, though, from what perspective this has happened. Now where was I? Delete per nomination. Byrgenwulf 19:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep. Delete on the grounds proposed by the nominator. Anville 19:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Pjacobi 21:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the discussion at Talk. Guy 10:00, 25 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. As with most list vs category debates, this one was about even in terms of the weight of arguments, and this wasn't the overwhelming consensus to delete that I require to delete an article. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of educators[edit]

Already 45 kilobytes and growing. Someone put a lot of work into this, and it pains me to nominate it for deletion, but I fail to see the need for this list. The list itself is redundant to Category:Educators, Category:Educators by nationality etc. Each and every subsection already has a corresponding category, and it seems the list is organized and populated by mirroring existing categories. Ezeu 16:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep although there is some redundancy, the article seems more useful and organized than the categories.--Húsönd 17:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The redundancy is not merely "some", but entire. --Ezeu 18:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the redundancy doesn't exist, please see WP:LIST if you're unclear on this point. WilyD 18:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The redundancy is not merely "some", but total. Do you really mean we should list all educators even though the term "educator" is ambiguous? Consider that the number of educators include Academics (PHDs and Professors), lecturers, primary school teachers, kindergarten and preschool teachers, and various other other disciplines all over the world. They are all educators, that is why we have Category:Educators.--Ezeu 19:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ezeu, you do have some point. But I still think that your arguments are not enough to justify the deletion of this article. Besides, since we have to put up with all those sodding Pokémon character articles, this one is perfectly acceptable.--Húsönd 22:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the list passes the Pokémon test, but that is merely a Chewbacca defense. --Ezeu 02:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! I should have guessed that this Pokémon argument had been used before, but wouldn't imagine that it even has its own Wikipedia guidelines. Outmaneuvered, I change my stance to Neutral.--Húsönd 02:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no valid argument presented for deletion, please see WP:LIST if you don't understand the point of lists, and why they do not duplicate categories. WilyD 17:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you explain why in this case you feel this is a useful complement to a category? except for a few redlinks, I don't see this as exemplifying any of the advantages of lists, and this seems to have the disadvantages mentioned. Thanks, William Pietri 23:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the storage of redlinks is one of the purposes of lists, yes, known as the development purpose. The list also provides for navigation and groups things together in a way that provides information. In essence, it serves a number of purposes, some of which can't be served by categories (i.e. development) and there's no real reason to delete beyond I don't like lists presented here at all. It's verifiable, encyclopaedic (and actually a half decent article). WilyD 18:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Having read the material, I believe understand the theoretical advantages. However, in this specific case, I don't see them as applying in a substantial way. Do you have reasons why this specific list is practically more useful to a degree that outweighs the additional maintenance burden over categories? I have the impression this is more a general thing for you. Thanks, William Pietri 19:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, I generally defend verifiable, encyclopaedic lists at AfD - I have no real specific attachment to this list. As for the Burden of Maintenance" it's obvious to me that someone has taken that burden upon themselves, thus for the Wikipedia project as a whole, it's essentially zero maintenance. The list and category aren't redundant, so the existence of one doesn't argue for the deletion of the other, the category can exist in parallel, and do well what it does well, and poorly what it does poorly. To delete this when its in good shape just because Well, one day it could become a problem seems unconvincing. WilyD 20:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WilyD Jcuk 23:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WilyD Hello32020 00:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Good effort, but the page seems to replicate what category pages already do better. Visually, this page is much less user-friendly than the category pages. You could sort the names in a more spatially understandable way, but you'd probably just end up with something like a whole bunch of category pages stuck together. The only advantage I can think of is that you could do a name find across all the educator names on the same page, but sincec wikipedia already has a search engine this is redundant. Bwithh 01:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Bwithh. Glad to change my mind if I see some value that outweighs the maintenance burden. William Pietri 01:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listicrufts. It duplicates information of categories. This list which is going down the road of indiscriminate information. There are infinite ways of slicing the matrix, and I can see where this is going: there will be interminable sub-sub-categorisation of the lists, and will end up with indiscriminate slices and subsections like "Educators' subject by ethnicity and sexual preference" or "Educators' subject by religion, etc, etc, etc. ;-) Ohconfucius 02:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wholly redundant to the categories. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read WP:LIST before making verifiably false statements. WilyD 11:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is nothing false in that statement. WP:LIST is a guideline on the layout and formatting of lists, and is irrelevant to this discussion. This list is unmaintainable, it is redundant to the categories and is entirely unnecessary.--Ezeu 14:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you'll read WP:LIST you'll find that not to be the case. It is neither unnecessary nor redundant with categories. As for unmaintable, being too lazy to write an article is no rational for deletion. WilyD 17:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • By unmaintainable I mean it is borders on the ridiculous, how many educators can there possibly be? Just like "List of bands" and "list of schools in China", this should be deleted as well. --Ezeu 13:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It fails WP:V since it fails to cite sources and it is redundant to a category (the only possible advantage it has here is a list of redlinks, which could be better maintained as a list of educators lacking articles on Wikipedia). Having somebody working on it doesn't mean it is maintainable - in a dynamic list like this they would have to re-check every record every day in order to ensure its accuracy. Yomanganitalk 10:10, 21 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, Ezeu 19:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lists are useful when the set of items to be listed is strictly limited, and when there's some value in listing them even if they don't have an article. Neither of these appears to be the case here - as others have pointed out, there are a lot of preschool teachers in the US. Categories appear to be the superior solution here, especially as nearly all of the educators listed already have articles. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lists with such broad subjects are almost entirely pointless, and have no place here. As User:Zetawoof said, lists should only be used with a reasonably limited set of items. "Educators" is a humongous category of people; there are tons of them around the world and throughout history that are not, and never will be, included in this list. There is no point in having such a list here, unless we plan on becoming a White pages directory someday. Groupings like this are best left to the Category system. WarpstarRider 09:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful list, for all the reasons lists are ordinarily useful. Despite the claims that this is identical to the category, it's obviously not, based on the most cursory of inspections. No category presents all these names on one page for simple browsing; no category includes the redlinks that might tempt someone to develop an article. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue for me is not utility alone, but the maintenance burden versus utility. Could you point us to some other very large list pages that you find useful and are well maintained? Thanks, William Pietri 01:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure what you mean by the maintenance burden--how is it greater for this page than any other? Anyway, there are tons of large useful list pages, see e.g. List of anarchists or List of atheists just from the A's. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Category pages are automatically maintained, while lists are manual; that seems like more work to me, especially if the categories already exist. Maybe I'm underestimating the number of anarchists or atheists out there, but those lists seem much smaller in scope than the domain carved out by a list of educators from Socrates to Barbie (Teacher Barbie, I presume). I guess I'm still not seeing the potential for this article to be a gem. Thanks for the response, though; it was helpful to hear your perspective on lists. William Pietri 07:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The maintenance difference is overplayed; articles have to be added manually to both types, both have a page that needs to be kept free of vandalism, and both need to be watched for false entries. The last point is actually infinitely harder with a category since movement of articles in and out of a category cannot be watched, so far as I understand. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Interesting. I guess it seems like twice as much work to me then to maintain both. The watching of categories, though, is a great point, and one I hadn't considered. Thanks. William Pietri 17:11, 28 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 (nomination withdrawn). --Ezeu 22:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prussian education system[edit]

Little solid content, reads like an essay, says little even for its short length. Djcartwright 01:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have rewritten this article by cobbling stuff together from Education in Germany and the original speech from Senator O'Connell. Please re-read it and reconsider your votes as you see fit. --Richard 22:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge w/Education in Germany. Not a bad idea but not in need of its own article, material is already covered. NeoFreak 02:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could certainly have an artice on the 19th century Prussian educational system, separate from a general article on Education in Germany, but not using extracts from a minor and rather silly political speech by an American senator. There are good scholarly secondary sources that could and should be used for this. In this case: Speedy delete as copyvio from the external link. up+l+and 07:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This still needs a lot of work, but it is obviously a valid topic and not a copyvio any longer. up+l+and 06:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone could rewrite the copyvio in their own words and flesh out the article again . . . Dlohcierekim 02:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Uh, I tried that but much of that speech is, with all due respect to Senator O'Connell, POV garbage. I salvaged a little bit of it but I wouldn't spend much more time with that speech. --Richard 22:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge I have removed the POV copyvio, leaving a stub. :) Dlohcierekim 14:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Education in Germany --Peta 06:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is actually distinctive from the generic Education in Germany article, It really needs fleshing out but this is a legitimate subject, while it was the ancestor to much of Modern Germany's educational system it is quite distinct.Moheroy 12:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge per NeoFreak. Markovich292 02:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per User:Moheroy. This article is in serious need of expansion but it should NOT be deleted.
Consider this link
Here's a quote from the intro paragraph of the above webpage
Among other achievements, the early Prussian state set standards of public administration and education still in place today.
And this link
In a profound sense, the public schools are not an American institution. They were modeled on the system of public education found in authoritarian Prussia in the early 19th century.
And finally this link
the designs of Chalotais were first introduced not in France but in Prussia, where our public education system was born

--Richard 06:37, 20 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, Ezeu 19:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep See the German Wikipedia [27] for material that could be included on Prussian educational innovations. Clarification: I wrote this after the article was rightly cut back to a stub with the removal of the senatorial WP:BOLLOCKS. Leibniz 23:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN It has been completely rewritten and has some actual informative content now. Djcartwright 21:49, 22 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 16:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Of Purgatory[edit]

This is a non-notable game (that also fails the proposed WP:SOFTWARE). Searching for the title and "role playing game" yields no results. Erechtheus 19:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Obvious hoax. Writing and maintaining a game like that would be a major undertaking. I've written professional multiplayer games. I know. - Richfife 20:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.UberCryxic 23:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious hoax.--Janarius 13:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Glen 12:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of German given names[edit]

This article was proposed for deletion by WP:PROD twice, so it has to go to WP:AFD. This list is an unsourced almost indiscriminate collection of information. The contents (list of names used in Germany) do not correspond to the title. Delete per WP:NOT and the complete lack of prose content. (It is also most probably copied from somewhere). Kusma (討論) 19:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, unsourced and it isn't an article - just a list! --Alex (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can it get more listcruft than this? --Ezeu 21:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki Wiktionary has appendices for names. Move it over there. Mgm|(talk) 21:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Peta 04:23, 27 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crichton Leprechaun[edit]

WP:PROD contested by anon. Original concern was "not encyclopedic". Seems to be a random YouTube fad. Delete as non-notable recent event. Kusma (討論) 20:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC) Delete as clearly not encyclopedic. PatGallacher 00:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either Keep or merge with the Internet phenomenon page. The video may have been a fad, but it reached a pretty big audience and is notable enough among teenagers and college students. --PatadyBag 04:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Would have to concur with Patadybag, seeing as it would only be big enough for a stub on its own.Norton112200 22:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep HAhah.. this was one of those HILARIOUS internet video clips. Like the star wars kid. I'm amazed you guys haven't heard of it. --DjSamwise 04:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fun it may well be but that does not mean it must have a place in Wiki Nigel (Talk) 12:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Keep As stated earlier, this story deserves to be linked to the internet phenomena. As it was broadcasted on television and also reported on the internet, it is an article which can have references added to it.--pg07 10:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep belongs in the growing category of internet phenomena viewed by hundreds of thousands of people. Sfacets 02:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nominator doesn't want this deleted, and nor does anybody else. To me, this edit, where an editor nominated the article for speedy deletion on the grounds of it being patent nonsense, which it patently is not, appears to be simple vandalism. And this entire discussion has sprung up out of a good faith followup to a piece of vandalism. Uncle G 12:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khaleej Times[edit]

Page was incorrectly speedied; I'm sending it to regular AFD instead as a matter of procedure. Personally, I think it needs NPOV cleanup but shouldn't be deleted outright. --Alan Au 20:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but PLEASE clean this article up. Wildthing61476 20:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as a notable newspaper (a useful way for those of us with no Arabic to follow events in that part of the world). Needs a cleanup and probably an expansion, but should definitely be kept. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 21:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. The Khaleej Times is the Gulf's most important English-language newspaper. In case anyone wonders whether many people in the Gulf read English papers, let me remind them that a majority of individuals in the most Gulf emirates are South Asian expatriates; the Khaleej Times is thus the largest paper in the Emirates. This debate should be closed immediately. Hornplease 23:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - all free(not as in price) Arab newspapers are notable.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:45, 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. While tempted to relist this due to lack of consensus, looking at the history, I can see that this article was written almost entirely by an employee (or other person with a conflict of interest) of GFI Solutions, so I am applying my admin's discretion with deleting this article. I have no problems with having this article rewritten by a neutral party as long as the content conforms with Neutral point of view policy. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GFI Solutions[edit]

Here we go again. Reads like an advert. Created by GFIsolutions (talk · contribs) and all subsequent edits being by an anon who also linked to the list of ERP vendors, from which web links and redlinks are routinely removed. 564 googles of which 137 unique, private company, no turnover, no evidence of impact, no evidence of meeting WP:CORP. Canonical spam, in other words. Guy 19:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. WP:NOT. --Nishkid64 19:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a new user to Wikipedia, I agree that I may have gotten a little overenthusiastic. I would very much like, if possible, to create an article that answers Wikipedia requirements. I will definetely review the links created, and have remove the one you mentionned. However, I do note in the regulations thata company which has been written about in the press is eligible. We have had a number of articles published in the media, including the Gazette, Les affaires, Plant Enginnering, Gestion Logistique, Le Devoir. Admittedly these articles are all Canadian-based, but they are widely read on a local basis. These articles are referenced on our website. We are also a subsidiary of GFI Informatique, which is a public company. I am not sure of the regulations for this situation. Tanja Gehring.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TGehring (talk • contribs)
    • TGehring does make a valid point. I do not personally know if these newspapers are popular in Canada, because if they are, then it meets one criterion of WP:CORP. --Nishkid64 20:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Newspapers re-hashing a company's press releases ("we have had a number of articles published") does not count. What counts is journalists writing articles of their own about the company. If you can cite any articles of the latter kind, please do so. Uncle G 09:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In response the last comment, all the articles I mentionned were written by journalists about our company, as stipulated in the criterion of criterion of WP:CORP. Here are 2 links that serve as example: Catching the wave of the future, from the Gazette. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.225.38 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-14 11:59:18
        • That's the sort of stuff that we are looking for. More than 1 article is needed, however. Please cite more. Also: Are there any independently written books about this company? Have any consumer organizations written detailed reports about it? Uncle G 12:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, here is a more complete list of articles. Some are in French, given our geography. They are all

independent writings, and widely read in Quebec. In answer to your last question, GFI has not been covered in book or consumer organizations.

cATCHING THE WAVE OF THE FUTURE/ Desjardins hires outside help for smart card transition, from IT BUSINESS CANADA/ La carte magnétique désuète dès 2008, from LES AFFAIRES/GFI Solutions commandite des gazelles, from DIRECTION INFORMATIQUE Signed: TGehring

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Petros471 20:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but integrate the sources in the article so another editor doesn't renominate it. (Since you're the one with the stake in the article, TGehring, you should do it.) ColourBurst 01:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the suggestion. I have added links to the articles within the external links section.Signed: TGehring
  • Am I the only one who feels uncomfortable that the only substantive edits to this article are by a throwaway account with the company's name and the by company's "Data Provider"? Guy 09:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam, no independent evidence of notability. --Peta 04:23, 27 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 Woulda speedied but too slow, so slow speedy delete. Glen 12:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tammy Nagalingam[edit]

I don't think every unsuccesful, insignificant candidate for political office needs their own page. Anyone disagree? Nekohakase 21:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, got 0.35% of the total vote and 0.00% notability. Punkmorten 18:09, 22 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 16:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Gillon[edit]

Completely non-notable person, CSD continues to be removed. Brining to AfD so that this article may be reviewed and salted. Wildthing61476 21:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete. WP:Bio, WP:Hoax, No relevant Google hits. Scottmsg 22:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete because it is stupid. Danny Lilithborne 01:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Speaking of which, if the CSD kept being removed why couldn't an admin just speedy the page and protect against recreation? Cynical 12:15, 22 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 as repost

Bobgasm[edit]

Patent nonsense Rat 21:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is a repost. It was nonsense before and it is nonsense now. I have posted a {{speedy}} tag.--Anthony.bradbury 21:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. We've dealt with this one before, it's still nonsense, and no-one's put an argument as to why it's worthwhile. Pseudomonas 23:02, 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 15:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proxima Technology[edit]

Does not establish notability per WP:CORP, prod removed without comment. --Alan Au 21:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please explain what this means--I cannot find this explanation anywhere ("does not establish notability"). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeder1 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 21 September 2006
    • Notability for companies is defined here: WP:CORP. If the com,pany has been the subject of an article in a magazine or newspaper, please add a reference to the published article in the references section of your article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood. I added references to four publications referencing Proxima--hopefully that's enough to establish notability. Thanks. Johan Eder 22:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP. Arbusto 02:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd previously deleted this article as CSD A7 and urge careful consideration by Jeder1 as to if you expect that this company really deserves an article in an encyclopedia. (Admins, please note CSD A7 doesn't qualify an article for G4 speedy re-deletion. From my understanding, it has to go through a VfD at least once to be eligable in the future.) ~Kylu (u|t) 04:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy deleted material technically doesn't qualify for any sort of G4 redeletion. However, it can always be reconsidered whether it will qualify under same speedy deletion criterion. (It's an entirely different matter, however, whether the article qualified for A7 in the first place. A7 doesn't clearly spell out that corporations qualify, in my opinion, thus, nonnotable corporations don't qualify for A7. Which is a shame.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that this company does deserve an entry in Wikipedia--they have been around for ten years, have many customers, and have been referenced in a number of publications and magazine articles. I don't know what CSD A7 means, or G4, or what a VfD is--I'm just trying to write an entry that's germane and acceptable; this is my first attempt at a Wikipedia entry, and I picked a company that I feel is a leader in its space. Johan Eder 04:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, WP:CSD (various rules of what material is completely unwarranted and will be deleted on sight; A7 is nonnotable people/groups, G4 is deleted content that has been reposted), WP:VfD (old name for Articles for Deletion). Apologies; Articles for Deletion is regrettably a little bit jargon-heavy place. =) You may also want to look at the mysterious WP:G and even WP:WP. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination as non-notable and rather vague. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I don't understand--then why is one of Proxima's competitors allowed to have a listing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Fuel)? Johan Eder 22:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • AfD debates don't create binding precedents and deletion rules, only "similar cases" that can sometimes be referred to. The people were allowed to make the article, just as anyone was allowed to make this article. All deletion debates are unlinked, and notability of each article is assessed independently of each other. If anyone feels Digital Fuel doesn't fulfill the notability criteria, they're free to nominate that article for deletion too. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the sources introduced are not about the company, they fail to rise to the WP:CORP level. We get thousands of new articles created a day, that one had never been discussed for deletion. But I see no evidence that it merits inclusion, so I'll get on that. GRBerry 02:42, 23 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 13:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Webb[edit]

Just doesn't seem notable enough? Input from ornithologists welcome, but this person just doesn't strike me as being notable at all. Camillus (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He is apparently the first person to record a sighting of the mongolus race of the Lesser Sand Plover in Britain. This is a notable accomplishment. --

TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lesser Sand Plover article says its a subspecies - "race" is a weird anthromorphic way of describing the animal which inflates the significance of the difference.... "The Sockeye Salmon is a distinct race from the Pink Salmon". Bwithh 14:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is an important ornithological scientist working on seabirds in the North Atlantic region - MPF 22:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IF sourced. If not, do what happens to unverified articles. Arbusto 02:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:V, WP:BIO. Unsourced, unverified article which even admits that the main claim to fame hasn't been confirmed yet (I'm not sure where the idea that this guy is an "important ornithological scientist" comes from - he's likely just an enthusiastic birder - bird-watching is very popular as an fun amateur hobby in the UK. And even if the sighting claim is confirmed, I don't think the discovery is of encyclopedic note. Its not the discovery of a new species. Its a claim that a non-UK subspecies has been spotted for maybe the first time in the UK - this doesn't make the person claiming this so notable that we need his life story. Single hit from a search for "Andy Webb AND plover" on the Factiva database - a 2001 interview with Andy about the excitement of birdwatching in the local newspaper Aberdeen Press & Journal but which doesn't mention the claimed plover discovery. Bwithh 14:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment came here to reply to two comments made above (which I noticed late last night), but Bwithh has beat me to it. Agree - if he's an "important ornithological scientist" then the article should be able to be expanded to include his accomplishments. (Like, there are tons of archaelogists, but until they discover something of note or publish something notable, they don't deserve an article). As it stands at the moment, the only thing notable is that he spotted the bird mentioned above - perhaps a one-liner in the article for the bird mentioning Mr. Webb? I tend to to think that the bird might be notable for venturing out of it's normal area, not the guy who spotted it - and the governing body itself doesn't seem to have verified the claim, anyway. Google doesn't seem to be too fruitful in offering up anything of note, so I guess it's up to Wikibirders to explain why this guy deserves an article. Camillus (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed the birding claim isn't very important, but his scientific publications are (e.g. [28], [29]; a google search webb seabird produces a few more) - MPF 01:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep iff this can be sourced, as of right now there are no references. Yamaguchi先生 23:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Amin Ahsan Islahi. - Bobet 22:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tadabbur[edit]

Redundant stub. Already mentioned on Amin Ahsan Islahi. Nekohakase 21:43, 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. AfD is not a vote, and this article shows no evidence of meeting WP:WEB. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madness Combat[edit]

De-proded. This flash animation series is pretty popular on Newgrounds and other forums, there's no indication that it has received any outside attention that would meet the requirements of WP:WEB. 593,000 Google hits for "Madness Combat" only represents 478 unique hits. Scientizzle 21:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN. Arbusto 02:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but Madness Combat is more than a movie. It's a deep psychgological examination of mans inhumanity to man. Hank isn't a mass murderer because he just decided to become one, he had a genuine interest andplan, on that isn't in any way unusual, and some guy punched him in the face.

    If you delete this page, it will be re-created. I guarantee it.

    -George Zimmer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.222.244.46 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-22 10:30:12

    • Simple re-creations of deleted content are deletable by any administrator on sight. Uncle G 15:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've heard of (and seen) the flash animation, but it doesn't meet WP:WEB. Delete and if is IS recreated, salt the earth. Wildthing61476 12:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • -? If this page does get deleted, it will be right back up in a few days... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.184.253.101 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-22 14:15:19
  • Delete and Protect Considering two threats to recreate the article, lets just salt the earth on this one now --Roninbk t c # 23:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a notable subject. This was in Wikipedia's Flash Improvement Collaberation (something to that effect, forgot the exact name) where articles on flash topics were chosen from time to time and improved. Does anyone know the exact name of that project, because I can't seem to find it on here. 12.218.144.147 02:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Found it! Wikipedia:Macromedia Flash Cartoon Collaboration of the Week 12.218.144.147 02:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That three editors, in a now defunct project, chose to work on an article has nothing whatsoever to do with notability. You aren't citing sources to demonstrate that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. Please cite sources. That is how to demonstrate notability. Uncle G 08:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia notability criterions are kinda "high" for flash animations, Madness is an icon of flash animation, and is to bad that is gonna be deleted - RoQ 15:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about the fact that the cartoons have gotten many awards from Newgrounds, and Krinkels' batting average is 4.3/5? The thing is, it's impossible to link directly to this information, but if you go to one his cartoons here: http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/58182 and then click "Profile" under "Krinkels" on the left side, and scroll down, it displays them. That counts right? 12.218.144.147 20:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. --Charlesknight 00:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I added links to Newgrounds and UGO Player to show it's popularity. It's a very popular and high ranked series on very popular sites. Millions and millions view it, if this isn't notable, I don't know what is. 12.218.144.147 17:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: WP:WEB states that Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such content will be complete regardless. For example, Ricky Gervais had a podcast distributed by The Guardian. Such distributions should be nontrivial. Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial. I have never heard of UGO player so cannot comment upon it. --Charlesknight 17:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Type in UGO Player on Google, and a link to Madness Interactive comes up under the first result. Anyway, I read that part about Newgrounds, does that mean that it doesn't matter at all how popular a cartoon is? Look at Xombie. Theres' a whole section of awards from Newgrounds. If I were to do that to the Madness Combat article, would that save it? 12.218.144.147 18:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article appears to be facing deletion. This is most unfortunate. Madness Combat is an icon, a hero, a pioneer of flash animation. It has forever changed internet culture. It is disappointing that a reliable third party source hasn't come out and said this, but it's true. I understand that Wikipedia's rules are Wikipedia's rules, and that a mere user's plea, an anonymous user at that, cannot prove notability. This is very disappointing, but I accept the fate of this article. It appears to be evident that the enormous popularity of the series and superb effort presented in this article shows notability, but it appears that WP:WEB is far too strict. Most disappointing, but I understand that the rules are the rules and exceptions can't be made, so I need to be mature and step back. I need to display the white flag, to lay down my sword and admit defeat. Mabye in the future a third party source will display itself and this article can be resurrected. But for now, I step back and let what happens happen. 85.214.50.115 02:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Madness has been an insanely popular webtoon for the past couple of years, often attaining the number one slot as Newground's most popular flash for its newer episodes. It has also spawned a significant number of copycat flashes and there is a wide fan base awaiting new additions to the series. For these reasons, and for the fact that several other Newgrounds icons (such as Pico, Xiao Xiao, and Xombie) all have their own articles, Madness should stay. It's more than notable enough to warrant a place on Wikipedia. In fact, attempts to delete this article seem completely baseless and without reason. To be honest, the only problem I have with it is the POV (which definitely comes off as fanboyish), but even that shouldn't count as an excuse to delete the whole thing. RPH 13:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Attempts to delete this article seem completely baseless and without reason"? And yet, there's still no claims to meet WP:WEB. Find one reliable 3rd-party source that has discussed this, please. Citing the existence of other articles does not address the notability of this article; to wit, however, from the links above: Pico lacks any assertion of notability (and I have tagged it as such), Xiao Xiao does have one link to outside coverage (Nike lawsuit), & Xombie is reportedly being made into a movie. Does Madness Combat have outside coverage or a movie deal? -- Scientizzle 17:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are plans to release a DVD after Madness 10 - RoQ 21:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Really? A professionally released DVD (not a DVD version of a vanity press)? With a citation from a reliable source? Please share. -- Scientizzle 03:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Autor says that on the official forum, thats the only source i know, but i can believe that because is pretty well known that Tom Fulp is paying him to make more cartoons RoQ 21:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, if this survives AfD, I hope you'll take it upon yourself to trim all the rampant POV. -- Scientizzle 17:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per RPH. --Simonkoldyk 16:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per RPH. --RoQ 17:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per RPH. --User:Physicbuddha
Comment please note that this is the first edit Physicbuddha has made to Wikipedia. --Simonkoldyk 21:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I think that this is relevant enough to deserve it's own page. It is widely known, even outside of Newgrounds. I've had friends who always thought that Newgrounds was a porn site, but they still knew what Madness Combat was. It is a very well known piece of Internet Media. -MentosC 21:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's "widely known, even outside of Newgrounds", where's the 3rd-party coverage? -- Scientizzle 03:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, salt the earth, strike top-level detrimental comments from this discussion: no assertion of notability whatsoever. WP:HOLE applies for me personally, I get the feeling this Flash cartoon receives strong support from the 14-15 male demographic based on its content. The arguments that this is "widely known" are baseless to me, Newgrounds fails WP:WEB (by name even); cite "widely known" and until then, the threats that this page will be recreated after deletion warrant a protect in addition to adding another reason for deletion -- users willing to violate WP policy to make the article persist. -- On an additional note, this AfD is getting out of control from anonymous users. User:85.214.50.115's soapboxing, User:12.218.144.147's replies out of thread, User:168.184.253.101's threat to recreate, and User:209.222.244.46's threat to recreate (at the top level of this discussion, as opposed to nested) need to be moved or struck. They are detrimental to the discussion and hurt the eyes when glancing down the right side for a consensus. No contribution to the AfD is made by these comments. If it doesn't start with bold, can we strike or move it please? --JStalk 22:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The effort put into this series is commendable. Also each episode has recieved at least 500k+ views. The most recent, Antipathy, has over 1 million views. This should meet WP:WEB. --User:jrpattonUser talk:jrpatton 22:50 EST, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • This user's only contribution has been to this AfD. -- Scientizzle 03:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with vast rewrite There is a lot of original research and heavily biased writing in this article. This is way too long for a simple, yet popular flsh series. Many of the comments strewn throughout the article seem more like fan comments made by "Look at me, I'm on wikipedia!" people. Orichalcon 13:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fun game and I have played it before but it doesn't meet WP:WEB. Whispering(talk/c) 17:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't a game. You should read the article. -MentosC 22:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 22:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nutt[edit]

Minor local phenomenon, if it exists at all MPF 21:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.UberCryxic 23:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Arbusto 02:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a real, albeit currently local, drug being used. I am working on citations for it currently. Not sure why info on a new methamphetamine derivative would not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Bwikified 20:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of user's 10 edits, 7 are to the article in question. William Pietri 16:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable if local. Uncited text should be removed from article before going to an AfD. JASpencer 10:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A search on Erowid.org yields nothing related to a drug called "nutt." Donbert 04:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It'll never get on erowid if this information is suppressed. No reason to delete this. Texaspete 11:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be on a site like Erowid before it gets onto Wikipedia. This article seems to only contain original research. I checked out the references and couldn't find anything relevant to nutt. Though to be fair, this was as far as I got with the last reference. I couldn't seem to find the article it mentions. Donbert 06:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find anything to verify this. The NEJM reference, which seems to be the only cite, does not appear in their search results for "nutt" and the article title does not appear in Google, unlike a randomly selected article, which has plenty of mentions on the web. Similarly, I can't find anything on Google for the cited author. And searching on Google for "nutt methamphetamine nutmeg" yields nothing related in the first 10 pages of results. There's nothing on Google News for either "nutt nutmeg" or "nutt methamphetamine". I'll apologize profusely if I'm wrong, but this looks like a hoax to me. William Pietri 16:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It LOOKS like a good article at the outset, but at BEST the artcle should be merged with Methaphetamines. It reads more like a neologism than a new topic. The recipe described is a simple crystal meth recipe, with a few trivial additions (like the nutmeg??? So your meth tastes like Egg Nogg? Is this Christmas Meth?). I checked the only web reference, and it is just a general reference for Methamphetamines. IF the article is notable, the term would show up elsewhere. --Jayron32 02:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has anyone got access to the citations. Do any of them mention Nutt? If they don't I'll withdraw my keep vote. JASpencer 22:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC) 22:19, 28 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. - Bobet 13:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Football League lore[edit]

Even if this were referenced, which it isn't, would an encyclopedia be the place for a collection of what is essentially fan trivia? Surely there must be a sister project or some other home where the verifiability and neutrality issues of uncited fan trivial lists would not be such a problem as they are here? Guy 22:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Why Make a special page for several Trivial events when we can just add them to team's history section? POV is another issue, as different fans have different views towards an event and its significance. --ShadowJester07 01:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the nice thing about this article is that there are a bunch of trivial events in one article. There are votes to add events to the list. There's a bunch of information in this that link to different pages that are significant to the NFL, specific pages like "The Drive" which isn't even linked in the Denver Broncos page. I'd hate to see this article go, it was a great article to read as a football fan. Thanks for taking the fun out of wikipedia guys.--Aviper2k7 01:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hopelessly POV. Many people (myself included) have agonized over which events to put in it, which to remove, etc. It's a crazy hodgepodge of things now. Kirjtc2 01:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though maybe with a new title like Notable Games in NFL History. It's a good listing of memorable games, with many events linking to a larger page. I don't feel that verifiability will be a problem given the numerous resources about the NFL. This needs cleanup, not deletion. SliceNYC 12:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, granted it can be POV but there is a general concensus that games that are given "nicknames" are considered lore, while a fan of a team that scored 20 points and came back to win would think that it deserved to be here. The article should be cleaned up and refer only to games with nicknames. BrianZ(talk) 21:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Aviper2k7 Calwatch 09:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per SliceNYC Coasttocoast 19:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep ... I agree with BrianZ there. Clean up what doesn't need to be there, but I love this article and I think it should stay. --Smoke Rulz 21:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SliceNYC. Enough of these moments are linkless that it would be a shame to lose them altogether. TrinityClare 06:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep football is part of American culture, and these moments help illustrate why --Alcuin 21:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I got to the page through the link on Holy Roller, and I had to read the deletion template twice before I believed it. This is an excellent example of a list worth having; the category doesn't present the events chronologically or with summaries (to search within the page for that play with the name you can't quite recall), so this article really adds something useful. [I signed this later than added it, sorry.] --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 00:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 13:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seitou Ryu[edit]

non-notable karate club. Nekohakase 22:07, 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, we don't keep around copyvios (it's from [30]) in the hope that someone would edit them at some point in the future. If you want an article about him, write one, don't copy an eulogy (or anything else for that matter). - Bobet 13:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Gibson[edit]

Looks like a copy/paste obituary. An unencyclopedic mess. StuffOfInterest 22:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete but without prejudice. The subject seems to be a notable wrestler, as the first page of "Ricky Gibson"+wrestling Google results indicate. ... discospinster talk 23:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopaedic, more of a eulogy from a personal friend Gillean666 00:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Micheal Hayes made that eulogy, time to stick it to WWE for closing off Youtube videos. Unencycopedic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr. R.K.Z (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete, seems to be an advertisement for a personal friend. Wencer 01:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, This is just a cut and paste directly from wwe.com, Ricky Gibson was a great Wrestler, but if someone is going to do an article don't just cut and paste from another website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ozscouser (talk • contribs) . - first edit
  • Keep, HOWEVER, however this badly needs a re-write. Subject is notable, and really did die. mikemoto 10:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Very unprofessional, has no place here. baysidebrunette - first edit
  • Delete, It looks like something that was taken from wwe.com, The article needs to be better researched. User:Rhall4
  • Delete, Nice Eulogy from P.S. Hayes, but clearly not encyclopedic. Dark Avatar
  • Keep, The guy is notable. Why not edit it? OsFan 01:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but make it more suitable for this site! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.39.156.37 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep, Keep it keep it keep it, keep the entry and edit the content so it is encyclopedic. Sorry for being honest, but the only reason people are saying delete is because they probably don't think anything pro-wrestling should be included in "their" wikipedia. Just another reason I say this site is full of wiki-nazi's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.41.36.194 (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. - Bobet 13:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Lawrence[edit]

non-notable.vanity page... Nekohakase 22:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Agreed. - Triviaa 23:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN Arbusto 02:20, 22 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. Mo0[talk] 01:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Castle of Dreams[edit]

Article is a non-notable message board that is very small --- 164.107.252.198 22:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete nom started by 164.107.252.198. No reason given. Yomanganitalk 22:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete painfully crufty. Danny Lilithborne 01:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:WEB and general hopelessness. I can't believe this has been around since April!!! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per above --Casper2k3 05:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wow... don't forget to rid us of the picture as well. Punkmorten 17:53, 22 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 redirected back to ethnic stereotype. No need to debate that in AfD. Zetawoof(ζ) 04:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White imperialism[edit]

there's nothing here! Nekohakase 22:30, 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. (aeropagitica) 04:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woshy Wanny[edit]

Non-notable band that hasn't even released an album yet. Nekohakase 22:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If they release the album and go on the international tour, the article can be recreated. But currently, the only real gHit for the band is their wikipedia entry. --- The Bethling(Talk) 01:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Belongs on MySpace. Punkmorten 17:51, 22 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. Try commons. - Mailer Diablo 15:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flower gallery[edit]

WP:NOT a collection of photos. Already nominated once (see discussion), but people in the previous discussion seemed unaware of Wikipedia:List of images/Nature/Plants/Flowers, so it's kind of redundant. howcheng {chat} 22:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that many of the "keep" votes from the first go-around were conditional on the gallery being annotated. It's been six months and no such thing has occurred. howcheng {chat} 15:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The statment that wikipedia is not a collection of photos is in dispute at the moment. Also, the page that you pointed out is a project page, not an enclopedia entry like this one. On top of that, it's about to be moved to the commons. This page is encyclopdeic material. Lots of paper encylopedias have galleries. We need this in the encyclopedia, not tjust the administration. Tobyk777 00:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First of all, the title flower gallery would only be appropriate for an article which described what a flower gallery was. More importantly, though, lists of images are not considered appropriate encyclopedic material, per WP:NOT ("mere collections of photographs or media files"). Zetawoof(ζ) 04:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That part of WP:NOT is disupted. And tons of encyclopedias have image galleries. Tobyk777 22:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, we have a whole catagory of galleries. Tobyk777 22:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There appears to have been some discussion of the policy on image galleries, but it doesn't seem to have gone anywhere since May. And the existence of a whole category for image galleries suggests that we need to figure out what to do with the rest of them. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are hundreds of thousands of flowers, so this gallery can never be anything but an arbitrary collection. Wikipedia doesn't need galleries: unlike paper encyclopedias, wikipedia has easy access to commons. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 10:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete May I add: Wikipedia is not Flickr. Guyanakoolaid 09:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Lauder-Frost (fourth nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 04:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phlormunki[edit]

The term plhormunki is non-notable. Google shows only 2 hits, the Wikipedia article and the blog-comment that spawned the Wikipedia article. Additionally, the robot (floor monkey) is non-notable: "floor-monkey BEAM" gives 35 hits, "floor-monkey robot" gives 40 hits. Sanguinity 22:43, 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 keep. - Bobet 12:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Avery Rockefeller[edit]

I don't see anything notable about this man besides his famous son. Triviaa 22:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • very weak keep a borderline case indeed but there might be enough sources to compile something non-trivial and the anecdote about Pulitzer is interesting. But I won't cry if this is deleted especially since maintaining POV will be hard since there's a good chance that sources on the guy will be gossipy in nature. Pascal.Tesson 01:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per other articles like this.[32] W.A.'s biography paints a historic perspective on Rockefeller's business and biography that some might search for on wikipedia. Arbusto 02:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Merge to John D. Rockefeller - in the same way as the external article that Arbustoo highlights above (an article which is primarily about the son, not the father - the father's bio being just used as extra contextual detail). Not notable outside the link with his famous son. In terms of his son's article, a brief explanation of his father's life (and the related media interest) would certainly be worthy details Bwithh 02:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tentative Keep I had a rethink on this and now consider my original note a bit hasty - if the media frenzy can be verified, I think that's sufficient justification in itself for a separate article, and okay, there may be some justification for a subarticle to save space in the main John D Rockefeller article. Who says my heart is made of stone??!?!?!! Bwithh 02:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Bwithh--Peta 04:28, 27 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. Please discuss any viable merge targets on the article talk page. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congress high command[edit]

Contested prod. Term in not uncommon use in the Indian media, but basically a dictionary definition that does not extend knowledge beyond the obvious. I tried to replace it at one point with a redirect to the Congress' apex decision making body - its 'high command'- but that was removed by the pages creator, an anon editor with no other edits. The one line of "information" in it is unreferenced and actually incorrect. Hornplease 23:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It is common use in politics in India .There are 38000 google hits for the term.[33] So article should have place on wikipedia looking at interest . The article does inform what the term indicates. If the Congress high command and congress working committes are the same sure media would not specified Congress high command for some situations and Congress working committee for others.There are different terms . Hornplease says it is actually incorrect without providing reasons why it is incorrect .The reference is provided and no reference is no ground for deletion.Keep and allow time to develop .Shyamsunder 13:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Oh, please. The above comment is by the article's creator. I am not sure that his claim that the "media would have specified" needs an actual response. However, just in case: the media occasionally uses phrases like "the White House" and "the Hill" to refer to individuals or centres of power. The "Congress high command" is one such phrase which, as I said, is in fairly common use in India. I think the phrase itself cannot have an article much more than a dicdef, and could be speedied under the criterion that an article with content that adds no more information than the title meets WP:CSD. However, it also has a single line of information about the historical period when this title came into force, which is completely unreferenced and quite clearly WP:OR. "Allow time to develop"? Into what? What could possibly be added to an article about a term? Might as well have an article entitled Bombay Remote Control. What would be in that article that would not be in a Bal Thackeray article? Hornplease 02:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - are you trying to discredit his vote? The articles creator may know more on this phenomenon, which is a more useful term than "working committee"Bakaman Bakatalk 02:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is an incredible response. The Congress Working Committee is a specific organisation, the highest decision-making body of the Congress Party. A more 'useful term'? And I am not trying to discredit his 'vote', I am pointing out that his statements are not helpful or in line with WP policy. I should also add that the only factual assertion in the article claims that the term "began to be used" when Indira Gandhi "became Prime Minister" in 1971. This is factually untrue. She became PM in 1966. Hornplease 05:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, or merge Like a lot of political parties, there are formal structures and committees, and a "real" core leadership that's smaller. But in most cases the core is an individual leader, like Indira Gandhi, or Tony Blair, so we don't need another separate Wikipedia article about the leadership group. If the Congress high command is collective (and different from the formal committees) then develop this as a separate article, otherwise merge. Mereda 06:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no content to merge. "High command" is a phrase usually used in the states as a reference to the central committee in Delhi, or euphemistically to the supreme leader if there is one. So any content here will be speculative at best, OR at worst. Hornplease 07:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a term used in Media.  Doctor Bruno Talk 03:15, 24 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]], {{db-author}} per comment below. Guy 13:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Love Squared[edit]

Delete. Does not meet criteria for WP:NOTFILM. All of the actors mentioned are redlinked, as well as the production company and the director. No listing of "Love Squared" appears on IMDB. "Love Squared"+"Derek Robertson" shows 2 Ghits. It appears to be a student film. ... discospinster talk 00:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't Delete This film is an Canadian indie production set to be released on DVD worldwide in 2007, I have seen a test screening and this is what I based my entry on wikipedia on. Forgive me if I responded in the wrong area and direct me to where I am supposed to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drock85 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment The problem with the article is that it doesn't assert notability of the subject. If you want to keep the article, show us where this film meets the notability requirements listed in WP:NOTFILM. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 00:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 01:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not released yet and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No imdb listing. No sources cited to show that this film is one of the very few that is so important that it is making news even before it has been released. After the film is released and is proved to be important, an entry can be re-created without prejudice. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Withdraw my objection as I agree I can't prove notability User:Drock85
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental revolution[edit]

Apart from being a literal copy of this US government page, it doesn't quite cover the title and says little about any form of revolution. But well, that was the title of the EPA page it was lifted from... Perhaps a new page about this smallish NGO, but delete the present content first. JFW | T@lk 20:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - nice, a political speech, there just aren't enough of those around! Nigel (Talk) 12:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NigelR. Owen× ☎ 16:20, 29 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_21&oldid=1081097903"