Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 28 September 30 >

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 Speedily deleted and protected by Nishkid64 as repost of deleted content. Yomanganitalk 22:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam McNulty[edit]

A CSD (db-bio) which I and another editor can't get to stick. The gentleman in question knows people who are probably notable and claims to have managed a famous band. Methinks this last claim is a hoax, since his MySpace page lists him as being 14. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 00:11, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Ror's[edit]

Article reads as a work of original research, also the article may be a possible copyvip from the books listed in the article. Prod removed without reason by author. Wildthing61476 17:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:OR and WP:V, and that's being kind. The books are quite likely fictitious also. Sandstein 20:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR and WP:V ... and because after reading it, I still don't know what a "Ror" is! --141.156.232.179 22:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Ror (caste). The WP:V and WP:OR issues should be simply deleted. JASpencer 09:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Peta 04:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with above. Marcus22 16:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as above. You can see where somebody started tagging non-referenced statements and just gave up because of the volume of them. Sockatume 16:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as stated above, it does not meet standards. I hate to see such a large amount of information get deleted, but without sources, it has to go. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 16:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Dennisthe2 18:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agree with JASpencer that this needs to be merged after removing WP:OR and WP:V issues. However, it is far from clear that anything will be left after that removal, despite JASpencer's valiant efforts. By the end, I was expecting to hear how the Rors built the Great Wall of China and invented the Internet. It is very unfortunate considering that the Ror caste is noteworthy and the Ror (caste) article is quite stubby. —BozoTheScary 21:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above.UberCryxic 23:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything salvageable, per above. The title won't be a useful redirect, though, so it could be deleted after this is done.--Cúchullain t/c 08:06, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toki Wright[edit]

A veritable mess of an article, with lots of claims but no actual evidence of notability. No entry in allmusic.com (The C.O.R.E., which he seems to be a member of has its album listed, but no actua; entry); zero news hits on Newsbank; Google finds are mostly myspace links; awards (if he got them) are local; no evidence on mtv.com that he had a visible role in "Made". I don't see anything that puts him over the WP:MUSIC threshold, but if there is, maybe at least this AfD can result in cleaning up the article. ~ trialsanderrors 17:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - He's fairly well known in the local Twin Cities hip-hop community, but I'm not so sure he meets the WP:MUSIC guidelines. In any case, the article needs a lot of work to get it to a point where it's acceptable. f(x)=ax2+bx+c 17:48, 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, Mailer Diablo 16:11, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

François Duprat[edit]

Non-notable Holocaust denier. No evidence for the many claims in article, despite author having a week to produce reliable sources on the subject. Jayjg (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite Yes, holocause deniers aren't high up on my list of favorite people, and the article is completely copyvio (I just marked it), but he's a notable figure and it does seem likely, well, not really, but at least plausible that he was assassinated - Richfife 15:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we have no information on him, how can we tell if he's notable? Jayjg (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - He gets 25.600 GHits, almost all relevant: [1] - Richfife 22:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell almost all of them are from Holocaust Denial websites, or various Wikipedia sites. I was only able to find one reliable source, and that one mentioned him more in passing. Are we going to be able to develop a whole article based on one newspaper article that mentions him in passing? Jayjg (talk) 03:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, if someone else wants to weigh in, that's cool. I don't want to spend much more time on this one. Makes me feel kind of icky. - Richfife 04:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject does appear notable as an extreme right wing French historian. There are many articles and one or two books about him (unfortunately not many on line sources). See this article in French wikipedia. Ohconfucius 03:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The original article has been deleted as a copyvio, but has been replaced by a rewrite that someone did on the /temp page. --RobthTalk 07:14, 29 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, Mailer Diablo 16:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. --Dennisthe2 18:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep - per Ohconfucius. --mathewguiver 20:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Richfife. Lots of hits for someone who died in 1978. Arbusto 00:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't agree with Holocaust deniers, however the information that is currently on the site seems verifiable. While many of the sites that refer to Francois Duprat are also Holocaust deniers, I found some reliable sources, since those are the two main reasons for deletion, I think they have been addressed Ratherhaveaheart 00:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My desire to see this git and his article burn in hell is outweighed by my recognition that someone has done a pretty good job rewriting the page from its copyvio state to establish notability and maintain NPOV and verifiability. As to the verifiability, however, it will need better sources.--Cúchullain t/c 08:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Duprat gets plenty of more or less non-trivial mentions in Chebel d'Appollonia's L'Extrême Droite en France (and in Igounet's Négationnisme if I remember right, but that appears to be hiding from me, so I couldn't check it,). Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Teanth 19:08, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Televised Revolution[edit]

nn blog, forum gets no activity, no alexa rating Giant onehead 22:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete few Google hits for a web site - more for the compound phrase. [2]AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:45, 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, Mailer Diablo 15:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Suspected non-notable. Google can only find nine websites linking to this one. Unless someone can find references suggesting notability, delete.Sockatume 16:55, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wedding Network[edit]

Contested prod. Nice looking website, but fails WP:WEB. Alexa ranking of 424,929 alphaChimp(talk) 22:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, vanity page. Gazpacho 01:33, 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, Mailer Diablo 15:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concur with above, no evidence of notability. Sockatume 16:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Maelnuneb (Talk) 17:06, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HarryPotter-Boards[edit]

fails WP:WEB, alexa rating of 1,791,801 [3] and it's basically a message board. Giant onehead 22:07, 19 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, Mailer Diablo 15:50, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoop Scoop[edit]

nn website, has almost no content, alexa rating of 1,595,801 [4] Giant onehead 21:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this really does seem a very short article promoting a non notable website Nigel (Talk) 12:08, 29 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, Mailer Diablo 15:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, concur with above. Non-notable, article will not grow beyond stub length. Sockatume 17:00, 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 speedy delete as non-notable bio. JDoorjam Talk 05:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Lanz[edit]

Non-notable pornographic films actress; no apparent hope of satisfying either WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Valrith 21:24, 19 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, Mailer Diablo 15:51, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On The Clock Draft[edit]

nn website, the interview people are barely notable at best, the alexa rating is now 2,113,592 and has never been in top 100,000 [5] Giant onehead 21:28, 19 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, Mailer Diablo 15:51, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Laskow[edit]

Procedural nomination to complete process - neutral; nominator's commnets "Wikipedia is not a advertising service for companies, people and friends. WIKIPEDIA is an ENCYCLOPEDIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dep. Garcia (talk • contribs) " Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 21:03, 19 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, Mailer Diablo 15:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - has 13700 google results, and 13 in newsbank. --mathewguiver 21:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Someone needs to source it. Arbusto 00:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable sources can be found for the claims to notability in the article. A Google search for "michael laskow" "eric clapton", for example, yields lots of non-reliable sources that say he has "worked with" Eric Clapton. And aside from the non-reliability of the sources, the exact nature of this "work" is not made clear, which is suspicious. With respect to Google hits for just "michael laskow", this suggests he has at most 278 unique Google hits. Pan Dan 00:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverified. Heimstern Läufer 03:30, 4 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 15:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DCSki[edit]

nn website, alexa rating is below 1 million [6] Giant onehead 21:01, 19 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, Mailer Diablo 15:53, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Walsh[edit]

One of a rash of articles recently created by the same editor on obscure Irish priests involved in sexual abuse cases, most of which utterly fail WP:BIO. None of the first 100 ghits on "Tony Walsh" match this particular person. In addition, the article has a few strange WP:NPOV violations (example: one headline reads "Exposed by Archdiocese - eventually"). Aaron 19:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - only notable for the one episode, which doesn't meet the criteria of WP:BIO. TewfikTalk 20:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, as far as I can tell the sources either make trivial mention or are all about the same incident, thus don't exceed WP:BIO "Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage."--Isotope23 00:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not every child molester deserves an encyclopedia article.--Cúchullain t/c 08:22, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DGform Multimedia[edit]

Contested prod: tag removed by anon, so listing here. Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. No real media coverage that I can find, not listed on stock exchanges, page reads like an ad (and everything from "Rinascimento" onward is a copyvio from here). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio means that the user thinks the article is a copyright violation, but I don't think DGform will complain for quoting the plot of their game. Second, DGform is based on "Rinascimento" series, so it would be useful to identify the team with the project. You can't find media coverage because the game is still being developed. Nevertheless, you can't help noticing the Team really exists, so you can't blame their presence in the "List of video game developers". - Armonite, 19:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.55.67.175 (talk • contribs)

  • We can't know whether they'd object or not, and the DGform page cited clearly states "Copyright (c) 2006, DGform Multimedia" at the bottom. As for the company itself, if its existence can not be confirmed via multiple independent reliable sources, then it doesn't belong here. If the game hasn't been released yet, and hasn't been the focus of significant attention during development, then the article violates our policy on speculation as well. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 02:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, you can sign your posts by adding a dash followed by four tildes, like so: -~~~~. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could write them and ask for a primary source such as a document stating their actual existence in formal and legal terms. After all, minor developers need more support than major ones, particularly operations like these, trying to merge videogame industry, arts and culture. It's likely they follow a different way to promote their product, that's why you can't find them on the ordinary promotion channels. Cultural oriented means like Wikipedia should be supposed to spread games like Rinascimento, more than the ones orientated to entertainment only, right? -151.55.89.241 19:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC) Armonite[reply]
  • Two points in response: First, no document provided by the company will meet our sourcing standards (see WP:RS, which states: "In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material...We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher."]). Second, Wikipedia should not be used to "spread" anything. It's an encyclopedia about things that are already notable, not a vehicle through which one can make non-notable things notable (see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, but encyclopedia has the precise purpose to spread culture, Wikipedia included. And when you spread culture, you usually spread info that not everybody know. Anyway, if you speak about renaissance period, florentine siege and Cinqucento life, culture and architecture you speak about "thing that are already notable". Moreover, WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox provides Self-promotion and Advertising if you manage to keep an objective point of view: I can't find any trace of propaganda language in DGform article! -151.55.70.199 23:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC) Armonite[reply]
  • The top section of the "article" is written entirely in the first person from the company's perspective, which doesn't give it the appearance of even-handedness. Neither do passages like "Each DGform production is based on a powerful and captivating idea, a believable background and a well-conceived plot", or "In-depth research and superior attention to detail ensure the outstanding quality of DGform products." It also seems that you've overlooked the section of WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox which states, "Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small 'garage' or local companies are not likely to be acceptable." -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, non-notable fails WP:CORP. TewfikTalk 20:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Reads like a press release, not an encyclopedia article, so would have to be scrapped and rewritten if kept. Sockatume 17:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This company is not notable at this time. After the release of Rinascimento, this company may become notable, but until that time, this article does not belong on wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maelnuneb (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Leaf Norteños[edit]

Insufficiently notable set of the Norteños. No reason for a separate page. Delete (not merge because there really isn't anything notable enough to merge. --Nlu (talk) 18:15, 19 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, Mailer Diablo 15:59, 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. Rx StrangeLove 05:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viking Youth Power Hour[edit]

This article was prodded and actually deleted briefly by myself, but on further inspection I decided to restore it and send it to AfD to be sure, since this podcast seemed potentially notable to me. "Viking Youth Power Hour" gets nearly 20,000 hits, and it seems they have interviewed people notable enough to have Wikipedia articles about them. So, I decided to send it here to carry out the prod, get some opinions, and perhaps clean it up if it is indeed notable. No vote. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 21:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This article clearly fulfills the requirements as a biographical site, notable web content, etc. The Viking Youth Power Hour produces valuable research and interviews with high profile individuals of popular culture and discusses current events. Looking at the article shows how many of their shows have reflected the lives and cultural events of many of the subjects of articles from Wikipedia. It seems difficult to say that Wikipedia's validity as an entity is very discernable from the validity of the Viking Youth Power Hour's presence on Wikipedia as they spend much of their time extrapolating on similar subjects. Please keep this article around.— Sire 012 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is legit, for what it is worth...the Vikings have been around for awhile now and they've got one of the top counter cultural podcasts going (IMHO).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.189.73 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete, it may be legit, but it doesn't meet WP:WEB.--Isotope23 16:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep:

2. The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.
"The Viking Youth Power Hour was chosen as Chicago's Favorite podcast by the editors and readers of New City magazine in 2005."
This isn't a national award, but is still a third party award publicly voted on.
This podcast sells nothing and interviews and discusses the very things on Wikipedia while creating original culturally significant content.
perhaps i am confused but there are a multitude of articles on unsigned bands that do and say little other than they are great. where does the line exist? -emit_flesti 17:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can only speak for myself, but I don't think "...Chicago's Favorite podcast by the editors and readers of New City magazine in 2005..." constitutes a "a well known and independent award". As for the multitudes of articles on unsigned bands, there is a guideline at WP:MUSIC that covers musical acts. If they fall short of this they should probably be nominated for deletion.--Isotope23 18:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that was part of my point of it not being national. There are many 'well-known' awards that most people had any exposure to such as a Caddy, BDA an a slew of mathematics awards[7] only a small group of people have ever heard of. Not to make this a discussion on what makes an award well-known and independent but I think the Grammys are a sham but it's not up to me to dismiss that award as not fitting into my idea of an award. I suppose it will depend on the moderators decision on what a well-known award constitutes. -emit_flesti 16:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:

The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.[7]
+ - as well as self distribution and republishing through other aggragator channels VYPH is currently distributed by itunes music store which is one of the most well known as well as the most popular sources of podcasts.
+ - -- Justin Reed-Chicago, IL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.236.208.28 (talk • contribs)



~ Keep the Vikings up on Wikipedia- my life support is directly attached to this wikipedia entry and I'll die without it. -lupus le fou

  • Keep. heqs 04:15, 4 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 Deleting Soni Motors Thailand, Auto Retailing History in Asia andMotor Walah. Keeping M. Ahmed Quraishi and redirecting Quraishi Motors to it. Rx StrangeLove 06:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soni Motors Thailand[edit]

Incomplete nomination started by DeLarge, no opinion from me. Yomanganitalk 17:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • ?!? I haven't finished yet!!! Give me a sec! --DeLarge 17:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising - users only contributions seem to be to puff this company. See Toyota Hilux, Mitsubishi L200, etc, and this company seems to fail the notability test for businesses (barely 1000 Googlehits).

I am also nominating the following related pages because they're similar puff pieces on the company, its owner or founder:

--DeLarge 17:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not associated with Soni Motors in any way and have no interest in advertising them except history. I happened to live in India in the 90s and am an auto buff and learned about unique contributions of Indians to auto history and learned about Ahmed Quraishi and Sir Dorabji Tata. If there are articles about Tata and their whole family with links to their websites and descriptions of their businesses which are commercial in nature then IMHO, Ahmed Quraishi who was a true automobile industry pioneer should not be ignored.

I've now moved to Thailand and by sheer coincidence I end up buying a Vigo from Soni Motors and was amused to discover that they were a descendent of Ahmed Quraishi because the trail had gone cold in India and I was unable to find out what had happened to him after his emigration from India.

As I said, I have no interest in promoting them as I gain nothing but I do feel that his contributions to Asian automotive industry have been ignored. He is as much a legend as Tata in India, DAT founders in Japan and DeZousa in Sri Lanka - all visionaries in their own right who were instrumental in promoting auto industy in Asia.

There is a feeling among Indian Muslims that Ahmed Quraishi's contributions have been ignored because of his religion and I don't agree with them. Perhaps the real reason was because he migrated to Pakistan after his showrooms and buses were destroyed during the violence that were precipitated by the Partition of Indian Subcontinent. Johnfambrini 19:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)johnfambrini .[reply]

  • Delete all - there is an encyclopaedic article here trying to get out but these are not it. As presently structured they act as clever advertising even though they may not be intended that way. BlueValour 02:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable and full of NPOV claims regarding the company. Nothing said that couldn't be said of countless similar enterprises. Sockatume 17:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this is a multinomination so the votes can be taken, unless otherwise stated, to apply to all. All the articles were created by the same person at about the same time. IMHO they are all a means of advertising the one company. BlueValour 17:57, 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 already deleted, as spam per the deletion log. GRBerry 15:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EdgeBOX[edit]

100% spam. Does not meet WP:SOFTWARE. Parent company might also need to be AfD'd but going for the non-notable products first. Storkk 16:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete spam for non-notable software. JPD (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree as it appeared in objective and independent market research such as articles from independent publishers as VON and the IN Stat report IN0501821LN about Business Gateways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilio ines (talk • contribs)

Comment: market research is required to mention almost all players, no matter how insignificant. Market research is also not an article about the company or product, but about a range of products. --Storkk 17:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: we disagree again, as in a market research are only named major players that define the trends of the market, and not the ones that are insiginificant. This market research also dedicates one whole subchapter to edgebox, and being distinguish for its open-source approach. In the report only the following are analysed (in order of appearance):
- Cisco: ISR routers (which are available in wikipedia as the platform for "CallManager")
- Critical: edgebox
- Ericsson: HL950 Multi-Service Edge Device
- EmergeCore: IT-100 “IT-in-a-Box”
- Net Devices: SG-8 Unified Services Gateway
- Converged Access: CAP
- Alcatel: Right Vision
According with what could it be read on the definition of notable is: "The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports..." In this case, the market research can be, in my opinion, considered valid. Additionally the VON association, objective and independent, dedicated a publication to edgeBOX, as well when edgeBOX won the InfoVision Award 2005 to the best Broadband appliance or as a finalist to the Techworld award 2006 to the best product oriented to SMEs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilio ines (talk • contribs) 20:15, 18 September 2006
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable product, none of its features mark it out as worth its own encyclopedia entry. Reads like a piece of marketing material, so if it was kept it would have to be rewritten in encyclopedia style.16:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
To elaborate: article fails to establish what is unique about this product and worth recording in an encyclopedia: total lack of references, lack of comparison to comparable products to establish notability, lack of data regarding its success in either market terms of technical terms. Sockatume 16:43, 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 Speedy Delete per G7. --Nishkid64 00:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima Rainey[edit]

Previously marked for speedy deletion; Google search yields 552 unique hits, most of which seem to indicate that she has had a couple of hit songs -- but I can find no biographical articles or news coverage. I'm hesitant to speedy the article so I'm bringing it here. NawlinWiki 15:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete I've been unable to find anything showing notability for this artist. It appears that she only has the one album, and I'm unable to find anything thgat shows the album or songs have reached a level of notability to meet WP:MUSIC Wildthing61476 15:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wildthing, and suggest deleting Hey (Fatima Rainey song) along with it. -->So sayeth MethnorSayeth back|Other sayethings
  • Delete both this and the song per Wildthing. --Storkk 16:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not-notable. Fails WP:BIO. --Nishkid64 23:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, 2 albums on Warner Japan [8] [9]. Kappa 06:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please per WP:BIAS meets music guideline since signed with warner japan Yuckfoo 01:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 15:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete - article does not assert notability or provide any reliable sources. I might switch to keep pending a rewrite. --mathewguiver 21:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This link: http://www.wmg.jp/fatimarainey/ asserts notability. ファティマ・レイニー is not a super-star, but certainly just as notable as the average professional athlete. She is signed to a major label, that should be sufficient and satisfied criteria #4 of WP:MUSIC guidelines with two or more releases. [10] Yamaguchi先生 22:53, 29 September 2006
  • Keep per all above. Not very famous, but still good enough for Wikipedia.UberCryxic 23:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, two albums on Warner Japan should be enough. It's hard for most of us to know how notable a person is in Japan, she is probably more than we realize. bbx 23:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:MUSIC, two major label albums makes her pass our guidelines.  ALKIVAR™ 02:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above comments. RFerreira 22:43, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colleen AF Venable[edit]

Contested prod. To quote the prod reason: "No evidence from WP:RS that individual meets WP:BIO." MER-C 12:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article had been up on Wikipedia for months created by someone else before I tried to add to it. I have deleted most of what I added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.219.230 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per my original PROD. --Kinu t/c 13:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:45, 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 no consensus. Possible merge/redirect. W.marsh 21:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pantomath[edit]

I am aware of that; and if you consider this a dictionary definition there is nothing I can do about that. I thought an article was necessary as there was a red link from "polymath". Excuse my error, if it is an error; I have little experience of writing encyclopedia articles. The entire article in the Encyclopedia Britannica for "a posteriori knowledge" reads "knowledge derived from experience, as opposed to a priori knowledge (q.v.)." I take it Britannica's editorial team don't think they are writing a dictionary. This attempt is not a complete product. How I am to begin an article other than with a definition I do not know. DJMitch 13:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not a dictionary

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. An article should usually begin with a good definition; if you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers." DJMitch 13:40

  • OK, the article is not purely a definition. But I am unable to find any definition in any dictionary or encyclopedia that I own that refers to pantomath in this context. Even a search of google returns no relevant results for pantomath within any related context to polymath. In brief, I am not even convinced that the word or concept has any wide existence. Please try to convince me otherwise.Senordingdong 13:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I think that the word has any wide existence, any more than the concept it represents. "famous pantomaths" and "notable pantomaths" give 0 results on Google; "pantomaths" nothing relevant. However, before questioning this, or even whether the word ought to exist, perhaps one ought to question some of the statements in the article "polymath".

(I'm rather enjoying this. I've never had a threat of deletion before.) DJMitch 13:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have done some research, and I think the reference to "pantomath" in the polymath article was both redundant and unnecessary. The word has never been in any wide usage (if at all) amongst speakers of English, so I deleted the sentence. It detracts nothing from the article, so I feel that this was justified. But if you disagree, feel free to revert. Senordingdong 14:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I have no problem with your adjustment of that article. (I would not have written this one without what was said in that article before.) I will not be hurt if this article is in the end deleted. DJMitch 14:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, but preserve the term pantomath in the article (I am inserting it again). These webpages show that it is actually used in the context of polymath:

"In the words of a modern Australian poet, he appears to be "only interested in everything" - thus, less a polymath than a pantomath);" "the essays of W H R Rivers (another pantomathic doctor)" Kevin Jackson, 2004, The Independent on Sunday, [11]

"Well, I forget the rest. But I'd hate you to get the impression that I had nothing of substance to contribute to this stream of "bouncing, heady talk", as Empson once characterised the dazzling conversation of another English pantomath, Humphrey Jennings." Kevin Jackson, 2001, The (London) Independent [12]

"he is not a polymath but a pantomath" Rupert Hart-Davis, 1956 [13]

I do agree that the word is utterly obscure, and I could not find it in several dictionaries of obscure words. But two different authors, in two different eras have used them. Another Wikipedian 00:37, 19 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, Mailer Diablo 15:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


OK, How about we start with the definitons of "Dictionary" and "Encyclopedia" so that we can see what the differences are:

  • Dictionary

Main Entry: dic·tio·nary Pronunciation: 'dik-sh&-"ner-E, -"ne-rE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -nar·ies Etymology: Medieval Latin dictionarium, from Late Latin diction-, dictio word, from Latin, speaking 1 : a reference source in print or electronic form containing words usually alphabetically arranged along with information about their forms, pronunciations, functions, etymologies, meanings, and syntactical and idiomatic uses 2 : a reference book listing alphabetically terms or names important to a particular subject or activity along with discussion of their meanings and applications 3 : a reference book giving for words of one language equivalents in another 4 : a computerized list (as of items of data or words) used for reference (as for information retrieval or word processing)

  • Encyclopedia

Main Entry: en·cy·clo·pe·dia Pronunciation: in-"sI-kl&-'pE-dE-& Function: noun Etymology: Medieval Latin encyclopaedia course of general education, from Greek enkyklios + paideia education, child rearing, from paid-, pais child -- more at FEW

a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject

I think we can see by these definitons that the main difference is in the objective. That an encyclopedia links branches of knowledge. Obvously they both use words, it is in how the knowledge is organized. The Dictionary is discrete, has nothing to do with branches of knowledge. It is the linking of the term that raises it above mere dictionary status.

Keep So in conclusion I think we should keep the article and make it a stub until it can be further expanded per wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary as I see it now it violates no wiki rules and there is no merit to deletionTstrobaugh 17:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable term. Unless we get some referenced material (remember, Wikipedia is not for original research!) discussing pantomaths, or articles which are likely to link to pantomath, there's no use in an article. Sockatume 18:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does "non-notable" term mean? Since when do "terms" have to be notable? Cite some policy that this derives from.Tstrobaugh 19:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I in this context, where I've probably used the term "non-notable" scruffily, I mean that the term is pretty much unused. For example a search of the Wikipedia shows it's only referred to as a derivative of Polymath. We have plenty of illustrative articles and scholarly discussion of polymaths (much-referenced), but if you look out there, almost nobody uses the word "pantomath". It's practically a neologism. There's nothing to build an article around. Sockatume 02:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not so much a neologism, in fact it's ancient, it's greek. I see it as an alternative prefix to ..math, sort of like neoconservative, ultraconservative etc. It's a qualifier that creates a more distinguished subset of polymanths, the pantomaths. I mean that's what the word polymath does, distinguishes the highly gifted people from the ordinary, pantomath is simply the logical endpoint beyond which there can be none higher.Tstrobaugh 16:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm having a lot of trouble picking appropriate words lately. My point is that it's a term which is very seldom used, as it refers to something essentially hypothetical. I'm strugging to think how we can build an encyclopedic article of any real length around it, so I think it should be left as a note in the polymath article. Sockatume 18:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep possibly as Merge and redirect Rich Farmbrough, 12:05 4 October 2006 (GMT).

Keep possibly as Merge and redirect or as a stub seems like a good option to me, I'm reversing my old vote to keep. However, the current article would have to be changed, as some of its lines seem to convey the personal opinion of the editor, and not cross-referenced knowledge. Another Wikipedian 06:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Steel 20:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Porch Song Anthology[edit]

No proof of notability per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 20:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - 3 of the four members were formerly in Telstar Ponies, might help if the author popped that in. Ac@osr 21:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC) Changed my mind, Merge to Telstar Ponies - 3 of the four members were in that band and I don't think PSA have done enough to merit their own article as yet.Ac@osr 21:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or keep. Kappa 04:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They are touring England and Scotland, meets WP:MUSICGuyanakoolaid 08:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • England and Scotland are part of the same country: the United Kingdom (calling them seperate countries is like saying New York and California are different countries). TJ Spyke 06:09, 29 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, —Centrx→talk • 00:07, 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 delete. Dakota 00:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space Mercenary[edit]

Not yet released game, nono-notable if it was released. Does not meet WP:SOFTWARE, also crystal balling Wildthing61476 00:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While I applaud the article creator's honesty (by not using a sockpupput to create the article), its clear that it is intended as an advertisment for the allegedly upcoming program. It is also not note-worthy: why don't all developing programs get articles? No, I'm for delete on this one. LeyteWolfer 03:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 08:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and recreate it after the game being released. --V. Szabolcs 13:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would recommend recreating the article only after it meets WP:SOFTWARE. Just because it is released does not make it notable. Wildthing61476 13:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, You've stated that this program isn't note-worthy however it is one of the very, very few Visual Basic classic programs using DirectX to produce commercial looking quality without relying on another engine such as TrueVision. That in itself is note-worthy. As obviously this is prerelease I cannot release any screenshots publically though if you believe that this project isn't actually real I can send some screenshots to Wildthing on the understanding that they are not forwarded. If you still believe this article should be deleted you might as well go ahead. --BarnabySmith 15:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above comments. Re-create if / when the game is released. Prolog 16:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If after release it is determined that this game does meet WP:SOFTWARE, then a recreate would be warranted. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 17:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per ColourBurst. --mathewguiver 21:11, 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 Speedy Keep. --Nishkid64 00:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Henley[edit]

Does not meet WP:V. Not enough information to be certain who he is referring to. -Nv8200p talk 00:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I'd guess it is him unless there any other Thomas Henleys that fit the description. Yomanganitalk 00:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Meets WP:BIO as a member of the NSW Parliament for 30 years and the Australian Dictionary of Biography article cited above by Yomangani provides verifiability. Needs to be expanded to at least a stub but notable enough for inclusion. Capitalistroadster 04:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 04:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, per above. SquidSK (1MC--log) 08:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- stubs are articles too. Requires expansion, not deletion. - Longhair\talk 11:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 17:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and expand per above. --mathewguiver 21:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to easily meet WP:BIO to me. Lankiveil 21:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per all above.UberCryxic 23:26, 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 delete. Dakota 00:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite Sarcasm[edit]

Non-notable, lots of unverifiable info Subwayguy 00:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - WP:OR (not saved by the continual use of "quite"). Yomanganitalk 00:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 525 hits on google, most of which aren't related, no alexa ranking. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 02:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ultra-Loser's ghits and alexa rank. Clearly fails WP:WEB. -- IslaySolomon 03:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 08:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 09:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and WP:WEB or WP:OR. --Charlesknight 14:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Rglovejoy 23:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above.UberCryxic 23:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it as a nonexistent article For those who are unwilling to rack your brains (if any) in order to understand the forementioned paradox, it means delete. Reason: per all above. -- physicq210 03:49, 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 keep. Dakota 03:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blyth Inc.[edit]

Non-notable company per WP:CORP, when I asked the author to establish notability the response was this. Sandy 00:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - I can't see anything other than company press releases after a quick search, but I'll change my opinion if reliable sources can be provided. Yomanganitalk 00:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Talk:Blyth Inc.:
    I've removed the proposed deletion tag. The article explains why the company deserves an entry, even in its stubbed state. --Duk 23:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please establish notability per WP:CORP. Nothing currently on the page does that. Sandy 23:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fuck WP:CORP. I needed to know about sterno's parent company a while back, it took some time to unravel - so I wrote this article after figuring it out. That's why I know the article worthwhile, in addition to the other facts about the company in the article. --Duk 23:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately WP:CORP is what the article will be judged on here. Yomanganitalk 00:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CORP's introduction notes its purpose as removing spam/advertising. This isn't the case here. Following the letter of CORP when there is no violation of the spirit of CORP is just mind numbingly stupid. In this case a company is stealthy and flies under the radar, but is the parent company of various famous brand names. At least one of the brand names is famous enough to have its own article - but the parent company (allegedly) fails CORP. In a case like this CORP should be ignored. Also, any "Guideline" that proclaims that a company with ~5,000 employees not notable is fundamentally flawed and should be immediately deleted (assuming that Blyth actually fails CORP).--Duk 02:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some sources are here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. That last article confirms as stated in WP that Blyth is "the nation's largest candlemaker." Pan Dan 01:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - highly notable for a candlemaker (although I agree that his comment was unwarranted and immature). Pan Dan has procured some reliable sources. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 02:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per nation's largest candlemaker --Rehcsif 02:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it would be helpful if someone added the plethora of sources that Pan Dan provided to the article.--Isotope23 13:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and try to expand. This company is notable enough for an article and I cannot fathom that there is no more information about this company out there. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per commentary. --Dennisthe2 18:28, 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 kept. Please don't make spurious AfD nominations in order to prove a point. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FN P90 in popular culture[edit]

According to A Man In Black, is nothing but trivia -- Y|yukichigai 00:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I am not the one who has the biggest problem with the article, I cannot properly elaborate on the reasons. I will leave that up to A Man In Black. -- Y|yukichigai 00:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • I don't see why this is at AFD. I merged the encyclopedic prose (which is useful) and redirected it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Because the bulk of the existing data in the article was deleted in the process of that merge. As the article has been reverted numerous times prior to my intervention, I found it evident that the article's merging/deletion was of sufficient controversy to warrant an AfD discussion. -- Y|yukichigai 01:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was replaced with (already-extant) summary prose. This happens all the time, and doesn't need to go to AFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - suggest a speedy close - nomination seems to be WP:POINT after a disputed merge. AFD is not for content disputes. Yomanganitalk 01:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - this is not an instance of WP:POINT. Frankly I have very little interest in the outcome one way or the other, as AMIB's merge seems to be, for the most part anyway, justified. I simply wish to, well, "do this the right way", rather than cutting people out of the process and pissing them off. -- Y|yukichigai 01:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, tag it with merge tags and have the discussion on the article's talk page. This isn't "the right way". Yomanganitalk 01:14, 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 speedy delete. Luna Santin 09:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corpus Christi af2[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Article also fails WP:NOTABLE. --Sivius T-C 00:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Yomanganitalk 00:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Recreate when team actually exists and is worth mentioning. ---- physicq210 01:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's a no brainer. 129.98.212.164 02:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Check the af2 article (had to look it up, since I didn't know what it was). There are two other cities with similar articles. I don't object to the rumors, per se, since they may be well substantiated, but they shouldn't be seperate articles either. FrozenPurpleCube 03:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. A one-line article that says that something might happen has zero verifiable content. Fan-1967 04:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and delete the other two as well if the nominator adds them since they are all the same. TJ Spyke 06:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - no context. Tagged as such. MER-C 08:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as crystal ballism and no context. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone in the world watches "Arena Football" every day and can thus recognise insider acronyms off-hand. JIP | Talk 09:26, 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 speedy delete as non-notable band. JDoorjam Talk 05:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty South Revolutionaries[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Non-notable myspace band. ghits: [14] NMChico24 00:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - 50 unique google hits, 3 of which have the band name in the title (not including Wikipedia). I haven't yet found anything that would constitute "non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media" (fails WP:MUSIC). ~a (user • talk • contribs) 01:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I called for the speedy delete in the first place, but grudgingly supported allowing the creator to improve the article and show notability. Obviously, he has completely failed in this endeavor. ---Charles 02:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all above. SquidSK (1MC--log) 08:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 08:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator, does not yet meet WP:MUSIC guidelines, perhaps later. Yamaguchi先生 03:18, 30 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. Dakota 02:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fanart Central[edit]

Not-notable, does not seem to meet WP:WEB guideline. Thanks/wangi 00:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Technically you're right, but there does seem to be a sufficient relevance to an online art community that it will become technically notable in the future. I have not checked the site or article carefully, but this is not an open-and-shut case. 129.98.212.164 02:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it will become notable in the future, we can take a look at it again and recreate it. Right now, no. None of the content is verifiable through third party sources. Delete. ColourBurst 04:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The site itself is filled with the sort of run-of-the-mill anime that every 10th grader is tossing off these days, and it isn't even that busy of a site (2 years, and the top message forum only has 48K posts). Johnbrownsbody 02:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. 54,600 google hits, an alexa rank of 26,570, but fails WP:WEB. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 05:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I've heard of it, and it's reasonably popular. The article also avoids many of the common problems with online-community articles, such as thankfully not listing every admin, banned user, forum drama, every time the servers went down, etc. But the only reference is a thread on its own forum, so verification with reliable sources would be a problem. Delete unless some strong reliable sources are found. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, per Starblind. I've contributed much to that article (and as a user of said site, am well aware of NPOV policy), and agree on the reasons given. My vote probably does not constitute a WP:CSD A7 though. --Stratadrake 00:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: AFD consensus on this matter should probably be extended to the redirect page Fanart Cenral as well. --Stratadrake 00:49, 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 per failure of WP:WEB and vanity. --Nishkid64 00:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skatedomination.com[edit]

Delete. Does not meet criteria of WP:WEB. No Alexa data. First few pages of Google results are directory entries. Prod tag removed. ... discospinster talk 00:59, 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 delete. Dakota 00:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Smith (musician)[edit]

Seems strange that the article was deleted considering the person is known here in Dublin as a musician and was in Irish download charts 21.45, 24 October 2006

Article primarily uses name-dropping as pretext for notability. Folajimi 30 April 2024

  • Delete Article fails WP:BIO and it could have been deleted under CSD A7. Tarret 01:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He appears to have toured Ireland with the Irish band Aslan, appeared in Glasgow and at the Cavern Club in Liverpool, and is appearing in France soon. He has an EP that has gotten radio play in Ireland. Someone needs to find some better pix of him; the ones with the article make him look like some college student pulling a prank. See his profile on the Cavern Club site --Brianyoumans 01:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are millions of these guys in the world. Yandman 15:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BIO. Eusebeus 16:02, 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 delete. Dakota 00:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Turn On Red (band)[edit]

Delete. Independent band does not meet WP:MUSIC. "No Turn on Red"+"Cupcakes And Power-chords" gets 1 Google result - a MySpace page. "Cupcakes And Power-chords" alone gets the same result. Prod tag removed. ... discospinster talk 01:07, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Xenocide[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Has not received any major press coverage that I could find -Nv8200p talk 01:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep and Rewrite - The developers have been interviewed about this project already, and they've been referenced at XCom Strategy Planet. The article definitely needs to be rewritten to remove the VSCA feeling I got when looking at it. If it can't be redone, then nuke it. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 02:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've been following the project intermittently for quite some time, but it certainly doesn't qualify under WP:SOFTWARE. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 03:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per pd_THOR. Just a "fan game", well outside the scope of WP:SOFTWARE. SubSeven 03:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Not just a fan game, but one that isn't even complete yet (and not too far along, either, apparently). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as crystalballing since the game doesn't seem that notable. Re-create if/when appropriate. Prolog 16:10, 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 Delete. --Nishkid64 00:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actuarial and Insurance Management Solutions[edit]

Not even a non-notable corporation -- a DIVISION of a larger company (PwC, that is, PriceWaterhouseCoopers). Was prodded, but tag removed by VivianDarkbloom (talk · contribs) with the summary "because I don't trust the prodder or his judgement" -- one of a series of prod tag removals with the same summary. Note: if you're disrupting Wikipedia to make a point about judgment, you ought to be exercising a bit yourself by actually reading the article and tags. Calton | Talk 01:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. No claim to encyclopedic notability. Appears to have been created on a verrrrry slow day at the office. Vivian - boooo. etc Bwithh 01:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- does CSD A7 apply? Duja 11:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. May indeed be speedyable for lack of context and informative content: Very little is known about what they do, but it is believed to involve many triangles. Companies with the words "management" or "solutions" in their names are hardly ever notable. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as per nom and Smerdis of Tlön. Valrith 20:45, 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 Speedy Delete by User:Sarah Ewart. ColourBurst 04:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John William Chandler III[edit]

Yet Another Blogger (a student writing on boxing) "who is quickly gaining notoriety". No particular actual fame, as yet. Scores the Magic Google Goose Egg: NO hits in Google or Google Blog, and the site he writes for gets 11 Google Blog hits. Was prodded, but tag removed by VivianDarkbloom (talk · contribs) with the summary "because I don't trust the prodder or his judgement" -- one of a series of prod tag removals with the same summary in an some sort of disruption to make a point. Calton | Talk 01:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable blogger. Vivian Darkbloom blahblahblah WP:POINT etc. Bwithh 01:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's tough to get less notable than this. It's |_| that close to a speedy deletion candidate. The kid barely graduated high school, for pete's sake. It's hard to make yourself known as a journalist when you're 18. -- Kicking222 01:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as A7. "quickly gaining notoriety" is not the same as "notable". eaolson 02:45, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UNILETS[edit]

A financial scheme supposed promoted by the UN -- with only 290 Google hits (many of which actually refer to some piece of electrical equipment), NONE at un.org (which is allegedly promoting it) or through Google Books or Google Scholar, which might be expected to take note of such an important initiative. Was prodded, but tag removed by VivianDarkbloom (talk · contribs) with the summary "because I don't trust the prodder or his judgement" -- one of a series of prod tag removals with the same summary in an some sort of disruption to make a point. Calton | Talk 01:20, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Razor GoMojo[edit]

Obvious advert for non-notable software. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (software). Gets four (4) Google hits, total, with not the slightest sign that world at large has taken notice of this product. Was prodded, but tag removed by VivianDarkbloom (talk · contribs) with the summary "because I don't trust the prodder or his judgement" -- one of a series of prod tag removals with the same summary in an some sort of disruption to make a point. Calton | Talk 01:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. The Nabokov fan should make their judgments in these situations on a case by case basis and not be so personal with Calton in the prof/afd process. Bwithh 01:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 08:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 4 Google hits. Prolog 16:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to comment as the author of this article. Having studied the rules on Wikipedia:Notability (software), I cannot claim that the article meets the requirements. I had not realised this when I wrote it and apologise for that. There may have been magazine reviews of this product, but as I am not aware of them at this time, I cannot make a case. What I do strongly object to is the claim that the article is an "obvious advert". The article makes no recommendations and does not make statements about how this product is better than any other product. It objectively describes what the product does, no more. It is not an advert and I am a technologist, not an advertiser (this product is free by the way). What I want to get across is that merely bringing to the attention the Wikipedia:Notability (software) rules and mentioning that the person nominating the article for deletion is not aware of any published reviews would have been sufficient and appropriate. I would have studied the rules closer and realised that there was a point - end of story. Accusing me of writing an "obvious advert" is completely unnecessary. Similarly, the comments about Google hits: where exactly is number of Google hits mentioned as a Wikipedia metric for notability? I suppose I could now accuse you of writing an obvious advert for Google. By the way, whenever the likes of Google or Yahoo launch a new product, there will for sure be a large number of hits for this product on Google in no time. Does this mean that the "world at large" has recognised the product as being significant? I think not. This is why the Wikipedia rules for notability use metrics such as independent magazine reviews, not Google hits. In conclusion: I accept that the article does not meet the requirements for notability. I do not accept that I wrote an advert and I do not understand the need for making such an accusation against me. CoffeeBreak 08:18, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Ryor[edit]

A local pastor in Tallahassee, Florida. That's it. Was prodded, but tag removed by VivianDarkbloom (talk · contribs) with the somewhat paranoid edit summary "because I don't trust the prodder or his judgement -- and when he says "that's it", you should expect there's more he's not telling" -- one of a series of prod tag removals with essentially the same summary in an some sort of disruption to make a point. Calton | Talk 01:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. The Nabokov fan should make their judgments in these situations on a case by case basis and not be so personal with Calton in the prof/afd process. Bwithh 01:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO. Prolog 16:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence or assertion of meeting WP:BIO. GRBerry 15:25, 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 13:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mad vortex[edit]

An article about Yet Another Blog (which features the work of "M. Edwards C," "I.M. Tremblay," and "Celia Pleete") written in a mostly nonsensical style by User:Celiapleete. "Mad vortex" gets 117 unique Google hits and 20 mentions total in Goog Blogs, not all of them about this site. Send this to Encyclopedia Dramatica, not here. Calton | Talk 02:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I get an Alexa traffic ranking of "no data"[15] and a google link search of 4 sites[16] to YouTube and blogger.com.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails to assert notability. Feel free to speedy it after CSD A7 is expanded. MER-C 08:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yes another blog that needs deleting... --Charlesknight 09:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: because the Wikipedia nazis aren't making the internet a better place to research online, by ITS VERY NATURE OF DEMOCRATIC EDITING. I bet you all think you're high and mighty research teams, but the reality is, Wikipedia is a bloody joke. I refuse to let my students use it, and it took you months and months to find this article "unworthy", so how many others lurk in the dark? I'm off to better horizons, like ENCYCLOPEDIA DRAMATICA, home of the people with actual senses of humour! When I wiki your names, I'm filing you under THE NERD PATROL!—The preceding unsigned collective personal attack was added by 146.186.124.143 (talk • contribs) .

...home of the people with actual senses of humour! And no actual standards. Good luck, you'll probably find a fitting home, there. --Calton | Talk 01:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 13:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry J. Freede[edit]

Non-notable doctor. Only a handful of Google hits. No sources given to verify any notability. Only claim to fame seems to be having an arena named after him at a small school. Metros232 02:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete might be a generous guy, but definitely not notable. Opabinia regalis 04:09, 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 delete. W.marsh 16:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry J. Freede Wellness and Activities Center[edit]

Non-notable college sports arena. It is home to Oklahoma City University's athletics programs. This is a small school, non-NCAA program. Not enough context or notability. No sources offered as well. Metros232 02:10, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 16:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Levitin[edit]

This page fails WP:PROF and WP:N and therefore should be removed from Wikipedia. Being a somewhat notable person's relative does not make the person notable. --Ineffable3000 20:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  1. The person is not regarded as a significant expert in their area by independent sources
  2. The person is not regarded as an important figure by those in the same field.
  3. The person has not published a significant and well-known academic work.
  4. The person's collective body of work is not very significant and well-known.
  5. The person is not known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea.
  6. The person is not known for being the advisor of an especially notable student, even though he was the father of a barely notable scientist, Daniel Levitin.
  7. The person has never received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.

Lloyd Levitin only has 4 Google Scholar hits, [17] and only 125 Google hits [18]. Having a certification or a certain job position does not give someone notibility.

  • Strong Delete as nom --Ineffable3000 20:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete guy with a job and some marginally notable relatives. Don't forget to delink him in the other articles. Opabinia regalis 04:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Evaluate him as a corporate executive, not as an academic. Being chief financial officer of the United States's "largest natural gas distribution utility, serving 19.5 million people through 5.5 million gas meters in more than 530 communities" is a major accomplishment. Besides, his analysis of the financial health of Southern Pacific Rail Corporation persuaded the United States Department of Justice to permit the merger of Southern Pacific with Union Pacific in 1996. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 16:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't quite meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO. --Satori Son 20:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TT. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am persuaded by the arguments of TT. Cedars 01:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - TruthbringerToronto made a good point. However, Sempra Energy had many CFOs and none of them have their own Wikipedia articles. The current CFO, Mark Snell does not have his own Wikipedia article. Sempra Energy has numerous officers, and they frequently change. Lloyd Levitin is not even the CFO anymore, and he did not have any notable accomplishments while he was a CEO. I think that he should be mentioned in a page listing all past officers of Sempra Energy. Also, if you read the source about Lloyd Levitin persuading the US Departement of Justice, you will find that it was not intepreted correctly. [19] Lloyd Levitin was one of the many people involved in the case, and his name should be included in a related article. In conclusion, Lloyd Levitin does not meet WP:BIO and does not deserve to have his own article. --Ineffable3000 02:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BIO does not seem to talk about businesspeople in any great depth. We have lots of articles on minor celebrities, politicians and jurists, but we seem to lack articles on engineers and businesspeople despite the impact these people have on our everyday life. Maybe the best solution is to work towards a guideline on businesspeople. Until we have that judging whether articles on businesspeople should be kept or deleted is a very difficult task. Cedars 05:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This guy is not a very notable businessman. He only has 125 Google Hits, and he is not featured on any news article. I couldn't even find much about him on his company's website. A local band would have more notability than he does. --Ineffable3000 17:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. This is more a criticism of how some people measure notability than of actual notability. Once somebody retires from a company, the company will normally remove his or her biography from the company's web site. And someone who makes multi-million dollar decisions (which seems like a good definition for notability) won't necessarily show up with lots of hits on Google. We should try to measure notability, not fame, because a business executive could well be notable (as I argue here) but not famous. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Lloyd Levitin was one of the many people working on the merger case. If we would consider every single person who somehow participated in making an important decision, every single jury member from notable cases would have his own page. --Ineffable3000 08:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The argument by Ineffable3000, that he doesn't have a lot of "Google" hits is unconvicing; people shouldn't be evaluated solely on the basis of their Google tally. Having a large number of Google hits is a positive argument for inclusion, but having a low number is not a positive argument for deletion or non-inclusion; there are many well-respected sources for information that pre-date the internet era, and a trip to a brick-and-mortar library can clear up any doubts. This guy was listed in "Who's Who in Finance and Industry," "Who's Who in the West" and "Who's Who in America" for many years. These sources indicate he was the President of the American Gas Association, and of the Financial Executives Institute. Taken together, this looks to me like a significant person whose influence cut across industry, lobbying groups, and public policy. His relatives have nothing to do with it. --User:ClydeC 07:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I do not believe that any of the various Marquis Who's Who vanity publications would qualify as "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" under WP:V. In fact, an exposé by Forbes magazine found them to be just the opposite: "The Hall of Lame". I really think we should insist on better sources than that to substantiate notability. --Satori Son 15:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Despite whatever was wrong with Marquis Who's Who when Forbes published its article in 1999, librarians and journalists still use Marquis titles to look people up. The Canadian Who's Who from the University of Toronto Press is also useful, as is the original Who's Who from A.&C. Black. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your assertion that journalists use Marquis titles to "look people up" is highly questionable at best. Can you provide an example? I do not believe any reputable journalist would use a vanity pub to establish the significance of a person, and nor should we. --Satori Son 20:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Journalists use Marquis titles with all their faults because, on balance, Who's Who in America and its related titles are a reliable source of information about notable people. Granted, there is a vanity aspect to these directories, but most of the people listed in them are notable within their field. Ask a librarian or journalist you trust whether they would use Who's Who in America to get background about a notable person. And if you don't know any journalists, phone the city desk of your local newspaper and ask. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The question is not "whether they would use Who's Who in America to get background about a notable person", the question is "whether someone being listed in Who's Who in America confirms that person is notable absent any other reliable, reputable sources". Don't obfuscate the issue to support your inclusionist agenda. --Satori Son 22:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are correct, of course, but a component of that issue we are debating is whether Marquis Who's Who is a credible, third-party source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and thus whether it can be used as a source to establish the notability of Mr. Leviten. And the answer is no. --Satori Son 23:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is a wonderful irony here, because Who's Who is being accused of being just as much a vanity publication as Wikipedia has often been (and that is what we're here to fix)! The reference librarian at our university library said that although there are questions about the extent to which the Marquis editors go to verify a person's own account of their biography, the inclusion criteria are still somewhat strict. He told me that some professors at our University tried to be included in Who's Who and were rebuffed by editors, or cases of others who wanted to be in "Who's Who In America" and didn't meet the notability criteria for that, but did for the smaller, regional, "Who's Who in the East." This suggests that there is something to being listed by them. As to the issue of whether Lloyd Levitan should be listed, I would think that listing the officers of the Top 100 corporations in the U.S. (and his was one of them in the 1970s and 1980s) makes sense for WP. And not everyone testifies before congress...do you consider that notable? --User:ClydeC 14:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per failure of WP:RS and WP:NOR. --Nishkid64 00:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories[edit]

First deletion reason: Fails to assert notability by reference to any reliable source – not one reliable source cited, and the article has been up for over a year! Undue weight. Entirely original research. Conspiracy cruft failing WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Morton devonshire 02:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Per nom. Of 20 bullet points, only one is cited and that one cites a source of <= Blog caliber. --Dual Freq 03:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nomination. Crockspot 03:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable Alex Jones conspiracy cruft. --Aude (talk) 03:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. alphaChimp(talk) 04:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Conspiracy theory articles should cover conspiracy theories as phenomena, not advocate for them, and this one isn't much of a phenomenon. Gazpacho 05:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails both WP:NPOV & WP:NOR Jpe|ob 15:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Nom. Englishnerd 15:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can be recreated later if reliable sources exist, none of which do now (but doubtful, as I can't even recall ever having heard of such for this). · XP · 19:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 00:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cruft. PEr nom--Tbeatty 01:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just too poorly cited, and probably can't be fixed. No objection to re-creation of a proper article though with notable cites. Derex 02:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Derex. CWC(talk) 13:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 07:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following was added by Freedomspeechman (talk · contribs) at the top of this page and has been moved and partially wikified by CWC(talk) 07:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you people to delete all these items ! NO Censorship! you haven't made your case just by quoting codes what are the specifics? How does it fail to met the standards ?
Do not delete!
Keep- It contains 3 items refrenced as well as a book and you have made no attempt to add to the content. Quit with your deletist agender!
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Oklahoma_City_bombing_conspiracy_theories"
  • Deleteper nom--Peephole 08:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 13:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let’s let the grand jury from the Fed’s help us here: This grand jury's report says that there is no credible evidence that anyone other than McVeigh and Nichols was involved, that there is no credible evidence that the government or the ATF or any government agencies had prior knowledge that a bombing would occur; that was one of the popular conspiracy theories. [20] Delete per nom. JungleCat talk/contrib 14:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mystifying that it's survived this long without NPoV editing and improvement.--Rosicrucian 15:11, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kemurshel[edit]

Non-notable art project. Not encyclopedic by a long shot. Contested prod, by the author. eaolson 02:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. Unreferenced article that by its text is ostensibly about a student art project with no assertion of importance. If that's not enough, it appears to be a surruptitious advertisement for the author's website design online business and the name of the author is also the name of the article. So, delete per WP:NN, WP:SPAM, WP:AUTO, WP:V, WP:RS, etc.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fuhghettaboutit. Prolog 16:51, 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 Speedy deleted per CSD A8. Xoloz 04:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Barr[edit]

This page seems just to be a dump from another page, and Wikipedia is not a repository for web content. Splintercellguy 03:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per A8 as text unquestionably copied from [21] along with other subpages of that site, and the article was posted within the past 48 hours.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT soapbox. All the article's content is taking from the website http://barr4mayor.com, Barr's pro election website. Perhaps she is notable, but this article, as is, isn't suitable for the wikipedia. Mitaphane talk 04:20, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --Nishkid64 00:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brainfuck++[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 04:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There's no evidence of notability. The language is a joke upon a joke. - Richardcavell 04:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This should have been deleted long ago. JIP | Talk 09:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh delete! Looks a lot like an advertisement, and per Richard above. --Alex (Talk) 18:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn brainfuck-clone. —Ruud 12:24, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Palmer[edit]

This would have been an A7 candidate if it'd been caught when it was added. It's been around for 9 months or so, however, so rather than speedying it, I'm taking it to AFD. The subject is non-notable. His claim to fame is that, via a vanity press, he's self-published a single book about homebrewing beer. He also has a website with the text of his book on it. Pretty much a bog-standard non-notable bio. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 04:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep My first instinct would have been to agree with the deletion, until I checked the book. A how-to-book on brewing beer at home that has an Amazon rank around 11,000 seems pretty good (surprising actually), and there seem to be multiple reviews of it. I'd say he qualifies as a notable author. Fan-1967 04:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep per above. 9,280 ghits and an alexa rank (albiet not very good). Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 05:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO. Eusebeus 16:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep per Fan-1967 and Ultra-Loser. --mathewguiver 21:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm the original author of the page so obviously I'm biased, but I'll argue against two points above. 1) Fails WP:BIO: Mr. Palmer is a published author with multiple independent reviews of his work. You may not know who he is, but he certainly is respected and very well known in the homebrewing community. I met him this weekend at the Great American Beer Festival. He was a featured author and was signing books with many other authors, including Charlie Papazian. Again, you may not have heard of him, but he is obviously important enough that they put him on show for 25,000+ people. 2) Brewer's Publications is a vanity press? They publish all of Mr. Papazian's books. --Stangbat 01:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The book is respected and widely used, the author is notable. MattHucke(t) 13:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emoticon (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 04:21, 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. W.marsh 16:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Ceyer[edit]

nn professor, only 114 unique google hits [22], awards do not seem notable for scope of a notable professor, publications are just academic journals Giant onehead 04:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps WP:PROF could do with expanding to state which learned society memberships constitute notable awards or honours. Espresso Addict 06:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think being a member of the NAS automatically confers notability and the academic record does not make it clear that she has it otherwise. Eusebeus 16:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Being elected to the NAS recognizes notabiility rather than conferring it. The article states: "Election to membership is one of the highest honors that can be accorded to a scientist and recognizes scientists who have made distinguished and continuing achievements in original research." Arguing otherwise is not a productive use of anyone's time. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is not merely a member of the NAS, she is also chair of its chemistry section. One does not achieve that position without being notable in his or her field. -- Rglovejoy 17:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - per Rglovejoy. --mathewguiver 21:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So do we have a consensus for a keep? -- Rglovejoy 03:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nil (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 04:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nullify. This "language" is entirely a joke. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This isn't even a programming language, it's a bad joke. JIP | Talk 09:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JIP. —Ruud 12:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but disambiguate. NIL was a implementation of LISP at MIT [23] 84.66.4.15 22:25, 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. --Nishkid64 00:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TRUE (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 04:26, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 16:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kvikkalkul[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 04:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - its fame seems to rest on a single humorous Usenet post. 4450 Google hits. — QuantumEleven 08:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. JIP | Talk 09:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - its origin is from a single humorous Usenet post (actually, two posts), but is fame goes far past that. I get over 1300 google hits, omitting trivials. It has also been discussed in print. See for example http://www.amazon.com/Radio-UserLand-Kick-Start/dp/0672325632/ this book, which contains at least one Kvikkalkul joke, and it has an article at FOLDOC. Uucp 13:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 16:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - is in Jargon File, thus probably quite widely known. (Doesn't appear to be in The New Hacker's Dictionary though.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not particularly interesting as a language, but has become notable since the original anonymous Usenet post; according to commentors above, it's in FOLDOC and the Jargon File and in print, so there are multiple secondary sources available. The original nomination was only based on notability (which seems to be established by the above and is an essay, not policy), and the language was kept in the overturned AfD (unlike most which were deleted). --ais523 14:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but consider "merge and redirect" Rich Farmbrough, 12:06 4 October 2006 (GMT).
  • Keep —Ruud 21:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment about who the nominator is User:R. Koot (who signs as Ruud) was the nominator in the AfD that is being relisted here, but the Kvikkalkul part of that AfD was added by Kingboyk. --ais523 16:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as article recreation/db-band. Regarding comments below: that the deletion of an article is recreated by individuals who contested its deletion is not a criterion for avoiding immediate deletion; on the contrary, it is an explicit reason to skip the AfD process. JDoorjam Talk 05:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sky taxi[edit]

Notability asserted by claiming it has a gold record however searching for the band or the album has been fruitless, let alone sales numbers. –– Lid(Talk) 04:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, just realised this has previously been speedied twice under A7. The assertion of reaching gold is probably just to claim it meets the grounds of WP:MUSIC. –– Lid(Talk) 04:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the fact that it's been recreated twice is evidence that speedy deletion is being contested here. I'm tempted to say that the claim of 35,000 albums is uncited. If someone can find any evidence of them at ARIA (which awards the Gold status), I'll change to keep. - Richardcavell 04:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Sky Taxi" + "Liam Gibson" yields zero Google hits. Nothing on Amazon or Allmusic. No evidence of notability has been presented. OhNoitsJamie Talk 08:20, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarpedia[edit]

With all the decent, informative articles such as GetWiki and Wikinfo that I've seen being put up for deletion as of late, I'd like to see what editors think about this one. It's notability is questionable and the article lacks any actual content, unlike say Citizendium. I suggest deletion. Metaspheres 04:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The 19,000 hits looks good until you see the 1,220,000 citizendium gets - and citizendium it hasn't even launched yet. The alexa rank is abysmal and it shows barely any hits per day. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 05:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. With 391 articles as of right now - the majority of which are effectively empty - this looks like a project that hasn't quite gotten off the ground yet. Many of these articles simply read "this article to be written by Prof. XYZ". A check of their deadendpages tells me that all but 53 of the project's articles are dead-ends (i.e, lacking links), and are likely to have not been created properly yet. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zetawoof. MER-C 08:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm going to throw a spanner in the works here. This is a borderline case, but my philosophy is, when in doubt, keep. David Cannon 10:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see anything borderline about it. If and when it takes off, then it should get an article, obviously, but now it's not even close. --Calton | Talk 00:29, 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 speedily deleted per [[WP:CSD|CSD A7}}. JDoorjam Talk 05:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Escape the Band[edit]

Completely non notable band, with members much later appearing in another non notable band (11 distinct Google hits). No evidence for minor claims to fame found. Fails WP:MUSIC Fram 05:02, 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 delete, disregarding anons and SPAs. Punkmorten 22:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk RadioX[edit]

  ATTENTION!

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

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

Not notable Thanks/wangi 05:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete - This is new technology for internet radio. Streamerp2p is an awesome creation .. live radio broadcasts have been going on since July 2006 and are continually adding new shows!! Don't stop something that is "working" and "growing" ... people contribute to this from all over the world. /Jackie Jack - Listener and Participant Talk RadioX — Possible single purpose account: 67.70.46.43 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • I would strongly advise against deletion since the article has given me information I was looking for, and that is what I expect from an encyclopedia. Dr. von Wangenheim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.104.55.8 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-30T02:26:25
  • The outcry against the deletion of this page is a result of the many people involved with Radio X and Streamer P2P discusted with the idea that this article should be deleted. While they are not 'official members'of Wikipedia, they are passionate about the Radio X network. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badseed333 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-30T02:58:58
  • Keep MnementhVII (Streamerp2p coder) How do new things get posted on Wikipedia?, sometimes it's going to be by somebody connected to the topic, as is the case here. How long is the 'grace period' for such a post to exist, without somebody not somehow connected to it posting, before it gets declared 'from a single purpose account' and nuked?. The current contributors to the article are admittedly all listeners to the stream and not completely independent. (but are not sock puppets). RadioX/streamerp2p is creating something that could be a new internet meme, that of 'live podcasting', and especially that of broadcasting live skype conferences to do chat shows. This has not previously been possible without bandwidth for streaming servers, and the accompanying constant donation begging they require. It currently seems to be a popular thing to do and is rapidy attracting new contributors. RadioX now has a full live schedule every evening, and some currently established shows from elsewhere are also appearing on their own channels, Chaos theory radio being one. I say it is worthy of having an article here. On the other hand, 'TalkRadioX - banned from Wikipedia' is a cool parting gift ;-) If it is deleted, can it be re-added at some later date when it has grown more? — Possible single purpose account: MnementhVII (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
    Comment - this article isn't deleted with extreme prejudice. If it does become notable, then we would more than happily accept an article on it. But now it isn't. (By the way, why are there all these single purpose accounts?) MER-C 11:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 03:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads as advertising. No assertion of notability. And yes, if Talk RadioX becomes notable in the future, a new article will likely be created for it. Resolute 04:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: "Though Streamer is a relatively unknown program the advantage of broadcasting there is the possibilty of unlimited listeners. Talk RadioX is looking to fill it's schedule up with original content 24 hours a day and is currently looking for shows. Also the station is adding RIAA safe music as well.". Not yet notable. Sockatume 13:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Okay, I have read all the comments on the "main page" and on the "delete" page ... some of which are my own. I guess I should be noted as a Wikipedia virgin "trying" to understand what is going on here. Obviously, many view Talk RadioX and the streamerp2p as "not notable" and "single purpose" ... well as for not notable, if everything "new" was "not notable", how would technology ever advance??? .. AND as for "single purpose", what else is it supposed to be? Maybe I'm wrong, but I consider the Wikipedia like a dictionary and when i'm looking in the dictionary for "one word" .. thats ALL I want to see. Could someone that knows the ins and outs of Wikipedia please explain what exactly it is that needs to be done, changed or ammended to "keep" this post. May I also add, on the Radio Dan and Intern Jessica show, they have made MANY references to "Wikipedia" and use this as a valuable "search tool" for many of their discussions! If it wasn't for the broadcasters of Talk RadioX, I still wouldn't know that Wikipedia exists. For all those that wish to "delete", I encourage you to tune in for the shows and if you wish to verbally discuss your point of view and give some valuable tips to help save this post, call Radio Dan at 8pm EST, we will all be listening as we are all concerned about the "delete" discussion and process. /I personally would appreciate any assistance that you could give. / Jackie Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.22.148 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-30T17:59:59
    Comment: Wikipedia is not here to promote new technology - it is an encyclopedia. We have a number of notability guidelines which can be used to determine if a subject is notable enough to warrant an article, see Wikipedia:Notability (web) for a relevant one. Also worth a read is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:About and finally Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Thanks/wangi 17:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • MnememthVII Mine is definitely a single purpose account. I opened it to post in this discussion, rather than being an anonymous IP. I see it earned a 'single purpose account' tag, which actually appears worse than an anonymous posting. I think people outside of Wikipedia perceive it to be a 'peoples encyclopedia', where anybody can post things they think may be of interest to others. But that isn't really how it works, there is a heirarchy of sorts operating here. Correct? How would an article about the Streamerp2p app/network/community itself be accepted?. After several years of it's existence, nobody else has created an article, so it's likely to be me and my 'single purpose account' that does it. I see the other p2p radio system 'peercast' is on here, the article also having been created by it's developer, and that is marked as biased (but not pending delete) even though it contains factual innacuracies that are detremental to peercast.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MnementhVII (talk • contribs) 2006-09-30T18:52:31
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snowball-deleted as a hoax.' JDoorjam Talk 05:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Von Noshrilgram, Sr.[edit]

Hoax biography, of a name that gets seven (7) Google hits, of blogs and Flickr. Telling detail: this guy supposedly died in 1999, yet had a "tribute, written by novelist and playwright Yukio Mishima" -- who died in 1970.

  • Delete Hoax article that reminds me of a false person on Seinfeld (Ivan van Nostrom). --Daniel Olsen 06:05, 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 speedy deleted as unsourced bio and very likely hoax. JDoorjam Talk 05:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alistair Vogan[edit]

From the creator of Ivan Von Noshrilgram, Sr. & The Ivan Von Noshrilgram Foundation comes this bio (which I'm suspecting is AUTObiographical, a screenwriter with no produced screenplays, 18 Google hits, and whose only credits on IMDB (which isn't always the most reliable of sources to begin with) are as "story editor", "grip", and "second assistant director". Calton | Talk 05:42, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Children in immigration detention[edit]

This is a POV duplicate of information added by the same user to Mandatory detention in Australia, Immigration to Australia and also contained in the article ChilOut. Delete --Peta 05:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete article (it should be "children in immigration detention in Australia") moving any useful references or comments to other articles as appropriate. Sockatume 18:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\talk 23:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Parts of this article are either POV, or covered elsewhere. Plus Sockatume's point above. Lankiveil 00:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Blatantly not in compliance with NPOV. MojoTas 03:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed any emotive words, and every POV point made is footnoted with a source (as per Wikipedia policy). I am currently searching for people and arguments which agree with the detention of children. If you know of any please feel free to add them. Children have specific problems as associated with detention, and should be treated separately from adults or from a general mandatory detention article. Children are specifically dealt with under CROC. The HREOC report that I refer to throughout the article was commissioned by the government itself. I have reported the government response, a two line statement, denying the report's 900 page findings. I came to Wikipedia because what has happened to these children is being systematically deleted from national memory. I thought perhaps here they might have a chance here.[[User:DabooksterDabookster 9.41, 2 October 2006. Please re-read the article and let me know what else I can do.
    • I understand the points you are making, and will make a few suggestions on the Discussion page for the article itself. However, a lot of this information would be better placed in one of the existing two articles suggested by Peta above. This isn't an indictment on your ability to write on this topic, merely a matter of housekeeping in the pedia. MojoTas 00:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to any relevant articles as determined by the closing moderator. (JROBBO 09:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. Just a soap box article. Even the first sentence is incorrect - Lombok is an Indonesian island showing that whoever wrote it has no idea on the topic. Do they really think that Indonesia would take AUstralian asylum seekers? lol --Merbabu 11:49, 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 delete. Luna Santin 09:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cincinnati af2[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Article also fails WP:NOTABLE and is unverifiable. Sivius T-C 06:19, 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 speedy delete. Luna Santin 09:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lubbock af2[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Article also fails WP:NOTABLE and is unverifiable. Sivius T-C 06:19, 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 delete. W.marsh 16:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Shane[edit]

Non-notable "dating expert". The pattern of edits by the author suggest authobiography / vanity. Note the comment in Talk:Nick Shane that whilst he may be notable enough for the German Wikipedia, he may fall below the threshold here. -- RHaworth 06:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Searching "Nick Shane" gets about 6750 Ghits.--Jusjih 07:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Of course! Both "Nick" and "Shane" are extremely common names. So is "Nick Shane". None of the results on at least the first few pages refer to the Nick Shane in question, except for this wikipedia article. In fact, I couldn't find this particular Nick Shane referenced in the google hits I looked at period. --SecondSight 07:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Nick belongs to the seduction community and appeared at cliffslist.com the worlds greatest seduction PUA in montreal. If you search for the term "Playboyskool" you will get over 31,000 hits. If you go here, you can see all the PUAs that attended the cliffs convention and he is only mentioned as "Nick" under "Playboyskool". So let's sum this up real quick: He has media coverage, both in europe (TV, magazine articles) and in the states (cliffslist DVDs). He is a notable member of the seduction community. There are over 30k results for "Playboyskool" (that's why I redirected the page). Playboyskool is even listed on amazon.
  • If you delete this page, you would also have to delete david deangelo, Badboy Lifestyle, pickup 101 since they have even less media coverage. The argument that "just because some articles are in german", he should be deleted from the english wikipedia and put into the german wikipedia is nonsense anyway. Therefore I will remove the template from this page within 3 days. 86.140.57.90 23:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The existence of other non-notable pages on wikipedia (which should also be deleted) doesn't justify sparing this page from deletion. Yet David DeAngelo, Badboy Lifestyle, and PickUp 101 actually are notable. David DeAngelo is notable because he and his techniques are mentioned in The Game, and so is PickUp 101. If you look at the Badboy Lifestyle and PickUp 101 articles, you will notice that they both cite a couple English-language news sources. You say that the argument that "just because some articles are in german" is nonsense. Yet it's not just "some" articles that are in German or another non-English language, it is all of them. If you can add to the page one English news article on Nick Shane, I will change my opinion. As for the 31k google hits, the vast majority of these are not in English. I strongly suggest that you do not remove the template from the page, because that is a violation of wikipedia policy. Once an article is put on articles for deletion, the process must run its course, and the fate of the page is decided by a vote. If you remove the template, you will be shooting yourself in the foot, because someone will put it back up, and an admin might block you (and the page will probably be more likely to get deleted).--SecondSight 00:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I know of one english reference: The british daily record (October 19, 2005). Since it isn't available online, and only offline, you will have to go check out the archives by yourself. What I do know though is that he IS featured in the motion picture The Last Blast (2007) and he is on cliffslist DVDs 2006. If we delete the page now, the page will simply reappear in a couple of months time when the new cliffslist DVDs are out, and when we know more about official press releases from the motion picture. Given the media coverage he already has from europe (which can be reviewed online) and the fact he is american and will be featured on the worlds greatest PUAs by cliffslist, he deserves a page on wikipedia.86.140.57.90 02:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Seems NN, and it's written like a vanity page. Maybe after extensive rewrite, and better justification, keep it. THE KING 00:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. As per THE KING. A German Wikipedia article may be justified, but his notability within the English-speaking seduction community is questionable. Furthermore, with the current media frenzy on seduction, anyone claiming to be a 'Dating Guru' is given coverage. As stated above by SecondSight, what makes David DeAngelo and Lance Mason (of Pick-Up 101) notable is their mention within the community. Even a search of Thundercat's blog reveals three hits for 'Playboyskool'; two mentioning his presence at Cliff's List '06, another being a passing slate of the material on the site. Searching Fastseduction.com with Google turned up nothing for either Playboyskool or Nick Shane. -- Sasuke Sarutobi 11:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There seem to be two different arguments floating about. 1. If Nick should have an english page at all, and 2. if he is a notable member of the seduction community. So far we have come to a conclusion that he has media coverage in the english speaking world, which justifies him to an article on wikipedia. Now according to wikipedia rules, if coverage exists in the media and you can prove the references, you can add the page. So in my humble opinion and as I understand wikipedia rules, the page about Nick Shane on the english wikipedia can stay and should not be deleted. The next debate would be his connection to the seduction community but that's another debate and shouldn't coincide with whether this article should be deleted anyway or not. Therefore we should add to the article page: "His connection to the seduction community itself has not been as established as other members may have". Johnny Rocketfingers 19:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have been a user of so suave, fast seduction, thundercats lair, and mysterys forums for years now and have no idea who Nick Shane is. I was stunned to see his name alongside the likes of Ross, Neil, Mystery, Badboy and Tyler. This article appears to be an adervtisement for a little known dating coach, not a notable member of the seduction community itself. Donny Whiteman 05:36, 3 october 2006(UTC)
  • Keep: Allright, here's what I would suggest we do: Apparently, he hasn't made his full mark inside the "seduction community" yet so we should add that either to criticism or under the part seduction community in the article. However, since he does have media coverage in europe and the united states, he should have a page on wikipedia but it needs some cleanup. Johnny Rocketfingers 23:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: He has a movie credit on the official movie website of "The Last Blast" (www.thelastblast.com) on the front page. I will therefore remove the template by myself in 24hrs and consider this topic closed. Johnny Rocketfingers 19:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If you remove the template yourself, it's vandalism. You need to wait for an admin to close this AFD. --SecondSight 20:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Ok cool, thanks for the advice I'm not that familiar with wikipedia rules just yet. Don't I need to notify no admins or will they have a look by themselves? Johnny Rocketfingers 20:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Appearance of second vote by Johnny Rocketfingers struck through. Postdlf 03:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --Nishkid64 00:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ikkicon[edit]

hardly notable Ishuta 07:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom 11500 Ghits--Jusjih 07:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's a future convention which has gotten very little exposure or press. Maybe after it's happened the article can be recreated, but for now, delete it. — QuantumEleven 08:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MER-C 09:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a crystal ball. Come back when you've actually had an Ikkicon. JIP | Talk 09:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:NOT. Jpe|ob 15:11, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opština[edit]

WP:NOT a dictionary. Op*ina means "municipality" and that's it—it's just another article of no practical value except to distract the reader who clicks the link out of curiosity. Successfully prod-ded once before, recreated by User:Tobias Conradi. Duja 07:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. Duja 07:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete collection of links, some of which do not even apply. SquidSK (1MC--log) 08:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as disambiguation page. Useful. Punkmorten 08:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki - dictdefs. MER-C 09:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Yes, it's a definition, but it's an irrelevant cross-language definition that belongs in an english-serbian dictionary - not in any of the wikimedia projects. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 11:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realize that one of the Wikimedia projects IS an English to Serbian dictionary? Amongst other things. See wikt:opština. --CBD 11:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It can mean 'municipality' / 'township' or 'city hall', it appears untranslated in thousands of English language news reports, and there is an existing article on another meaning of this same term at Obshchina (which has exactly the same spelling in Cyrillic - it is just transliterated differently). A term found in English language texts with several possible meanings... standard practice says we have a disambiguation page to direct people to the one they were actually looking for. --CBD 11:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Punkmorten. A useful disambiguation page. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's an official term, belongs to WikiProject Country subdivisions, and is valid like hundreds others in Category:Subnational entities. Translation is only an approximation. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A useful disambiguation page.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per above. --mathewguiver 21:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tobias Conradi. —dima/s-ko/ 00:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tobias Conradi. Carlossuarez46 03:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tobias Conradi. --MaNeMeBasat 07:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. David Kernow (talk) 08:22, 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 Naconkantari 01:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zaki, Israel[edit]

Non-notable Israeli MySpace "celebrity". Fails WP:BIO guidelines. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 07:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 09:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Shmila 17:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This isn't just a vote, you have to explain why you want to keep or delete an article. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 00:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shmila 11:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC) Known enough. Intersting article about something that starts to be common in Tel Aviv-jaffa.[reply]
  • Delete. Ad. I asked Israeli notice board two days ago, no reaction so far. Pavel Vozenilek 18:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 00:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep He is definitely identifiable and known. See the external links. Allot of MySpace based characters has a place in wikipedia (see - Lily Allen) so has he. Marina T. 00:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a gay icon for straight guys. Mirnamirna 15:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Shuki 18:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notable to only a very small group of people. I don't like the idea of adding new fantasy people to WP. Either merge it to a 'list of myspace characters' or retract the article until this character stands the test of a lot more time. --Shuki 18:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. --Daniel575 | (talk) 08:24, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kresky[edit]

This appears to be part of an elaborate hoax with a rather convincing web site. TV Newser 07:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add Wade Cantrell, an alleged character with an alleged spin-off series. --Calton | Talk 07:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ha ha. --Calton | Talk 07:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable, see Entertainment Weekly, July 16, 1999, The Weekly Alibi (Albequerque, NM) December 16, 1999, etc. Aster Placed 08:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bull. Google "Kresky". Look at the first entry on the list.
  • Also, IMDB does not seem to have heard of this. Nor of its alleged stars, "Terrence Michael Matterly" & "Ronald Whitney". --Calton | Talk 08:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First Google hit I get is a New York City lawyer named Harry Kresky followed by Kresky Signs Incorporated in Petaluma. The the fake TV show related articles are further down the page. I also confirm there is no IMDB entry. TV Newser 08:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Googling kresky + hoax is informative here -- it's in the "museum of hoaxes". Good one, but no dice. Dina 13:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a hoax and nice one on the nomination... This is the kind of hoax that can be a bit tricky to root out.--Isotope23 14:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax, and give serious consideration to a permanent block on the author. Fan-1967 15:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Already done: see User:Lost Knob --Calton | Talk 02:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yes, of course, I understand. And the sources of your bogus references above were what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 02:15, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battlemaster tank[edit]

Non-notable unit in a computer game. This can never be expanded to an encyclopedic article, in my opinion. Nothing interesting enough to merge into the game's Wikipedia entry, either. — QuantumEleven 08:04, 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 merge/redirect. W.marsh 16:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Series I 80[edit]

The article refers to the Land Rover Series I. This is covered in much more detail in Land Rover (Series/Defender) Malcolma 08:08, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Weisskopf[edit]

Vanity entry. Most of the edits from one user Stuart Strahl (talk · contribs), who may have some connection with the woman. TV Newser 08:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - asserts notability strongly, e.g. "she won the Phoenix Award in 1994 for excellence in Science Fiction". MER-C 09:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable publisher, author, and editor. Vanity accusation is vague at best, and the article is decent enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable science fiction author and editor. V. Joe 18:05, 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 keep: nomination withdrawn. Silensor 04:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Stringer School[edit]

This article is subject to constant vandalism. It has been marked for cleanup since June with no improvement. Also, may not meet WP:SCHOOL guidelines. SquidSK (1MC--log) 08:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Keep Withdraw nom due to significant cleanup and expansion in the last 24 hours. SquidSK (1MC•log) 03:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It truly was rubbish, and a prime example of the semi-libellous non-article, full of things that happened in school one day and no real information, that school articles written solely by pupils all-too-often become, at the time of nomination. That could have been deleted with no loss to the encyclopaedia. It has, however, since been entirely rewritten. That this school satisfies the WP:SCHOOL criteria is demonstrated by the references section of the article itself, as rewritten. Keep. Uncle G 12:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Looks good now. I don't believe vandalism is a suitable justification for deletion. — RJH (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since the article looks good now with multiple references, plus vandalism alone is never a reason for deletion. Yamaguchi先生 03:16, 30 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 13:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Service car rental[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. ghits: [24] NMChico24 09:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Pan Dan 23:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence from WP:RS that subject of article meets criteria outlined in WP:CORP. --Kinu t/c 17:52, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earthartist[edit]

Non notable - a word User:Earthartist coined and uses as the name of his business [25]. Se also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Salisbury. // habj 09:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Andy Saunders 12:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. Sockatume 17:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism. —dustmite 22:12, 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. W.marsh 16:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bixee.com[edit]

Indian job search engine, founded this year in January, Alexa rank 54,496. The article was twice proposed for deletion (with the reason of not meeting WP:CORP or WP:WEB guidelines), and the notice was twice removed by an unregistered user (making this a contested proposed deletion). Procedural nomination - no vote. - Mike Rosoft 10:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails to assert notability. Feel free to speedy this when CSD A7 is expanded. MER-C 10:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Let me just mention here that Alexa numbers aren't representative enough for a country like India. Although I don't know what is the actual usage nos for this site, I don't think they have published any numbers yet. As far as I know Bixee is the first Web 2.0 startup of India and the first vertical search engine for India and thereby does deserve a mention here. They have been covered in Business Today and Business India, the two popular business magazines of India. Bixee is serving a good need as a job search engine product and India job seekers like me do use it on a regular basis.
  • Keep Delete - If anyone believes that this site is notable, please, provide a reference. It's not enough to say something is famous, you have to provide proof. Someone said it was covered in Business Today. Okay, please provide a link to an actual dated article? Did the magazine cover it as a formal profile, or just include a mention of the site in a list? If the latter, that's what's called a "trivial mention", not real press. But if someone can provide proof that this site is notable enough to have non-trivial coverage in third-party sources, I might change my mind. Please read these links for more information: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Notability, WP:WEB, and WP:CORP. Also, if you believe that it's a startup that will be famous someday, that's fine, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In other words, Wikipedia is not here to help a startup get noticed -- Wikipedia is here to cover a company after it's been noticed. In order to stay on Wikipedia, this article needs to provide proof of that status, that the company is already famous. --Elonka 17:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • - Business Today is a print media publication. They don't have articles online. But luckily I found a copy of the same, which i've scanned and uploaded here (The article appeared in September 2005). Bixee on Webyantra (Webyantra is equivalent of Techcrunch for India), Gautam Ghosh's Blog (Prominent business blogger). There are many more bloggers writing about Bixee on a regular basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajaryanmalhotra (talk • contribs) 12:56, September 29, 2006
      • Switching my vote to Keep. The new references convinced me of notability. I've gone ahead and added them to the article, thank you. Please be sure to always include references in the future!  :) --Elonka 19:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Commentary[edit]

There seems to be a fair amount of sockpuppet voting here. See WP:SOCK. Using sockpuppets to vote in deletion discussions is very bad form on Wikipedia, and can result in being entirely blocked from the service. Please stop it. For best results, please remove votes by additional accounts, and only use your one primary username. --Elonka 19:59, 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 no consensus to delete both. Merge possible. W.marsh 21:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Moulton Howe[edit]

I have also nominated the related article

  • Delete Linda's article. Being a guest on a AM radio show fails WP:BIO. --Arbusto 00:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earthfiles[edit]

This individual and website do not appear to be notable, there is also a woeful lack of verification. There may be a case for an article on the movie, although a google search shows very few related hits, most of them from poor sources. Jefffire 10:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral but the article is in dire need of strong references. For instance, I can find no trace of that Emmy for "A Strange Harvest". In particular, no trace of it from the Emmys' search engine. [26] Of course you'll find tons of Ghits talking about the Emmy award-winning Ms. Howe but no one seems to be able to say what that Emmy was... I'm tempted to think this might be one of those things that becomes true once it's been repeated often enough. Nonetheless I'm also inclined to think that Ms. Howe is notable in her nutcase of a field. Pascal.Tesson 14:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think I will change my opinion to reluctant keep. But it really badly needs some references. In particular, unverified info (about the Emmys for instance) should be deleted with extreme prejudice. It's really bad practice for Wikipedia to repeat and give credit to an unverified fact that only is cited by her fans. Pascal.Tesson 19:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my bad, Jefffire originally put it in and it was deleted somewhere along the line and I restored it thinking that Jefffire wouldn't have mentioned it without a WP:RS to back it up. Apparently she has three regional emmies for writting and editing, but I don't have a WP:V for them so I'm not going ot be the user to bring them up. perfectblue 13:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I vote that LMH be cleaned up and expanded, rather than deleted. She is more 'notorious' than 'notable' and is big among people who believe 'in that kind of thing' and follow 'that kind of site' even if she does lack credibility in some areas (hey, even non-credibly people can have wiki articles, sanity isn't a prerequisite for inclusion).
  • LMH deserves a biography at the very least due to her prolific spewings of things written and filmed.
perfectblue 17:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Linda Moulton Howe and merge any important Earthfiles stuff there. I'm not a fan – I think she's naive and sensationalistic – but she's very well-known among enthusiasts of the paranormal because of her frequent appearances on Coast to Coast AM and her books. There are plenty of Lexis-Nexis and Factiva results for her, too. It appears that her documentary won a regional Emmy for sound [27], which wouldn't show up on the Emmy databse (but I think she's notable enough without it). Zagalejo 23:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Having a book listed at amazon.com is not difficult, they sell self-published material. Being a guest on an AM radio show does not meet WP:BIO. --Arbusto 00:18, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 15:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starchild skull[edit]

Basically this page is complete bollocks. Originally I planned to simply delete everything that was unverified and inncorrect, but found that was virtually the entire article. Jefffire 10:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree, this article is wp:bollocks Pervect 11:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the skull has a relatively substantial number of google hits, virtually none of them count as acceptable sources in a Wikipedia article. Given it is of borderline notability I'd say the door should be open to recreation in the event of verifiable sources being created, but until then it is probably beyond being salvaged. --Davril2020 16:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's disappointing to see an article with so many facts and figures and no references, but unfortunately that is also true for the majority of article on wikipedia. This article is not bollocks, there actuallly is a skull that has excited some debate among fringe scientists and people with an interest in such things. I know I have at least a couple of issues of Fortean Times with articles about this, so give me a couple of days to add references and delete the crap. --Joelmills 21:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup and keep It's received plenty of attention. It might be a headache to find good sources, but Fortean Times would be a decent start (they're usually objective). Zagalejo 00:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the skull itself is real(though it could easily be a fake, it'd still be real), discussion on it is real. I might be inclined to consider it a Piltdown Man, but that's yet to be determined. FrozenPurpleCube 02:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Does such an interesting article have to be deleted because of the lack of internet references to it? The skull does exist, and although it hasn't recieved as much attention as other archeological finds. This article is valid, and should be kept. - XX55XX 21:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I went ahead and rewrote the article (thanks to Jefffire for the vigorous cleanup). --Joelmills 17:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm happy with the clean-up now. The unverified material has been erased, and Joel has verified the new information. Jefffire 09:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the clean up. Arbusto 05:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ModTheSims2[edit]

Was listed before with no consensus. Prod'd again, so relisting it for AfD. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - very little change in the article between the last AFD and this one [28]. Yomanganitalk 11:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep - alexa ~ 4000: [29]. MER-C 11:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Same as before. High ranked, notable in every way, could use some clean up. Havok (T/C/c) 23:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Havok (T/C/c) 23:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep; alexa rank is high and has media attention. — brighterorange (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Media attention...where? Can you point to me where this article has been mentioned in a magazine or something? As far as I can tell this is just a generic mod site - popular, but nothing to differentiate it from the hordes of other mod sites i.e. The Sims Resource, another high-profile site (ModTheSims2 is 3K and TSR is 9K, but the cutoff isn't at 5K or anything). Hbdragon88 07:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Read the article? It has two references, which are both from reliable sources. Havok (T/C/c) 08:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Those are NOT references. They are trivial media mentions. The actual nature of the sources are mentioned in the previous AFD. One is actually is a one sentence blurb that refers to a Brokeback Mountain sim that was listed as featured content. The other was a mention on a cable tv teach program. Neither are "multiple non-trivial published works" that are required in the notability guidelines for web content. --Kunzite 21:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment And yet from all The Sims 2 sites out there, they chose to feature a links to this site not some other The Sims 2 site. Havok (T/C/c) 11:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? They're still trivial media mentions. --Kunzite 04:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone above me. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB and the above reasons from the previous AFD. I'll add more on this later. --Kunzite 21:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've invited several people who have commented upon the merit of this article on the talk page and on the edit summaries to participate in this discussion. --Kunzite 21:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The shear size and scope of this website makes it rather notable. Its spawned 2 sites, and in a very short time has taken a very large part of The Sims fanbase. While Alexa rank isn't a criteria for inclusion, it does indicate that the website is popular and the information should be present. WP:WEB is only a guideline and not an a binding policy. It certainly doesn't seem to be written to address websites or other internet based things that would garner massive attention on the internet, but not the attention of mass media. Mass media isn't our litmus test anymore than google or Alexa are.--Crossmr 00:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regardless of what Alexa ranks and the Google test indicate, this still fails WP:WEB. Since it's a gaming site (and has a very narrow focus at that) it is unlikely that nontrivial sources for its right to remain will be found any time soon. GarrettTalk 01:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've stated my opinion earlier, and I'm standing by it. ModTheSims2 fails WP:WEB and WP:VAIN, and the information provided in the article in question is far too trivial for Wikipedia. Yes, there may be other website-related articles on Wikipedia which are trivial in nature, and they deserve to be deleted just as much as ModTheSims2. But I only contribute to websites that fall within my scope of interest, and seeing as The Sims 2 is one of my interests. ModTheSims2 may be a notable website in the Sims community, and can perhaps be mentioned in a blurb as a significant website to the modding community. But articles such as these will eventually be rendered obsolete and useless to both the Sims community, and the mainstream community at large, and therefore, in my opinion, has no place in Wikipedia as this article has no historical value, and the article provides absolutely nothing to those wanting to learn more about the Sims modding community. Sillygostly 03:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What part of the article fails WP:VAIN?--Crossmr 22:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most of the content was written by the site owner. Which in itself, may not be a problem, but there are things like the mentioning that the adult sites were split off, but the reason was likely because paypal threatened to drop them. (Or at least that's the story of what happened at another sims download site.) It's not neutral but adding an assumption that the reason was because of paypal is original research--pulling the reason off of an internet forum doesn't jive with reliable sources documentation. The article also reads like an advertisment... but wait, there's more "...it too is powered by vBulletin"! --Kunzite 04:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:V/WP:RS, WP:WEB. Wickethewok 16:10, 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 merge/redirect. W.marsh 15:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internet affiliate marketing[edit]

I honestly don't know what to do with this page. It looks spam-esk to me and I'm not sure it's really encyclopedic. It's certainly not NPOV at present. Thoughts? MidgleyDJ 11:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I'm probably not supposed to vote neutral, but I have to add that I had the same reaction. It probably just needs an advertisement tag. -Patstuart 11:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a merge with Affiliate marketing might be in order. While that article isn't exactly perfect either, getting them both in one place would make it easier to sort out. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what advertising is expressed? I tried to give strategy of internet affiliate marketing dealing. XPiero 12:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wouldn't go so far as to call the article advertising, but it does have an unencyclopedic tone in places (such as "You'll want to watch for great products and services..." and "It's a win-win situation for everyone that way."). It's also the same essential topic as Affiliate marketing, which is better-referenced and more comprehensive. That's why I think a merge there makes sense, so the good parts aren't sacrificed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do that want XPiero 12:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can remove unencyclopaedic parts from this article. But article will be removed probably. XPiero 12:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge anything from the very little here that is worth saving into affiliate marketing. I would commend the latter article as an unusually lucid and informative article on the sort of subject that is badly handled too often here. There seems to be very little worth merging, and anything merged will have to be rewritten for tone, but someone who knows the field should check. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - may be better to consider the Internet aspect in association with other internet advertising methods. Affiliate schemes are characterized mainly by a relatively large payment per completion, instead of small payments per click or even smaller ones per view. Ace of Risk 12:51, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 15:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anurag kumar[edit]

No direspect to Anurag Kumar, but I dont think this person is (yet) notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability is not asserted. MidgleyDJ 12:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weakish keep - his website seems to list a number of awards he's won as well as one book he's written solo and another co-authored one. It's not an area I'm remotely familiar with, though, so I'm not totally sure any or all of this gets him over the proposed WP:PROF. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 12:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Currently Professor and Chairman at Department of Electrical Communication at Indian Institute of Science" is an assertion of notability. MER-C 12:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is it? I work in a university full of professors. I certainly hope I dont have to add them all to Wikipedia? Many of these professors are chairs in various departments within the University of Sydney and on academic panels advising the government. Most professors have many (hundreds, often) scientific publications. Adding every scientist with a decent publication record seems unreasonable to me and I'm not sure this does qualify for notability (in the wikipedia sense of the word). MidgleyDJ 13:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What about IEEE fellowship? It is a recognition of life long achievements. And he is one of the 15 or so fellows in India. And the book as well. Just try running a google search on his name... Ameerblore 13:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -And apart from his academic contributions; he has contributed to the development of India by heading project ERNET, which was one of the first (I believe the first; though not sure) digital networks in India and interconnected major academic and research institutes across the country.Ameerblore 17:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -MER-C, I am a new wikipedian. Could you suggest a better wording? Ameerblore 17:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not my area, but appears to meet WP:PROF per IEEE fellowship, editorial board of international journals and departmental chair in an institute that the wiki-article considers prestigious. I don't know anything about ERNET (is there an article on it?), but if it's the Indian equivalent of the UK's JANET, then I think that would also be of note. Capitalisation should be fixed. Espresso Addict 18:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I am sorry; he was the co-ordinator, not the head of ERNET from 1989 to 2001. The director positions are usually held by political people. He was the primary technical person involved. ERNET seems to be equivalent to JANET in UK; though India had been 7-8 years behind UK in its development. We should write a wiki-article on this too. Ameerblore 02:50, 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. Punkmorten 22:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Place In Between[edit]

Fails WP:WEB notablity standards. -Patstuart 01:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails to assert notability. Feel free to speedy it when CSD A7 is expanded. MER-C 12:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. From WP:CSD A7, "An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or website that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." (emphasis added). Certainly this is covered by A7 now. Cool3 20:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per lack of verifiability. W.marsh 15:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andres Useche[edit]

Non-notability, autobiography Chien-A 01:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional weak keep if the assertion of notability, "a short film entitled “Vana Espuma” (Idle Mist), won the Cesar award for Best Fiction Film at the 1998 Cesares (a South American Awards for students)" can be verified. MER-C 12:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional delete Keep. IMDb confirms the awards for the short film, which has also received 220 votes. Bad faith nomination by WP:SPA? See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vana Espuma. Changed my "vote" per Metropolitan90's observations. The one short film and its supposed awards are the only claims of notability, besides the "Recently, he was hired to direct a feature film with a multimillion-dollar budget.", which also fails WP:V and also seems crystal-balling. Prolog 16:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional delete because I wonder if the IMDb was hoaxed as to the film's awards. Note that the César Awards are the main French film awards, which confer obvious notability on a movie, yet the film in question is supposed to have won the "Cesar Awards, South America" as opposed to the Cesar Awards of France. I have not found evidence of the South American Cesars outside IMDb ... and Vana Espuma is the only film listed in IMDb as ever having won any South American Cesars. I will reconsider if we find a non-IMDb source. --Metropolitan90 17:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am the person who nominated the article and I was not registered in english wikipedia because I'm not enough good in english lenguage as you can see, but I find this article here cause I work in spanish articles about cinema specially colombian cinema and I've never heared about him before or his short movie and the "Premios Cesares" actually exist in Colombia but is a small local ceremony for visual arts and comunication. This article looks like was made by the author and have exagerating things, If you check previus revisions there are one where said that the cesares are the equivalent to Academy Awards in South America that is totally false, in Colombia there are two big cinema Festivals Cartagena International film festival and Bogota International film festival. I don't have anything against this person but I think is just promoting himself. Chien-A 04:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. WP:V issues. Eusebeus 13:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 15:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BostonDirtDogs.com[edit]

A failure of WP:WEB. Mike 17:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails to assert notability. Feel free to speedy it when CSD A7 is expanded. MER-C 12:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per criteria #3 of WP:WEB. The content is distributed via Boston.com, the online site for the Boston Globe. (that transaction received enough press coverage alone to indicate notability) It is still an independent site, however. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article." So says WP:WEB, which is not a formal policy to begin with. SliceNYC 22:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability is in its distribution by the Globe. SirFozzie 19:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no assertion made of notability other than its affiliation with Boston.com and that some minor, nn online sportswriter contributes to it. NoMaas is its Yankees equivalent and it would probably get speedied -- the only difference is team and publisher. It's also worth noting that Boston.com is not the same thing as the Boston Globe, and neither are involved in the production of what Boston.com calls a fansite. [30] Basically, Boston.com acts more like Geocities than a newspaper's site in this case. SliceNYC 22:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Vastly incorrect. Boston.com actually acquired BostonDirtDogs, and pays the maintainer. And Boston.Com is the Boston Globe. [Here's a story about the acquisition] In fact, if you take a look at the Boston Globe entry here on Wiki, down at the bottom is says: "Official Site: Boston.com". I assumes your WP:N concerns, SliceNYC? SirFozzie 23:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a daily visitor to Boston.com I've always been under the impression that the site and the Globe are separate entities with the same ownership -- that Boston.com has the exclusive rights to publish online Globe content, but it's not the Globe website like nytimes.com is for the Times. Boston.com's slogan is "your connection to the Boston Globe" (as in, Boston.com is a third party) and there is a distinct difference between the sections that appear in the newspaper and general content (travel, real estate, some A&E). Either way, we're probably getting off-topic in hashing out trivial details. My question stands: is the site notable beyond its connections (whatever they may be)? Remember the guidelines on WP:WEB -- even if BDD is distributed by a major site, that does not automatically confer notability on it (otherwise, we'd have a page for every Boston.com message board.) SliceNYC 01:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if you go to bostonglobe.com, it takes you right to boston.com and the paper's logo is right there. Apparently, breaking news and updated stories are available on that site.. I did remark on how the parent company of the Globe (the NY Times) is the 2nd largest shareholder in the Sox, which led to some interesting discussion about the site's editorial independence. You're right that we're quibbling over small details, but I still strongly believe that it satisfies WP:N and WP:WEB as the article now stands SirFozzie 02:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP:WEB #3: "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.[7]" BDD has, for the most part, complete autonomy from the Globe/Boston.com, meets it easily. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and if unable to expand past stub size, merge to Boston.com or Boston Globe. It's real and notable, but may not merit an independent article. Alba 00:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]
    • Keep per expansion. It's now a Start-class article. Alba 02:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please check the article. I greatly expanded it with the history, and some notable controversies ((You should hear the sports writers around here when this guy is mentioned.. You can hear their teeth grind about how he got successful, cuz he doesn't do things the way the sports writers consider the "Traditional" way. Makes for some fun talk radio sometimes. SirFozzie 02:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well-done. Putting aside the whole Globe/Boston.com issue for now, the article sufficiently asserts a surprising amount of notability for a fansite. There are proably a wealth of WP:RS commenting on the site and the business dealings, so some more sourcing might be in order, but that's a cleanup issue, not a deletion issue. I'm willing to stand down on this one. (Although maybe it's just a Yankee fan feeling sympathetic for fans of a 3rd-place team.) SliceNYC 02:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
((makes note that WP:AGF doesn't apply to Yankee fans. (kidding, good luck in the playoffs) SirFozzie 03:09, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Alexander[edit]

Charles Alexander appears to be an autobiographical vanity article that should be on the user's page rather than the encyclopædia proper. The page's creator has been notified that verification of notability is needed and that it is being listed for deletion.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Fernando[edit]

Delete No need for this chap to have his own page.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - sufficiently notable, nomination withdrawn. I slapped a cleanup tag on it though. Ew. David Gerard 14:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Directline holidays[edit]

This page, as it stands, appears to be little more than advertising for what at least appears to be a relatively non-notable travel web site, with very little encyclopedic content. At the least this needs a major rewrite, but I would think deletion more appropriate at this stage. Plasma 10:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It depends how you define “non-notable”, where is the line drawn?
    • Public awareness Wikipedia already has inclusions for expedia, ebookers, lastminute, kayak.com, sidestep. The last two are unknown outside of the US.
    • Google page rank Ebookers has a google page rank of just 3/10, directline-holidays.co.uk 5/10.
    • Google search results Google ranks directline-holidays.co.uk as the most important site for “cheap package holidays” in the UK.
    • Alexa Alexa measures directline-holidays.co.uk website as rank 41,144 in the world, Thomascook.co.uk as rank 2,071,783
    • Dmoz This directory (sister site of wikipedia) hand picks notable sites for inclusion and has an entry for directline-holidays.co.uk
  • Just for the inclusion in Dmoz (where editors are chosen by their experience and understanding of a category) this entry should be allowed.-Prechto 13:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep.After some consideration I've decided to revoke my opinion and leave it as merely a comment. The following research on my part does not have any particular relation to WP:CORP, although that is by no mal-intent or ignorance of mine; I was doing the best I could to contribute to the discussion under the circumstances - the circumstances being that no one had offered an opinion except for Prechto. Prechto makes some good points. The company at least seems to do some major business: it bought one of the first video advertising spots on google videos. A google search returned over 45,000 results, most of which seemed to be relevant. It certainly seems that this company is UK-based, which explains why I've never seen an advertisement. I think the article needs a MAJOR rewrite, but that can be done. Srose (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of those things define notability, for the reasons given in Wikipedia:Search engine test and the fact that "If article X then article Y." is a flawed argument, amongst others. The notability criteria for companies can be found at WP:CORP. None of the above actually addresses those criteria. Uncle G 13:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Unfortunately, Uncle G, I do not live in the U.K. and, therefore, have no means of obtaining any business periodicals or regular newspapers. The reason that my argument was labeled weak is for this exact reason. I do, however, believe that there is evidence that it must be throwing a good deal of money around to have gotten one of the first advertising spots on Google Video. Srose (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: I'm dubious. I've never heard of this firm before, however if they primarily advertise online (which according to the article is their sole form of advertising these days) then it's not surprising. Compared to a known UK travel firm like Thomson Holidays (Alexa rank ca. 16000) they're really pushing obscurity. Sockatume 17:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep (from nominator) - I probably should slightly elaborate on my initial reason for listing. The initial version that I listed came off, at least in my opinion, as containing little in the way of buzzwords and what basically boiled down to light-on-content marketing blurb, without giving a particularly goo dargument for notability. Honestly lacking any expertise in the area, but rather dissatisfied with what I felt was more in-line with a marketing brochure than an encyclopedia, I made this listing (when in hindsight I probably should have raised it on the talk page first, since my problems were more about the content than the existence of the article altogether, even though I felt it met vfd criteria). Having seen the changes made by the article's author since then, I'm fairly happy in that it comes off a lot more neutral, rather than as an endorsement, and contains a lot more factual content. Plasma 14:57, 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 keep (and move). — CharlotteWebb 02:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Icknield High School - Luton, UK[edit]

Delete - article does not show how it is notable.Mapetite526 16:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep yes it does. It could do with renaming though. --Alex (Talk) 18:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — the school meets my personal criteria for high school notability, although it could be expanded. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Icknield High School. —dustmite 22:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my belief that secondary schools and above are inherently notable. Yamaguchi先生 23:48, 29 September 2006
  • Move as outlined above. Sockatume 13:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per most other high school debates, all high schools meet notability requirements. Can we please stop having these discussions? Nlsanand 19:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per the above comments. RFerreira 22:47, 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 normal keep.  :-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mancs[edit]

This article was nominated for deletion yesterday, but it was made a "speedy keep" after very little discussion. I re-nominated it for deletion because it does not appear to meet Wikipedia standards. As noted on it's discussion page, the article is not sourced. The single source in the article is in Hungarian. The small section of the source that is in English makes no mention of the subject of the article.

Also, (as I noted in my comments on the discussion page) why is this dog notable?

This article would probably be wiki material if it was just improved. Real sources and some kind of evidence that the dog is notable is a must. I'm not trying to be a jerk, let's just make sure the article meets the standards. Sam1174 00:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC) — Sam1174 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Note The discussion of the first AFD nomination is here. TheronJ 18:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD again?

  • Again I urge a speedy keep -
  • The dog is up on google (you have to dig - "Mancs" is also UK abbrev for Manchester)
  • Another source can be found here [32]
  • Not worthy of an article? Is saving human life around the world not quite enough merit?
  • The 2nd AfD is ONCE AGAIN put up by an SPA.
...and it *is* a nice little article. A keeper. Istvan 04:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just becouse you don't find this dog by searching for "Mancs" on google on the first page, doesn't mean anything.

  • the name is just 5 characters long, so you can find a lot of other meanings
  • Mancs is a common name for dogs, so search for the full name instead.
  • If you don't know this dog, it doesn't mean that it is not famous. For example, lot of people in the USA don't know where Hungary, or other european states are, so we should delete those articles too?

We should have copied the previous discussion on this page to the article's talk page. To renominate it for deletion was not a fair thig to do, as I noticed nearly everybody (except the nominator) voted for keeping it. You should have mentioned your arguments for deletion on the talk page, before renominating it. You just nominated it, without asking anybody.

Keep it. --V. Szabolcs 07:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article should stay. That being said, additional sources would be nice. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 14:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As I've mentioned, the dog is famous in Hungary and he saved lots of lives abroad too. – Alensha  talk 19:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but improve." It is probably a worthy entry, but it needs improvement. It definitely needs sources (in English). I also disagree about the speedy keep. The article has issues that should have been addressed prior to removing it's nomination for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.45.129 (talk • contribs)
    • comment: It was a speedy keep because it was on the main page and someone found a rule that those articles can be speedily kept. Now we can discuss it... – Alensha  talk 13:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

some sites mentioning him in English (I did not want to put all of them into the article since some of them mention him in a passing sentence only, others are from blogs etc.)

– Alensha  talk 13:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is a bad faith nomination by an SPA [33] and all votes to delete (save one) are either unsigned, SPAs or IP addresses (plural used very loosely here). Pure mischief. Someone who doesnt like dogs maybe? This is a completely noncontroversial keep. Istvan 13:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although I was surprised to see a stub on Main Page. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a nice article, and when the article about the Rescue Team itself will be written it might become more interesting in "context".--Dami 17:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Here's the Deal... I nominated it for deletion the second time. I don't necessarily think the article should be deleted, but it definitely did not meet Wiki standards when I read it on the main page. I saw that it had been nominated for deletion and then "speedy kept" all within an hour, without any legitimate discussion. That's simply not right. The article was UNSOURCED! It was a stub, and a poor stub at that. I've never nominated an article for deletion before, but I had one of my articles nominated, and I didn't like it. In hindsight, however, my article didn't meet the standards. I fixed it (with the help of some other people), and now the article is a good article. I didn't nominate this article because I wanted it to be deleted, I nominated it because I wanted it to be improved. Without the attention that it got by being nominated for deletion, it wouldn't have gotten the attention that it needed to be improved. Martylunsford 02:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mancs was nominated for deletion the second time by user:Sam1174 on that account's first edit. You state above that you in fact made the nomination. Why then not in your own name? Why hide your identity? If you wanted Mancs to be improved and not deleted, then why not edit it or simply put some such request on the talk page? It got speedy keep because others thought it met standards (sometimes "short" equals "concise" and not "stub" and it WAS sourced). Nobody here put any of your stuff up for AfD (that I know of), so why the provocation? Istvan 04:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable dog. Yomanganitalk 14:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly Speedy as a WP:SNOW situation. Though I personally don't see any notability for a dog, the nominator is basically a single purpose account (who even asserts this would be wiki material if it were improved), unless you believe Martylunsford, in which case the nomination was not to get it deleted but to get it improved... which, if true, is a blatent misuse of AfD and the editor should be warned against doing that again. Either way, there simply is no valid reason being advanced here to delete this article.--Isotope23 14:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If there's a public statue of it, it can have an encyclopedia article IMO. Sockatume 17:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just because I can. I object to the common practice of discounting an AfD, (or anything else for that matter) because of the nominator or editor's lack of an edit history. When I first started editing at wikipedia, I was accused of being an SPA, and told that my opinion was to be ignored several times. It is an elitist attitude, and should be reserved for cases where there is clear evidence of a conflict of interest. Does anyone really think that the nominator has a personal axe to grind against this dog? Crockspot 17:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the nominator's lack of history isn't what is troubling... what is troubling is the fact that the nominator put forth no reason for deletion other than a vague "...does not appear to meet Wikipedia standards", a claim that a native language source isn't good enough, and then states that this could be a Wikipedia article if this was cleaned up. To me, that completely invalidates the nomination to delete. I'm not trying to WP:BITE here; I'd probably be even harsher if this was an established editor because in that case they should know better. If expecting an AfD nomination to clearly state a good reason for deletion without stating the article just needs to be improved is "elitist" than I am as bourgeoisie as they come.--Isotope23 18:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but do not speedy, it doesn't appear to meet any speedy standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, just because I can. I object to the practice of someone renominating an article for AfD simply because they didn't like the outcome of a prior AfD. Nothing has changed in the article since yesterday, there's no new reasoning for deletion, and, as the nominator himself states: "This article would probably be wiki material if it was just improved". So put a note in it that it needs improvement and leave it be. Sparkhead 18:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Mancs obviously is about as notable as a working dog can get. (For a scholarly reference to the furry guy, see my recent addition to his article[34]). Now for a bunch of thoughts:
  • There's nothing wrong with either the speedy keep or the renomination. Per Wikipedia:Speedy keep#Applicability, clause 6, pages should not be nominated while on the main page. Therefore, it was perfectly appropriate to speedy keep while Mancs was a front-page item, and perfectly appropriate to re-nominate once he wasn't.
  • On the other hand, I wish people would stop attacking the nom as an SPA or for having "bad faith" -- the RFD shouldn't turn on whether or not the nom sucks, and debating that issue here isn't constructive to the discussion.
  • On the gripping hand, the nom is wrong -- AFD shouldn't be an accellerated clean-up request. Mancs looks reasonably notable, so at the very least, it would have been a good idea to engage in more talk page discussion asking for verifiable evidence of his notability.
Thanks, TheronJ 18:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good doggie! *Pat on the head* up+land 18:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep verified sources don't have to be easy. If you can't assume good faith, learn hungarian. SchmuckyTheCat 19:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bizarre.--MONGO 22:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously --Guinnog 05:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ignoring the fact that this is the second single-purpose account nomination, the only "delete" is a WP:POINT vote to demonstrate that SPA's can be right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel.Bryant (talk • contribs) 22:14, September 30, 2006
  • Strong Keep as bad faith nom by SPA. If it wasn't for the fact that I closed the first AfD, I'd close this one. If I was an admin, I'd go ahead and close this one anyway. --Aaron 02:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bad faith nomination? Your original speedy keep was a bad faith speed keep. I explained my reasons for the second nomination, but my primary reason was that the original article, which did not meet wiki standards, was speedy kept by you. If you had simply allowed the discussion to take place, the article would have been improved and there would have been no need for the second nomination. The people who are voting to keep it now are looking at the improved article. Of course they are going to vote to keep it. If they had looked at it a week ago, it wouldn't have been so clear-cut. Martylunsford 13:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See, Marty, comments like yours are exactly why admins tend to discount the comments of SPA's, IP editors and those with low edit counts when closing AfDs: Because even when their statements are made in good faith, they usually don't have enough knowledge of AfD procedures, or procedures anywhere else on Wikipedia, to make a meaningful contribution to the discussion. In your case, I will point you to WP:SK, which explicity states the following as one of the seven scenarios under which an AfD is to be closed as a speedy keep: The article is currently linked to on the Main Page. Please wait until it is not there before starting a deletion discussion. Mancs was linked to on the front page, it was wrongly put up for an AfD, and I thus closed the AfD as a speedy keep in good faith and in full compliance with Wikipedia's AfD guidelines. Secondly, I will point out to you that it is considered out of process to nominate an article for deletion simply because you think it needs improvement, at least not before slapping some sort of {{cleanup}} tag on it and giving other editors a reasonable amount of time to take action on it (and a lot of admins would argue it's never a proper reason to nominate). --Aaron 01:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Nothing wrong with a Hungarian source. If you doubt the source, just go over to the translation group and ask someone to read it. Kick ass dog. Derex 01:02, 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 delete unclear where to transwiki this too as it's just unverified slang. W.marsh 15:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mannuni[edit]

This article has little or no context and appears to be no more than a dictionary entry Paulus 08:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki per nom. MER-C 12:24, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sullivan: Limerick[edit]

non notable, added by a single use account. Yandman 12:08, 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 13:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nycgarages.com[edit]

Someone keeps removing cleanup templates from this website's article, which has no assertion of encyclopedic value. The "ideabounce" competition which is mentioned appears to have no wikipedia article. Salad Days 04:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - alexa ~ 600,000. Won't be a speedy. MER-C 12:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, site does not meet WP:WEB.--Isotope23 14:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this should not be deleted. this site is useful and reliable, and as for the ideabounce competetion search google, its an event at wash u. in st. louis. if this gets deleted, than so should every other article because this is just a legit. — Possible single purpose account: 66.65.64.115 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

Comment - I have tagged the IP as a SPA because the only contributions this month have been to the article and the deletion debate. MER-C 01:14, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep Tag[edit]

Fails verifiability and possibly original research as well. This article is about a non-notable subject. Article makes no claim for notability. Previous afd from 2005 had no consensus. See this page for similar discussion. Altair 18:13, 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 delete A7, band, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 14:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Left Wings[edit]

This is pretty obviously a vanity page, no? Also, I don't see any evidence of notoriety.

wikipedia: vanity page

  • Speedy delete - fails to assert notability. Tagged as such. MER-C 12:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: it is unencyclopedic, its only link is broken, it is unverifyable. Only keep it if an official source is found to present it as a notable (or a contest-winning) band. I doubt this will happen, so delete it. --V. Szabolcs 13:25, 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 delete per lack of verifiability. W.marsh 15:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vana Espuma[edit]

This is student's shortfilm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chien-A (talk • contribs) 01:00, 28 September 2006

  • Conditional keep if the assertion of notability, "The short eventually went on to win in several categories at the South American César awards, including Best Leading Actress for Catalina Gallo, Best Screenplay, and Best Fiction Film.", can be verified. MER-C 12:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Speedy keep. IMDb confirms the awards and the movie has received 220 votes. Bad faith nomination by WP:SPA? Changed my "vote" per Metropolitan90's observations here and on Andres Useche. Prolog 16:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional delete for same reasons stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andres Useche; I'm concerned about IMDb possibly having been hoaxed as to this film. The South American Cesar Awards listed in IMDb for this film are the only South American Cesar Awards known to IMDb as to any film. I will reconsider if we find a non-IMDb source. --Metropolitan90 17:41, 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 Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watchtower Quotes[edit]

"Watchtower Quotes" article is unencyclopedic, and has no clearly defined purpose or focus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffro77 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 28 September 2006

  • Speedy delete as copyvio. Tagged as such. MER-C 12:18, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Maloney[edit]

I prodded this as a potential hoax, prod removed. It has also been prodded before and a speedy which was removed. I can find no references for Tom Maloney, Magloos, nor the book quoted as a reference. I have it pegged as WP:HOAX. Delete. --Richhoncho 12:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: It should be noted that Maloney's "Magloos, was invented in 1985, 9 years after the book sourced as referenced was published. LOL --Richhoncho 12:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If every word of this likely hoax is true, the subject would still not meet WP:BIO.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:V. —dustmite 22:00, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New look for islam[edit]

Personal Essay Yandman 12:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. May be a copyvio. MER-C 13:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopedic OR essay. I thought everyone knew that this year, the new look for Islam is polka dots. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. (anyone able to establish if it's a copyvio?) --Charlesknight 14:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as essay... originator might want to consider getting a blog.--Isotope23 14:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jpe|ob 15:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, personal essay. NawlinWiki 15:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be tempted to move it to userspace. Baring that, delete. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's already in his userspace, and I explained to him the difference betwwen the two.Yandman 16:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree that the article's lack of value is clear, I don't believe it meets any of the CSD. —dustmite 01:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. Cedars 01:20, 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 13:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clickwheel[edit]

Non-notable webcomic portal/service. Fails WP:WEB, WP:V, and WP:RS. Alexa ranking ~1.7 million. Delete. Wickethewok 12:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alexa ranking is not one of the primary reasons for deletion - lack of reliable sources is, however. Wickethewok 13:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comixpedia is a wiki, and it isn't even a tertiary source like Wikipedia is, so the standards for inclusion are a lot more lax there. There are webcomics perfectly capable of meeting WP:V from articles in newspapers and magazines. News outlets aren't as backwards as some people think they are. ColourBurst 21:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You've misunderstood the nature of the source. ComixPedia is primarily a magazine/news site, which also happens to host a comics wiki. - Hahnchen 02:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen LeDrew[edit]

Non-notable municipal election candidate. Never held political office. I don't think that being president of a political party constitutes notability. Suttungr 13:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Keep. He's notable and well-known in Canada. His last-minute candidacy here in Toronto is garnering significant media attention due to his name recognition and the fact that he is a significant political player in Canada (albeit one that has not held public office). Skeezix1000 13:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think his political past confers notability. And we have an entry for the current Liberal Party president - Michael Eizenga. Catchpole 13:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - LPC President by itself is notable enough for me. -Joshuapaquin 13:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for LPC President, not Mayoral candidacy, should be stubbed though. -- Chabuk 16:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if only for his status as past Liberal Party president. Who could ever forget the glasses and bowtie... Kirjtc2 17:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think presidency of a major national political party (of any country) is notable. In addition, LeDrew is a frequent commentator on Canadian television. Agent 86 19:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-known figure. CJCurrie 20:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - deleting this article would be "dumb as a bag of hammers". Murphy Brown 21:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above comments, WP:OSTRICH comes into play here. Yamaguchi先生 03:15, 30 September 2006
  • Keep; regardless of his status in the municipal election, he's a notable political strategist and media commentator. He's no less notable than John Tory was in 2003. Bearcat 05:50, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PCschematic ELautomation[edit]

Fails to assert notability. Contested prod. MER-C 13:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment above is the creator of the article. MER-C 13:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment unless your software meets one of the conditions listed at WP:SOFTWARE, it's not notable enough for an article. --Daniel Olsen 14:49, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madness-evolution[edit]

Non-notable freewebs website that fails WP:WEB in many many ways. I really hope that web speedy criteria is pushed along. –– Lid(Talk) 14:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. NawlinWiki 14:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wholly non-notable.--Anthony.bradbury 14:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I agree.--Janarius 14:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Feel free to speedy when A7 is expanded. MER-C 14:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Prolog 16:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete This appears to be close to the recently deleted article Madness combat which was deleted via AfD a few days ago. Wildthing61476 16:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. —dustmite 21:57, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xls2csv[edit]

Prod removed by anon (no rationale given.) My prod read

No encyclopedic value and likely to never have any given the rudimentary nature of the task the software accomplishes. Wikipedia is not a directory, clear-cut failure of any version of WP:SOFTWARE.

which sums it up. Pascal.Tesson 14:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. This looks like someone's computer science project. Yandman 15:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The program is recognized by Google and is probably used by some but fails WP:SOFTWARE. Prolog 16:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Michael Kinyon 09:35, 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 delete. W.marsh 15:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Kappa Nu[edit]

This is an interesting case. This article was deleted at AfD here last week, given concerns over its bias regarding the "first black fraternity" controversy. A different version was then recreated. A very confused, newbie/SPA-populated DRV did nothing to elucidate the matter. Imput from experienced, impartial editors is needed here. This debate with be semi-protected to curb newbie/SPA spamming, and the full history of the article will be restored to allow diff. comparison. I undertake this nomination as editor concerned about the quality of the article. Weak delete, pending discussion. Xoloz 15:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Beware that this article draws WP:SPAs. Xoloz 15:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reviewing the previous debates, esepcially the concerns over authorship and motivation as well as the nature of the sources, I am inclined to vote delete on this. Eusebeus 15:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article should be deleted based on the speculative nature (POV) of the references provided and the author’s further misquoting of these references. Alpha Kappa Nu has been out of existence for 100 years. The only authentic proof of its existence at all is the picture provided. Membership roster and bios can be deduced by this picture, if one is desirous to labor in that original research.
However, and of the utmost importance, since there’s no written documentation to be found anywhere in the form of a Constitution, preamble, or mission statement, it’s speculative to conclude whether or not Alpha Kappa Nu was a club, society, fraternity, exclusive membership based on race, gender, or social status, academic, social, or service oriented (“strengthen the Negro voice at the city and the university”? Says who?), or otherwise. Presenting any such evidence as 100% fact on this or any other site, as well as any and all journal and newspaper publications should be avoided.
I whole-heartedly support deletion in its entirety. Adisalee 16:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, with some conditions, though. I don't see any reason to doubt the organization's existence, and while the article as it stood at deletion was horribly written, it's properly sourced and the core material seems to be accurate. Keeping it and semi-protecting it should allow for significant article improvements without User:Mykungfu's typical tactic of heavy editing via anonymous IPs. His misbehavior on other articles - he's violated WP:3RR, WP:SOCK, and has harassed a number of other editors - shouldn't affect our votes here. (Please note that I voted to delete in the prior debate, but after further review, would lean towards keeping it.) | Mr. Darcy talk 02:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At best, the most accurate historical presentation of AKN would read as follows: Alpha Kappa Nu was a club at Indiana in 1903. Members shown in the photo are _________. This organization existed only a few years and left no information about what type of organization if was (study group, fraternity, radical militant group, honor society, Black nationalists?) its scope, purpose, aims, goals, or membership requirememnts. Why even have an article of three sentences? Adisalee 12:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop using the bold tags - you're giving me eyestrain. Short articles are perfectly welcome on Wikipedia, and the fact that an article might be a stub at first doesn't mean it will never be expanded. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Be_bold.png Adisalee 22:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sympathetic, but the sparsity of reliable sources to verify the claims is troubling; the claims may be true but this is bordering on original research. I suggest this information be published in a reputable journal first. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-05 08:01Z
  • weak delete: concur with Quarl. I don't want to beat up on this article (which is what I was accused of by its creator), but it appears all knowledge of this organization comes from the previously discussed picture. The only other original reference to it is taken from the one paragraph quote of the official history book of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc.:

Black-sponsored Greek letter organizations on the Indiana University campus might well have begun in 1903, but there were too few registrants to assure continuing organization. In that year, a club was formed called Alpha Kappa Nu with the purpose of strengthening the Blacks' voice at the University and in the city of Bloomington. There is no record of any similar organization at Indiana until the chartering of Kappa Alpha Nu, a forerunner of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Incorporated, in 1911. -The Story of Kappa Alpha Psi by William Crump, Copyright 1991

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty Year Rule[edit]

Does not meet WP:V -Nv8200p talk 15:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless sourced. Possible but unlikely that one of those worthless "cultural commentators" could have coined this expression. David | Talk 16:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Ah, but they have. E.g., via Lexis-Nexis, Michael O'Rourke, "I'll love the '90s, but not just yet," San Antonio Express-News, July 17, 2004: "...It is the 20-year rule. It takes a good 20 years to get a feeling of nostalgia....When I was a kid in the 1970s everybody was nostalgic for the 1950s. "Happy Days" was the No. 1 show on television...". Or, Omaha World-Herald editorial, Nov. 18, 2005: "There's something of a 20-year rule in pop culture -- whatever was new 20 years ago is the retro fad of today." Or, Sacha Orenstein, "The secret to the music biz (the 20 year rule)". Pan Dan 16:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notwithstanding my above comment, delete, unless more notable sources can be found. Pan Dan 16:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this appears to be a one-off neologism.--Isotope23 16:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Isotope23. --Aaron 18:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Rule? More like an unverifiable theory. Correlation is not proof of anything. There are dozens of other trends at any given time that can harken back to a decade other than the one twenty years ago. This is the dressing up of an opinion based on coincidence that has no real encyclopedic value. Agent 86 19:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would love to keep this, I've heard of the term, but I just couldn't find any reliable sources that even use it, let alone discuss the phenomenon, in either Google or Google Book searches. There is, however, a twenty year rule in law that comes up lots and lots, apparently relating to patents, so perhaps that could serve as a replacement for this once it's deleted. Oh, and by the way, there's a very natural explanation for this: young adults nostalgic for their childhoods... when you're 28, you remember being 8 fondly... Mangojuicetalk 19:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Mangojuuice, this term could be useful, but we have to be careful about neologisms. Thus, the article has to be better verified. -- danntm T C 23:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP: It states its a theory so get off it. Have any of you heard of the term "Nostalgia". You are attacking a strong part of Pop Culture here with both the 80s retro movement and this article. Both show evidence of existance, so why delete these articles. (Tigerghost 23:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
A widely accepted and discussed theory is OK. This theory has a ways to go. -Nv8200p talk
Excellent idea. If the article isn't deleted (which it should be), then it should be merged into nostalgia. Agent 86 23:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to some other article, for example, as mentioned above, nostalgia. This theory does seem to make sense; however, it shouldn't deserve its own article. --FlyingPenguins 04:14, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben froome

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

The result was speedy delete per authors trying to move it out of article space and revealing they knew the article was not appropriate long ago "I realized the article was wrong as defined by Wikipedia a long time ago. I just wanted to see if I could possibly get around it in some way."[35].--Andeh 18:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renegade1116[edit]

Holding my nose and submitting to AFD instead of speedy deleting (again); we need a definitive ruling on this gaming character. NawlinWiki 15:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (holding my nose also). Gaming clans, unknown outside their gaming community, are not notable. Individual gamers, unknown outside their gaming community, are not notable. Their aliases or avatars, unknown outside their gaming community, are not notable. Fan-1967
  • Speedy delete I originally marked this for speedy deletion. How is this individual, who is not-notable to begin with, become any more notable with this gaming character? After reviewing this article, I believe this also violates WP:VANITY Wildthing61476 16:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's more than just a personal avatar of a random user. He is an icon for an entire gaming generation...his name :"Renegade" sort of explains part of it. Alot of people I know know of him. Not just people I know personally, people from akll over the world. A girl in Norway, a man in Finland, tons of people in America, a chinese kid, a woman in Bangladesh...the list goes on. I have been doing some research and I actually got to talk and meet with him. He was a very interesting person who lead a troubled life. Renegade1116 is an underground icon. he isn't something that you'd find in a magazine or in print. Like an urban legend. He isn't as famous as a movie star, but people know of him. A surprisingly large amount of people. I figured it might do him a little justice to put something up about him on wikipedia. I think you guys are making a way bigger deal of this than really exists. You have multiple articles way worse than this that you let survive. I want this Renegade1116 to be recognized somewhere else than hearsay. Isn't this WIkipedia's spirit anyways? It's freedom of information. The whole point of this article is to bring something to light. It IS to MAKE it more widely known and notable. SOmething can't be notable if it has no beginnings...therefore this article was created to turn hearsay, rumors, gossip, and facts into a definitive explanation. Renegade1116 16:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Wikipedia is most definitely not for making things notable, only documenting people or things which already are notable. Fan-1967 16:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Fan-1967 beat me to it, if he is already not notable, then the article does not belong here. There is hearsy, rumors and gossip about me I'm sure, does that mean I need my own page here? Wildthing61476 16:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete; "Results 1 - 10 of about 15 for Renegade1116" csd A7. None existant attention from websites/media. Thinking this user is at all notable is absolutely absurd.--Andeh 16:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment he is NOT notable online. That's the entire point of this. Think of movie stars for a second, ignoring the comparison. They had their start somewhere else. They got inducted into wikipedia after they had done notable things OUTSIDE of it. They didn't appear on wikipedia all noteable online already. Someone must have seen their acting/movies and decided they belonged online in wikipedia. This is exactly what this is. Usernames have nothing to do with it. Results of "searches" don't matter. That's the whole point I am trying to create this...so there will be more informaation available. And anyways, why do you guys seem so harsh? Is one article wasting wikipedia's space so significatnly? Renegade1116 is noteable outside of online places. THIS IS THE REASON FOR THE ARTICLE!
    • You're mistaken. We don't create articles here until people are already notable elsewhere online. As for why we're so harsh, how many thousands of gamers would start adding themselves here if we let this one stay? Fan-1967 16:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Fine, if he truly is notable offline, give reliable sources that can back this up. As for movie stars online, they become notable because of independent, verifiable sources that can show a claim to notability. And YES they appeared as notable already before getting an article on Wikipedia, otherwise the article would be removed using this SAME CRITERIA. Wildthing61476 16:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentYour telling me if I find any other site where this character is "noteable", then that's good enough for you? Why do you think I am creating this? Is it not apparent...he isn't noteable online...he is noteable in the real world. Isn't that WHY people get added? And also..."thousands" of gamers would start adding themselves? Haven't thousands of people just added themselves or had others add them for them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renegade1116 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-29 16:53:43
  • Comment "This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious). However, it is the opinion of many Wikipedians that these criteria are a fair test " And why are you forcing this if it is I quote "contentious" and "not a policy of Wikipedia"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renegade1116 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-29 16:57:48
    • Comment' Those "thousands of people" that have their articles created end up being deleted using the same criteria as well. If he is so notable in the world as you state, show WHERE this is make. Just because you say he is notable, doesn't mean he is. If he is known in multiple countries and in the real world, there HAS to be a way of proving this rather that saying "he is because I said so". Wildthing61476 17:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COmment Another notability quote straight from wikipedia: “People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them. This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted” The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renegade1116 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-29 17:01:28
    • There are some who disagree, but a minority. On the other hand, Verifiability from Reliable Sources are ironclad rules. (Oh, and just as a note, most people don't regard Runescape as "the real world.") -- Fan-1967 17:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. I'm a gamer, too. Where's my article? —Wrathchild (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another Wikipedia quote from the "ironclad" rules: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." This basically states if Time Magazine, 15 "renowned" internet sites, and at least 3 other people all say that Hitler wore Mickey Mouse underpants then I am entitled to make a wiki about it? That is a load of steaming, crap.
    • That's why we're so careful about WP:Reliable Sources. Time magazine wouldn't say that. Some blog or forum might, so we don't consider them reliable. Fan-1967 17:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another wikipedia quote: "3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Renegade1116 (talk • contribs)
  • ...and you've provided none. Fan-1967 17:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COmment I'd also like to point out that Time Magazine has printed numerous untrue things/butchered statements and quotes to their own benefit. Even Time Magazine is biased in ways..— Preceding unsigned comment added by Renegade1116 (talk • contribs)
  • The sources section of the article cites individal close friends of the subject. This article is original research — i.e. Renegade1116 (talk · contribs) has gone and interviewed the subject and the subject's friends directly, and then composed a new, never-before-published, biography of the subject. In other words: Xe has considered that in xyr opinion human knowledge has a gap and has created this article to fill it, to publish new knowledge. To quote xem above: "The whole point of this article is to bring something to light. It IS to MAKE it more widely known and notable. SOmething can't be notable if it has no beginnings...therefore this article was created to turn hearsay, rumors, gossip, and facts into a definitive explanation." In other words: The purpose of this article is to be primary source documentation for someone who has heretofore been undocumented.

    Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. The place for this original biography is a book, or the author's own web site. Delete. Uncle G 17:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • COmment Correction. It is a primary source...but an online primary source. SO that doesn't make it "the" primary source. There are other sources offline...in books, poems, stories and etc. Eyewitness accounts...
  • Comment No it is not, and again as we have said time and time again, unless you have verifiable, reliable soruces to back this up. This is nothing more than hearsay. Wildthing61476 17:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment What about all the Urban Legends on Wikipedia? These are all hearsay and people "document" them on other sites. People make books out of this hearsay and you call this reputable and allow it to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renegade1116 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment People make books out of this hearsay EXACTLY, making this "hearsay" notable. Have any books been written about him, any articles in say a LOCAL paper? ANYTHING at all, or is this to ONLY place where anything has been written about him? Wildthing61476 17:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable,. That someone can become famous for an online pursuit, but his handle can only be found 15 times by Google, is preposterous. It's like expecting an incredibly well-known researcher to go completely uncited on Pubmed. Look at it this way: nobody on the internet is talking about him, so I doubt anybody's going to come and read an encyclopedia entry on the internet about him. Sockatume 17:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. Google gives over 9 million hits for runescape. You'd think a famous runescape player would have more than 15. Fan-1967 17:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as "an article about a person that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)". Wikipedia is not: a directory, an advertising service, a webhost, a publisher of original thought. It is, however, an encyclopedia, a concept that Renegade1116 should probably familiarise himself with. -- IslaySolomon 17:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COmment Solution...anyone have a link on "userfication"?
Comment. "Userfication is usually performed because material is added in article space that is inappropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia, but not objectionable as content in a user page or a subpage thereof. This can be a satisfactory result for new users unfamiliar with the boundaries of Wikipedia content, and for users who inadvertently create personal templates in the main template space."Sockatume 17:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This material does not look appropriate for a user page. -- Fan-1967 17:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and Protect - per SD comments above. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Antyone want to help me with "userfication"? Or are you all just going to sit there and quote stuff?
  • 'Comment You were hellbent on keeping the article, you never mentioned userifciation until now. I'm adding the userfy tag to the page as we speak. Wildthing61476 17:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Comment Strike that, I'm not sure what happened to the page, an admin can adjust this for you though. Wildthing61476 17:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I hope I haven't just screwed things up too badly...thank you for your help -.- and also, no matter really how "important" the article is or was...it was nice that we actually got a chance to discuss it. I am hoping I will learn from this to avoid future mistakes. I realized the article was wrong as defined by Wikipedia a long time ago. I just wanted to see if I could possibly get around it in some way. I guess userfication is the only way to do that. I hope you'll all forget me that way I can start posting decent, wiki-rule following wikis in the future. Thank you all for putting up with me, and thanks for at least discussing it instead of automatically deleting it. I love wikipedia and I apologize for any inconvenience(s) I might have caused. Thanks again guys =)
  • Comment You're welcome, and good luck to you! Wildthing61476 17:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mission accomplished. Hopefully an admin will be able to sort out that fairly convoluted set of redirects you've got on your userspace right now: the page-meddling capacity of the Move function is not to be taken lightly. Sockatume 17:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment APologies for the redirects...I kind of misread the userfication page 4 times in a row. Not pretty.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under WP:CSD criterion A7. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death of a lifetime[edit]

Band created earlier this month. Asserts 2 "number 1 hits" on a chart I don't recognize. Unsourced. NawlinWiki 15:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:V. Apparently a cover band. Both the songs are notable by the original artists, but fail google search combined with this band's name. Fan-1967 15:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'l vouch for them, won the east london GAN band contest.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Man man man (talk • contribs)
  • Exactly. They have not yet reached a level of notability which warrants their inclusion here. Fan-1967 16:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - above confirms this as an A7 speedy candidate. David | Talk 16:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ya what???— Preceding unsigned comment added by Man man man (talk • contribs)

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you.

  • David is referring to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7 which states: "Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. " -- Fan-1967 16:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, i understand that, i meant your(fan-1967) comment that because they won the east london GAN contest, they have not yet reached a level of notability which warrants their inclusion here. And besides, they are a real band, you can go and see them play 3rd october I think it is at IG6Man man man 16:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read Wikipedia:Notability (music). We have articles on bands with record deals, reviews in major music publications, national tours. Winning a local contest doesn't come close. Fan-1967 16:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, fan-1967, you have obviously been sleeping on your job to miss this concert.Man man man 16:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I live in Chicago. That's the thing. This is a worldwide encyclopedia. Fan-1967 16:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About your(fan-1967) comment that because they won the east london GAN contest, they have not yet reached a level of notability which warrants their inclusion here. EXPLAIN please because it doesn't make sense!Man man man 16:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you're repeating the same question. Let me put it as simply as possible. Nobody outside of East London has ever heard of them. We don't do articles on unknown bands. Fan-1967 16:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

don't delete!usher_fan09 16:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note Forged signature. Actually entered by Death of a lifetime (talk · contribs).

you know what, they should do a cover of weird al yankovic's Canadian Idiot, it would suit this discussion very well.Death of a lifetime 16:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Note Death of a lifetime (talk · contribs) has decided to start vandalizing this discussion. Time to close this and end the farce. Fan-1967 16:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL can't take it can you? hehe, close this if you can't take itDeath of a lifetime 16:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"don't wanna be a canadian idiot, don't want to be some beer swilling hockey nut, and do i look like a frost bitten hose head? i never learnt my alphabet from a to z" canadian idiot lyrics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.123.103 (talk • contribs)


DON'T DELETE!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.224.9 (talk • contribs)

  • Speedy Delete as "an article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)". Their claim to two number 1 hits is patently untrue. -- IslaySolomon 17:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That might not be the case because you haven't seen the MCSGA charts.Man man man 18:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as above. Sockatume 17:27, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thing (alien)[edit]

Majority of material is original research, remainder covered in related film/book articles Sockatume 16:00, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 15:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olive Tree Bible Software - BibleReader[edit]

Prod removed without comment. Appears to be an ad for non-notable PDA add-on software. Fails WP:SOFTWARE, WP:SPAM. -- Fan-1967 16:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Prolog 16:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - although it's a good package and I use it frequently it's still NN. -- Bpmullins 17:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Now neutral - see comments below. -- Bpmullins 08:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It looks to be the most popular package for handhelds, but I'm not sure about notability, since that's just so fluid. --Dennisthe2 18:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, can you clarify that? Do you mean this is the most popular of all software packages for handhelds (I'd want to see some verification on that), or do you mean it's the most popular Bible-reading package? Fan-1967 18:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad, it seems to be the most popular package for handhelds as far as bible software goes. At least, this is a maybe - it was a few years ago according to Palmgear, but it's been a while since I had needed to install it. --Dennisthe2 19:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So they may be big within a niche market, but how big is that niche? How would they compare with other PDA products? Fan-1967 19:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I could hope to answer that question. How many religious types carry PDAs? Precisely where the answer is in there is left as an exercise. But yeah, niche market. --Dennisthe2 22:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over one million people have downloaded the BibleReader utility, maybe someone could help us in how to present it, other wiki items are very similiar such as: Logos Bible Software, e-sword, and PhotoShop (software), thanks Drew Haninger (Drew444)

He's got a point. If we're going to allow the first two examples (PhotoShop isn't relevant here) we should probably allow this one as well. My sense is that all are NN, but I don't think that battle's on right now. (Drew, I edited your comment only to make links. Sorry for stepping on your code, but it seemed useful.) -- Bpmullins 08:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, suggestions and fixes are welcome. PDA for Bibles used to be only for techy people, now going mainstread slowly especially as PDA's transition to smartphones (cell phones). - Drew

  • Delete with conditions - When I look at the article by itself it's a clear delete to me. However, if it is deleted, then all articles in Study Bible under Study Bible Software should also be deleted. I will AfD them if appropriate. --ArmadilloFromHell 14:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While this article is poorly written and poorly named, doesn't know if it is a company or software article and needs much work, I don't think any of these are reasons to delete. A google search revealed numerous independant reviews of this software, I will add some of these to external links in the article. Also while not one strictly fits the notability criteria that the NY Times article Hot-Synching With a Heavenly Presence by DEBRA NUSSBAUM COHEN Published: February 7, 2002, Thursday list this software as "Among the most popular downloads at PalmGear.com" must be some sort of indication this is notable PDA software if any PDA software is to be considered noteable. - Waza 03:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wot.wikia.com[edit]

Not Notable Rawr 16:21, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Marino[edit]

This article fails WP:BIO There are 29 unique search hits for the article name and "hacker". The over the top claims in the article make it exceedingly likely that this is a WP:HOAX. Deprodded by unregistered user without change to article. Erechtheus 16:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unless we get some reliable sources for those claims. As unlikely as that may be. Sockatume 17:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as bullshit. —dustmite 21:47, 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 speedy keep, nominator is obviously trolling.--SB | T 17:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They Came Back[edit]

Fails WP:FILM on almost all levels, rundown listed below. NuclearUmpf 16:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In general a film is notable if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

  1. The film has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the film and its creators/producers.
    • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and full-length magazine reviews except for the following:
    Only one review provided in web based magazine. Slant magazine [38]
  2. The film has been theatrically released nationwide in a country, or into 200 or more commercial theaters.
    Per IMDB release information [39] it has not been.
  3. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.
    No awards issued
  4. The film is a full length film released by a major studio.
    Has not been


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poomulli[edit]

Non-notable family history Kuntan 17:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis are you telling that? Please note that this Mana was one time (even in the 1900s)the biggest centre of cultural activities like Music and Arts in the Malabar. They were also the biggest Namboothiri landlords ever in Kerala history. Besides this Mana was one of the best designed buildings according to the naalukettu architecture designed by same architect of the present Koothambalam at Vadakkunnathan Temple. Also poomulli had the position as one of the chief priests of the Kozhikode Zamorin and was one of the two families who held the responsibility of crowning the Zamorin.The Doordarshan even produced a documentary named "Poomulli Peruma" which said about this once-prominet family of Kerala The user 2000 19:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No responses? Now what will decide finally whether this article will be deleted finally or not? The user 2000 03:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep The assertions of notability for this family are based on folklore (founding a temple), hosting cultural events, two or three family members who haven't got their own articles, and a building. But a Google search in English easily confirms existence of the family as landowners, and for example Poomulli Neelakanthan Namboodiri seems pretty notable for elephant care, [40] and [41] so I don't see a good argument for deletion. Is the folklore verifiable?? --Mereda 07:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This folklore is verifiable from *Sankunni, Kottarathil (1996). Urakath Ammathiruvadi, Aithhyamala. Thrissur: Current Books.. Also besides that the folklorish origin is just but a small part of the article. They are more known for the position they held in the Malabar even till the end of the last century. And yes, this person known as Poomulli Neelakandan Namboothiripad also requires an article on Wikipedia (it is one of the articles that I am working on right now besides other Kerala based articles). Please also note that Ammathiruvadi Temple is a prominent temple of Kerala. The user 2000 11:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep- Poomulli Mana is an ancient family in Kerala which has great cultural and historical importance.59.93.1.185 12:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Bharatveer 09:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - References are not easily verifiable. All except one are internal wiki-links. Poomulli Mana should be expanded. Right now it is redirecting to this article. - Ganeshk (talk) 02:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep- Poomulli Mana is one of the best known Nambudiri families in Kerala. Most keralites know this family and their contributions to various artistic and religious sponsorships. This family's history is connected with Kerala's social history as a whole. This article needs to be expanded and developed further, not deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Srkris (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. W.marsh 15:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield 1918[edit]

Article gives no indication of satisfying WP:SOFTWARE Whispering(talk/c) 17:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails verifiability/reliable source standards. Looks like original research as well. Wickethewok 18:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - Another Legit site thats being picked on by people who have nothing better to do. By challenging legit sites that are providing information you are only making the Wiki site weaker and thus making Wiki not legit in the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.119.118 (talk • contribs)
    • The article is not about a World Wide Web site. It is about a piece of computer software. Uncle G 19:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: The above ANON user has been blocked for repeated vandalism/incivility to user and user:talk pages. Wickethewok 06:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as by comments I said in Forgotten Hope. --Pudeo (Talk) 18:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Doesn't fit in a encyclopedia. All it does is give useless info on the mod. Doesn't satisfy WP:SOFTWARE. Doesn't have any reliable sources.--M8v2 22:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gah, yet another one! Where are all these mod articles coming from? Did someone at the Wikimedia foundation piss off a gypsy fortune-teller or something and get us all cursed?! Delete, no reliable sources, WP:SOFTWARE, blah blah blah. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete / do not keep. Punkmorten 22:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

21st Century Warfare[edit]

  ATTENTION!

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

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

Article gives no indication of satisfying WP:SOFTWARE Whispering(talk/c) 17:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not verifiable by reliable sources. Highly original research. Wickethewok 17:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - Another Legit site thats being picked on by people who have nothing better to do. By challenging legit sites that are providing information you are only making the Wiki site weaker and thus making Wiki not legit in the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.119.118 (talk • contribs)
    • It doesn't matter if the site is "legit" or not: what matters is whether it satisfies WP:WEB and WP:V. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 19:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: The above ANON user has been blocked for repeated vandalism/incivility to user and user:talk pages. Wickethewok 06:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't know what "legit" means, existence is not notablity. This site has an alexa ranking of 4,490,458! User:Zoe|(talk) 21:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gamecruft. Guy 09:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete. WP:Software is not an official policy. This article has no obligation to fulfill it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.32.178 (talk • contribs)
  • Do not Delete. Perhaps my opinion is biased as I am a member of the tourny but I have yet to see any legitimate argument against the article. It's not just a website, it's a tournament and community. The article tells information about the tourny's history and how it works. 21cwsuper6 04:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 21cwsuper6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Do not Delete. The website is verifiable. We just haven't made it all nice and easy for you guys to do. There is nothing in the rules I have read that says it has to be easy to verify. Just verifiable.Wendingo 04:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Wendingo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • If you read WP:V, you will see that it does more than just say that information should be theoretically verifable. It clearly states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Wickethewok 04:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete. Wikipedia is a source of information and reference. 21CW represents a community in a very large segment of the internet, Online Gaming. It is a not for profit site serving thousands with huge growth potential. Wikipedia can best serve its clients by allowing them to discover these types of communities.carlosrod 05:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: carlosrod (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
Do not delete "Publishing is the activity of putting information into the public arena". This is a quote from the wiki site. At no point in your reasons for deletion are websites excluded as published medias. Please remove the motion for deletion and return the article to its previous stature. Furthermore WP:SOFTWARE is not official policy. Hence, due to the numerous website references to 21CW, and the unreasonable criterion you placed on the article your motion for deletion is false and unjust (27GA)S|Sgt.Maverick 86.130.106.246 14:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or if possibly speedy delete as {{db-web}}, for having no sources as required by WP:WEB, and of course for the sockpuppetry. Sandstein 09:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems that most of my votes boil down to the following: find some good sources (other than the actual 21st Century Warfare site) and so far as I'm concerned we can keep the article. Otherwise, it consists of unverifiable, original research. If the article is kept, I think it should be moved to 21st Century Warfare (online game) or something similar to make room for an article on real warfare in the 21st century. Cool3 20:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete at a very high level it doesn't pass the 100-years test. In terms of specfic guidelines, I think others have done an excellent job of covering the territory. However, I could see merging it into a "Battlefield 2 league system" article, since there is some useful content (that needs citation) in regards to the general concept. -Harmil 02:27, 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. See AfD talk page. --Durin 12:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point of Existence[edit]

Article gives no indication of satisfying WP:SOFTWARE Whispering(talk/c) 17:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Blatantly fails WP:V, WP:RS. Looks like its probably original research as well. Wickethewok 17:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - Do you guys have nothing better to do with your time than troll the Wiki looking to cause trouble? PoE is a very legit site and your crusade to pick on this team and others is disrespectfull. I would like to add that PoE is an organization that add added value to Dice and EA games. PoE has won countless awards and has been features multiple times in magazines such as PC Gamer. The fact that the this is even being discussed makes Wiki less legit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.119.118 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um? Why delete it? Your wiki site probably gets alot more hits because of PoE, PoE is huge and shouldn't be considered for deletion, unless of course you have personal issues which you shouldn't — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.38.87.77 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-29 19:49:30
    • its the most popular mod for the single most popular first person military shooter on the pc, why would anyone delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.115.19 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-29 20:06:28
      • If that's the case, then it should be easy for you to cite lots of articles written and published about it in books, magazines, journals, and suchlike, and thus satisfying the WP:SOFTWARE criteria should be a piece of cake. So please do. Uncle G 20:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • What needs to be done? Do you need links to the articles or links to EA or a ref to articles writen or to awards or what? I have never heard of such nonsense as this attack against the PoE team.RobRoy78 20:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC) (note to closer of AfD: This account's only contributions are to this AfD)[reply]

http://poe1.pointofexistence.com/POE/PC_Gamer_157.jpg (PC Gamer article) http://poe1.pointofexistence.com/Prozac/pcgames_article.jpg (PC Games (German) article) http://www.totalbf2.com/page.php?do=previewspoe (TotalBf2.com previews PoE2) http://www.pmods.net/ReadArticle.php?IdArt=150 (PMods.net previews PoE2 (French)) That's just a quick list of some recent articles about this modification.Seigman 20:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC) (note to closer of AfD: This account's only contributions are to this AfD and four edits to the article in question)[reply]

  • COPYVIO - Just thought I should point out that this article is also heavily a copy/paste copyright violation of here and here. Wickethewok 21:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete As a copyvio per Wickethewok above Wildthing61476 21:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete As the Project Manager of the Point of Existence Development Team we gave written permission for our story line and information to be posted on Wikipedia website. I'm one of the original editors of the POE article and I have granted permission for our site info to be posted here. We have numerous magazine articles from PC Gamer, PC Action, and including online websites. Our work is non-profit and is all done for free to the community of PC Gamers that download our game. We would appreciate if this is reviewed for what it is, an article that pertains to a international development team from USA, Canada, UK, Australia, the Netherlands, France, Germany, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland that are able to come together as a team and provide something for free to the world. Just like Wikipedia is free, so is our game. Sincerely Tom Patterson Tvpatterson 21:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)tvpatterson (note to closer of AfD: This account's only contributions are to this AfD)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Being an avid gamer and clan leader, i am always looking at games to keep my clan active and happy. PoE 2 has given us so much that it would be criminal to remove their page from wiki. The PoE 2 team have spent nearly a year making the MOD for no money, just the love of what they do and to see so many gamers enjoy their work. All this needs IMHO is some common sense to see this page causes no problems to the general public and is non offensive in any way. The team deserve this page to exist.Chef uk 22:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC) (note to closer of AfD: This account's only contributions are to this AfD)[reply]
  • Delete reeks of vanity, lacks verification.-- danntm T C 00:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete PoE is a storyline based modification for Battlefield 2. Why you guys are trying to delete this is beyond me. Apparently you guys have nothing else better to do. [User:0wn4g3] 04:16, 30 September 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.168.249.60 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete. This is an extremely popular mod. This would be akin to deleting the wiki articles for Counter Strike, Team Fortress, or Natural Selection. To me, this seems like a pointless vendetta grudge. I see a lot of stuff going on about vanity, software, and the like. Of course wikipedia style guide says that if you see something you don't like, you don't delete it, you make it better. Prose would be the exact word they use. In fact, the only reflection of vanity I see here is a pathetic "who can drop the most wikipedia jargon" penis measuring contest amongst the people recommending a delete vote. You may not like it, but what reeks of vanity is the bleating and chest-pounding of the users here. Add to that the borderline stalking of other users including the helpful tips as to what contributions they've made in a sad and transparent effort to somehow slander their position (and yes, I know that "per" (look, I can drop the jargon too!) what wikipedia is not, this isn't an experiment in democracy so their opinions may somehow count "less" in your eyes towards consensus) and you have what is sadly becoming endemic to Wikipedia: the hard nosed clique of "editors" who wear their barnstars like a crooked sherriff's badge and attempt to enforce their own mishmash ideas of what wikipedia should be, no questions or protests. The preceeding signed statement was made by Professor Ninja 11:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC). (note to closer of AfD: This account's only contributions number about 700, and that's not including my old account who's username and password I forgot that probably had about double that.)[reply]
p.s.: Most of the editors here blatantly fail WP:PDNBTN. Just thought I'd remind you all of that. Cause I don't think you'll be offering up your accounts for speedy deletion. I'm sure deleting this article for a few minor violations instead of rewriting it is acceptable, but sacrificing your own accounts instead of improving your behaviour isn't. Think about that. You have the people here who want to keep this article, they've even asked you what needs to be done, and you ignore them instead of helping them. The copyright holder to the story text in question gives you permission, and you ignore it. Seriously. Think about that. If you're too lazy to improve the prose yourselves, why not tell the people here, in the discussion, who want to keep the article, what needs to be done to keep it, hmm? Professor Ninja 11:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - As per Professor Ninja. User had made clear all points that need to be said. It is obvious that the nomination of this article for AfD is, as Professor Ninja said, "a vendetta grudge". 69.124.143.230 19:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete who says it should be deleted, whoever does should be a man (or woman???) and post their though on the POE2 forum, even our forum, and see the responce, im sorry but you are A greatly out numbered B have issues when there is somthing out there bigger than you ego C you fail to read that referanced site insted you just saw it and posted, if this comes down to a vote, i think wikipedia should make you lot pay for the bandwith, you will lose. and if you whant a referance to the fact that you will lose then be my guest and post in the poe2 forums listed above or our www.clanptg.com or bf2s site, where ever you go you will lose. save your self some time/money/humiliation and giv in. trust me we will forget you sooner or later. [PTG]shogun [PTG]PR and Clan Awearness officerPTGshogun 20:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)82.133.97.114 19:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC) — 82.133.97.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment Huh? Whispering(talk/c) 20:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment PTGshogun, I know this issue may be difficult for you but try not to regress to pettiness and boasting, this is about the PoE page and we need to think clearly in order to save it. 69.124.143.230 00:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the specific concerns from the templates on the page and comments on the talk page are addressed. At this time, the article does not cite reliable sources. Khatru2 20:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete^^^^ so the actual makers and offical website are not a reliable source? if not then what is? if george bush or tony blair came in to the room and said there is such a thing a a president or primeminister would that count as a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PTGshogun (talk • contribs) 22:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC) (Note to closer of AfD: Account has 3 edits, two of which are to this page).[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Fails WP:SOFTWARE, Spam, copyright violations and finally Vanity .--M8v2 02:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note-Many of the people adding to this page, the project page are anons and new users who's only contributes are to this page and battlefield related pages. Also many of the people here from info provided in their comments are completely new to wikipedia and are only learning of it now.--M8v2 03:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It satisfies WP:SOFTWARE, and it is not commercial software. Also, where is the spam? Where are the copyright violations? I see very limited vanity that should be edited out, rather than deleting the entire article. Living Ghost 02:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Care to cite the copyright violations? (or the spam but I'll ignore that for now, it's a baseless accusation) While you may have a point about vanity we are working on that point, a failure that does not necessitate deletion. 69.124.143.230 06:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete As far as I know it follows the guidelines, though I don't know much of this site but from what i've read it follows them fine.24.15.159.249 05:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Prodigal — 24.15.159.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Do Not Delete look anyone who whant this deleted, please list all of you reasons. then it will be debated.PTGshogun 15:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually we have already up above read WP:SOFTWARE, WP:V and WP:RS. Whispering(talk/c) 17:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AHEM. Let's look at these, shall we?

WP:SOFTWARE: And I quote, "The software package has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.
  • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, user guides, television documentaries, and full-length magazine reviews 2 except for the following:"
Therefore POE meets WP:SOFTWARE. WP:SOFTWARE is no longer a concern. POE has been written about in magazines. Therefore, notable for software. Any further statement involving its violation of WP:SOFTWARE will be met with a simple copy and paste of this paragraph.
WP:RELIABLE SOURCES. This one is bullshit. You guys are obviously stacking the deck against POE. All of the problems with this article in fact stem from the fact that it does not cite its sources. You then extrapolate this into WP:S and WP:RS claiming that because it does not cite its sources, it therefore does not have reliable sources (a truism) and because WP:S requires that it be written about in those sources, you're attempting to chuck a WP:S violation in with it (another truism).
WP:VERIFIABILITY The only problem here is a lack of citations. Once the magazine articles are reproduced (I have seen them myself with POE featured in them) then this is no problem. The article is verifiable, it is just not verified. There is a difference.

So what do we see? We see that the only problem here is that the articles in question have not been linked. Instead, you guys use that to pile on multiple accusations and when the people who want to keep this article has to be done, you toss some abbreviated jargon down at them and say "find out for yourselves." You guys, especially you, Whispering, are terrible editors. You bite the newcomers (and please, fuck the whole single purpose account, we all got into wikipedia editing by finding an article on here we had an interest and knowledge in, these newcomers are working to save something they care about and rather than acting like meat puppets indefensibly defending something non-defensible, they are COMING TO YOU AND ASKING FOR SPECIFICS THAT YOU WANT DONE. Here's what's going to happen. If you want it changed, rather than the textual diarrhea that is the jargon you spew forth every time somebody asks you for specifics, respond with specifics. Because I can find no other reason except for bad faith to assume that in the 140 characters you have written in reply to this AfD, you haven't found the ability to, for example, write "If you would only link to the magazine articles that have written about POE, you would have satisfied all criteria." You know what's crazy? That's only 115 characters! You would have actually saved time by being helpful instead of being an obstructionist. Same goes for all the other editors here. When it is empirically verifiable that being helpful and not violating WP:Please Do Not Bite the Newcomers would have taken less effort than doing what you're doing, I can't help but assume bad faith on your part. And when I assume bad faith, I start going through edits finding every time it's ever been empirically verifiable that you have put more effort into obstructing something than helping, and therefore committing bad faith (and god knows what other breaches) and then I gotta kick it up to RfC. And I don't want to do that because the evidence I dragged out in an RfC was already responsible for an indefinite ban on a user, and I don't like getting people banned at all, for any reason, because I don't believe in it. But I do believe in giving bad faith violators a slap on the wrist. So. Please. Next time, take the time and effort to write out specifics because as we have seen without a shadow of a doubt, not only is it more helpful, not only does it take less effort, but it pisses less people off too, so we can only assume good faith. Professor Ninja 19:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, talk about more absolute empirical evidence of the bad faith of the deletionist editors. Took me literally five seconds of googling to find [this]. I'll think I'll post it on the main page and thereby remove all your objections since this SOURCE that is VERIFIABLY CITED fulfills WP:SOFTWARE. Enjoy making more bad faith harassments elsewhere. Professor Ninja 21:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely not a good thing to do. Rallying all the fanboys to help defend this article won't do much good. PoE2 is a great mod but this article is terrible and doesn't provide much information about the mod itself. If you don't want this article to get deleted, please improve the quality of it. Unicyclopedia 06:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph J. Romm[edit]

Deletion of vanity article written by someone very well known to biographical subject of article. PotomacFever 17:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a vanity article since the subject of the bio is well known to the creator of the page. To establish that the subject is well known to the author, look here and here. The wikipedia criteria for deletion of vanity articles are clearly met in this case. As the criteria note: "Though it is written fairly broadly, this criterion is mainly intended to deal with vanity articles created by their subjects or by people personally known to them." --PotomacFever 17:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles is not a set of criteria. Our criteria for biographical articles are Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. Uncle G 19:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. See below. --PotomacFever 00:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines:"As explained below, vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of assertion of notability is." The subject appears to be notable. What are the grounds for deletion? Fan-1967 18:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is true that I am a friend of Dr. Romm's. Nevertheless, Romm satisfies the notability criteria for Wikipedia. Romm is a well-regarded author and expert on distributed energy, clean energy technologies and global warming, having published several important books on these subjects and dozens of articles in well-respected magazines and journals, such as Science. He is also in demand as a lecturer on these topics. Romm was Acting Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Dept. of Energy[42] during the Clinton administration, in charge of the renewable energy and energy efficiency research programs at the Dept. of Energy. He is a frequently quoted energy and global warming expert [43] [44]for news outlets. He is quoted/interviewed extensively in the current film Who Killed the Electric Car?. A search for "Joseph Romm" on Google yields 23,400 hits, and a search for "Joseph J. Romm" yields 19,400 hits. Romm is currently a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, editing their global warming blog and is part of an energy consulting firm. I do not know why, but for the past few months PotomacFever has been attacking the Joseph J. Romm article and also the article on Dr. Romm's book The Hype about Hydrogen. Note that a Google search for '"The Hype about Hydrogen" Romm' yields 16,400 hits. Today PotomacFever falsely accused me of sock puppetry. I have only one Wikipedia account. I have created well over 100 new articles and made many thousands of edits on Wikipedia, mostly about musical theatre. Do I have any recourse against such an accusation? -- Ssilvers 18:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:VANITY is not a valid reason for deletion if the subject is notable, and this AfD doesn't assert any other reason for deletion. Espresso Addict 19:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article asserts notability, and the nom doesn't back up the well-known-bio claim it asserts. --Dennisthe2 19:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets reasonable standard of notability. Is every editor now supposed to prove they never met the person they create an article about? Edison 20:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject of the article appears quite notable and the passage from Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles is a guideline on the criterion rather than part of it itself. For the editor to simply know the subject of the article doesn't automatically make the article a vanity article. --Anivron 21:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. —dustmite 21:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; the fact that the article has been edited by an acquaintance of the subject need not disqualify it. For one thing, this editor has been up-front about this, as shown above here; the pertinent question is whether the subject is worthy of inclusion: I say he is, based on his book alone (The Hype about Hydrogen). +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see that it meets Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. There you will find a list of items/criteria that a person could satisfy and be worthy of an article. For the bio in question, the two notability items for which the strongest case can be made are 1) political figure; and 2) author. I believe it meets neither. With regard to political figure, I don't see that being acting head of a small part of the Department of Energy satisfies wikipedia's guideline: "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature." The second item we could argue to make a case for inclusion is as a popular author. Here Wikipedia/notability suggests: "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." I'm not aware of any awards his books have received, and these publications are neither peer reviewed nor published by an academic press. For comparison, consider how many recipients of the Tyler Prize, the biggest award for energy and environmental policy, do *not* have corresponding Wikipedia articles. I've applied these two items from the Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies because I believe them the most apt. However, I want to know what the rest of you think. That's what makes the whole enterprise work. I do this to improve the product. Thanks. --PotomacFever 00:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is nothing in the standards about peer reviews, just multiple independent reviews. His books have been reviewed and discussed in numerous reputable magazines, newspapers and broadcast outlets. That makes them notable: they have been publicly and widely noticed. Peer reviews are only relevant to academic publications, not to commercially published books. Fan-1967 00:59, 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 keep. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity[edit]

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity was nominated for deletion on 2006-06-29. The result of the prior discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

Copyvio issues; also per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a repository of external links, especially when the links add up to one giant WP:NPOV violation. A reasonable small NPOV stub/article could be made about this organization, but right now the page only exists to advertise the group's press releases and thus push their POV, and judging from the page history, nobody appears to be interested in fixing the article. --Aaron 17:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable. Sockatume 17:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I noticed that most of the article after the first paragraph is a verbatim copy of the website so I added a copyvio notice. Suttungr 18:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thanks for noticing that, Suttungr. I've added the copyvio problem to my nomination above. --Aaron 19:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a CopyVio The copied text is from a page with a GNU Free Documentation License at the bottom of the page. As long as it hasn't been modified (and if it's verbatim as you state, it hasn't by definition), there's no copyright to violate. *Sparkhead 01:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sparkhead's right, Suttungr's wrong; it's GFDL content. I've struck my copyvio argument up top and will put the article back as it was. --Aaron 01:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First, proposal does not assert NN, so not clear if NN is being claimed, but in any case, as per last discussion of deletion, group is clearly notable, with references in AP, NY Times and foxnews.com. Second, if links and any copyright violations are removed, remaining text does not seem to be WP:NPOV, and even if it is, that's not grounds for deletion, just edits. Simon12 18:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would have no particular objection to a properly WP:NPOV article without the giant list of links at the bottom. Unfortunately, the article seems to have been abandoned since the first AfD, so I didn't think there was any choice but to put it up for AfD again. But now that it's stuck in copyvio limbo, we may just have to sit on this AfD until an admin makes a decision regarding the copyright issue. --Aaron 19:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you think "a reasonable small NPOV stub/article could be made" about them, then you shouldn't be nominating this for AFD, you should be editing it. That no one else is fixing it is irrelevant. Not to mention that the site that this is a "copyvio" of is released under the GFDL. Recury 20:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable and verifiable. Can be rewritten to remove any copyvio, since information and facts are not subject to copyright. Edison 20:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even without editing, the paragraph that's now above the copyvio warning would be an acceptable stub. JamesMLane t c 07:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. The nom himself states the article is salvagable. So clean it up or put a note in it. Nominating it for deletion is not the proper course of action.. *Sparkhead 01:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheene search[edit]

Non notable search site, just recentely created. Also possible vanity, author of article and designer of site are one in the same Wildthing61476 17:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Author continues to remove AfD tag from page, has been warned numerous times, is removing tag regardless of warning. Wildthing61476 18:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt the Earth as recreation of deleted content [46]. --Aaron 18:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CSD G4 doesn't apply to deleted prods. MER-C 01:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, spamvertising for nonnotable website. NawlinWiki 18:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Feel free to speedy this when CSD A7 is expanded. MER-C 01:18, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 15:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1980s retro movement[edit]

This article was first nominated for deletion in June, and the AfD was closed as a "keep but cleanup". However, in the three months since, not only has it not been cleaned up, it's gotten much worse (see diff). Basically, the article is a gigantic WP:OR violation; there is no inherent evidence that society is in the midst of any "1980s retro movement" whatsoever, nor does the article even attempt to assert this as a fact. (There's been a cite tag on the first sentence of the article since the end of the first AfD; we're still waiting for that cite.) Most of the single-line "events" listed in the article are uncited, and many of them strain credulity past the breaking point (Desperate Housewives is reminiscent of Dynasty? In what ways? Because they're both an hour long and both are/were on ABC? Are you kidding me?) In addition, the entire article is America-centric, without admitting it. And on top of everything else, the article has a name that almost nobody will come to Wikipedia and search for in the first place. As this AfD is certain to get a number of blind "keep" votes from those with a strong personal interest in the page's survival, I strongly urge the closing admin to examine the article itself and the discussion here; please don't just count votes on this one. --Aaron 18:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP: The 1980s Retro Movement is part of the Twenty Year Rule. Much like the '70s were retro in the '90s and the '60s retro in the '80s. Those who don't see boomerang fads surely don't get out much and probrobly spend all day deleting good articles on wikipedia. Good day! (Tigerghost 18:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment: sorry for my previous statements Aaron...however if u charge this for Original research then why aren't the trivia sections on pages of television or movie articles up for deletion, they seem like Original Research. Or what about the 2006 in fiction section on the 2006 year article, aren't they original research. That is all I have to say. This is not a personal attack! All of the things on this article have had the creditablity of being aired on television or a movie, just like a TV show's trivia or a year in fiction section. (Tigerghost 23:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Note to closing admin: Twenty Year Rule is also currently up for AfD. --Aaron 18:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - cramed to the shoulder-pads with gratuitous, cherry-picked original research. Impossible to even begin to cover it here - just see for yourself.--Nydas 18:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as article is unverified, original research and I think it is safe to say that if it didn't get fixed after the last AfD the chances it will get fixed in the future are slim.--Isotope23 18:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain, with the note that this is better handled by a category. --63.64.30.2 19:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - above vote from 63.64.30.2 belongs to me. Don't know why it dropped the login.... --Dennisthe2 19:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to List of 1980s nostalgia in popular culture or keep. This article is really a list, ad doesn't seem like a particularly bad idea for one either. Nom is right that the list doesn't prove there is a "movement" or anything, and with the current title there are OR issues, but as a list, it just needs some basic editing. I volunteer to edit the list down to very clear examples if it is kept (whether or not it is moved). Mangojuicetalk 19:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable matter of opinion and, in a way, original research. I think it would be pretty easy to compile a list of things that make it look like there's currently a "retro movement" for any decade. Really, how can there not be a 70s retro movement now, what with the New York Dolls having recently released a new album and Paul Simon out on the road plugging his new work (or would that be the current 60s retro movement?). Agent 86 19:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Follow up: As embarrassed as I am to admit that I was "reading" the Vancouver Province, today they printed an article about Audrey Hepburn and how there's a big trend these days with fashion and pop culture emulating her (including the current GAP ad campaign built up around her). As a part of that, the article quoted someone in the local fashion industry as saying that Audrey's big right now because there is a big 50s revival going on. It just brings home the point that it's pretty easy to say that there's a particular pop-culture movement on at any time. Agent 86 23:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but just barely. I personally believe 80s retro is a definite trend, and a quick Google search for "1980s retro" suggests I'm not alone in that perception. As those proposing deletion have (rightly) pointed to the lack of citations, I will mention that one of the sources turned up by that brief search included a BBC News article[47]. It would obviously be preferable to have citations to some scholarly sources. It seems entirely correct however to suggest that the current "article" is really a list, and if kept it needs to be either massively overhauled or moved to an alternative title, with a number of the examples either cited or deleted. --Matthew Humphreys 20:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Weak Delete. My position is similar to that on the deletion of the 1970s retro movement, there could probably be a good article on this topic, but this isn't the one. Some verifiable prose on the movement in general coupled with a shorter list of examples and a category for other examples would go a long way toward improving this. But, per the nomination, if no one has cleaned it up since the last AfD, why would they do so now? So, unless someone comes forward and either greatly improves this article or volunteers to do so in a reasonable amount of time, I think Wikipedia will be better off without it. Cool3 18:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This article can easily be cited. A simple google search reveals a number of sources [48]Chubdub 19:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, like a dead link to a non-existant tripod site? Sorry, that doesn't quite meet WP:RS.--Isotope23 16:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ResponseNot sure how good a source it is but the site does exist - there was a problem with the link, which I have now fixed.--Matthew Humphreys 17:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, it's easier to mull over external info that I can actually see...--Isotope23 18:08, 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 delete nice article but no sources appear to exist, see WP:V which is not optional. Websites and forums aren't generally considered reliable sources, this more a debate for WP:RS than an AfD. Anyway I will make the content to anyone who wants to transwiki this somewhere that wants it, under the GFDL. W.marsh 13:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten Hope[edit]

Game mod that fails requirements for verifiability and reliable sources. Was previously kept on AFD despite failure to ever present requested sources. Delete as not verifiable. Wickethewok 18:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep With sources you mean that we should source statements like over 260 vehicles, well there is already a link to the website. Do you except academic sources or what? Even so, if the list should be removed, I see no point how it would fail as a stub.--Pudeo (Talk) 22:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean you should cite reliable sources. Reliable does not equate to academic, but it does equate to some sort of accountable source of information. I highly suggest you read WP:RS. For example, a popular gaming magazine would be a reliable source of information. Wickethewok 05:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yay, let's remove all content, years of editing and text, up-to date keepings then instead of digging up the 1 year old magazine articles that are badly outdated to source any more complicated info, as mods are updated frequently. For example, Forgotten Hope has gotten over 100 vehicles in past 2 years.. Indeed I got angry when I noticed they were removed, so excuse me. But anyhow, I will resist the removal of modifications from Wikipedia. --Pudeo
  • Keep this article, I've been reading through all of the complaints and deletion requests you and your comrades have made against videogames and mods in particular. It is quite clear you have some personal vendetta and opinions against the gaming world and you are taking it out on defenseless independent developers. Most of the articles more than fit the requirements requested of them and those that don't are willing to adjust to do so, but your unwillingness to compromise shows that it is personal. Stating that the official site from the developers themselves isn't sufficient citation, based solely on the fact that they are an independent developer and thusly aren't mainstream, is like saying Salvador Dali isn't a reliable source for his "Metamorphosis of Narcissus" painting, or Ryan Little isn't a credible source for his "Saints and Soldiers" film. Whether, you like it or not videogames are a huge part of and have great impact on today’s culture, and are strongly considered by those you love and work in the industry as an art form. I can understand not wanting Wikipedia to become an entertainment news website, it's an encyclopedia of the modern era. But taking videogames out of the picture is like wiping out history, or like deleting music from culture. Forgotten Hope, and several other mods have greatly contributed to the lifespan and cultural significance of the Battlefield franchise and gaming as a whole. If you disagree I suggest checking out a paper called "Am I a Mod or not? - An anaylisis of First Person Shooter modification culture" in which Forgotten Hope and several other mods are mention. The author (David B. Nieborg) even uses the official sites in his references along with several Wikipedia pages that are currently up for deletion... so don't let your personal opinions against videogames cloud your judgment of well collected factual and cited information. Thanks for your time and listening ~ Remick October 4, 2006

"The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." There are no reliable third-party sources, thus, Wikipedia should not have an article on this topic. Wickethewok 14:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But don't you agree that mods are bit different than some historical subject for example, or do you suggest me to mark all articles on your user page, which are mostly music, because they have no references? Forgotten Hope have been reviewed in maybe three magazines briefly. I can find up my copy of Tilt.tv magazine to reference the claim that Forgotten Hope is a Battlefield 1942 mod if it's going to change the article dramatically. Still, I prefer removing the parts that are "need sources" and mark it as a stub instead of removing 30 kbs of hand-written material. --Pudeo
  • As it is, I don't see what distinguishes this mod from the hundreds of other mods out there as far as third-party coverage goes. While primary sources (the game's website) can be acceptable sources of information, it is inappropriate for them to be the only source of information. Wickethewok 16:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what exactly are you looking for out of these third-party references... do you just what proof that it exists from some one other than the developers. Such as a highly reputable website http://mods.moddb.com/4402/forgotten-hope/ or a vastly viewed and edited forum http://www.totalbf2.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97722... Wikipedia defines verifiability as "that have already been published by reputable publishers" so the question is what is considered a reputable publisher. If PC/video game websites and forums aren't considered reputable publishers since they could be considered bias towards games... than music sites such a billboard.com or scientific journals such as the ones at worldscinet.com can't be considered reputable since they are bias to what they report on... I’d figure that these sources are the best sources since they do report on those subjects and as a result would know what they are talking about. Wikipedia's rules of verifiability are put in place to prevent people from publishing "original theories or original thoughts" on the site. Forgotten Hope neither an orginal theory or orginal thought by the editor, the primary link to the official website more than clarifies that. Any additional links are only reiterations of an already stated fact. ~ Remick
  • Reliable sources are pretty well-defined and discussed at WP:RS. As you are a new editor, I recommend you skim through some of this so you know why places like web forums aren't acceptable sources. Cheers and such! Wickethewok 18:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Per nom--M8v2 22:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I figured the forums link was going to be a bit of a strech, they are usually opinion based and not factual based, so rarely work as a credible source. I guess what I don't understand is why delete the article for such a minor and fixable problem as insufficient amount of sources. You said that primary sources can be acceptable, but you just want more. It has a primary source where the vast majority of the information is coming from anyway, these mod articales aren't opinionated or harmful, and as I said before mods are a major part of the gaming industry which is a huge part of the worlds culture. Under 'unattributed material' it states "

    Instead of removing such material immediately, editors are encouraged to move it to the talk page, or to place the 'fact' template after the disputed word or sentence, or to tag the article by adding 'not verified' or 'unsourced' at the top of the page".

    So why ask for deletion, why not just mark as unsourced until the editor can obtain sufficient sources, there are plenty out there just takes a little looking. There are dozens of wikipedia pages with only one primary source if any. so why deny people of knowledge they may be looking for? Remick 23:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I stated above, it is my belief that are no third party reliable sources, meaning its not a fixable problem as you suggest. Wickethewok 13:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Instead of deleting it, and thus ruining the work of many dedicated people who put forth countless hours in creating the page, why not just let them add the sources? It isn't exactly hard. (USMA2010 17:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Editors are perfectly welcome to add sources, but they have not done so after 2.5 years in this article's existence, nor have they done so in the past week. Since after all this time and this AFD, no one has cited any reliable sources, it seems reasonable to assume there aren't any. Wickethewok 20:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move to Wikibooks. These game guides are generally either unsourced, and thus OR, or sourced and copyvio by being taken from websites. OTOH they are popular, useful and I don't like wasting people's work. Wikibooks has guides and tutorials for many pieces of s/w and this seems to fit just fine, there. BlueValour 22:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Dan Grondy[edit]

Google turns up nothing decent about this wrestler. RobJ1981 18:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete insufficient notabilty asserted - being a professional wrestler who worked with someone famous is not enough for an article. Thryduulf 23:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MJ13[edit]

Band does not meet guidelines of WP:MUSIC. Claims in article did not meet WP:V -Nv8200p talk 18:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, couldn't find any reliable sources about them; claims of notability are unverified, probably unverifiable. Mangojuicetalk 19:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as yet another MySpace band. —dustmite 21:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. unencyclopedic. zephyr2k 01:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quite a well known live act in England, not really a 'myspace band', whatever that means. Amiguous link to the solo album which is entirely different genre but is however the same songwriter/s (I think - not sure why is same artist name). Agree "unencyclopedic" - not a very good entry. Voting keep because I like them & think qualify as notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.121.117 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 15:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1970s retro movement[edit]

This is decadecruft (I'm nominating this and 1980s retro movement at the same time), that violates WP:OR, WP:V, WP:WEASEL and WP:NOT. It's just an uncited list of 70s-themed movies and TV shows with a few random bits of pop culture trivia tacked on to the bottom. It's so bad it makes the horrible 1980s retro movement mess look like a featured article candidate. Aaron 19:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is an incomplete article on a valid topic. I know, it's not encouraging that the 1980s retro movement article hasn't improved, but I think there's ample evidence that this one really happened. The period in which the retro movement occurred is over, so at least now this article isn't covering current events. I don't even see the need for a cleanup tag, particularly; just mark it as a stub. Also, this article hasn't been subject to the same attempt to have it improved that the 80s one has. Mangojuicetalk 19:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain, with the note that this would be better handled by a category. --Dennisthe2 19:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for same reasons I gave in the AfDs for Twenty Year Rule and 1980s retro movement. Agent 86 19:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RickReinckens 04:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hardly even an article, the opening section of prose needs references and the rest is a list. As per Dennisthe2, the list would be better handled by Category:1970s retro movement (which has been around for a couple of months). I think the 1970s retro movement could serve as the topic for a good article, but this isn't that article. A complete rewrite complete with some citations would convince me to change my vote, though. Cool3 18:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Strong STrong Keep - For reason of Mango. The article is clearly a stub and need major work. Nevertheless, it is still a valid topic, and a simple google search can verify it Chubdub 19:38, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aluminium battery[edit]

This article is on a proposed type of battery technology that appears to be of highly questionably legitimacy. Unlike all other articles on new battery related technologies, the article contains no references to reputable peer reviewed journals; in fact, I am not able to find any references that I would consider reliable and reputable, making it impossible for this article to satisfy Verifiability. The only sources given are the corporate website, which is currently unavailable, an article which I believe was written by an employee on a website, a questionable wiki, and a distinctly unreliable and disreputable magazine. For the latter, other articles from the same edition, as listed on the linked website, are "Flying Saucers Alive!", "Quantum Leap Technology", and "Discover the Truth about Suppressed Inventions". I believe that these titles speak quite well as to the nature of the publication. All but the four latest edits on the page have been made by a single user, LossIsNotMore, who is James Salsman if the information on his user page is correct. I do not have any evidence that he is related to the company in the article. There is a variety of information and citations on the talk page, but the majority of the content does not appear to be related to the subject of the article - in fact, while I have little knowledge of the particular subject, having merely noticed the article while searching for standard energies of D cells, it does not appear that any of the independent and reputable sources on the talk page have anything to do with the article. Constantine Evans 13:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no third-party reliable sources. Fails WP:V. --Pjacobi 13:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThis vote is in no a statement that such a battery, several times higher in energy density than any technology on the market, is impossible, just that there do not appear to be reputable third party sources cited in the article to back up the claims. A patent does not prove practicality. A public demonstration, and third party testing of a battery by a reputable lab would generate sufficient reputable sources to justify inclusion, not to mention revolutionizing worldwide portable uses of electricity. Best wishes to them for producing and demonstrating a prototype that works as their claims say.Edison 21:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A patent has been filed, but it is in Finnish, so no way to verify it. Anyway, my policy is if it is an invention, no prototype, no article. --203.109.224.204 01:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not yet notable invention. Sockatume 13:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable with only a single source. --Adamrush 13:52, 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 keep. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ctrl-Alt-Del (band)[edit]

Originally deleted as WP:NN. However, I say:

  • Keep: Creator claims the band is Polish, and is notable. Google search seems to confirm it. -Patstuart 13:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to pass WP standards. Can someone from Poland confirm this? bbx 06:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm not from Poland, but seen them on TV here in Vienna on some late-night indie show. In any case, 19,900 results on Google for "Ctrl-Alt-Del Poland", which is enough seeing that it's a Polish band and thus those are only English-language results. -newkai t-c 22:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Daniel.Bryant 03:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. W.marsh 15:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Size Zero[edit]

This is obviously intended by the person who wrote it to refer to size 0 in the women's US standard clothing size system. While the figures here don't make sense when compared with the figures there, my reasons for nominating it are:

  • Size 0 can mean many different things in different contexts. The choice of meaning that has been taken is arbitrary. It would also seem pointless to try to round up every meaning of size 0 into one article.
  • The article gives no real useful information above what should be on US standard clothing size anyway. Indeed, that article should be expanded - at the moment it only goes down to size 6.
  • There are no other articles (that I have found, anyway) that focus on a single size in a single sizing system. OK, so some names of standard paper sizes are listed, but the ones I've found are dab pages or redirects. OTOH, I don't see anything that this can be redirected to that wouldn't bring us back to the statement that the choice of meaning is arbitrary.

-- Smjg 20:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment if you have other meanings for Size 0, adding them to the article would be better than deleting it. If there aren't any, then I would suggest redirecting to the article on Us clothing sizes. If there are, I'd have to see them before deciding what to do, though disambig seems likely. FrozenPurpleCube 20:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have not read my points at all. -- Smjg 13:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There has been some controversy regarding this in the news of late, and it is referred to throughout as "Size Zero", which is why I looked it up here today. See these Google News results. Vashti 18:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This entry provides information pertaining to phenomena of current cultural interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Twain (talk • contribs) 08:43, 4 October 2006
  • Keep but in alternate form. Size zeros are a relatively (last 20 years or so) new concept in women's fashion, and some people (especially men) may want to read up on it. This is the page that is returned when people search for "size zero". Instead of having two separate places explaining the same thing (which seems to be the original poster's objection), then perhaps a disambigution with a summary explaination would satisify more people.--PCStuff 04:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I looked for Size Zero as it comes up in the movie The Devil Wears Prada and I wanted to check whether it was a joke! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.199.103 (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. Could have been speedied. Friday (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Www.republicanordemocrat.highbb.com[edit]

  • What is this?? This must be some kind of advertising article. Please DELETE. Georgia guy 19:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Worthless article. Pookythegreat 19:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopedic and unnotable--Acebrock 19:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, this is sad:
"We have 4 registered users
"Our users have posted a total of 74 articles in 16 subjects"
Delete as not being within a parsec of WP:WEB. -- Fan-1967 19:55, 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 delete. Punkmorten 22:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Cechnicki[edit]

disputed prod, NN small town politician; town supervisor doesn't seem that notable. -Steve Sanbeg 19:49, 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 delete. W.marsh 15:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Vikesland[edit]

Non-notable fake country, vanity article. FairHair 20:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that FairHair is another sock for Gene_poole.--Freddulany 14:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP and Correction to my Comment and Close AfD bad faith After further digging I've determined that FairHair and Gene_Poole are two different people. However, this article was nominated for deletion by FairHair because he followed Gene_Poole to this page checking his user contributions. Figuring that Gene_Poole had an interest in this page, FairHair nominated it for AfD. Apparently, FairHair and Gene_Poole follow one another around taking opposing positions editing various pages. As a result, FairHair's latest nomination for deletion is Gene_Poole's own Empire of Atlantium page. Given that this page was nominated based solely on an act of retribution it should remain. Further, I recommend that both FairHair and Gene_Poole be blocked.--Freddulany 21:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to the references section of the article, there's a book that covers this micronation. Uncle G 20:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vikesland has been published, see Micronations: The Lonely Planet Guide to Self-Proclaimed Nations, Lonely Planet, 2006. ISBN: 1741047307 --DukeofAntwerp 21:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC) — DukeofAntwerp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • The Principality of Vikesland is a micronation and meets the criteria for statehood set forth by both the Montevideo Conventionand the European Community Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee. The main criteria being a defined territory, permanent population, government and the capacity to enter into relationships with other sovereign states are the only foundation requirements for a sovereign state. None of these requirements necessarily has to conform to a certain size or standard, but their general characteristics should be taken into account.--DukeofAntwerp 21:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those have nothing to do with the criteria for having an encyclopaedia article. Uncle G 22:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further, following the link to Micronations page, one will find several micronations that have no defined territory or territory that is far less than that of Vikesland...all of which currently have had Wikipedia pages running for some time now.--DukeofAntwerp 21:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, the Micronations book makes fun of these nonsense places (the description at amazon.ca, for example, reads This is a fully illustrated, humorous mock-guidebook to the nations that people create in their own backyards--most of which can be visited. ). And the book itself isn't even available through amazon.com. There is no notability of this place. It's not like Sealand, for example. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zoe statements are false, first, this is the link to buy the book on Amazon, http://www.amazon.com/Lonely-Planet-Micronations-Travel-Guides/dp/1741047307/sr=8-1/qid=1159566696/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-4182735-0895352?ie=UTF8&s=books . Second, the authors of "Micronations" state, "Although a newcomer to the micronational world, Vikesland's government has been working hard to establish a system of sustainable government...with a comprehensive constitution (including a chapter of fundamental rights and bills renouncing war), a royal council to oversee government, and outward-looking policies, the principality is well positioned to take it's place at the forefront of micronational affairs. ... The name Vikesland honors the adventuring spirit of the Vikings, while also highlighting the principality's physical land base." However, with all due respect to Sealand, Zoe is correct in that the royal ranch land alone is 650,000 sq meters. Again, this all according to "Micronations," the book.--DukeofAntwerp 22:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize, then, when I plugged in "Micronations: The Lonely Planet Guide to Self-Proclaimed Nations" nothing came up at amazon.com, although it did at amazon.ca, but the amazon.com description itself tells us that this subject is nn - For lovers of humour, trivia and ephemera. And I won't even dignify the discussion of land area. Size isn't everything. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And please note that DukeofAntwerp (talk · contribs) has no edits to any other topics except for this one. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And did the book actually say take it's place? I would have thought they would have better editors than that. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • BTW, if we eliminate Wikipedia and the "Principality"'s own website, we get 24 Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am David Howe and a member of Vikesland's Royal Council. I fail to see why that is an issue, unless perhaps a person who has more knowledge than yourself about the true nature of Vikeland and what is actually written by the authors of "Micronations," a book that you apparently have never touched, has to say. Pardon me for the defending the predatory actions of a few. You're negative agenda here is obvious.--DukeofAntwerp 22:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You could have just followed the ISBN link that is in the article. Uncle G 22:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, I've never bothered to do that before.  :) User:Zoe|(talk) 23:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zoe's issues seem to go against the nature of Wikipedia and one of the reasons why it is so useful. It's never dated, and is as current as right now. It would seem to go against the grain of Wikipedia to want to turn it into the stale dated versions of its book bound predecessors.--DukeofAntwerp 22:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read both and I stand corrected. Zoe, I was ignorant regarding the purpose and nature of Wikipedia and what is considered notable. However, I feel that we are, in general, special and worthy of note. Should the page be deleted, so be it. It changes only our status here in. Cheers!--DukeofAntwerp 00:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsuchplace. Carlossuarez46 03:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete Notable and being featured in a documentary currently in production by Wheat City Films.--Drewdaily 11:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Drewdaily (talk • contribs) is the creator of the article that is the subject of this AfD.[reply]
Comment According to the article the Prince is the owner of the production company, I'm not sure that's really enough to establish notability. The mention in the Lonely Planet Guide might be. Not sure how I'd vote quite yet. ---The Bethling(Talk) 18:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Autobiographical works do not fail the notability test simply on the basis that they are autobiographies. Plus, according to Wheat City Films, the documentary will have interviews with Canadian government officials regarding micronation status. This seems fairly notable, and rather unique, to me.--Drewdaily 21:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. But this would be an essentially self-published autobiography, I wouldn't see anyone's self published biography as establishing their notablity -- The Bethling(Talk) 04:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in two minds about this, and am going to refrain from voting accordingly. It was only founded in 2005 and doesn't really seem to have done anything in the real world except mint 1 coin (and that was produced by someone in Spain). On the other hand it has been documented in the Lonely Planet guide (although nowhere else, to my knowledge) - and for better or worse that does represent the most serious attempt to document micronations as a general phenomenon since How to Start Your Own Country was published over 20 years ago. --Gene_poole 12:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Poole, Again you do not research your info before carelessly posting. The Vikeslandic coin was minted by myself in Canada and was distributed to resellers in the U.S.A and in Spain for your information. Chris Beyette 216.36.157.25 18:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If it is noted in the only serious attempt to document micronations since How to Start Your Own Country. (per Gene_poole) it is 'Notable'. The 'mock nature' of the publication is normal fare for micronations. Bo 12:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Not encyclopedically notable; appears to be a vanity project. The article's claims about Vikesland having actual sovereign nation status are a violation of WP:SOAP and are also silly (Vikesland does not have the capability of having diplomatic relations with well-established sovereign states which give it no recognition - the Vikesland "ambassador" would simply be escorted off the premises by security; Vikesland also has no sovereign political authority, unless it has a private military which is able to face down the combined Canadian, US and UK armed forces and police services over the exercise of sovereignty on Vikesland territories) Bwithh 01:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: again posting without any research, Vikesland Clearly states that is has no true sovereign territory and is considered for the most part as a non-territiorial entity. All lands are declared, not claimed which means that they privately own their land of influence, but are still under another governments laws. Yes they have been in contact and talks with real macro government entities which will be proven in the next month or so via undisputable video documentation. They were not escorted of the premises by security. Vikeslands sovereign political authority is over it's own internal affairs and citizenry, much like Atlantium. Your statement also discounts Atlantium's sovereignty. Please do your research before posting such material. Chris Beyette 216.36.157.25 17:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • 'Not a violation of WP:SOAP' Reporting Micronational claims to sovereignty aren't a violation of WP:SOAP. to Quote WP:SOAP "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things". If the article covers the 'claim' in a non-biased manner, (The Legitamacy Section at one point pretty much said, no one belives them) the SOAP objection is overcome. All micornation claims to soveriegnty are considered silly by the 'real world' otherwise, they'd mot be micronations.. The Invisible_Pink_Unicorn is taken to be silly by its advocates even, but it still gets an article: 'silly' isn't really grounds for delete. Your Original Reasearch on the issue of their actual capacity to enter into diplomatic relations, is not relevant, and not very Wiki either. Bo
      • The article at the moment states "Vikesland meets the criteria of both the Montevideo Convention and that of the Badinter Arbitration Committee." Sounds like micronation WP:SOAP to me. My main grounds for deletion are that this is a vanity project with no claims to encyclopedic or non-trivial notability. And silly nonsense is deleted with good reason from Wikipedia all the time. Your argument that challenges to original research POV statements are themselves original research and "not very Wiki" (not sure what you mean by this) seems rather illogical. I was basing my criticism in terms that the article's own description of the convention/committee criteria. Bwithh 02:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC) *** POV, I'll admit to - I didn't try to present both sides of the 'Original Research' issue, Sorry, I should have at the least included 'seems to me ' before the 'not very wiki'. Calling you for making statements that aren't sourced from verifiable outside sources isn't "Original Research'. <NI> I hope I corrected the NPOV problem around Statehood (the article now states the Vikesland "Claims" to meet the Standards of Montevideo...., and that the standard is not used by other states to grant recognition....And no UN member nation has recognized them.) BTW The article is a LOT shorter than when I saw it, <NI> Yes, silly nonsense is deleted, but not just because its silly.Bo 04:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantium and other micronations are not recognized as well, does this discount them too? I would gladly accept the deletion of our Wikipedia articla as long as it applies to all other Micronations that fit this criteria. Gene Poole and others have made an argument for their own wiki deletions. Chris Beyette 216.36.157.25 18:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Related Afd I have opened an afd discussion on Roberto Carrillo, an esteemed royal member of Vikeland's cultural elite and Vikeland's Minister of the Interior[49]. Bwithh 02:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, then invade, annex and salt the Earth. I have a feeling we'll be seeing this one again if the page isn't locked. --Aaron 03:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Honestly, I really can't see much difference between the "country" that a group of my friends started when they were growing up and Vikesland, other than a reference in one book. And I don't think that's enough to make it notable. Other micronations like Sealand, The Conch Republic and The Republic of Texas all have done things outside of existing that have earned them coverage by the mainstream press. That's the key difference to me. -- The Bethling(Talk) 04:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On that note Shouldn't Gene Poole's Empire of Atlantium be a candidate for deletion? (See [50]) It was made up by a group of friends too, but then so was the Kingdom of England, and it's only territory is a 650 square foot apartment. Granted, Atlantium has a few more articles on it, more than one, but let's be serious here, what has it done that Vikesland has not except being founded earlier. This isn't meant as an attack on Gene Poole or Atlantium, instead it's to illustrate a point. If Vikesland doesn't meet the basic threshold, which seems to be in rapid flux here, then there will be a lot more candidates for deletion. The mere controversy it's creating right here dictates that it stay up. When this documentary is released, then what will be the issue? Keep it!--Drewdaily 14:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not for countries made up in your living room one afternoon. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And, yet, there are several notable micronation listings on Wikipedia that are nothing more than just that, Mr. West. I'll refrain from listing any others as the last example is now being consider for AfD by the misguided. Folks, I don't know if some of you have an agenda here other than making Wikipedia a better place. Only each of you knows your motivations. The only thing I wish to stress is that you must consider not your own opinion, but the opinion of others as well. People that don't have an opinion to voice here at this time. Obviously, not everyone thinks alike and shares the same opinion. A couple of people have addressed the issue of being fake as the foundation for being deleted. I'm not sure what that litmus test is for a real or fake nation -- that seems like a slippery slope and the examples are many. It seems like there are many people that would disagree with Vikesland being fake. A minority of people, perhaps, I don't know. But, you may not like Spinal Tap. It's a fake rock band and was the subject of a fake documentary. It was created in someone's living room one afternoon. But, it has some notability. Do you err on the side of caution and jointly allow the page to stay up, in spite of personal opinion, or do you delete it because it doesn't meet your liking? Real or fake, Spinal Tap exists either way.--Drewdaily 19:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. MikeWazowski 18:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per The Bethling. That we also have articles on other non-notable made-up nations is a reason to delete these also, not to keep this one. Sandstein 09:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please see Empire of Atlantium, same situation that the AfD was opened, similar micronation and it is being nominated by most to keep.--Freddulany 08:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP second reference from Frederick News-Post and new as of today just added.--DukeofAntwerp 08:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFT and complete and utter failure of both angles of the 100 year test. 205.157.110.11 10:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strengthen Keep They've been picked up by local news. (Not just the Book, and self-published materials). Bo 15:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This edit [51] blanked the page (except the AFC) and replaced it with "DELETED BY REQUEST OF PRINCE CHRISTOPHER BEYETTE OF THE PRINCIPALITY OF VIKESLAND. PLEASE DO NOT REVERT THIS PAGE WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE PRINCIPALITY OF VIKESLAND AND CHRISTOPHER BEYETTE. ALL VIKESLAND AND CHRISTOPHER BEYETTE'S IMAGES, LOGOS AND OTHER RELATED MATERIAL ARE FOR USE BY PERMISSION OF CHRISTOPHER BEYETTE AND THIS PERMISSION IS NO LONGER BEING GRANTED TO WIKIPEIDA OR IT'S USERS UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE." Does this bring it under WP:CSD#G7? --Henrygb 01:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I would think so the author calls it 'deleted by request'.... Bo 01:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change to DELETE ASAP The Drew/Duke of Antwerp person posted the 'delete request' to the article, and I think I was the only other person voting Keep. I see no point in continuing to support this article at this time. Bo 13:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, User:Drewdaily was the original author, and he has not deleted it, but is still editing it. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually he's done the 'replace test with deleted message', and the 'author-db flag', gene_poole keeps puting it back to version nomitated for delete. Bo 12:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planetsanta[edit]

An online shop of Santa Clause suits. I couldn't find any WP:SANTA guideline, but I guess this one is not notable nevertheless [52] (Liberatore, 2006). 20:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as failing to meet both WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Valrith 20:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Alexa ranking tops six million. —dustmite 21:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well... at least it has an Alexa ranking. --NMChico24 23:45, 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 merge/redirect I am redirecting, people who are interested in merging content can go ahead and do that. W.marsh 15:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction and The Changing South[edit]

This article is really an anomaly. A lot of time has obviously been spent on it, but it is really just a rehash of the articles Reconstruction and History of the Southern United States. It is written in somewhat of a storybook style and lacks any citations, so I think a merger would be impossible. I assume good faith in the main editor, but if you look at the talk page, Talk:Reconstruction and The Changing South, he/she didn't seem to understand my concerns. I would propose deletion because of lack of other options. Joshdboz 20:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge anything good with Reconstruction as I'm not sure why there's a need for a seperate article, and if there is valid content, then it should belong there. A split makes no sense, especially when this title reads more like a history book than an Encyclopedia article. FrozenPurpleCube 20:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is an article which can later be renamed. But Im not even done making the article. And also the title does read like an encyclopedia article. The naming is perfect, and if anything, the Reconstruction page should be deleted. I made this page with no knowledge of the page Reconstruction which is poorly named.Also this is the offical Deletion policy for why pages should be deleted: The Wikipedia deletion policy describes how material which does not meet the relevant content criteria is identified and removed from Wikipedia. --Zonerocks 21:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are writing an article on a major event in American History and you didn't even know that the Reconstruction page existed? That speaks against the creation of this article, since you didn't even look at what else there is. The title itself is not good for an Encyclopedia because it hints to me of a value-based description rather than a factual one. Can you imagine anybody searching for it? If not, then it shouldn't be the title of an article. If your page isn't done though, you may wish to look at WP:Sandbox particularly the User page section, especially since you seem to want to write so much of it yourself. FrozenPurpleCube 23:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as its scope appears to be no different from that of Reconstruction. The author should improve that article rather than creating a fork and calling for the article's deletion, which is not going to happen. Gazpacho 21:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • MergeReads like a nice term paper, and appears to be original. But it needs embedded footnotes or at least reference at the end. Otherwise how can we justify "President Johnson encouraged former Confederate states to reject the Fourteenth Amendment. He also decided to make the amendment an issue in the 1866 congressional elections." Mindreading?? Also, it seems like a smaller article at an earlier stage of formation striving to be the article on reconstruction. Why not just add any notable and encyclopedic material to that other article, along with footnotes.Edison 21:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reason why I said that I would discourage a merger is because it would be nearly impossible to tell what information should be merged because no references or citations exist in the article. Joshdboz 21:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well im going to add the links when im done making the article. I told you that. --Zonerocks 03:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems after 6 days (more than the discussion over deleted articles is supposed to be.) There is no consensus so this article can not be deleted. --Zonerocks 16:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An administrator can choose to relist. Is there some particular reason you don't want to work on the existing Reconstruction article? Gazpacho 20:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting it is abusing the AFD policy. There was no consensus to delete it, so there you didn't win the fight. Deal with it. --Zonerocks 14:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, in fact the deletion procedure allows administrators to extend a listing to gain a clearer consensus. And you have not answered my question. Gazpacho 01:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete merging anything that is supportable with reliable sources into Reconstruction. Adding citations to this article will not change the fact that the scope of this article is not substantially different from the scope of the Reconstruction article. Since Merge and Delete have very similar effects (i.e. this article will no longer exist), it seems clear that the consensus of the debate is "Do Not Keep". --Richard 04:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Centrx→talk • 23:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Crisóstomo[edit]

Article about a non-notable person, that should have been speedyable under A7. Only the barest hint of a claim to notability. Blatantly fails WP:BIO. Valrith 20:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. —dustmite 21:35, 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 delete. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of letters that don't start with themselves phonetically[edit]

User:Sloverlord speedied this with the reason "Doesn't belong, there are articles about phoenetics already." User:NawlinWiki changed the speedy to prod (presumably because that doesn't qualify under the speedy criteria). I changed the prod to an AFD, because I don't think this information is duplicated in any of the other phoenetics articles, I think the information is interesting and useful and I think a debate should occur before this is deleted. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per reasoning above. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Though the list is a bit trivial, the article is alright. I'd say keep it per the reasoning above. --Esteban F. (contribs) 21:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oh-Ar. Pan Dan 21:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, this is nonsense and a clear violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information . User:Zoe|(talk) 21:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as being too trivial. Additionally, there are many dialects where H does in fact start with a "h" sound and while I know next to nothing about this sort of thing apart from as a hobby, I'd say it's possible to argue that Q starts with a sound different to the "k" it's credited with. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 21:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there being no encyclopaedic topic of leters which do not start with themselves phonetically, wich is in fact a complete dog's breakfast of a subject. Sub-trivial listcruft, OR, indiscriminate and overall a really terrible idea for an article. Guy 21:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research, unverifiable, doesn't allow for dialectal differences in pronunciation. --NMChico24 23:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. The choices vary greatly with accent as well; for example H is pronounced HAYTCH rather than AYTCH as the article describes, at least from a quick survey of those sitting nearby (in Warwickshire, England) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 00:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and WP:DAFT. Ridiculous idea - and OR (is H "aych" or "haitch", and who's to say F isn't "feff" with a silent f?). Grutness...wha? 01:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IPA says that it isnt pronounced "feff" plus this is an article about phonetics, it doesn't matter whether or not its silent, because phonetically it doesn't start with an f. --User:REDMON89
  • Delete. Fascinating topic, but putting limits and conditions to this sort of list is difficult. It could be argued that this isn't OR, on the grounds that specifying what spelling you use and deriving the pronouncation that way is syllogistic. However, I also think this topic may not be very suited for encyclopedia and probably trivial and mergeworthy (put this in the articles on Am/Brit spelling if you dare): it might be more of Wiktionary's stuff, and I'm not sure they do this either. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Guy --Pan Gerwazy 18:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No stardardized spellings exist to compile such a list. I don't find it encyclopedic either. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 08:07, 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 delete. —Mets501 (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appumania[edit]

Not a real term, and should probably be speedy-deleted. A previous attempt at deletion failed, since the prod template was just removed by an anonymous editor --Elonka 21:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, reads like an attack page. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as neologism and probable hoax. —dustmite 21:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Joke. No matches on Google other than this article. Pan Dan 22:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, blatant hoax, 0 g-hits. Tagged.--Andeh 00:27, 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. W.marsh 15:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Card Combo[edit]

"Seven Card Combo was created Ohio in 2005". It also only has seven Google hits. Something somebody made up, not a well-known game. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If you can produce some independent sources to verify that, I'd be happy to change my stance. —dustmite 21:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geez, if it will prevent you from sleep at night. I guess I am new to editing wikipedia but I don't really understand the problem of there being an article on this game. If people only wanted to learn about nationwide popular stuff i dont see why wikipedia even exists! Isn't the point of a wiki that people can share more unique information and ideas? Mainstream stuff doesn't need individuals, it is the small things that need the smal people. and i think wikipedia is for the small people — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scmcverry (talk • contribs) Please sign all your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 13:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tummyrub[edit]

This article fails WP:BAND. Of the 32 unique search hits, none augment notability to encyclopedic levels. Erechtheus 21:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete, per above, haven't got properly signed yet, and it's vanity.--Andeh 00:24, 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. W.marsh 15:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CodeweaversLtd[edit]

This article fails WP:CORP. None of the 26 unique search hits for the company name and "motor finance" raise the level of notability to encyclopedic levels. Erechtheus 21:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Codeweavers article should stay

This was a short article to illustrate the facts about Codeweavers ltd as a company. It is claimed the the article should be deleted due to it not conforming with WP:CORP, but in the WP:CORP it states that:

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.

Codeweavers has been the subject of several published works, most recently an article by 'Automotive Managment magazine' discussing Codeweavers ltd and it's Parent company Jigsaw finance ltd involvement in the new 'Utopian' motor finance concept. Codeweavers Ltd have also featured in other magazines such as 'Motor Matters magazine'.

If proof of these publications is required, please request.

In closing, the Codeweavers ltd article in Wikipedia should be allowed to remain as it it a valid and relevant article. Neilbeardmore 14:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • !!!Keep it!!! It doesn't look like spam, and they fill the criteria to be listed. Let it stay. Pawelkaminski 08:21, 4 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, she's on a Bravo series now as well. Rx StrangeLove 06:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Cardon[edit]

Failed reality TV contestant and appears in a "no-budget short". As the lead says, "aspiring actress". I say come back when the aspiring has changed to successful. Guy 21:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable reality show reject --NMChico24 23:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As for now this is an aspiring article. Arbusto 08:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She was a participant in the Amazing race. That's as good as any of the survivor people. I would also ask User:JZG not to insult article subjects. Despite his sarcasm, Ms. Cardon is clearly successful in lots of areas. --JJay 02:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what areas is she successful? Please elaborate. --NMChico24 03:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did millions of people watch you finish third in the amazing race before you went on to new challenges in other reality shows? Has your lesbian make-out film been downloaded roughly 1,000 times a day since it was uploaded to YouTube? Did you set a bench press record? If so, I guess you are qualified to call Ms. Cardon a "reject". --JJay 17:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She had maintained a public profile since her appearance on the Amazing Race with appearances in movies, commercials and a second reality television show. Granted, she's what I would call D-list, but she's on the list dagnabbit! Tabercil 15:46, 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 delete I am under the impression Wikibooks does not want this type of stuff either, but if I'm wrong and anyone wants to transwiki, let me know. W.marsh 15:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Car leasing[edit]

Contested prod. Textbook original research, reads more like a financial advice column than an encyclopedia article. VoiceOfReason 21:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with nom. It tells the personal experience of the article's creator ("I priced one out with decent options"), but wikipedia is neither a blog, nor a free webspace provider, nor a how-to guide. Delete, but I'm willing to sway my vote if an encyclopedic article were to arise from the article as it stands. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive 21:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-encyclopedic essay. Akradecki 21:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has been revised to be non biased. Please re-review it. The example of how to calculate a lease is also given, but I can edit out the name BMW to appear even more non biased or use another car as an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonicko (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Still reads like original research and like a how-to manual. Needs to be completely rewritten, citing sources. An encyclopedia article is essentially a summary of information from other publications and sources, not a how-to manual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akradecki (talk • contribs)
  • The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information on a subject. The article has references in the bottom from which the information was collected from. Other is from reality. It is a good stepping stone for others in the industry to come on, edit, and revise if needed as information adjusts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonicko (talk • contribs)

I understand your concern about offering high quality content that reflects the topic at hand, but the discussion forums offer the information on the residual and money factor that you need to see when determining how to calculate a lease. I will edit out the lease compare thing, but the others offer substantial advice on the subject. The articles that you referenced are theory and are not practical. I'm just curious if any of you have ever leased a vehicle? If you have then you would know that the material I have provided is all up to date, and accurate. I have no business editing an article on RNA, but I do know this subject.Sonicko 23:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Your question ("have any of you ever leased a vehicle?") is a prime example of why this article doesn't fit Wikipedia's guidelines. Please read WP:NOR; your original research is not appropriate for the encyclopedia, and in general the personal experiences of editors should not form the bases for articles. As you say, there are plenty of discussion forums that offer this kind of information and practical experience. VoiceOfReason 01:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So Wikipedia is used for offering info on members of bands like "Mike Shinoda" yet is unacceptable when it comes to vital information for what most people is the biggest financial decision besides buying a house? Sounds like great logic to me. I like how you judge what is valid and acceptable based upon your limited at best knowledge of the subject at hand. There are plenty of discussion forums on "Mike Shinoda" as an example as well, but I don't see that article up for deletion, or people discussing the merit of that. 24.24.212.240 17:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - If you see another article that you believe fails the notability guidelines (WP:BAND would be the appropriate one in the case of Mike Shinoda), feel absolutely free to nominate it for deletion as well. VoiceOfReason 22:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentMike Shinoda is actually useful, but doesn't fit into a typical encyclopedia. This article is the same 24.24.212.240 05:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Once again, the guidelines are written down. The appropriate standard isn't whether an article fits into a typical encyclopedia, but whether it fits the appropriate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Mike Shinoda meets WP:BAND. This article fails WP:NOR. VoiceOfReason 23:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending extensive rewriting and wikification only. Style should be more factual and informative. LHOON 14:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Transwiki to Wikibooks which is where I think "consumer how-to" stuff like this belongs. Then Rewrite from scratch The topic is encyclopedic but the article should really take a broader perspective. For example, car leasing is a relatively new phenomenon. Until the 80's (or so), car leasing was not a common means for acquiring a personal automobile. What changed to make it more attractive? Then, for a while, it became less attractive and now it is making a comeback. What was behind the drop in popularity and the current return to popularity? These issues are more in line with the encyclopedic mission of Wikipedia. --Richard 05:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete if anyone needs the content for a reworked article let me know. W.marsh 14:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

African actors in Hollywood[edit]

This isn't really an article, its just a short list of actors born in Africa or of African parentage who have appeared in films or TV in other countries (not just Hollywood). It's not really encyclopedic. JW 21:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now - it could be turned into a list. --Alex (Talk) 22:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is what categories are for. --NMChico24 23:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - agree with Alex. Davey4 12:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you were going to keep it you would at least have to rename it, as most of the actors are not African and most are not "in Hollywood". JW 15:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV non encylopedic tone in the article, needs a cleanup and a new title. Purpose of article vague which means inclusion in the list is currently subjective. Vegaswikian 19:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If this ever does become an "article" it can be recreated. Arbusto 06:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted as re-creation of deleted material. --Carnildo 01:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True v United Services Automobile Association[edit]

non-encyclopedic, on-going court case that has yet to result in precedence or case law (once it's concluded, it might warrant an article, but not now). Delete Akradecki 22:47, 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 delete. The assertion that this is a "useful" list doesn't really stand up to WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory. -- Steel 14:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of ...for Dummies books[edit]

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

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

  • Delete and redirect to ...for Dummies. Arbusto 23:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What kind of source do you need for the existence of a book published by a major publisher, other than the title? Gazpacho 23:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The publisher, the ISBN number, the year it was published would make the books more WP:V, but it would still just be a list. And lists of indiscriminate info is what WP:ISNOT. Are they written by one publisher? If so the article doesn't claim that. Arbusto 23:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary list which doesn't even link to articles about any of the books. Perhaps a category would be appropriate, if one does not already exist. --NMChico24 23:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep/rewrite/clean up this could be an article if there were editors to add reliable references, otherwise some of the things in there could be made up.--Andeh 00:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's now sourced, so the unsourced complaint is no longer relevant. Fg2 00:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are referring to this link as a "source". I don't get it? I see ads to a podcast and information on backpacking. Care to make your source more specific for this list? Arbusto 00:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It contains links to the categories. See the links on the left side. It is the web site operated by the publisher for the series of books. Fg2 01:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then this wiki article is a copy and paste from that website. For example, compare Dummies: Computing all databases Titles to wikipedia dummies database titles. What point does this article serve if it is the exact same as the publisher's list, only the publisher's list is more accurately maintained. Arbusto 01:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Two of grounds for deletion are incorrect. It's certainly verifiable, given that you can check the titles against the publisher's catalog, which is certainly reliable enough. Not to mention the Library of Congress, Amazon, and whatever else is available to the book ordering trade. So we have only WP:ISNOT, particularly 1.7.3 to argue about. And that's where I can say as a list, this has some potential use, if any of the titles warrant further elucidation, even a whole article. I'd suggest making this part of the main article, but then we'd have problems with that growing unmmanageable. FrozenPurpleCube 00:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, since the Publisher's catalog might remove books once they're out of print, I'm not inclined to rely on it. Still, the ...for Dummies article could use a bit more about the categories of books. FrozenPurpleCube 00:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The article could use more info. In other words, let it grow. Fg2 01:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft which verges on WP:SPAM. The series is notable - individual titles aren't, and a list of titles in the series is not encyclopedic Bwithh 00:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pretty much FrozenPurpleCube said it all. The article needs some work and ive volunteered to put in that work but the article kept getting deleted through a redirect. If the redirect war stops and the article is maintained it will subsequently be cleaned up. A very useful list, however, and should be kept.Bagginator 01:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) Nothing has stopped anyone in the last six months since the first afd from improving it. 2) How do you plan to "improve it"? That is, what can be done to improve it? Arbusto 01:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or split them into individual articles. Useful list. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable series of books, we have articles for really off-beat episodes of long-cancelled t.v. shows that were rarely seen outside their own country; these books are literally everywhere. Carlossuarez46 03:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I advocated before. This is a mirror of a list which is available online from an authoritative source. The list at the publishers is complete, accurate and up to date - our list is not guaranteed to be so as new books are published all the time. Previous and present keep arguments often rested on the fact that ...for Dummies books are notable; that is not questioned, but we already have an article on ...for Dummies books, this is just a list of them at an unspecified date. There are precisely zero bluelinks to individual books, making this list considerably less useful than the one on the publisher's website, which has a short synopsis for each book. This list violates WP:NOT as both a directory and an indiscriminate collection of information (why this particular publisher's catalogue?). This is simply a copy and paste of the listing on the publisher's website on an unstated date; "do not add copies of primary sources". Guy 08:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's a duplicate of a list on the publisher's website, all it will ever be is an out-of-date version of that list. A link provides better information to readers. Sockatume 13:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT a book catalogue. The Land 10:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the previous AfD. This is one of the true publishing success stories of the last 20 years. We obviously need the list if we want to be a serious reference work, that goes beyond video games characters, obscure porn stars or irrelevant diploma mills. Nominator cites wp:not without referring to a specific clause- not really surprising since none apply. Concern over lack of sources may be valid, although nothing prevents the nom from adding sources. In fact, few of our hundreds of book lists have sources, essentially because the publication of the book proves its existence. Examples include List of cookbooks, List of political memoirs, or List of fictional books, etc. Ongoing discussion on talk page showed interest in improving the list, something this nom ignored when making this nomination. --JJay 14:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are comparing a list of political memoirs and fictional books? Those lists contain notable authors and political figures created by wikipedia. This list is stolen from one publishers page without asserting any significance. Arbusto 23:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Those lists are incomplete, lack clear inclusion standards and have no references. This list has the potential to be complete and has clear inclusion standards. Otherwise, you are certainly entitled to fail to see the significance of the Dummies series, but the significance is clearly implied, not the least because we have an article on the series. --JJay 01:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm... most lists on wikipedia are incomplete. What's your point? --Arbusto 01:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point was that this list, unlike those, has fewer problems with the completeness of the list. If it's missing a title or two, that is easily correctable, and more likely because a new title was just released than any actual problem. And there's no question that the ...for Dummies series is itself notable. FrozenPurpleCube 01:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The series is notable that's why it has an article: ...for Dummies. This is a list taken from the publishers website of titles. Arbusto 01:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and since people may have an interest in knowing whether a particular book in the series has been published, well, I see the purpose of this list. Sorry, but the summaries in the main article are incomplete, and making them exhaustively complete would just be excessively detailed. Thus the seperate list. FrozenPurpleCube 13:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Guy. Eusebeus 15:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: JJay is committing bad faith to make a WP:POINT on my afds. He voted keep here, but in an effort to keep an unnotable diploma mill he wrote [53]"However, copying diploma mill names from government websites in order to construct a pseudo-official diploma mill list at wikipedia... It violates both the meaning and spirit of the list guidelines." Clearly, if he really believes copy and pasting a list is a copy-vio and not wiki-worthy he would vote delete here. This is user is gaming the system and following around my afds. Note I have had trouble with this user since April. Arbusto 02:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's an intersting comment and an interesting use of taking my words out of context from an unrelated article. I'll let slide the series of absurd and non-sensical accusations. But try to stick to the merits of this list. It shouldn't need reminding, but that is why we are here. --JJay 02:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No kidding you'll "let it slide" because its true. Is copy and pasting a list a copyright violation? If yes, change your comment on this afd. If no, change your comments on the institute afd. Arbusto 02:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that is true is that you seem to be unwilling to engage in a rational debate concerning the merits of this article. My vote stands in keeping with the previous AfD. However, if you have copyvioed material here I would have no objection to its removal. See WP:Copyvio. --JJay 02:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unwilling to engaged in a debate ? You have reverted my comments and questions with a minor mark.[54]
Removed my comments again.[55] --Arbusto 06:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answer this: Is copy and pasting a list a copyright violation as you said here[56]? Arbusto 03:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AGF doesn't mean turn a blind eye to the obvious. JJay has consistency done this to my edits since April; see his talk page or another ongoing afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International School of Management (ISM). Arbusto 21:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have done nothing to "your edits", nor does anything you are talking about have anything to do with this article. You nominated this list for deletion and I voted keep, just like I did in March [57]. Try to make a case for deleting this without resorting to innuendo, insinuation, personal attacks and unrelated accusations. --JJay 22:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You deny changing my edits? What about this[58]? On this very page with you keep vote you managed to insult and undermine this afd and those who voted delete ("something this nom ignored when making this nomination") and contradicted yourself(you mentioned "unnotable" porn stars-- something you vote to keep[59]). Why don't you make a case for keeping an article by actually doing work to improve it? When was the last time you actually editted an article? Arbusto 22:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I generally remove trolling from my user page, as is my right (and you were warned not to post belligerent messages there). The rest of your comments have nothing to do with this list. Once again, you seem merely interested in making accusations and personal attacks, rather than convincing keep voters that this should be deleted. --JJay 22:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original data. Dr Zak 22:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Praytell, how is this original data? Yes, measuring the temperature outside your window is original data/research, but this is merely an index of books. It's about as original as looking in the paper to see what the election results are... FrozenPurpleCube 04:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a directory (as opposed to a useful navigation tool for Wikipedia), called out specifically in WP:NOT. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to say delete as it has not been improved during the six-month time span. "keep and clean up", yeah right. Punkmorten 22:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Relisting for more opinions. Arbusto 01:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' Wikipedia is not a directory. TJ Spyke 01:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' as nom Frédérick Lacasse 01:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable series of books. Clay4president 03:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what the ...for Dummies page is for. This is nothing more than a list of all the books. It's just listcruft. TJ Spyke 03:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft. This is of barely any use to anyone, and if someone actually wanted to know it, they could just go to the official site. What's more, it's borderline copyvio. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 05:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcruft, unencyclopedic. The list is outdated and redundant, even though there are sources, it has zero encycloepdic value. --Terence Ong (T | C) 07:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or delete the entire Wikipedia database. To say an article should be deleted as its somewhere else on the web is ridiculous, as practically the only way Wiki verifies articles is if you can find alternative sources that back up that information on the web! IE if you can get the exact same information from another website. Jcuk 08:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not only a duplicate of other content, but it's also outside Wikipedia's remit. It's merely a directory, and no effort has been made or, indeed, can be made to make this a useful navigation tool for Wikipedia content. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If the publisher's list only included current in-print books and we listed out-of-print books, AND we included ISBN references and listed authors for each individual title, AND we had articles on individual books then I might be inclined to change my mind. But right now it's just copyvio listcruft, and according to the article it's over six months out of date. It seems like the logical thing would be to delete this and just add the external link to the ...for Dummies page. --DeLarge 09:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Considering the sheer number of ...for Dummies books, I'd in fact split it further. --Kitch (Talk | Contrib) 12:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On a personal note, I am apalled by the lack of civility in this AfD discussion. But I agree with JJay; the clause of WP:NOT needs to be identified if it is to apply as evidence for supporting deletion. And while he has contributed subsequently to the downfall of civility in this discussion, I don't agree that JJay's original Keep vote insulted anybody. His points were all rational regardless of anybody's judgement on their applicability. --Kitch (Talk | Contrib) 12:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps merge with ...for Dummies or make a category, but only if the books have articles themselves. --Alex (Talk) 14:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted.  Netsnipe  ►  04:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clipsal 500 Circuit[edit]

Speedy Delete This page was created by me as I hadn't seen the Adelaide Street Circuit page. That page is more detailed then this one so hence I think this should be speedied. Jasrocks (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - CSD G7. Tagged as such. MER-C 01:22, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_29&oldid=1116878466"