Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 8

< September 7	September 9 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 07:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Stylus Magazine[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stylus Magazine does not deserve to be on the site. There is no information there worth reading. I have tried repeatedly to add information on the criticism that has been given to them for using their reviews to contradict rival magazines and infuriate certain bands, and I even cited an example - that being Permission To Land by The Darkness. Yet it is removed every time. This is ridiculous, the only person who is trying to make it a better page is being denied the right of everyone. Bullshit, delete the page now if you're not going to evolve. Cunts.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 copyright violation. NawlinWiki 16:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliatecommission[edit]

Textbook vanispamcruftisement. Prod removed by author. Danny Lilithborne 00:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - classic WP:SPAM and copyvio from [1]. Author has no other edits.Yomangani ^talk 01:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Love it when the spammers don't even try to pretend it's not spam. Fan-1967 01:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is a copyvio, shouldn't this be tagged for WP:SPEEDY? --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 01:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, CSD A8, db-copyvio. wikipediatrix 02:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible delete - Smerdis of Tlön 03:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly spam, note author name and history. Seaphoto 04:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a spam post — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.171.199 (talk • contribs)

Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 05:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Peta 06:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice as per nom. --Dennis The TIger 07:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. MER-C 08:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a load of bull —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.142.171.199 (talk • contribs) 0938 September 8 2006 UTC.

Delete per WP:SPAM. I recommend that 172.142.171.199 reads this link too. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above --mathewguiver 13:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to retract my paypal donation— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.115.81 (talk • contribs)

Keep contingent upon sufficient donation from the above poster. My Alt Account 16:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. How much would be appropriate, do you think? Fan-1967 16:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Erections[edit]

~~Unsourced c~~Crystal-ballism. Delete. BlueValour 00:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete CSD A1. Danny Lilithborne 00:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a source has been added from the official site of the band. T REX_speak 01:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - thanks but even with a source encyclopaedia articles are not the place for advance notificiations. They should come back if/when it is released and proves notable. BlueValour 03:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOT, there is nothing here short of an ad. -Zappernapper 07:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of why this album is notable. MER-C 08:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is. It's by a notable band. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for crystal ballery. Not enough information for own article yet. Album already mentioned in band article. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete - per WP:NOT --mathewguiver 13:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no information about anything in this article, just an advertizement for a future CD release. This would be most fitting on a blog or the band's homepage, not in an encyclopedia. I would've voted for a merge with the bands wikipedia article, but as MacGyverMagic already pointed out, this CD is already mentioned there. Tom Henrik 22:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA Football Board[edit]

De-proded. This is just another online discussion forum. Dubious claim to fame "one of the most popular message boards on IGN" isn't enough to meet WP:WEB even if it is true. -- Scientizzle 00:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Individual boards on a message forum are not-notable. TJ Spyke 01:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. --Wildnox 01:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB, lacks any citation to sources to establish its notability.-- danntm ^T _C 02:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely ridiculous.UberCryxic 04:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:WEB, poorly sourced. This can't be A7 speedied? 1ne 05:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 1ne. —Khoikhoi 05:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. MER-C 08:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TJ. There's not even enough content to make a reasonable stub with. = Mgm|^(talk) 10:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RMAX International[edit]

There is already an entry for this company at RMAX (AfD discussion) which is the subject of a current AfD discussion (the creator of this page has voted on the AfD for RMAX, so he is aware of the existing page). This seems like part of an ongoing effort by User:B-ham to advertise topics related to Scott Sonnon. Dsreyn 00:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 01:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I thought RMAX had been selected for deletion, so I used Dragon Door Publications, which had never been contested, as a verbatim model so that it wouldn't cause anymore problems to create RMAX International. Now if you want to go ahead and contest Dragon Door Publications for deletion which I did not create, then that seems fair enough for me to consider dialogue on the issue. However, since Dragon Door Publications wasn't objected to, and RMAX International is just an inverse of that uncontested template, I fail to see what the problem is. B-ham 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. The problem with the RMAX International page is spelled out quite clearly in the nomination above. In short, Wikipedia is not a forum for you to promote Scott Sonnon or related concerns, and you should not circumvent the AfD procedure by creating a new page for the same topic under a slightly different name. Also, this AfD nomination of RMAX International does not require you to agree to "consider dialogue". Incidentally, Dragon Door was previously deleted through AfD, so the fact that a new article has been created there hardly sets a good precedent to follow. You seem to assume that any existing page sets the bar for subsequent pages. However, there are always pages around that violate policies or procedure; the fact that nobody has contested them yet doesn't necessarily prove anything. Dsreyn 03:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Understood. Thanks for the clarification. B-ham 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- As I said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RMAX, the way for you to demonstrate that this is not original research is to cite sources where people independent of the inventor have written about this health system. (Testimonials published on the inventor's web site are not independent of the inventor, note.) Creating another article on the same topic, simply with a slight variation on the name, is not citing sources. Uncle G 09:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Also, please note that the existence of one article should not be considered precedence regarding the existence of another article, unless the former article had survived an AfD or something similar. Peyna 01:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Additionally, the page that had "never been contested" had only been in existence for about four hours when the RMAX International page was created. Dsreyn 02:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per comment by Dsreyn -Zappernapper 07:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bondegezou 12:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is essentially a copy of RMAX, though worded differently.--Isotope23 14:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WinHunter ^(talk) 12:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pride in aberdeen[edit]

possibly vanity WP:VANITY; local event; W not a cityguide WP:NOT Yy-bo 22:47, 2 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, Deville (Talk) 00:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Are all festivals notable? If not, then this one is certainly non-notable being small and local (per nom). Madman 01:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all notability tests. wikipediatrix 01:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. 1ne 04:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete —Khoikhoi 05:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, according to Google they drew just 5000 visitors. A long way from the Gay Parade (or whatever it is called) in Amsterdam if I'm not mistaken. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not "vanity" - I have no personal connection with Pride in Aberdeen whatsover. Possibly counts as "non-notable festival" - but I entered it as a stub partly because it is notable in being a Pride event in the middle of what has traditionally been a homophobic part of Scotland - it's something quite different from the Pride march/festival in Edinburgh and Glasgow - and partly because the LGBT culture in Scotland category looked empty without it. I meant to do the same kind of research on it as I did on Pride Scotia, but haven't had time - RL intervened, and I've only done miniwiki stuff since then. Yonmei 16:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Del per nom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "pride in aberdeen" gets 7500 hits on Google (Google considers only the first 53 relevant). The event has a permanent brick-and-mortar address. It is arguably less local than Ben's Chili Bowl and arguably more notable than the Museum of American Frontier Culture. I'd recommend leaving it open for a new article that might explain what makes this event special and not just another pride event or whatever. —BozoTheScary 22:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you look here, you'll see that it gets 4790 hits, not 7500, and those results conk out after only 53 unique hit sources. Furthermore, the Ben's Chili Bowl article documents its historical importance and notability extremely well with multiple sources and references. And as for Museum of American Frontier Culture, pointing out another weak article in defense of this one is no defense. It should probably be deleted too. wikipediatrix 16:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above reasons.UberCryxic 22:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yonmei, but I'm moving it to Pride in Aberdeen. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BozoTheScary. I can see distinct growth potential especially given the cultural signifigance of bring in 5000 vistors to a pride event in a generally homophobic area. I think we should let Yonmei be an editor and work on this article. We can always revist the matter in a month or so. Agne 16:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dag nabbed jive ass turkey festival.--Pussy Galore 00:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um... "dag nabbed jive ass turkey festival" is not a valid deletion criteria. wikipediatrix 01:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a note USER:Pussy Galore has been blocked. Agne 15:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Borderline vanity. Wikipedia does not need an article on every gay pride festival that occurs in any given random locale. Small and fairly obscure. Returns only 48 unique hits on Google, a good deal of which are merely the "Pride in Aberdeen" site and links/promotion for it. --S0uj1r0 07:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC) (Edited --209.180.252.22 01:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Very Strong Keep I did a google search on +"Pride in Aberdeen"+Gay and got nearly 1000 returns. Amazing considering how specific the search was. Objective proof that this subject is notable. Editingoprah 09:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure what kind of math you did, but I used the same search and get 768 with only 48 unique ones. That is not notable, much less "objective". Look at the number of pages of results, not just the number of results at the top of the page. --S0uj1r0 22:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but needs expanding lots. HawkerTyphoon 11:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rather than looking at Google hits: 5000 people came to Pride in Aberdeen this year. That's (about) 2.5% of the population of Aberdeen. Pride in Aberdeen is one of only two Pride festivals in Scotland: in Scotland, it is a notable festival, regardless of the opinions of the many Americans who have commented here saying that it isn't. Looking up Categories, I discover that there are only 174 wikipedians who identify as Scottish (me among them). Is wikipedia, then, an American encyclopedia, and not a global one? Is an event that is one of only two such annual events in an entire country "not notable" because, by American standards, it's a very small festival? Yonmei 08:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Feel free to make redirect if appropriate. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riverfront Towers III[edit]

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riverfront Towers I, these buildings are not architecturally or historically significant. Closer of that AFD prod'ed, but as this one had previously been proded and deproded, AFD needs to decide. Technial nomination, but I agree with it, so count me as a delete. GRBerry 01:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per that other AfD. If it isn't deleted, merge it with the rest into one article. -IceCreamAntisocial 05:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and my essay.--Isotope23 14:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Akradecki
Delete as non-notable. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, along with Riverfront Towers, Riverfront Towers II. 132.205.44.134 02:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Riverfront Towers. Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk 03:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Cancelled. AFD initiated by a banned user. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Life on Mars (TV series)[edit]

Violtion of WP:POV and WP:NOT SABTPC 01:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep unless the nominator can show where it violates either of those things. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 01:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep; I don't see the issue here. I don't want to say "bad-faith nom" but... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Speedy Keep Eh? Strange nomination. This article is not perfect, but its a far-from-bad article on a valid topic. I don't see how this violates WP:NOT, and I don't see major POV issues (which would be grounds for rewriting/rebalancing not deletion anyway). 01:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The nominator only has 8 edits in his/her history but seems to be an experienced Wikipedian by some of his/her (cover?) edits (e.g. tagging an image for speedy deletion with the reason "orphan image"; using the abbreviation "rvv" for a revert) Bwithh 01:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Someone call for a checkuser? T REX_speak 01:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why not? I don't know if we'll really get anywhere much, since this character's only got a handful of edits and nothing really malicious has been going on, but nipping it in the bud couldn't hurt. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 01:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. VegaDark 01:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Seems obvious --Wildnox 01:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as per above. wikipediatrix 01:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Speedy Keep. (Televisions shows that have run at least a full season/series on BBC are generally notable. Nominations like this make me wonder about the nomination much more than the article.-- danntm ^T _C 01:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as per above. DBBell 02:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Maybe the nominator's fingers slipped? Cat walked on the keyboard? Even if the article had big POV problems (HUH?!) as the nominator suggests, that would warrant a cleanup tag, not a deletion. My Alt Account 02:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep appears to be yet another "contribution" by the Spotteddogsdotorg vandal. TBTA 02:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep TJ Spyke 02:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Land 19:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chantli[edit]

Wikipedia is neither an English nor a Nahuatl dictionary. There is an entry for this word in Wikitionary. Madman 01:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for content already available in another Wikimedia project (can't remember what number that was). Since we already have articles for home and house, this cannot be made into an English language Wikipedia entry. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, English or otherwise. Akradecki 17:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Immersion Travel Art Movement[edit]

This art movement is "burgeoning" 21st century art movement. There is only another encyclopedia as a resource; further reliable sources are needed. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I notice it was also prodded as vanity; I agree with that too. Wikipedia is not for articles about art movements you make up yourself. lol -IceCreamAntisocial 05:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Akradecki 17:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —ExplorerCDT 02:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, discounting a multitude of votes for the usual reasons. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TerrorStorm[edit]

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

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

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

A completely non-notable 9/11 (and everything else under the sun) conspiracy theory video. Doesn't even have an IMDB entry. It was released this year, but only seven articles show up in Google news, two of which are brief announcements of screenings and one is a one sentence mention. GabrielF 01:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where were those screenings announced? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: [2] for the news coverage. Of the 8 articles one is a blog post, one is a brief announcement of the screening of two films in Alachua FL, one is a brief announcement of the screening of six films in Kansas City, one is a one line mention of the premier of two films in Oregon, one is from something called Free Market News Network Corp, the "Click here for Full Story" link goes directly to Alex Jones' website, another is a one line mention of the film in an article in Orange County Weekly. One is a two paragraph announcement of a screening in Austin (on a city events type website not a newspaper). The last one points to something called Uruknet in Italy but when I click the link I get what I think is an Italian 404 error. GabrielF 23:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--Peephole 01:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, non-notable. Fails WP:NOT. Morton devonshire 02:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Very entertaining stuff! Two things could greatly improve this article: 1) Some kind of popularity data indicating that people are actually paying attention to this video. Sales? Downloads? So far all we have are "testimonials" type stuff (referring to Matthew Bellamy and that other guy) which really proves nothing. Admittedly, I don't know where to get this data either, but if someone can show it has a lot of viewers, I'll gladly vote to keep. 2) Maybe it's just me, but the "Contents" section of the article seems jumbled and hard to follow. Anyway, I'd lean toward keeping this article, with a tad more evidence of notability. Of course, I think the ideas in the video are inane, but documenting influential conspiracy theories - no matter how inane - has always struck me as useful. And fun.My Alt Account 02:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's NN, it's not influential.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 15:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duh, but it's not NN and it is influential Mujinga 22:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 05:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jmancuso 08:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- — Possible single purpose account: Jmancuso (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
- ^{Above user's third contribution [3]--Jersey Devil 06:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
  - Don't be so arrogant Jersey Devil Mujinga 22:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More conspiracy theory nonsense.--MONGO 09:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Distributed by By Infowars.com On Google Video. Any notable film would be released by a studio into a cinema or at least have independant new coverage, which I couldn't find. -- Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Mgm. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 12:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom—(Kepin)^{RING THE LIBERTY BELL} 12:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per 210k google hits. --Striver 13:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just so that others won't be misled, it's actually about 420 unique ghits. zephyr2k 17:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

420/1000 is a very high number. Unique hits only consider the first 1000 hits. --Striver 12:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Thanks for the info. Will keep that in mind. I learn something new everyday. zephyr2k 22:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete you know what? Take and delete this, it will be a nice monument to the biased frenzy that is raveging wikipedia. --Striver 13:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mongo. Also it looks to fail WP:NN as Mgm points out. JungleCat talk/contrib 15:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MONGO. --Mmx1 15:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Chapline R Vine^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 17:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MONGO. Pseudotumor 17:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruft factory, see also WP:NOT for why this shouldn't be on wikipedia--I-2-d2 17:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please keep and enhance this entry. It's most noteworthy for the insight given into propaganda, the mind manipulation with which we are bombarded and saturated. No, it will probably never garner the notoriety of major studio productions, most all of which will be found in this wiki. Please, people, take this film and its message to heart. -- from an erstwhile Fortune 50 ad man. —— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.45.11 (talk • contribs)

— Possible single purpose account: 24.163.45.11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

Comment Or more like a question I know what Fortune-500 is. What is "Fortune 50" ? ;-) JungleCat talk/contrib 21:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's first contribution. GabrielF 22:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to keep a light humor. - :-) JungleCat talk/contrib 00:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humour? What's funny is that bigots want to delete this article Mujinga 22:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mujinga, no personal attacks please. I don't think those users whose input is "delete" are just a bunch of bigots as you call them. Thanks. JungleCat talk/contrib 06:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes apologies, it was not my intention to offend, i should have said "editors who appear to be acting in a bigoted fashion" since there appears to me to be some sort of war going on between a few editors here over various 9/11 pages. I'm not a part of it, I just think that the TerrorStorm page is a worthy addition to Wikipedia project and it frustrates me that some people with a (somewhat) hidden agenda want to delete it Mujinga 12:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this valuable encyclopedic entry. Check under Wikipedia:Notability (films) and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Mujinga 22:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it fails Wikipedia:Notability (films) (which is a proposed criteria by the way) and you really can't have much of a case if you have to rely on Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. GabrielF 23:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oi oi oi. Check your POV GabrielF. And check point 1 of Wikipedia:Notability (films) - "The film has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the film and its creators/producers". Mujinga 22:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how two paragraphs in "Austin 360" counts as "multiple non-trivial published works" but I guess I must be blinded by my POV. That or maybe you should consider checking your POV. GabrielF 23:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I believe someone who maintains a page called User:GabrielF/911TMCruft might get a bit befuddled by a certain point of view, but yes, under the proposed Wikipedia:Notability (films) there are requirements for a film and I must admit that so far I haven't found the references for "multiple non-trivial published works" which discuss TerrorStorm. The film is very well discussed on the internet but of course paradoxically those sources are considered trivial by Wikipedia. I still believe that this is a notable film but i appreciate that this needs to be established under wiki guidelines. I dont have time to search for more references, I hope somone else can provide them. Or alternatively, perhaps we can consider the option that this is a notable film precisely becuase it is growing in fame despite having neither an IMDB reference nor a full cinematic release. Mujinga 12:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per various excellent points established by GabrielF. My Alt Account 00:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was actually going to vote keep, but after reviewing the purposed Wikipedia:Notability (films), there seems to be no doubt that this film doesn't meet purposed notabiliy criteria. Any relevant info can be placed in the Alex Jones page.--Jersey Devil 07:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valuable article. Simon 16:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mongo. More cruft by Striver. --Tbeatty 17:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The film doesn't even have an IMDb entry. This is effectivelly advertizing for a conspiracy nut.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More cruft that needs to go to the abyss. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 22:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was this article meant as a joke?Bagginator 11:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELELTE THIS ARTICLE --- IT IS THE TRUTH!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Afcb4ever (talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: Afcb4ever (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

Delete per GabrielF: we don't do truth, we do verifiability. That means that someone else, a reliable third-party source, needs to report on things. In this case that hasn't happened and the film itself misses our proposed guidelines for films by some way. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Alex Jones is a outlandish rumor-mongerer claiming to be a serious researcher. He is a conspiracist crackpot. Not notable. Not logical. Not worth an entry.--Cberlet 00:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unfeasibly well known film. what is with the sudden nomination of all of Alex Jones works?--Pussy Galore 02:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Because people think the creator of all these articles is trying to promote Jones' works as something notable, regardless of whether or not they actually are.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Doesn't it seem to be the case that they have been nominated then, without thought as to their notability?--Pussy Galore 11:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, it's clear that notability has nothing to do with this. It's all a massive conspiracy to hide the truth. My Alt Account 12:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hello there Pussy Galore you seem to have an interesting view of this project. JungleCat talk/contrib 12:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Many thanks. I'd happily share my viewpoints further, if pressed, sadly however, this article concerns the deletion of the TerrorStorm article, not myself.--Pussy Galore 15:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sorry to all those who do not agree with the contents of the film, and/or it's lack of advertising, but it's a well known and controversial film nonetheless. I firmly believe a unbiased synopsis of the film should be availible on Wikipedia. Why don't you people make a discussions page and argue what you disagree with in the film rather than censoring the entire thing? --Smpz 5:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.173.240.184 (talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: 67.173.240.184 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

Comment the above comment was in fact written by an anonymous user. User Smpz does not seem to exist. Pascal.Tesson 07:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am an actual person, with an actual opinion. Smpz 05:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nomination. Crockspot 16:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. (Note that even some "illegal" Star Trek fan films have IMDB entries, so you can't claim the IMDB's failure to include the film is biased.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
***KEEP!***: very informative to historic events that HAVE HAPPENED! Declassified events now shown to people that have NEVER been before...the media is at fault for not splashing alex jones all over the place...its called tyranny... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.219.233 (talk • contribs)

User's first edit. GabrielF 04:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!: While some may consider this to be the rantings of a crackpot it is widely discussed on the net and therefore deserves to have an unbiased mention. Some of the points raised in this film do also need further investigation and it cant all be dismissed without more careful review —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.237.47.4 (talk • contribs) 13:18, September 12, 2006 (UTC)
Keep* This article is informative and gives information on a film of great interest to some people, why should it be deleted just because in some opinions it is a conspiracy theory video, have you ever considered that any information is valuable and that we should not delete it when it is of neutral bias and harms no-one to keep it on this website? Jonno123 22:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Jonno123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic..[reply]
- Comment for closing Admin I find it interesting that these possible single purpose accounts find their way to AfD so quick. I suspect that there are dozens of these accounts created. All used by a single person to troll. This person will do several edits using these socks (one here, one there over several days or weeks) to look legit, then use the account as needed. If you question them, they understand Wiki rules fully, or they "cannot recall" past usernames. Hmmm. BTW, I was referring to the true socks, of course. JungleCat talk/contrib 23:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A Train ^{take the} 15:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shahraban Abdullah (Dr.)[edit]

Non-notable doctor. 25 Ghits. Fails WP:BIO. wikipediatrix 01:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Although horrendously written and formatted, I think she might be notable. She is the first woman from her country to specialize in her field. Although on the other hand, it definitely fails verifiability. --Antorjal 04:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable at this time, but has an impressive C.V. and is head of her country's Pediatric Association, so perhaps in the future. Here is one source on the net [[4]] Seaphoto 04:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article cites no sources. Looking for sources, all that I can find (the abovementioned URL failing to display anything for me) is a name check in this article in the Khaleej Times and a signature on an open letter, which aren't enough for WP:BIO, since all that they yield are the person's name and job title. Delete. Uncle G 10:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad I can't verify this. If I could it certainly would be notable. Does the hospital website have a bio about her perhaps? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Keep The Khaleej times and [5] says she is head of the Paediatics section. There are quite a few hits for her under alternative spellings Abdulla, Abdalla etc (although none that do much more than confirm she works at the hospital e.g. on an IT committee etc). No names of any staff on the hospital website unfortunately. Here's one from a reputable source that has job title [DUBAI-CME http://www.dubai-cme.com/cme017.asp] ! Dlyons493 Talk 10:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But why do you think the head of a pediatrics section of a hospital should be kept? wikipediatrix 13:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because she's an exceptionally prominent woman for a Muslim country. A woman head of section in the UAE would be rare - might even be unique. She's the chairperson of their Paediatric Society (that's a govenment site so reliable). There's a claim she is the first woman there to specialise in her field - can't verify that but it's plausible. Dlyons493 Talk 17:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also President of the Emirates Medical Association Dlyons493 Talk 00:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable in her field. I've done a little cleanup per MOS on the article, definitly needs sources, though. Should be kept and cleaned/expanded further. Akradecki 17:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're voting keep based on her notability even as you admit the article has no sources. But without sources, how do you know she's notable in her field? wikipediatrix 20:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added the reference mentioned by Dlyons793 about the pediatrics society. Akradecki 20:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - if kept, would the closing admin also please move the article to a title that does not include (Dr.)? Akradecki 17:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Accomplished but ultimately non-notable. Eusebeus 17:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Del per nom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ParticularlyEvil 23:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons above. —ExplorerCDT 02:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete claim to notability still unsourced. ~ trialsanderrors 03:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing particularily notable. PubMed suggests she is not a bigger researcher. It seems quite obvious to me that there are a couple of people with the name "Abdullah S"; few papers seem directly related to cardiology when one searches "Abdullah S" on PubMed. Nephron T|C 04:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looks like there's a single entry under Shahraban A. Claus Diff 07:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability established in the article. Any Muslim women with some exposure are by definition notable in some countries. In Turkey whe would be nonnotable, but in UAE she is. Mukadderat 00:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Flocco[edit]

Non notable conspiracy theorist. Fails WP:BIO. Peephole 02:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No, unfortunately, he's quite notoriously well-known in the same way that Alex Jones and Richard Hoagland are, and has a devoted fan base. He gets 52,000 Google hits. How does he fail WP:BIO? wikipediatrix 02:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, non-notable. Fails WP:NOT. Blogs and personal websites don't count -- see WP:RS and WP:Verify. Morton devonshire 02:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alexa ranking for tomflocco.com is 295,671. I can't seem to find any major mainstream mentions of the guy. As the article points out, there's plenty of fringe and minor media coverage, but I doubt this qualifies. Overall I could see this going either way but I probably lean toward delete. Could one of the Keepists maybe provide evidence that he's been featured in a less obscure venue than the ones currently listed in the article? The low Alexa ranking makes me wonder if maybe there are a large number of readers who read his material on other sites. Can we have some evidence of such traffic? My Alt Account 02:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep: Flocco has a generated a considerable amount of controversy, and along the way has established himself as a recognized figure in the 9/11 Truth Movement. He has clearly achieved notability, in part for being among the first reporters to have the temerity to question the 'official' hijacked plane theory, about the undersized hole in the Pentagon, proffered by government officials. Ombudsman 02:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Show me more of this controversy and I'll add my keep vote. Your vote amounts to saying "I like this guy and I like what he says," which is never going to convince me. My Alt Account 03:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even nutcases can be notable, and googling him supports both assertions. The article needs cleaning up though. Seaphoto 04:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Might be a nut, but notable--MONGO 09:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--—(Kepin)^{RING THE LIBERTY BELL} 12:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and particularly My Alt Account. Vizjim 12:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep has over 50,000 google results which makes me think he['s notable. Plus, many of the places he contributed to have their own wiki pages. --mathewguiver 13:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I've looked through google (albeit not all 50,000 links), and haven't turned up any reliable sources that can be used in this article. I'm only finding sources such as "illuminati-news.com". I'm not sure that he meets WP:BIO criteria: "multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" and "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." Unless better, reliable sourcing is provided, I have to say delete on this. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 15:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Chapline R Vine^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 17:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruft factory, see also WP:NOT for why this shouldn't be on wikipedia--I-2-d2 17:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I changed my mind.--MONGO 18:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per AudeVivere Marcus22 19:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per wikipediatrix. Out of curiosity, in what way does this fail WP:BIO? RFerreira 20:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well known quack theorist/journalist. ALKIVAR™ 21:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:If he's well known, can you provide us with some reliable sources about his persona? --Peephole 21:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto above. Coverage seems to be limited to blogs and fringe sites. Where's the controversy? My Alt Account 21:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and My Alt Account. --Aaron 22:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Eusebeus 23:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Appears to be a lack of reliable sources. Resolute 00:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete piece fails two of the three WP:BLP key requirements (WP:V and WP:NOR) and no likelihood that it ever could meet them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 50000 google hits is enough. Q0 14:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Tbeatty 17:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 22:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another of many non-notable theorists. I don't see mention in mainstream sources. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tremendously well known person--Pussy Galore 04:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete once again, it's important to be careful with the Google numbers. 50K+ hits indeed but in fact 690 unique hits. Among the top hits are articles exposing him as a lunatic [6] [7] (albeit from not so reliable sources) and almost all the references to him are from conspiracy theory blogs. Where are the reliable references on this guy? I think keeping such an article is a mistake for the credibility of Wikipedia. Pascal.Tesson 06:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Aude--Mmx1 01:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Crockspot 05:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pascal.Tesson --Geneb1955^Talk/_CVU 14:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- he is notable journalist— Possible single purpose account: J henry waugh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic..
Delete per Aude. Usually, I will give articles the benefit of the doubt. But with all of the "stuff" going around, delete. First, never heard of Flocco. Second,(as Pascal points out) some numbers can be misleading. JungleCat talk/contrib 00:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Yank sox 21:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Air quality in Oxford[edit]

Possible original research. Appears to be too limited in geographic scope for the encyclopedia. Article was previously prodded, but I felt a discussion would be a better idea as the author has raised a dispute on the talk page. — NM Chico24 04:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Reads like a report. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 07:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is rescuable, with some work. I doubt it's original research -- more likely to be sourced from published local government reports etc. I suggest merging with the UK section in the air pollution article, probably as a new subarticle under a different title. Given that the study of air quality in the UK by Calor (see Guardian article) identifies Oxford as the most polluted city in the UK, a concentration on Oxford seems ok. Trim down, identify sources, and delete anything that can't be referenced. Espresso Addict 08:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from page author:
- Hi thanks Expresso Addict, I entirely agree. Please bare in mind I have only been writing this for a about 8 hours over 4 days. I also wrote the UK section in Air pollution and that was my intent to show how local conditions effect the management of air quality. Oxford is a good case study for many reasons, not least because it is one of the most polluted UK cities. The articles I reference are all local government documents and the reason I copied the Oxford air quality summary reports into wikipedia is because the county council keeps moving them, they are PDFs so difficult to reference precise sections and PDFs are also difficult to search. I don't believe there can be copyright issues because these are public documents that are readily available on the web (am I wrong here?) If I am not wrong on this copyright issue then could you remove the deletion marker on these too please. I'll have to attend to the article in the evenings this week so will need more than 5 days to sort it out. Also I am happy to merge with Air pollution but had the idea that this could be a template for other entries on air quality for different cities. It is very interesting to see how a wide range of parameters effect air quality. Finally, this is not a report it is just me pulling together lots of publicly available information into one place under the heading of air quality in oxford. i still have to put all the references i have used (they are in my 'delicous account' and I am as yet to work out how to reference effectively (i.e. syntax for constructing a citation list). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hnoble32 (talk • contribs)
  - References are very important to Wikipedia, so it's good to put them in first rather than at the end. Don't worry about the syntax, other people can help with that. Re the other articles, I don't know the copyright situation on local government documents in the UK, but I'd suspect they were copyright unless stated otherwise. It might be wisest to take them down and try to contact the council about the copyright situation. Espresso Addict 09:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I will contact the council to ask how I can cite/ reference their reports. I am assuming since they are a government body I will be able to cite them freely. BTW I am getting very confused about this talk page and another that seems to be associated with this article (where I am getting comments from other administrators.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hnoble32 (talk • contribs)
      - I have responded on your personal talk page, Hnoble32. Espresso Addict 20:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been fighting for this article here too. So now I will just write here! In summary. I will tidy this article, clear the copyright with county council, and investigate whether it can be included in either Oxford or Air pollution. My feeling now about merging is that it will be good for wikipedia to have a set of articles on air pollution by city i.e. managing air quality in Oxford is very different to London, Delhi, and any of the top 10 most polluted cities in the world 7 of which are all in China (recent UN report). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hnoble32 (talk • contribs)
- This article was nominated for deletion by some administrators but other suggested with changes it would be useful. Can I have some comments on the document now as I have dealt to most of the recommendations. hza 11:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I've noticed this article a few times while going through the dead end pages list, and it looks like something that could be useful when it's finished -- particularly given the claims that Oxford is the most polluted city in the UK -- but probably should be more of a summary than a detailed report. Mark Grant 13:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 12:15, 29 August 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, NMChico24

Delete per nom.--Peta 02:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Air quality in Mumbai, Air quality in Sydney, Air quality in Detroit, Air Quality in Dublin, Air Quality in Mexico City. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also original research. --IslaySolomon 02:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this should be a personal web page. Gazpacho 07:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR research paper written in a very unencylopedic format. However, I wouldn't be oppose to merging what is applicable and salvagable into the UK section of air pollution provided that what is added is sourced. 205.157.110.11 10:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I don't think that the air quality of one particular area is important or notable enough for wikipedia. Perhaps having articles on the air quality of a broader geographic scope would be suitable. So, I would merge to a broader page, provided we can get some sources, or just simply delete if there is no useful infomation or sources. This is a fairly large and detialed article, so I think that some of this infomation will be useful in another context. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. See comment below. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniele Ganser[edit]

Three sentence article about a non-notable academic. She wrote two monographs/books, one is in 84 libraries, the other in 35. Google scholar lists almost no publications citing her. The reason she has a stub? User:Striver has created stubs for a very large number of non-notable people associated with the 9/11 conspiracy theory movement. Many of these stubs have been deleted or are in AfD. GabrielF 02:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Minor Comment: Daniele Ganser is a man!Self-Described Seabhcán 12:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. Article practically nominates itself. According to the article, Daniele Ganser's claim to fame is writing a PhD thesis that got turned into a book last year and is currently ranked 554,113th on amazon. Per google scholar, this book has been cited once in a publication called Online Journal. Here's where the cite occurs. My Alt Account 03:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better documentation can be given of this person's relevance.UberCryxic 04:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just more Striver-cruft 9/11 CT nonsense.--MONGO 09:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 10:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is his biography and works: [8]--Striver 11:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has writen at least eight books. And the two mentioned above easly fullfill Wikipedia:Notability (books). So we have a scholar with several books passing notability for books. That should making him notable himself.--Striver 11:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read it again Striver, five of the eight are not separate books but translations of the books he wrote. GabrielF 12:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, thanks for pointing it out, ill fix it. How about the articles and interview he has made?--Striver 12:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like cia.gov thinks he is notable. --Striver 12:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom—(Kepin)^{RING THE LIBERTY BELL} 12:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noam Chomsky has thinks he is notable [9] --Striver 12:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I care what he thinks?--—(Kepin)^{RING THE LIBERTY BELL} 12:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not... --Striver 13:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Noam Chomsky comes here and convinces us that this guy deserves an encyclopedia article, more power to him. Meanwhile, you haven't convinced me to change my vote. My Alt Account 14:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not notable. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 13:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN academic. --Mmx1 15:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Chapline R Vine^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 17:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruft factory, see also WP:NOT for why this shouldn't be on wikipedia--I-2-d2 17:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Aaron 22:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons above. —ExplorerCDT 02:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above--Peephole 01:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Morton devonshire 01:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and close this one earily per WP:SNOW Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 02:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MONGO and Snowball it --Tbeatty 22:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are only so many articles on Afd becuae GabrielF nominated them, then created a page specifically for the tracking of the deletion of articles which he doesn't like at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GabrielF/911TMCruft .

Comment That's hardly a valid argument though. I, for one, am grateful for editors who take the time to dig out the cruft and bring it to AfD. If something is worth keeping or if some nominations are made in bad faith then I trust that other editors will recognize it and fight for it in the AfD debates. Pascal.Tesson 06:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coment If that's not a valid argument, then the original nominators argument that there are a lot of them in AfD isn't a valid reason for deletion either.--Pussy Galore 11:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that wasn't why the nominator said it should be deleted. He said she was NN, gave some reasons, and then pointed out that striver creates huge numbers of stubs of NN people, books, and movies. BTW, it still stands that you haven't explained exactly what notability criteria this academic passes. My Alt Account 11:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ganser has written books and been interviewed in numberous major newspapers, recently Le Monde Diplomatique [10]. There are many far less notable people with wikipedia articles. Self-Described Seabhcán 12:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Crockspot 17:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per My Alt Account --Geneb1955^Talk/_CVU 14:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ganser has done important work in progressing a very important and underexamined area of 20th century history. His work is being cited increasingly on this controversial topic, including on the U. S. State Department website where he is accused of misinformation. If this entry is deleted it will be back as the importance of this writer, and the topics he has covered, becomes more evident. Wouldn't it be better to have something to build on, as in this entry. Or, perhaps, we need to make more room for C list porn stars on Wikipedia, in which case this should be deleted. "She" (Ganser) is a he, by the way. SoftBulletin 13:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: SoftBulletin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
Closing comment: As I said yesterday in another AfD (don't remember which), an article which needs so many sources just to prove notability and fails in view of most AfD voters is surely not notable enough. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 07:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Klemmer, Proguli and Progulus Radio[edit]

Internet radiostation and its owner. No evidence of notability for either, and the neologism just has to go; delete. --Peta 02:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All All three are non-notable. TJ Spyke 02:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand the deletion of Michael Klemmer and Proguli, but I see no justification for the deletion of Progulus Radio. "No evidence of notability"? You not being aware of it does not in any way equate to it not being notable. Please give a justifiable reason the the deletion of Progulus Radio. UniversalMigrator 02:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Progulus Radio has been in operation since 2005 and has become known throughout the United States, South America, and Europe, as a superior internet radio station for progressive rock and metal. I see no justifiable reason for the article's deletion. UniversalMigrator 02:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Who says its good? Please see WP:WEB which is the probably the best guideline in this situation.--Peta 02:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Progulas Radio fails to meet all 3 requirments of WP:WEB]. TJ Spyke 03:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All as per nom and as per above. wikipediatrix 03:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, Wikipedia isn't for small game, eh? Only well established stations who have money for marketing and promotion so they can obtain enough "notability" from media are worthy for Wikipedia? What about noncommercial venues that are well established within the listener base for the genres it plays? UniversalMigrator 03:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just Google progulus and one can see that lots of people art making note of Progulus. Many established bands send their fans to Progulus to listen to their music. It seems that according to your unreasonably strict guidlines that if something is noncommercial and so does not push its image out into the world actively enough to recieve recognition from the corporate world, then it is not noteworthy. This is a strange position for a free information source containing large amounts of user contributions to take, in my opinion. It would seem to me that the very purpose of such a forum would be to gather information of this sort. I suppose that in the end it doesn't matter to you, though. Not until Progulus has several "notable" articles written about it, featured in "noteworthy" newspapers and magazines. UniversalMigrator 04:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All you have to do is proove that it meets ONE of the WP:WEB criteria, which is the criteria for EVERY article on Wikipedia that is about a web-based subject:

1)The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

2)The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.

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. TJ Spyke 04:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only article I can find about it: Casey, Chris. Points North: Windsor resident unfurls art-rock splendor online. Windsor Tribune, 2006-04-24. Seems pretty notable and verifiable to me. Do I need to wait until more articles are written about Progulus to be able to do this? This is not a promotional thing, I'm not even associated with the station operations, I just tune in from time to time. I looked it up on Wikipedia and found that there was no info, so I thought I'd try to put it up. UniversalMigrator 05:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It says multiple non-trivial sources. This has nothing to do with the quality of the station, it's just that WP is for subjects that are already notable(and not for helping something become notable). It can always be re-created if/when it can meet one of those criteria. TJ Spyke 05:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. I thought I'd give it a shot anyway. Now to get some articles written! However, is the source given usable? Doesn't seem trivial to me. UniversalMigrator 05:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The source you provide looks fine to me. TJ Spyke 05:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all unless evidence showing they satisfy WP:WEB is found. --Pak21 14:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is info on 3 hardcopy appearences of progulus in print, and 1 in an online web-zine.

http://www.dprp.net/news/index.php?i=2005_40 http://reg.greeleytrib.com/?rd_url=http%3A//www.greeleytrib.com/article/20060424/NEWS/104240095%26SearchID%3D73256243135911&WTID=2208989588226 http://www.windsortribune.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=3658 And, there was an article about Progulus written up in an issue of www.iopages.nl, which is a Dutch hardcopy magazine. I don't recall which issue it was, but it was around Nov/Dec 2005. The link to the magazine is, www.iopages.nl but they don't have online editions of the magazine. I agree that the other 2 articles should be removed, but the article on Progulus is justified. -Tyr- 18:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the dprp.net link is essentially a blog, despite it calling itself an "online newspaper". The Greeleytrib link is members-access-only. The windsortribune link is already on the Progulus Radio article. None of these justify the existence of the Michael Klemmer and Proguli articles, and they don't really add much to Progulus Radio either. wikipediatrix 18:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Notability not established. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All as per nom Mukadderat

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 author request. Guy 21:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies Of Prog Hour[edit]

A show on internet radion station Progulus Radio. --Peta 02:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason for deletion here? UniversalMigrator 02:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How about you provide a reason why a radio show that is only broadcast on the internet on a station that may or may not be notable is a worthy topic for an encyclopedia article, see WP:NOT.--Peta 02:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Okay, I see reason for the deletion of this article. UniversalMigrator 08:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails all notability tests. wikipediatrix 03:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete after comments of creator (UniversalMigrator) above --Pak21 14:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Land 19:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canvas Prog Hour[edit]

Another vanity article from the Progulus Radio series. --Peta 02:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is in no way a vanity article for Progulus. The Canvas Prog Hour is not even created by Progulus, they simply broadcast it. It seems that you want to delete things just because you have not heard of them. This is not marketing or promotion, these are informational srticles for people interested in this type of music. UniversalMigrator 02:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable radio show. Without proper sources for its claims, there is no verifiable evidence presented that the show is "a globally syndicated program", although by that they probably just mean webcasts. I'm also concerned that the "Stations that play the Canvas Prog Hour" section consists almost entirely of redlinks, and that most of them do not sound like radio stations ("Own Dog's Musical Journey"). How about providing call letters for these alleged stations, and their frequencies? wikipediatrix 03:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The links were red because they don't have Wikipedia articles, that doesn't mean they're not established stations. Most of the stations are webcasts, so I changed the links and labeled the stations as webcasts. Internet stations don't have call letters, so that answers that rediculous question. Furthermore, I don't know if this is what you're thinking, but I'm not involved at all with the production of this show. I felt that there was enough interest in this program, and that it was "notable" enough to have an article on here. The times are changing folks. Something doesn't have to have multiple articles written about it to have notability. Something can acquire notability through its reputation among its target audience. UniversalMigrator 04:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's motto is "verifiability, not truth". Please provide verifiable evidence of this notability and reputation you speak of. Read WP:V. wikipediatrix 04:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you are aware of some definition of "verifiable" of which I am not. Everything in the article is factual and verifiable. UniversalMigrator 04:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am using Wikipedia's definition of "verifiable". Did you read WP:V or not? Are you going to provide reliable sources for your claims, or are you just going to continue asking that we take your word for everything? wikipediatrix 05:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - substantially content-free. An article that does little more than assert the existence of its subject is no use to man nor beast. BTLizard 09:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedily if UniversalMigrator agrees as per his comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladies Of Prog Hour. --Pak21 14:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I accede to your wishes. Delete. UniversalMigrator 17:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect — seems like a plausible solution, and is basically what everyone wants. —this is messedrocker (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Incubator[edit]

In all seriousness, this is overkill on self-referencial content. To understand this, this is the place where new projects by the foundation go for testing before they get their own full section. Think about this, does it really meet WP:WEB? I can understand many of the things in the {{Wikimedia Foundation}} template, but this I dunno. Most of the wikimedia foundation's projects are putting quite a show, though not as strongly as the wikipedia is. But this is just the testbed for new projects; they have to come from somewhere, yes, but giving too much into self-content will look bad. Please don't say keep just because this is one of the foundation's projects, I'd rather we be impartial about the content on wikipedia. --Kevin_b_er 02:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I think the Incubator is a great project. But I agree that it's not notable enough for an article. Bastique▼^parler _voir 02:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect seems to make more sense. I'm willing to go with consensus. Bastique▼^parler _voir 15:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Wikimedia Foundation. Doesn't deserve its own article, but could use a couple sentences of mention in the main one. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Night Gyr. It deserves mention somewhere, but not really in its own article. --Gray Porpoise 10:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Wikimedia Foundation.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 19:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Indie Rock[edit]

Defunct internet radio station, no evidence that it was ever notable, delete --Peta 02:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: no assertion of notability --Pak21 14:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reasons above.UberCryxic 19:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Defunct internet radio station, was notable and had many listeners do not delete. I am one of the programmers of the station and think the wikipedia entry should continue. I take great offense at the comment that this station was not notable. While our numbers were small we had a significant core audience that listened regularly. I would encourage others who liked the station to let their views be known. If this page ends up being deleted I will appeal that. Steven --User:RadioSteven 12:20 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: this is this user's first contribution to Wikipedia. --Pak21 08:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the above user accidently deleted all votes while making their vote. I have attempted to repair this, but I would suggest the closing admin check the page history carefully. --Pak21 08:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Wazee[edit]

Internet radio station, no evidence of notability, delete --Peta 02:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If I understand correctly, the web page indicates that they commonly reache hundreds of simultaneous listeners. I'm not sufficiently familiar with internet radio station listener stats to determine whether or not this is a high number, but it definitely claims more listeners than most of the internet radio stations that get deleted. My Alt Account 03:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Taking a web site's own word for the number of its readers/listeners is unwise. Our WP:WEB criteria require sources independent of the subject for a reason. Uncle G 10:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: no assertion of notability --Pak21 14:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete nn. Mukadderat 00:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trance Fury Radio[edit]

Internet radio statio, no evidence of notability. --Peta 02:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely NN. My Alt Account 03:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim to notability. VegaDark 06:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: no assertion of notability --Pak21 14:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Irrelevant subject.UberCryxic 22:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Aaron 22:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten Generation[edit]

This seems like a neologism. I can't find any references to it in major NZ newspapers, either with Google News or Lexis-Nexis. Andrew Levine 02:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of "forgotten generations" around the world. There are even a few documented ones, but they aren't in New Zealand and they aren't anything to do with student loans (Glenn T. Fujiura. "Continuum of Intellectual Disability: Demographic Evidence for the "Forgotten Generation"". Mental Retardation. 41 (6): 420–429. doi:10.1352/0047-6765(2003)41<420:COIDDE>2.0.CO;2. PMID 14588060. Reg Wright (1986). "The Forgotten Generation of Norfolk Island and Van Diemens Land". Sydney: Library of Australian History. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)). The article cites no sources, and I can find no sources for this particular "forgotten generation" except one person's rant on a message board, which hasn't been fact checked and is just an opinion of 1 person. This article is original research. Delete. Uncle G 10:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the excellent research of User:Uncle G.-- danntm ^T _C 20:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romie Frederick Littrell[edit]

Non-notable biography created by new user Romielittrell (talk · contribs), currently the only contributor. Only source is his personal homestead.com site with a broken link for a CV. Pretty clear violation of WP:BIO, WP:VAIN, WP:AUTO. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 02:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROFTEST. Nothing here makes him more notable than your average academic. Fan-1967 02:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity, fails WP:BIO. wikipediatrix 03:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. —Khoikhoi 05:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bluewater studios[edit]

Vanity. Fails WP:WEB. Googling "Bluewater studios" machinima gets 5 unique hits Drat (Talk) 03:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of machinima deletions. Drat (Talk) 03:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Forum/club vanity spam cruft. Fails WP:OR, WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOT (a place to host promotional material about your game projects), and just generally fails. My Alt Account 03:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. -Zappernapper 07:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment - unless of course someone steps forward and says they'll rewrite this, wikify it, and note at least a few outside media sources that have have taken notice. I have heard of this company before, but it may have actually been the sound company that you can find by doing the google test w/out "machinima," seems to get a LOT more hits that way. If so, maybe someone needs to rewrite it about that company. -Zappernapper 07:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those other hits are definately a different company. This particular one is pretty much solely concerned with machinima.--Drat (Talk) 08:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — TKD::Talk 03:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MikeWazowski 17:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Bin Sulayman[edit]

Non-notable businessman from Dubai. Fails WP:BIO. wikipediatrix 03:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 4 ghits for name. Also, one of the complications with this article is that the original author has way too little English proficiency to be writing this in the first place. I suspect that most of the sentences in the article are too mangled for us to decipher what the author's claims are. E.g., "he has his doctorate in Leadership from the United States". My Alt Account 04:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Keep and move to more common transliteration of Omar Bin Sulaiman. Thanks to Dlyons493 for figuring this out. My Alt Account 14:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - tried variations of the name, could not verify any of the facts. Perhaps if sourced so that it can be checked, but probably not even then from what I can make out. Seaphoto 05:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, notability not clearly established. "Leadership" is presumably management. Gazpacho 07:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this is the user who commonly writes entries on Dubai businesses and business people, I would suggest we point them to the relevant language Wikipedia so he/she doesn't need to translate. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's the guv Dlyons493 Talk 10:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Governor of the "Dubai International Financial Centre", yes. So? wikipediatrix 12:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dlyons493. The Dubai International Financial Centre is some kind of capital market established by the Gov't of Dubai. "The Dubai International Financial Centre was conceived by the Government of Dubai for the benefit of the UAE and the wider region as a whole. Its remit is to create a regional capital market, offering investors and issuers of capital world-class regulations and standards."[11] ("Remit?") He's apparently in charge of their stock exchange or equivalent. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not their stock exchange. The Dubai stock exchange is known as Dubai International Financial Exchange (DIFX). [12] The DIFC seems to be just an international-banking bureaucracy. And even though its existence was government-mandated, it seems to be an independent organization. wikipediatrix 14:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw per My Alt Account. A Google search using the "Sulaiman" spelling changes the picture drastically. wikipediatrix 14:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Even if you change the spelling of the name it still appears like a self projection.-- Marwatt 13:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certain prominence. Mukadderat 00:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. um, I withdrew my nomination a week ago, why is this AfD still here?? wikipediatrix 00:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Door Publications[edit]

Dragon Door was already deleted through AfD as a "non notable website" - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Door. This is just similar content under a slightly different name. The site is no more notable now. Dsreyn 03:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The previously AFDed content started "A website and company dedicated to serving athletes..." Current article has very different content and thus doesn't qualify for speedy. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The reason for the previous nomination was "non notable website". I don't see how it has become more notable recently. Dsreyn 11:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment but that doesn't prevent it from getting deleted under A7. ColourBurst 16:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no evidence this publishing company meets WP:CORP.--Isotope23 14:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: no assertion of notability and possibly also as repost. --Pak21 14:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. No assertion of notability. Can we place John Du Cane and maybe Pavel Tsatsouline under this AfD as well (all of their books are essentially self-published)? ColourBurst 16:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think it would be better to bring them to separate AfD's (if you feel that's necessary), particularly since a number of people have already voted on the single nom for Dragon Door Publications. Though personally, I think Tsatsouline, at least, is notable enough. Whether or not you consider him to be self-published, several of his Amazon sales rankings are fairly respectable. Dsreyn 04:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A7. --Aaron 22:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Teke^(talk) 05:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Phoenix (Pittsburgh)[edit]

Vanity article for NN band started in 2005 Chris Griswold (☎☓) 03:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Shouldn't you have speedied this? The article doesn't claim notability and in fact it admits they're unsigned, and seems to imply they've never released anything. My Alt Account 04:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7: so much for "no notability asserted"... this one is pretty much "non-notability asserted" as an unsigned band with hardly any information about it. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death in Iraq under Saddam Hussein[edit]

Unencyclopedic and fundamentally POV-forking article, which opens by stating that Hussein's personal responsibility for atrocities has yet to be determined and may never be, and yet then goes on to ascribe these various atrocities to him anyway. wikipediatrix 03:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - but I disagree with the nom. This isn't a POV fork since it doesn't really differ from the info in Saddam Hussein. Which is exactly where the info belongs. My Alt Account 04:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Saddam Hussein article at least makes a stab at impartiality - this article doesn't. It seems to presume Hussein's guilt for the atrocities he is currently still on trial for. (Not that I'm defending him, mind you!) Hence my calling it a POV fork. wikipediatrix 04:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per My Alt Account. Merge any info that's missing from Saddam Hussein. - Richfife 04:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Musaabdulrashid 08:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork.--MONGO 09:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (no merge). POV and obsolete with existing articles. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom—(Kepin)^{RING THE LIBERTY BELL} 12:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 14:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Chapline R Vine^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 17:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruft factory, see also WP:NOT for why this shouldn't be on wikipedia--I-2-d2 17:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Peephole 13:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any salvageable info should be merged with the Saddam Hussein article. --Richard 06:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fork. I'd say merge, but most of its there already. Arbusto 17:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 18:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wavescreens[edit]

Fails WP:SOFTWARE; only marketed for 2 years and was never mass distributed. Crystallina 04:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A minute of google suggests this software never got any significant coverage; all I can find are press releases and similar stuff that's normally insufficient to demonstrate notability. I see no reason to dust the cobwebs off of this piece of software history. My Alt Account 04:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vizag airport[edit]

Seems like borderline nonsense (G1). Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 04:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite - The article is a disaster, but it's a real airport. A google search reveals that it's world famous for its floods. - Richfife 04:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Visakhapatnam, a lot of information in the article is duplicate, and the international airport has not been built yet. Seaphoto 05:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Seaphoto. It makes sense to send people to the existing duplicate info. Separate article is most likely crystal ballery since it's not finished. Suggest rename to Vizag Airport before merging. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rewrite per Richfife. Needs major work. Is this the official title of the airport? If not, that should probably be the title of the article. Irongargoyle 00:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rewritten. utcursch | talk 03:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Aksi_great (talk - review me) 13:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has been rewritten well. --Gurubrahma 09:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Airport exists, and the article has been rewritten.-- thund e rboltz ^(Deepu) 09:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAirport exists Doctor BrunoTalk 15:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above comments. RFerreira 05:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a notable airpot in India. Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 04:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merlinese[edit]

Protologism ^{[Check Google hits]}. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is just rubbish. ---Charles 04:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Didn't Prince actually invent this 20+ years ago? Actually, I'm sure it goes back hundreds of years. People used to write "Wm" when they meant William, etc. - Richfife 04:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Telegraphese has been around as long as the telegraph has, certainly. ☺ Uncle G 10:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Very few mentions in google search.UberCryxic 04:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 05:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with SMS language (which really needs to be cleaned up itself) to be included in a "History" section if proper citation is done. While the term "merlinese" may be nn, its inception is notable. I'm assuming good-faith of the author, from the looks of it they are very new and don't quite know how to go about writing an article. indeed they may not have even been aware of other neologism articles that they could have expanded on or known how to ref. The article has only been here for one day and I believe the OR can be referenced. -Zappernapper 08:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OR is not allowed, referenced or not. Though if it's referenced it probably isn't OR to begin with. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NFT. Claims of popularity are hyperbolic suggesting vanity. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence that something by this name exists. The article cites no sources. For a purported "internet-based style of speaking" (actually, writing), it has exactly zero Internet presence according to Google Web and Google Groups. (There are people who talk of "Merlinese" on Internet. They are talking about their pet parrots, named "Merlin".) This article is original research. Merging it into articles on SMS language or other abbreviated styles of writing (which, as noted above, have a history that long predates the actual existence of Internet) would be to merge original research into those articles, which wouldn't be improving them at all. Delete. Uncle G 10:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hate it when Uncle G gets here first: Delete per Uncle G (although one of those people was talking to a dog). Yomangani ^talk 13:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Charles. Danny Lilithborne 00:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - if content has been merged, a redirect needs to be left in place to preserve the edit history. As this seems uncontroversial I've redirected the article as suggested, but redirects can be done without AfD. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Enyart Live[edit]

Delete and redirect This is a duplicated article on subject: (see Bob Enyart. Potential POV fork of biographical article. Although his show appears to be quite well known for his style and views, duplication does not appear warranted as the show is merely his mouthpiece; He and his show are one and the same. Most of the useful NPOV content has been merged into the article to be retained. Ohconfucius 05:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Akradecki 03:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, part of series of hoax band articles created by this and one other author. NawlinWiki 14:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noise Concerto[edit]

non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. No evidence to back claims of notability (which themselves are quite thin). ^{[Check Google hits]} --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Serial hoaxer wasting our time. My Alt Account 05:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Alt Account, can you back up that claim with some links? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could point out that the nomination provides a link to the ghits, and not a single one leads to a mention of a band with this name. All of the author's edits are hoax/vandalism. My Alt Account 14:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 part of a series of hoaxes. NawlinWiki 14:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Porn (band)[edit]

Speedy-able in my opinion as failing CSD A7, however speedy tag has been removed a couple times (suspiciously so, but I digress). Giving it the full AfD. non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. See Ghits for "The Porn" and the name of the lead singer, "Scott Red": [13]. If this band were notable, I'd expect to see some hits with mention of both, as reviews/articles/etc. would mention the lead singer, at least. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless they made the "hardest to google" band list somewhere. Aerial porn, underwater porn, all come up with various interesting links but none about the band, and once you add the singer's name, it's nada surf. ~ trialsanderrors 05:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per Trialsanderrors and AbsolutDan. Every indication that this is a hoax. My Alt Account 05:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train ^{take the} 15:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erection index[edit]

The only two sources cited appear to be highly questionable articles of no real academic or other support, and without those two sources, the page appears to be original research. The content itself appears to be close to nonsense. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Dennis The TIger 08:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Expand there are at least three other refs out there that are easily found on Amazon which lead me to believe there is some substance to this term. -Zappernapper 08:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - and what exactly is so questionable about these articles? they aren't making extraordinary claims and seem to mention where they're getting these terms from (i.e. not pulling them out of their... heads) -Zappernapper 08:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please cite them, and then perhaps people will be able to tell you. Uncle G 10:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I feel is questionable about the articles (which are linked from the Erection index article) is that they have impressive sounding titles but are hosted on Web-based journals (at least I see nothing to suggest that they were in commonly available paper journals) of questionable quality and notability themselves. In addition, the articles were clearly not written with academic discussion in mind, but more like journalist musings, if even that. Further, I suspect the term "erection index" was deliberately used for shock value, which makes it even less likely that good faith academics will adopt the term.
  - Not only that, but as I wrote, the article itself is close to nonsense. I can perhaps accept the premise that over-building of massive construction projects may lead to an economic recession, but the building of a single huge structure leads to a world-wide economic recession? It's entirely illogical, and unless the "index" actually involves an analysis of world-wide building trends, it will never be anything more than nonsensical. --Nlu (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, zero hits on Newsbank. Neologism. ~ trialsanderrors 03:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no verifiability. Mukadderat 00:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Gerke[edit]

Doesn't appear to be notable by any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Googling him produces 59 hits, googling his one co-authored paper (the only claim of notability) produces 13 hits. Searching him on Google Scholar produces 7 hits, two of which are copies of the paper listed in his article, two of which cite him, and three of which do not appear relevant. One result is about an award, but it appears he helped somehow in the preperation of the award, he didn't actually win it. -Elmer Clark 04:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Peta 05:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD A7. --Dennis The TIger 08:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm inclined to think that the mention of his published article would count as a claim of notability. I won't remove the notice, though. -Elmer Clark 08:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -Qball6 03:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 04:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan minehan[edit]

^{[Check Google hits]} Possible hoax. No evidence this is a real person. Non-notable & fails WP:BIO and WP:V, at the very least. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. I'm unable to verify a single assertion in the article. Even if any of it's true, it fails WP:BIO anyway. My Alt Account 05:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Almost certainly a hoax; the only Google hit for the name is a 5-year-old reference to a then 12 year old from, probably not coincidentally, NSW. The "autobiography" supposedly published by Penguin is definitely a hoax. Geoffrey Spear 16:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The author has written other hoaxes related to Sian Evans, who is also mentioned in this article. - LeonWhite 23:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 23:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Plot Story[edit]

This page exactly replicates some of the information contained in the entry for the film Vozvrashcheniye. -Digitalican 04:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, unless a reason can be shown y "The Plot Story" would be a relevant search for Vozvrashcheniye - then i would change to redirect -Zappernapper 09:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to Vozvrashcheniye it is known in English as The Return. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pinte[edit]

Appears to be an article about a bar in a Marriott in Germany. Not notable; possible advertisement. AED 05:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hotel bars are not notable. Irongargoyle 00:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Akradecki 03:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD A6, attack page. Talk page has not been deleted for the time being. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee LaHaye[edit]

Subject is, in and of himself, non-notable. The only thing that makes him notable is an alleged revealing of his homosexuality by a non-notable blog, BlogActive, which in turn cites no sources. A New York Times article is suggested is a reference, but nobody can find it. If verification of his orientation by a notable source can be found or if notable media coverage of his outing can be found, then maybe we should keep it, but otherwise, let's let it die. Oh, also, the sources section is pretty flame-bait-y. Thanks for your consideration. Dwiki 05:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable and blogs are horrible sources. I do suspect that in time Lee LaHaye will become notable but now is not that time and this is certainly not the article to document it. 205.157.110.11 08:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and suggest speedy delete per WP:CSD A6, as an attack page. Blog rumours that the CFO of a right-wing Christian organization is gay strike me as unreliable, and likely to be considered defamatory by someone in such a position. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as A6 per Smerdis of Tlön. --Aaron 22:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bushism[edit]

"Bushism" is indeed exactly a neologism. Where did it come from? Who uses this term? Anyone notable? This article does not specify. The article indeed makes no claims to the notability of this term, whatsoever. It cites no credible references. It is speculative. It does contain a ton of quotes. And a poem. Thus, it's totally unencyclopedic. I suggest we move the quotes not already in Wikiquote to Wikiquote and bag the rest of it. Dwiki 05:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the term Bushism is well know in the United States, regardless of how one feels about it, these things did happen and are a part of U.S. history (such as it is). 64North 07:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well-known term. The word was used as the title of at least five books (More George W. Bushisms, Still More George W. Bushisms, George W. Bushisms V, etc). Over 800,000 google hits, and numerous google news hits. The good folks at the Language Log have referred to the word 37 times. It has entered the lexicon. That said, the quotes in this article could be pared down a lot. bikeable (talk) 05:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bikeable (the books have even spawned desktop calendars). The term is well-defined and commonly used. I'd be behind a move to transfer all the "example" quotes after the first section to Wikiquote, leaving the ones in the "background" section there. Not totally sure about the poem. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 06:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a perfect example of a notable neologism. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am sure there's enough bush haters to keep this article alive. But honestly, Dwiki is totally correct. --MarsRover 07:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's not essential to know where it comes from (probably a NYT columnist) and "who uses" is something Dwiki should have done due diligence on before nominating. Gazpacho 07:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, it's a neologism, and it has very much entered vernacular - but it has gone beyond the state where it's merely a definition. --Dennis The TIger 08:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it's passed the point where it has notablity that it's not just another neoligism. It's been used in the Associated Press[14] along with being used on television. It's not just a small group of people who have adopted the word. - The Bethling ^(Talk) 09:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable neologism. VegaDark 09:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I think 6 years of very active use in a variety of mediums (the books, the calendars, there is even a couple audio CDs) as well as the press mentions has moved "Bushisms" beyond the realm of being a neologism. And as someone who has voted for him, I don't think this is a matter of Bush-hating. It a matter of a very notable phrase.205.157.110.11 10:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The Bethling. Used by Associated Press and on television is enough indication for me. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as having pretty wide currency, and also as a placeholder for one or two memorable foot-in-mouth moments which would otherwise bulk up Shrub's article. Guy 12:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per bikeable.--Isotope23 14:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for sure. Plenty of reliable sources are available to verify the phrase's use. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inherently POV, unless there's an article on political gaffes or something like that this can be merged into. Something touching on this topic has a place in an encyclopedia, certainly one that's not paper, but this particular article, by its very nature, is all "look how stupid George W. Bush is."–♥ «Charles A. L.» 15:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree the article needs to be expanded to better answer Dwiki's questions, but the topic is extremely notable and has appeared on TV, in books, and many articles. nadav 18:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Filled with POV, WP:OR, poorly sourced, unencyclopedic, and probably violates WP:BLP. I'm not opposed to the topic, per se. But this execution is wrong in so many ways. Crockspot 19:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Five book titles is sufficient for inclusion. Gamaliel 20:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A neoligism readily recognized inside and outside the United States. Victoriagirl 20:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Very important (and interesting) topic. The POV and OR issues should not be grounds for deletion, as these can be resolved. Zagalejo 20:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may be a neoligism, but is an extremely widespread and notable neologism. RFerreira 20:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's part of American (and European) pop culture. Many of the above objections ("poorly sourced", "POV", etc) can be fixed. I'm off to do some fixing up right now. Srose (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RFerreira and others. HGB 22:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable, sourceable neologism, but also keep the OR/V tag that is already there. Some of the article is OR and POV but that can be fixed. Pan Dan 02:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How can an article detailing what an idiot a public figure is be made NPOV? "However, Bush has been knbown to say quite clever things as well"? And Crockspot points out that it's a biographical article about a living person, too.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 17:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's unwarranted to infer from Bush's misspeakings that he's an idiot. Clumsy speakers aren't necessarily dumb. Personally, I think it's just the folksy way he talks. (But maybe I think that because I'm not a Bush detractor.) Or, maybe because it's actually kind of endearing, he does it on purpose (part of his political strategery). The point is that Bushisms are notable because they have engendered chatter from humorists and speculation from analysts. A balanced article should include comments both from Bush's detractors (like Molly Ivins who is already cited) and his defenders. And of course you're right that sentences like what you quoted are not appropriate. Pan Dan 18:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and interesting. Kellen ^T 12:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 14:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Bikable. MikeWazowski 17:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bikable and Bethling Silver95280 18:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just as RFerrira wrote, this is a notable neologism. Lazybum 04:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above. This time "NN" means "notable neologism". --Richard 07:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~widely used~~internationally used neologism. When even the leader of a foreign country makes a wisecrack about bush's use of the english language... ALKIVAR™ 19:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. I've seen several books on it in London's main branch of Waterstones and generally Bush is very famous for his political gaffes in terms of grammar. It has been parodied in several TV shows (Dead Ringers, 2DTV and I think there are a couple more). Also, as Srose said it's part of american and European culture. Andrius 19:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:V. There are many verifiable sources for this term, both in the article and above. --Satori Son 13:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-known term that people will look for on Wikipedia. bbx 18:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Take a look at all the pages that link to "Bushism." Clearly a notable word/phenomenon.
Keep. A common term with a very specific meaning. Amazon has a large number of books which use this term as it's title. The use of the word in those books is parallel to the way it is described in this article.--Roland Deschain 00:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Violation of the policy on libel against living people. Article very poor, inherently biased, and if kept will probably not be improved. Uncited poems? DELETE. Judgesurreal777 02:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - libel certainly does not figure in here. It's very very difficult to commit defamation against a public figure in the United States. Nothing in the article crosses the line. So let's just take the legal question out of consideration. Second, the article is, for the most part, sourced. Thus these portions of it, including the poem (which is sourced in the reference right above the poem's title), pass muster with WP:BLP. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I suspect a political motivation in this weird attempt to delete a very informative (although probably ephemeral) article. And by the way (see above) ... " [M]aybe because it's actually kind of endearing, he does it on purpose (part of his political strategery)." ... well, er, yes, of course, maybe, eh? Garrick92 14:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge As mentioned above, if there's a larger article for gaffes of politicians, maybe this could be moved there. It's certainly not a stand-alone article, though, no matter how funny or politically advantageous it may be for those who created the article in the first place. Dubc0724 17:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Whether or not politics played a role in the creation of this term or article is simply not relevant. Shall we now debate whether War on Terror or Axis of Evil should have an entries? The political origins and motivations behind the creation of those two terms is much more clear cut. Again, the fact is that Bushism is a notable neologism used throughout the English-speaking world. In at least one Canadian school Bushisms are used as a tool in teaching English to foreign language students. [15]. Victoriagirl 19:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An important, notable and interesting article.AbsenceWiki 21:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a well known term and often quoted in the media --Barry^talk 23:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Strategery should be merged in and the Decider should get some mention.Rokor 03:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, part of series of hoax articles. NawlinWiki 14:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dez (band)[edit]

No ghits for any of the information in this article. Author is a serial hoaxer. Other recent hoaxes by this user: Knife Party, Nife Party, Noise Concerto, The Porn (band). My Alt Account 05:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax per nom (or failing WP:V, at least). --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 12:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Th ε Halo ^Θ 16:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Vulliez[edit]

Re-nominating. Shawn Vulliez, although I respect him as an Internet artist, fails to meet WP:BIO. He's great! But we have policies about this sort of thing, and unless we can find that articles have been written about him in major publications or the like, I think this article needs to go. If he becomes famous according to the standards laid forth by Wikipedia guidelines in the future, then we can bring back the article. --Dwiki 05:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There is a bit of notority with his Lemon Demon work, especially Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny. (Which after hearing about it for some time, I finally just now saw it and it's Gay parody. They're both...interesting.) Agne 17:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. May be notable later, but at the moment appears to be yet another internet flash-in-the-pan. MikeWazowski 17:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable artist, as the co-creator of Ultimate Showdown and ebaumsworldsucks. --Billpg 12:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More notable than Squilliam Fancyson, and more interesting. Also a real person, who is not on TV, which is rare on WP. --Bcsr4ever 05:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. In my opinion, we should seperate *ahem* "bio sections" from internet cartoonists. He is famous through The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny, and he is a pretty good animator in my view, but I really can't decide what to do, so I'll abstain and not change my thought. --Wartys Neryon 01:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boob Scotch[edit]

delete per WP:SONG. Song from the 4th album of Bob Log III. No particluar reason for the song to have its own article, and no assertion of notability Ohconfucius 06:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. And I suspect this may be true of the singer as well. BTLizard 08:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have seen this filmclip on Rage. However, the article is a one line substub and there is not enough material allowing for expansion. Bob Log III is notable enough having at least 4 albums released with at least one on Fat Possum Records. Capitalistroadster 21:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments, no need to have its own page. TGreenburg
Delete per norm. AIMinfo 04:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: this is a tricky one. Articles on flash cartoons frequently generate numerous impassioned appeals for keep on the basis that it is 'popular' ('popular' meaning something different to what most people would take it to mean - the man on the Clapham omnibus having heard of this - instead referring to recognition among the geek subculture), with little actual verified evidence for notability. In this case we have much the same, at least for the flash cartoon. However, as has been pointed out, this is not just a flash cartoon but a song, played frequently by a notable DJ and partly created by Neil Cicierega who has enough reliable press coverage to be considered notable himself. Generally, Wikipedia consensus considers artists to confer notability on their work - albums by notable artists are considered notable enough for articles, for example. Individual songs are generally not, but when they attract this sort of attention it becomes more in doubt than your average Flash video.

Despite the majority for keeping - even discounting single-purpose accounts - this isn't a vote and I'm not going to describe this as a keep result; there are simply too many 'votes' that even when not from single-purpose accounts, are empty assertions of 'this is popular' and 'definitely notable' with no supporting evidence (not even a 'per x'), and on the other hand there are still legitimate concerns about verification (e.g. the reliablility of the Demento chart and the 'passing mention' nature of the Toronto Star article as extensively discussed above). But if in doubt, we keep, and there's definitely enough doubt at the end of this AfD for this to be no consensus. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny[edit]

Wikipedia:Notability (web) has a footnote that explicitly states that content hosted on Newgrounds is not made notable by virtue of being distributed by that notable site. Unless this content recieved notable press coverage, I think that it fails all three tests on Wikipedia:Notability (web) and should be deleted, regardless of how cool or interesting it is to the group of people who like it. --Dwiki 06:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra-strong Keep - non-notable???? This song will more than likely be Dr. Demento's #1 request of 2006 (at 64 chart points, it's 26 points above the #2 song (My Cat is Afraid of the Vacuum Cleaner by Power Salad) right now, and there are only 2.5 months left in the chart period)! Sounds pretty notable to me. -- EmiOfBrie 12:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is Dr.Demento a valid yardstick of notability? wikipediatrix 15:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since he became the most important DJ in his genre of music. WilyD 19:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also since, in the web notability guidelines linked above, item #3 states: 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. Demento certainly qualifies as a well known online (and real world) broadcaster, meeting the requirements for 'notability'. Sparkhead 19:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it'd be nice to source the chart, eh? That said, I'm pretty sure this is a far more notable part of web culture than Newgrounds is. WilyD 13:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. D has many times told his listeners how he ranks songs, the chart is hosted by a third party, true, but it uses the same rank method Dr. D uses. -- EmiOfBrie 22:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable song by notable artists. --Billpg 13:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sheer number of hits on google should prove its notability. 15:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, those numbers conk out after 600-or-so. The rest of the hits aren't unique ones. And the vast majority of these hits are from blogs such livejournal, deviantART, tripod, and other less-than-valid sources. wikipediatrix 15:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

600 unique hits is actually very, very high. Uniques are just counted out of the first thousand. WilyD 16:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 15:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is Newgrounds material, yes. But it has more than 7,000,000 views there (and 10,000 reviews I might add), and there are more internet sites, including Albino Blacksheep and Weebl's Stuff, that also host it. Plus Neil Cicierega is a notable figure even before this cartoon was released. Also, the song itself topped Dr. Demento's charts (the Funny 25) as of now. The sourcing of the chart seems necessary. --Wartys Neryon 16:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I don't understand why a few seem to be bent on deleting this entry. Google it (80K hits) and other flash entries. BALEETED! and Marshmallow's_Last_Stand both show fewer hits on Google and nobody's deleting those (and they're both subsets of Homestar_Runner). It's a popular flash that's still popular long after its creation. Notable press coverage? Search google news. Does a mention in the Toronto Star count? Let the entry be. Sparkhead 16:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn per above. Eusebeus 18:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that "above" only establishes it as highly notable, perhaps you can offer some rational for deletion? WilyD 18:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Dr.Demento and a bunch of "this flash is soooo awesome" mentions on teenage blogs don't impress everyone. wikipediatrix 18:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately this isn't Collection of things that impress everyone, but an encyclopaedia. It is the case that the vast majority of editors recognise this as a spectacularly obvious keep. The nom only says "It isn't notable for being on Newgrounds" which is clearly true (WTF is Newgrounds?) but it is notable for a host of other reasons, which have been expounded here. Nobody has addressed them (partially because it's impossible, I would guess) and nobody will. Later we can all recall this when someone puts Paraguay up for deletion as non-notable, and laugh at the parallels to this case. WilyD 19:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. Could you get any more hyperbolic? Paraguay has more going for it than Dr.Demento and a bunch of goofy blogs. wikipediatrix 19:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It's actually pretty reasonable as both are "maximally encyclopaedic" and both have a "zero worthiness for deletion". No editors who's argued for deletion has advanced a single reason that isn't demonstratably false, and it's clearly impossible to do so. The article is verifiable and encyclopaedic. Arguing to delete this is just as absurd as arguing to delete Paraguay. WilyD 19:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Fails WP:V and WP:RS[16][17]. Fails WP:WEB. Fails WP:MUSIC. Google hits results are sludgey flood of blog and forum posts which have little or no currency for Wikipedia article verification (and there are plenty of crappy flash animations on the web which get lots of links and ghits). The main claim the article has to legitimacy is that the subject has a "cult following" on the web. But no reliable, verifiable, independent, reputable sources have been offered to prove this. Bwithh 19:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I inserted the reliable, verifiable, independant, reputable source that had alredy been offered to prove this in as a reference. The articles passes your complaints (except maybe WP:MUSIC). Strong delete is an untenable position, would you consider putting in something more fitting? WilyD 19:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think Dr. Demento's chart counts. The ranking is mainly based on listener requests (a totally opaque and unreliable sample prone to ballot-stuffing and localized to the subculture of Dr. Demento's audience) plus other influences like "timeliness"(?). Ultimately: "In the end, it is simply Dr. Demento's judgement of the hottest and the coolest, no more, no less."). My Strong Delete vote feels just fine, thanks very much. Bwithh 19:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not refering to the Dr. Demento issue, but the coverage from the largest circulating newspaper in Canada WilyD 20:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article uses this as a source citation for its claim that USOUD "has gained a largecult following among web enthusiasts", but in fact the article says no such thing. It's an article about "animutation" in general, and only gives USOUD scant passing mentions. wikipediatrix 20:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure that's a reasonable paraphrase of the online buzz about the music on Ultimate Showdown has generated so many Lemon Demon CD sales that he doesn't have to get a "real job." - nor is scant an adjective that can reasonably be applied here. WilyD 20:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not even close to a "reasonable paraphrase". Ask any PR agent, there's a world of difference between a "buzz" and a "large cult following", and you're still mixing up the song (and the CD it's on) with the flash animation anyway, they're two distinctly separate subjects which get rather blurred in this article. Lemon Demon don't even have their own article, so why should the video for one of their songs have one? The logical thing to do is to merge some of this info into the Neil Cicierega article, which already devotes a subsection to USOUD. wikipediatrix 20:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to reword it to better match the source, feel free. That's not really an AfD issue. Beyond that, presenting the inverse of WP:POKEMON isn't convincing. It is true that merge may be a tenable position (though certainly not needed, nor do I really see a point for it), but delete remains completely unsupportable. WilyD 20:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the Dr. Demento issue, and WP:WEB, let me reiterate what you so clearly ignored. From 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. Demento certainly qualifies as a well known online (and real world) broadcaster, meeting the requirements for 'notability'. It isn't about where the item ranks on his charts. It's that fact that he is well known and distributing it, independent of the creators, on his show. Sparkhead 20:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about the SONG. Dr. Demento plays the SONG. This article is about the FLASH VIDEO. wikipediatrix 20:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're beasts of the same spawn. They cannot be seperated. WilyD 20:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about both. You might want to read the first few lines. Sparkhead 20:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, the intro says "The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny, often shortened to Ultimate Showdown, is a Flash animation and music video." Period. It goes on to talk about Dr.Demento playing it, of course, which is precisely why I say the article is confused. Is the tail wagging the dog, or vice versa? Scraping together scraps of attempted notability for the song with scraps of attempted notability for the video can't be put together to build a notable Golem out of its parts. wikipediatrix 20:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're trying to suggest the music video is disconnected from the song, you'll have to try a little harder. The internet phenomenon originated with a flash animation/music video but spread to other formats (such as radio) To suggest the script Shakespeare wrote for Hamlet is a seperate thing from review of the play based on performances, and that you can't cobble these together to establish a single notability would be just as untenable. WilyD 21:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic gets fuzzier and fuzzier the more you try to stubbornly maintain. Should I bother to explain why "Song is to its Music Video" is not the same as "Script is to its review"? Nah. There's no point. wikipediatrix 22:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I said Song is to music video as script is to play I'm fairly sure that won't be necessary. WilyD 22:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just made the point moot...since apparently the song is more notable than the video, I changes the focus of the article's introduction to the song rather than the video. Hopefully that will stop this particular line of squabbling. -- EmiOfBrie 01:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Per above arguments. This is a very notable flash, as can be seen here. --EBCouncil ^{Speak with the Council} 20:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Definitely notable. --Sally Dunn 03:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note vote was user's 5th edit Agne 16:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Worthy to be notable, i'm sure its an intrest to many people — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skasian (talk • contribs)

Note created in Oct 05 but this vote was user's 11th edit.

Keep per EmiOfBrie main argument and WilyD's defense. Agne 17:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - YouTube and Newgrounds rankings are not qualifiers for notability, nor is "interesting". MikeWazowski 17:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Keep - It's a major internet phenomenon, worthy of an article in Wiki. Those arguing for deletion severely underestimate the USoUD's popularity. - Alex, 74.133.188.197 21:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note Anon account but with other AfD votes and edits. Maybe shared. Agne 16:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Keep - It's a very popular song. If we delete this song, then we have to comb through every single album ever released that's on here and decider which songs are 'notable' and which aren't - come the fuck on! Any song that at ANY point was considered notable, is notable. youaredj 22:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC

Note Vote was user's 7th edit. Agne 16:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a very popular video on the internet, and certainly deserves its own entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klosterdev (talk • contribs)
Strong Kee - There is nothing wrong with it its not offensive or a stub — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.225.189 (talk • contribs)

Note Anon user's 23rd edit but most other edits were to a page about a HS and user talk pages.

Keep. It's a pretty popular song, and I've seen several pop culture references to it. bibliomaniac15 23:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note User gives conflicting vote below but has not struck out this one. Agne 16:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with all keep arguments above, and I know that this page is of great intrest and is a good resource to many people, and isnt that what wikipedia is for??? 19:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattyatty (talk • contribs)

Note vote was users 10th edit

Ultimate Keep. I have never heard of Newsgrounds. This animation is clearly notable for other reasons. It is linked to by several other pages in the Wikipedia. It contains useful detailed content. Deleting this entry would be vandalism.Colonel Warden 22:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note Vote was user's 4th edit. Agne 16:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep. We have stated in the article that it has a bit of a cult following and it has obviously a very popular flash video. Deleting this would be like deleting the article on the original YTMND. -Diabolos 23:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme Keep. This is not just a Random newground's animation. Is it very popular everywhere... Deleting this would be like deleting the Numa Numa dance or deleting the "all your bases are belong to us". -lol man 21:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note Vote was editor's 10th edit with majority of other edits being to 2 other AfDs

Keep. Pretty well known online animation, seems notable enough to me. orudge 13:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a microcosm of Western pop culture: 3 or so minutes of music and/or video that encapsulates a very large chunk of (mostly) late 20th century pop culture. Even if USoUD turns out to be a flash in the pan and sinks without trace after a few months -- well, 9 months and counting to date -- it is significant for two reasons: firstly, by virtue of having that moment of fame, and secondly, because it reflects so much of pop culture. Limeguin 17:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A useful, informative article and just as important as the many episode summaries for various programmes which can be found on Wikipedia Letstalk 17:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note Account created in June but this vote was user's 7th edit

comment: I came to this afd intending to close as keep since its rather unanimous, but I'm inclined to suspect that most of the keep votes are single purpose accounts. I recognise none of the usernames from previous afds, and several have a similar signature style. I can't check everybodys contrib history atm though since I'm not on a high speed connection. Could somebody check and tag? Much appreciated. ~crazytales56297 - t-e 03:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The first afd on this article did have a lot a spa's. This one doesn't. I was actually a bit amused when Bwithh added the sock warning. There's a few, but the majority of the discussion has been with established accounts. Why would you be inclined to suspect differently? After all, it's not a vote anyway, right? If a spa comes in and makes a valid point, it's still a valid point. For the second time this article has passed a deletion nomination, can we stop with the afd's now? Sparkhead 12:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I regard the afdsock warning notice as preemptive - I'll add it to any afd discussion I see which begins to show signs of an influx of anon IPs or single purpose accounts - especially articles likely to have a fan following. Whether or not a large influx emerges or not is immaterial. And the notice is explicitly not intended to dissuade comments from those new users. Bwithh 00:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete- I liked the music video, but this article doesn't fit notability. The Numa Numa is different because it was on the news. bibliomaniac15 04:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Bibliomaniac15, you shouldn't go voting on afd's if you have no idea of the article content or history. If you check the text above and history, you already voted this article a keep last week. Today you voted delete, then changed it to a weak delete. Seems to show that you seem to be voting for the sheer joy of it without knowledge, or you have some sort of split persona. Sparkhead 12:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not that I enjoy changing votes just for the fun of it. I have checked the history and read the article several times. Before, I voted keep because I liked the music video itself, and I didn't check Wikipedia:Notability. Now that I look at it, it fails notability (no news about it), but only because of massive popularity and watches did I change it to a Weak Delete. Although eventually all people and articles run to bias, I strongly suggest that those who vote look at this issue from a neutral point of view, and not because of liking or disliking it. bibliomaniac15 00:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe no news, but as stated earlier, don't you think that being (so far) Dr. Demento's top request of the year would make it notable? It's not news, but Dr. D's show is featured on numerous mainstream media radio stations. this song has garnered a ton of national exposure in the USA, and possibly worldwide too (I don't know about Dr. D's popularity outside of the USA) -- EmiOfBrie 01:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very well-known and notable internet meme.--Jersey Devil 05:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, judging from the comments above it seems to be very notable. bbx 06:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.--Myles Long 15:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have went through and tagged any potential SPA. Following that the consenus "vote" goes as 5 solid deletes (counting nom), 16 Keeps from established accounts, 8 Keeps from potential SPA, and 1 editors two conflicting Keep/Delete vote. Hope that helps! Agne 16:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Agne. I apologise for my possible assumption of bad faith. ~crazytales56297 - t-e 19:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please it is extremely popular as a internet meme Yuckfoo 18:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and redirect. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bouncing Off The Ceiling (Upside Down)[edit]

Delete this song format. This is the US version of the band's hit single, released under a different title and in DVD format. All the information is already contained in the Upside Down (A*Teens) article. Ohconfucius 06:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Dennis The TIger 08:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Delete and Redirect to Upside Down (A*Teens). --Dennis The TIger 23:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BTLizard 08:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for our friends across the great pond (US and Canada) who will most likely search by the name it was released under in their country. Rename if "Upside Down" is a unneeded dab modifier. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move Upside Down (A*Teens) to a name that conforms with the style guide, changing the modifier either to (A*Teens song) or (The A*Teens song), whichever is correct. Redirect the article up for debate here to whatever the resulting title is. GassyGuy 13:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those of you playing along at home will find a third version of this article located at Bouncing Off the Ceiling. GassyGuy 04:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is true, but it seems to be revolving around the single. If you want to AfD that one, go for it - suggest a delete and merge? --Dennis The TIger 23:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just meant that, whoever ended up performing the merge on this one should probably go ahead and merge that one also so that they all pointed to the proper target. GassyGuy 00:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per above. (I was hoping this was the newest entry in the wave of sex position cruft). TheronJ 13:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lumazi[edit]

Nomiation - Non-notable. This article is about a proposed scheme of Romanisation for the Wu dialect of Chinese. However, its only significant content is an external link, which appears to be some kind of web-project by a group of university students. The notability of this scheme is questioned. A check through the external link shows various problems with the Romanisation scheme, and the scheme is very much a work in progress; the website in particular does not disclose any external recognition for this Romanisation scheme. I am inclined to view the page as a vanity article by the participants of the project. Sumple (Talk) 01:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:V and probably WP:VAIN - the only articles I can find are Wikipedia clones and the projects own website. No work seems to have been done on the page since November 2005, suggesting the proposal isn't active. I'll change my mind if somebody provides evidence of third party coverage. Yomangani ^talk 13:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Actually, Lumazi is pretty important as one of the most important Shanghainese Romanizations, and is even used in List of common phrases in various languages, Wu section. The topic is pretty important, I think. Actually you're right, it's not that popular outside of Wikipedia. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 23:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete problem with verifiablity of prominence. Mukadderat 00:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epitaph of Twilight[edit]

nn fan games--Asof 07:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This reminds me of an AfD yesterday. The nominator said "nn anime," when the subject of the article wasn't even an anime to begin with. The nominator here said "nn fan game," and its the nominator's only contribution. Worst of all, the Epitaph of Twilight isn't a game, let alone a fan game: it is one of the backstory components of the official and popular .hack universe. Going by how this is similar to the last AfD and has no actual reason for deletion, I'm tempted to call bad faith nom. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 10:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 10:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again, we have a SPA setting up an AfD using a rational that completely misrepresents the article, just like what happened with Tomo-Dachi. However, the poem could be merged into .hack or another article that describes the story details within the .hack series. --TheFarix (Talk) 11:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an appropriate dot hack article's plot section if anything is salvageable, else delete because it seems to be entirely in-universe description of a plot element. Do not keep as separate. Questionable-faith nomination or not, there are major problems with this article and deletion is a viable outcome.--Kunzite 13:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like a silly nomination, and the article is on a very important topic within a rather popular anime/video game series. --maru (talk) contribs 16:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & cleanup, per WP:NOT. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This article as it stands now seems to be the product of fandom. It's interesting, sure, but I think it serves better as a mention in a .hack article, at least until someone can improve the content to the point it can stand on its own. It needs a thorough rewrite in an out-of-universe style, with real-world context and citations. Taikara | Talk 21:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up and probably Merge, this definitely has its place in an article about the .hack universe, assuming there is one and there is room. The current wording is pretty confusing, especially when it stands on its own as an article like this. --Rankler 14:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Clean up We have enough .hack articles as it is, and this particular plot point would probably better reside within one of those articles.Sephylight 23:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: - It's not a game, it's a poem! Bad faith nomination. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems to be an important part of the .hack universe, but I'm not too sure it deserves its own page. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge I'm a big .hack fan, but I don't think this really should be a separate article. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fire sand bucket[edit]

I'm not entirely sure what to make of this. Some of this article is clearly nonsense, and as far as I can tell anything which isn't prima facie false is trivial. Deville (Talk) 07:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost a G1. Almost. --Dennis The TIger 08:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy Keep This is still used in Decveloping countries. It is mandatory to have fixed number of buckets with sand, painted in red (in addition to extinguishers) in theatres, hotels, hospitals, auditoriums, colleges, schools etc. Only when there are enought buckets with sand (number depending upon the capacity of the theatre, strength of the school etc) the Department of Fire Fighting will give clearence for the building and then only the school can get approval from the government. The rules are very stringent after the Kumbakonam School Tragedy _Doctor Bruno_^_Talk_/_{E Mail} 08:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep, add sources, and cleanup per Doctorbruno. Used in some countries as a alternative to the fire extinguisher to this day, although it's been a long time since I saw one. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above two people. Existing method of fire extinguishing. If it contains suspected nonsense, move it to the talk page for discussion. We can at least have a reasonable stub on this. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw one a week ago. It's not far away from where I'm sitting right now, as a matter of fact. This is a real item of firefighting equipment, as can be seen by these guidelines published by the government of Western Australia for concerts, events, and organized gatherings, which require a sand bucket, fire blanket, and pair of fire retardant gloves at the front of stage, for example. Sourcing and potential inaccuracy is a matter for cleanup. Keep. Uncle G 11:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it currently violates WP:OR and WP:V and interestingly Uncle G's link is the only verification I can find of its existence even though they are commonplace (just proves Google isn't all encompassing). I've alerted the author, so hopefully they will provide some sources. Yomangani^talk 13:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Web turns up a fair amount. In the U.K. during World War 2, people were instructed on the use of sand buckets by the Fire Service as air raid precautions, for example. The trick is to not to look for the entire phrase, because on safety equipment lists and suchlike it is simply known as a sand bucket. ☺ Uncle G 15:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, I tried "fire bucket", but not "sand bucket". Unfortunately, that still doesn't provide sources for the history or safety precautions. I'll see if the author comes back with anything before attempting to rewrite it.Yomangani ^talk 16:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Uncle G. I found another page here which is a uk government guideline on barbecue fire safety. There is another article called Fire bucket. Either one should be a redirect to the other. Also, I could not find anything on the web for the History section. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 14:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I redirected Fire bucket as it was a stub that mentioned it was another name for fire sand bucket. Yomangani ^talk 16:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think Fire bucket might be the better title. Irongargoyle 00:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G. Buckets of sand are commonplace at gas stations. wikipediatrix 15:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I see one whenever I go into a petrol station. Th ε Halo ^Θ 16:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reads a bit like an instruction manual, suffers from an odd-sounding title and needs to be referenced, but I think this is notable. Irongargoyle 00:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above comments. RFerreira 05:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valentina (Magician)[edit]

Notability not established. No references cited. Probable vanity biographical article; creator's only contribution. Repeated plugging for the "Secrets of Magic Forum" in Valentina (Magician), Zombie ball, Exposure (magic), and other magic articles by an anonymous IP, 62.49.39.98, who also edited User talk:MagicValentina and Valentina. I nominate this article for deletion for the above reasons and its apparent violation of WP:SPAM and WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. --S0uj1r0 08:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Person appears to claim notability for participating in an internet forum and writing wikipedia entries - neither of which qualify. The shows she supposedly did are not expanded upon. I do know a magician called Valentino (magician), although his exposure might have made him less than popular with some magicians. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Jennifer is a great magician and she's worked tirelessly to help newcomers into magic. She is well known throughout magical circles. You wouldn't delete Mother Theresa would you? This girl is the Mother Theresa of magic.--MagicaLaurie 22:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We would most definitely delete Mother Theresa if she could not be verified with reliable sources (but luckily, she is.) Please read the links to see the definition of reliable source, but right now it looks like a delete (hint, internet forums are not considered reliable). ColourBurst 01:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated this page for deletion, so this should be a foregone conclusion, but... Delete. User:MagicaLaurie is the one who created the article, which, aside from this page, is the user's sole contribution to Wikipedia. Claiming that her article should be kept because she's "a great magician" is entirely POV, and the article cites no sources establishing notability. As User:Resolute states below, being the operator of an internet forum on magic does not make one notable, and I daresay Mother Theresa was at least a little more hands-on in her approach. The article also claims that she is "known for her magical writings" and then links to List of conjuring terms and timeline of magic. To her credit, User:MagicValentina did create and edit those two articles. While these contributions to Wikipedia are valuable, writing articles on magic still does not make one a notable magician, much less known for such writing. --S0uj1r0 02:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If you are most notable for running an internet forum, you are not notable. Resolute 00:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence or even assertion of meeting WP:BIO standards. GRBerry 01:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Mukadderat 00:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tau Lambda Sigma[edit]

Non-notable society in a single university. Was speedied by me as CSD A7, but the deletion was contested because "we do service for a national philanthropy, The American Cancer Society, & we do a substantial amount of volunteering and service in the Kirksville, Missouri community where our University is located". I've no opinion whether they're notable on that basis alone (although it wouldn't be an automatic assertion of notability where I come from), so I bring this article here for a consensus to delete. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - essentially a vanity piece. BTLizard 09:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BTLizard and fails proposed guidelines WP:ORG zephyr2k 13:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doing good works and public service are laudable, but that doesn't justify an ariticle...--Isotope23 14:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Danny Lilithborne 00:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 15:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kitrina podilata[edit]

Non-notable TigerShark 09:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Don't you love when they prominently put FAMOUS or NOTABLE right there in the beginning of the article? A nice red flag that they're probably not. :p 205.157.110.11 10:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Yes, it's very bad writing, but article claims they did a national tour. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with the Greek music scene to evaluate either the venues or the people they performed with. Also, Google will probably not help us as there's such a thing as Greek script which a regular Google search wouldn't find. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Κίτρινα Ποδήλατα (which has a hit to their homepage) gives 18,200 google hits. [18] Sam Vimes | Address me 11:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Κίτρινα Ποδήλατα" would appear to me to mean something like "yellow bicycles." There are indeed quite a few Google hits, and many of the top hits seem to have to do with the band, but I am not at all sure that all of them do. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per above. Seems there are 14,000 GHits for the Roman alphabet spelling, and 18,000 hits for the Greek. In scrolling through the Greek hits, overall they seem relevant (entries are capitalized, which "yellow bicycles" wouldn't be). Fan-1967 15:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dont see any sources, and if they had them the claim to notibility made in the article is not very strong. Musaabdulrashid 21:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abercorn Primary School[edit]

Non notable primary school. This comes very close to WP:NOT a directory, and fails WP:SCHOOL (which is only a proposal though). I can't see any argument not to delete these schools apart from "all schools are notable", which I (obviously) disagree with. I'll be AfD'ing here the other eleven primary schools of the same category as well, as they all are similarly basic (one of them has a notable alumnus, but that is a redlink anyway). Nothing against this county specifically, I just happened to come across one of the articles on it when patrolling new pages. Fram 09:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Other nominated schools:[reply]

Keep - the author (Ardfern) appears to be pursuing a project of documenting NI schools. While the articles in general could do with more content and contextualisation, this is not an unreasonable thing to do. BTLizard 09:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: if I would start a project of documenting all Belgian bakeries, would that be a reason to have three line articles on each and every bakery? While primary schools are slightly more important than bakeries, I fail to see how having someone who wants to document something is a reason to keep the articles. By that reasoning, every article shoudld be kept (except jokes and attacks), as they all try to document anything. Having a project, a category, ... is only a way of grouping things, but grouping unencyclopedic things does nnot make them any more encyclopedic or worthy of inclusion. Fram 09:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Jcuk 10:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of primary schools in Northern Ireland. Catchpole 10:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I would welcome articles on primary schools, the current write up makes them little more than directory entries instead of articles. I recommend the creator to take a look at WP:BEEFSTEW for an idea on what kind of information should be included in a successful school entry. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please judge these articles on their writing and not their supposed notability or lack thereof. We need to address the claimed directory-ness of the entries. Thank you. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed your note here instead of above the nomination, because while you are entitled to your opinion, it should not come before the original nomination, which was both for the notability of these schools and the directory-like entries they have now. Fram 11:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. No guidelines or policies are useful here to argue for a deletion. Despite Fram's assertion that being a stub is a criterion for deletion, it ain't. WilyD 13:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I don't think that being a stub is a criteriopn for deletion, and I don't believe anything I said here reflects such extreme position. Articles that document subjects without any importance beyond their existence (i.e., they are a school) are directory articles. Nothing more of encyclopedic value can be said about them. Pointing out anything to the contrary (i.e. a reliable, reputable, verifiable source, per WP:V, asserting the importance of this particular school, would be a good argument against deletion. For now, all I have seen is the argument that all schools are inherently encyclopedic, which is equally unuseful to argue for keeping. The article is sourced, but that does not make it encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a directory, and that's policy. And sourced... well, let's take Carrick Primary School, Warrenpoint: two directories (which Wikiepdia, again, is not), and an article in which it is mentioned in a list of 31 schools. The info given is correct (and I didn't claim otherwise), but of encyclopedic importance? Another one? Iveagh Primary School and St. Mary's Primary School, Ballyward are only sourced by two directories and are nothing more than directory entries themselves. Please, give me arguments to keep them, make it clear to me what importance they have beyond being a school, or else admit that all you have as an argument is that all schools should be kept. But please don't try to keep them by misrepresenting my arguments. Fram 13:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am representing your argument accurately. To take the top school (why not, since they're listed together) there is some information here beyond a directory - not very much, because the article is a stub. The article does clearly not say "Abercorn Primary School exists, and is a primary school" which might qualify as a directory entry. It refers to published documents on the school, et cetera. When evaluating articles at AfD, it's essentially sufficient to ask Is this article verifiable? and Is it encyclopaedic? - in this case, both answers are yes. While there are exceptions to the evaluation I expounded (i.e. WP:POVFORKs) it's generally accurate. The article is sourced, and its encyclopaedic. No argument has been presented for deletion that isn't false upon its face. Whether or not all schools are encyclopaedic, I have no idea (although obviously certain classes of things are invariably encyclopaedic) - nor is it really relevent here. Rather than say In my opinion, is this important enough to be encyclopaedic? (which almost always results in someone saying Do I personally give a shit about this article? I find it's far more useful to ask Has some other source found it worthy of encyclopaedic type documentation and publishing? which gives a far less biased result, (although it isn't useful for pushing any agenda). Here, the article is verifiable, encyclopaedic, sourced and the claims that they're directory entires (at least in the case of Abercorn) is just plain false. Evidentally someone has found it important enough to publish this kind of information, which I'll take to mean it is important over the dubious unsupported assertions here to the contrary. WilyD 14:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, the sources for Abercorn are not really of encyclopedic value: there is the school website, a directory service, and the school inspection report. So if I can find a bakery with a website, a listing in a directory, and a food inspection report, I can include it here as well? My arguments are not "false upon their face" and my assertions are not "unsupported", thank you. Fram 14:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what you mean by Sources are of encyclopaedic value - Many, if not most towns and cities have articles that are nothing but regurgitated census data created by a robot ... This seems to be almost identical in "source quality/nature" to the school evaluation reports, for instance. With respect to a bakery there are policies/guidelines that apply (i.e. WP:CORP) where none apply here. The argument you present remains false upon its face, and your assertions on reasons for deletion remain unsupported. Claiming otherwise will not change this. WilyD 18:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.

I take issue with WilyD's assertion that the test In my opinion, is this important enough to be encyclopaedic? "almost always results in someone saying Do I personally give a s**t about this article?." I personally don't give a !@#$ about VINSON, American Idol, or comparative sociology, but I understand that these topics in voice encryption, trends in pop culture, and academic research are all ultimately relevant to everyone, and therefore encyclopedic. But the existence of a school called Abercorn in County Down isn't relevant, or potentially relevant, to anyone outside of County Down. If, for example, some kid at that school discovered a method for cold fusion, then it might be relevant. But no one is making any such claim.

I also think that it's obvious that the institution of the primary school is important and encyclopedic. But this doesn't imply that every primary school is encyclopedic, any more than the notability of Home and Grocery store implies that my house and the grocery store I go to are encyclopedic. The burden is on the other side to show why Abercorn Primary School et al are distinguishable, and assertions such "Abercorn 'provides a secure and stimulating environment for children ... emphasis is placed on children showing courtesy to classmates, teachers and visitors and all staff endeavour to relate work to the children's interests and daily lives'" just don't cut it.

Finally, proponents of including schools in Wikipedia often cite some characterization or other to the effect that encyclopedias are compendia of knowledge, info about a school is knowledge, therefore schools merit inclusion. To this I would respond that the nominated articles don't impart any meaningful knowledge at all. Everybody knows that there are primary schools in Northern Ireland (if not they could read Education in Northern Ireland), and knowing that one of them is called Abercorn, and it's in County Down, just isn't meaningful. Pan Dan 15:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Take a stroll through AfD and really give it a look and you'll see it to be the case. Notability is used either as a euphanism for SPAM, or to say Well, I don't care about it. - As for the article, it remains sourced, encyclopaedic, verifiable and everything else you could reasonably ask of it. The main thrust of the argument for deletion is it's low information content (because it's a stub) but this isn't a criterion for deletion. WilyD 18:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - (1) Others may use NN interchangeably with SPAM or "I don't care about it," but not me, and all the people voting "delete" in this debate have intelligent arguments that amount to a lot more than "I don't care about it." (2) I agree that the nominees are sourced and verifiable. The question is, are they encyclopedic? I argued above that they are patently unencyclopedic because they have no relevance or even potential relevance to anybody living outside of County Down. Now, can you say why the nominees deserve to exist on Wikipedia, but not the grocery store I go to, which enjoys news coverage from local business papers? Or local bakeries, which as Fram pointed out above, may have websites, and may be listed in directories and food inspection reports? Pan Dan 19:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not really sure exactly how far the influence of something has to spread before it's "encyclopaedic". I am, however, fairly sure it's not "the whole globe". As for a bakery, a concensus exists with WP:CORP, no such equivilent exists for government institutions. I continued to stand by my position that it is preferable to use the judgement of the government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland about whether this school is notable than it is to use my own bias. WilyD 19:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - (1) By analogy with WP:CORP, which distinguishes notable from NN businesses, I would argue we need to distinguish between notable and NN schools. And whatever criterion consensus would come up with for judging notability of schools, these schools just wouldn't make the cut. (2) I don't think the gov't of the UK has made a judgment that these schools are, or are not, notable. The gov't of the UK accredits, funds, and, I suppose, may run these schools to some degree. That's why they list them in their directory of schools. That has nothing to do with encyclopedic notability. If it did, then my home would be encyclopedic and notable simply by virtue of being listed in my city and/or county register. Pan Dan 19:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:CORP is a bad analogy because its a specific guideline - generalising from it is not really advisable (because it's a haphazard process of random guesses, essentially). No criterion concensus exists for schools, nor will one exist soon (if you see many schools in AfD, you'll know why), and to try to guess anything about how it'll turn out is simply impossible. The evaluation report is not simply a directory of schools, but a third party publication. At least until a WP:SCHOOLs guideline is set, trying to ram schools through AfD that pass every relevent criterion, policy and guideline is inappropriate. WilyD 19:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        My point was that any nontrivial guideline for schools would have to exclude the nominees at issue. There is simply no distinguishing feature here. If these schools were kept per whatever guideline we eventually adopt for schools, then all schools would be admissible under that guideline. Pan Dan 19:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I completely agree with Pan Dan. Wily, my great-grandmother lived in Northern Ireland and some of my cousins go to Brackenagh West Primary School, but I still don't think that Brackenagh - or any of these schools, for that matter, deserve an article. I find myself reading them and asking, "What's important about this school?" My response is, "Nothing." Then I ask myself "What impact has this school had on society as a whole? What's unique about this school as opposed to all other primary schools in the world?" And again, the answer is nothing. We have an article on primary schools that should explain what goes on in these schools quite nicely. It boils down to the fact that there is nothing unique to say about any of these schools, so the entries all amount to, essentially, a directory listing. I'm sure the schools are important to the children that attend them, perhaps even the graduates and certainly the teachers and parents. However, they're not notable (yup, I said it, and what I mean by it in this context is: important) outside of their respective towns. There are a bare minimum of several hundred thousand primary schools in the world. These are just like all the rest. If someone can supply us with a famous alum or notorious incident that occurred at one of the schools, I'd change my "vote" to keep, but just for that one. Srose (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you're setting your threshold of importance too high. As with almost every AfD where people argue to delete sourced, encyclopaedic content, I have to refer you to Cherry Valley, Arkansas an example of a class of articles that has every problem you accuse this of having, but is one of a class of thousands upon thousands. This is exactly the kind of Wikipedia, she ain't paper, our inclusion criteria ain't gotta be tighter than Britannica failure that's all to common on AfD. WilyD 19:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per WP:AFDP (an organized list of precedents), all towns and cities are notable. All high schools and universities are likewise notable. However, middle schools are a gray area, and primary schools are almost never kept. The exceptions are usually when a primary school is the scene of a crime, or has a large number of famous alums. Srose (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure your assertion about primary schools - I've seen some kept, some deleted, but I've never seen one with verifiable third party information deleted. WilyD 20:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per WP:DP. --Usgnus 19:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: could you elaborate on this? I can find reasons in Wp:DP for merging ("Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article") or deleting ("Is not suitable for Wikipedia (see WP:NOT)", but not directly or obviously for keeping. No one who has voted keep has indicated that any of these articles have potential beyond the current article. Fram 19:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the article is unexpandable beyond its current form, being a stub is still not a criterion for deletion. WilyD 20:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, or merge some of them. Schools are not bakeries. They don't have to be important outside of County Down to be necessary to comprehensive coverage of education within County Down. Information such as enrolment, date of foundation, class size etc is encylopedic because it aids understanding of a topic people care about, i.e. it is knowledge. Kappa 19:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, "Information such as enrolment, date of foundation, class size etc" doesn't need its own article. I suppose I agree with your partial suggestion, Kappa, of merging that info into a more general article. But second, Kappa, I really have to disagree with your assertion that this info "is encylopedic because it aids understanding of a topic people care about, i.e. it is knowledge." People who send their kids to schools in County Down care about it, and that's what local information sources are for. County Down parents aren't gonna come to WP to look for this info, nor should they. Above all, I urge a distinction between knowledge that is ultimately relevant to everybody like the info in the article on general Primary education, vs. knowledge that has no relevance or meaning to anybody living outside of a certain locale. Pan Dan 19:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

County Down parents should come to wikipedia for encylopedic treatments of local schools, because that's our job - being an encylopedia. By synthesizing multiple sources we can provide a service no-one else can (eventually in some cases) It's reasonable to make a distinction between general-interest knowledge and specialist-interest knowledge, but since we are promising everyone access to the "sum total of human knowledge", destroying all specialist-interest knowledge is the not the way to do it. Personally I am interested in schools in various countries (not include Northern Ireland as it happens) and I would love to be able to read encylopedic treatments of them without having to go there and/or learn the language. Kappa 20:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you honestly feel that your or anyones interest in schools in various countries can be satisfied by articles like these? It's like reading a telephone book to get to know the people of a country. It learns you nothing about education in the area, or even about the individual schools, except that they exist. I would never AfD an article about the education in a region, but this is not about education at all. Fram 20:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it can't, that's a criterion for expansion, not deletion. The articles are stubs, but that's not important here. WilyD 21:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles which tell me where a school is and how big it is are a start. Articles which tell me the strengths and weaknesses of a school, or when and why it was built, are doing a very good job at satisfying my curiousity. Kappa 00:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per Kappa. Mass nominations of this sort are borderline disruptive. RFerreira 20:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: What? In what way is this a disruptive nomination (borderline or not)? These articles are very similar, both in subject and in content. It would be ridiculous to Afd one of them and not the others (even in this AfD, the often misused argument "because unrelated article X is not deleted (yet), this one should stay to" is already used: imagine if the same could be said about a truly similar article!).

I'm amazed that some supporters of all school articles, no matter how uninformative, uninteresting, and unencyclopedic these articles are (and ever can be), feel the need to try to reason away the AfD by making borderline attacks instead of trying to defend the articles. All the defense we have until now is "the articles are correct" (true, but irrelevant), sourced (true, but irrelevant), and encyclopedic (untrue, but debatable). Most of these articles are only directory entries and thus fail WP:NOT fair and square: the few that have an additional line of info are still utterly irrelevant for anyone outside the village they serve, and would be better as short sections in the articles of those villages. All of them can be deleted by Wp:NOT, which is a policy. No one has explained why we need "comprehensive coverage of education in County Down" to the level of listing the number of students, the address of the school, or the distance between the school and the town centre. Wouldn't it be better if we had an article or even a paragraph discussing "education in County Down" instead of a bunch of extremely similar, uninformative directory listings of all individual schools, if your aim truly was "comprehensive coverage of education in County Down". With the current articles, I know nothing about education there except that there are schools. This is the most obvious and least informative info possible on the subject. Fram 20:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree it's far less disruptive than nominating them all seperately. I'd hate to have to have this argument a dozen times. WilyD 21:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has played out hundreds if not thousands of times already. In my opinion even a single school nomination of this kind is disruptive. Silensor 21:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primary school nominations are occasionally successful (though I've never seen one that passes WP:V deleted) - this isn't like the constant noming of high schools that always end up passing, or the constant noming of lists just because they're lists. WilyD 21:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supercali-fragile-elastic-wiki-halitosis Keep because you tards just wont get it. Sorta like the concept of AFD. ALKIVAR™ 21:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please refrain from semi-personal attacks. WilyD 21:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ahem, its not a personal attack when its not directed at a specific individual. ALKIVAR™ 21:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You all are retards is not appropriate in the spirit of WP:NPA - you simply shouldn't do it. Keep your comments to the subject matter, not the contributers. Even if the argument for deletion is silly, call it silly, not the person advancing the argument. Thanks. WilyD 21:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep all of the above. The nominator appears not to comprehend what the goals of this project are, so please allow me to quote the words of one of our founding fathers, Jimmy Wales: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." Schools make up a valuable and important part of this complete sum. Silensor 21:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It requires quite a literal interpretation of Jimmy Wales's phrase "the sum of all human knowledge," to conclude that articles like the ones being considered for deletion are part of that sum. And a really really literal interpretation of Wales (which I hope is not your interpretation) would flatly contradict WP:NOT, and frankly trivialize Wales's vision.

In the case of the nominees for deletion here, the "knowledge" they provide is meaningless and irrelevant to anyone outside County Down, and for those in County Down, it's directory info. Now, those who seek to learn more about primary schools in Northern Ireland, as Kappa does (and I respect Kappa for that desire, make no mistake), can read the article on Education in Northern Ireland. I fail to understand how Kappa and others' quest is satisfied by reading that there is a school called Abercorn in County Down, 500 students attend it, and it "provides a secure and stimulating environment for children ... emphasis is placed on children showing courtesy to classmates, teachers and visitors and all staff endeavour to relate work to the children's interests and daily lives." And as Fram pointed out, there is no one here who has any ideas on how this article or its fellow nominees can be expanded. Pan Dan 22:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A school with 500 students is very different from a school with 100 students. A school which emphasises courtesy is different from a school which emphasizes achievement, or discipline, or independence. These things help readers to understand the school, hence they are encylopedic. What wouldn't help me to understand the school is its telephone number... that's the kind of thing I would look for in a directory. Kappa 00:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't understand how you can learn anything about the school through that quote (the one about "provides a secure and stimulating environment..."). It sounds like it came from a brochure, and brochures, like advertisements, sometimes lie. In fact it sounds like it could have come from the brochure of any public primary school in the English-speaking world, including those schools of which it's not a true depiction. A definite knowledge of what a school is really like can only come from talking to people actually involved with the school, and as such talk is never published, alas, there's no way for that kind of info to make it onto Wikipedia without violating WP:OR or WP:V. Now, the gossip might get verified and published by reputable newspapers if the school was especially notable for some reason--that's why some of us here keep talking about notability--it really is essential to an encyclopedic article. But for non-notable, run-of-the-mill primary schools like these, there's just no way to get complete, sourced articles, which is sort of the point that Fram has making all along, much more ably than me. Pan Dan 01:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it could be verified that Abercorn practices the (unremarkable) philosophy espoused in that quote, I fail to see what significance that unremarkable fact can possibly have to anybody outside of County Down. As for the fact that there are 500 students--I fail to see, again, how that bit of trivia can have any meaning at all to anybody other than a County Down parent. What would be notable is an overall assessment of the different philosophies of all the schools in Northern Ireland, and overall statistics on school size in Northern Ireland, but such info belongs in a more general article, such as Education in Northern Ireland. Pan Dan 01:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I want know about a school, the first things I want are its size, how long it has been there and its philosophy (assuming philosophy varies by school, as in the UK, instead of by district, as in the US.) For Northern Ireland I'd also like to know its religious profile. If I have these things I feel I understand it, in a basic way. To me these things are knowledge. If you tell me I can't have these things, they are "not knowledge", that I should read education in Kyrgyzstan and draw my own conclusions... well I think that you have denied me something very precious. Kappa 01:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but the point remains that OR/V is impossible for non-notable schools. Pan Dan 01:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OR/V is answered by government inspections and coverage in local newspapers and books about local history. These can be already be found online for most of these schools and will be available for all of them sooner or later. Kappa 00:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the notability issue persists. The gov't inspections and coverage in local newspapers talk about things that could be said about any school. They don't distinguish the school. And I am not persuaded that if you want to research the religious profile (as you said above) of schools in Northern Ireland, that you would be best served by reading one article for each of the thousands of primary schools in Northern Ireland. Far easier and more reliable would be to read something that discusses primary schools in Northern Ireland in general, for example Education_in_Northern_Ireland#Integrated_Education (which should expanded, by the way). One simply gains no more edification from understanding "in a basic way" a local primary school—one of thousands in Northern Ireland—than from understanding local grocery stores, pubs, or coffee shops. Pan Dan 19:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Schools are inherently notable. Also, imo, mass AfD nominations are bad form. --Myles Long 21:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. While mass nominations should be used only in cases where the discussion is the same for each article, I think that's exactly what you have here. What interest would be served by having a separate debate for each one of these articles? Erechtheus 01:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All, we've established here on Wikipedia that High Schools/Secondary schools are notable, Elementary schools/Primary schools are NOT inherently notable. TJ Spyke 21:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOT (as cited by nominator) and lack of encyclopedic value. The "sum of all knowledge" does not mean trivia, indiscriminate, and directory entries. As a comment, "bulk" nominations are not improper (see listing multiple pages for deletion). Agent 86 22:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOT and others as above. wikipediatrix 23:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. per Spyke. Are we going to have to go through this with elementary schools now? Eusebeus 23:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - schools are inherently notable, hence my desire to build a comprehensive listing and articles for all schools in Northern Ireland (not just County Down as the originator mistakenly seems to think). Frankly I am appalled at this debate at all - I was following the lead of Schools categories in Australia, Hong Kong and even England - are you suggesting all the primary and preparatory schools articles there should similarly be excised? Primary schools are indeed notable in their communities and in Northern Ireland and are vehicles to attract more readers and contributors to Wikipedia. This has been proved as the lists and my stub articles are now being added to by other new contributors. Most of the articles are stubs to be built upon, or have we lost that concept? I would suggest that schools are more notable than say porn stars, but you are not suggesting excising those articles. Please let me get on with building an encyclopedia relevant to people in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. Remove this deletion threat please. Ardfern 23:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ardfern, I have sympathy for your project, even though I don't necessarily think it belongs on WP. But even setting that larger argument aside, why don't you list these schools on other pages, such as County Down or Education in Northern Ireland, for example? How do you propose expanding the articles nominated for deletion as they stand? Pan Dan 00:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (for different reasons). School articles are notorious vandal magnets, especially if they're kept unwatched. Ardfern having taken the time to create these will also inevitably keep them on his watclist and be able to revert any vandalism right away. Bastique▼^parler _voir 00:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I don't think we can say every non-secondary school is non-notable by default, but they are also not notable by default as secondary schools are. The secondary school articles represent communities sufficiently, and secondary schools are often more than just schools -- they serve as significant sources of community entertainment and bonding (think high school football). I see no claim of notability in any of these articles. Erechtheus 00:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as per Myles Long above. Also, the articles are in development and Wikipedia, we are told, is not exactly short on space. --Mal 01:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per above; there have been countless school AfDs, and they almost invariably result in a decision to keep or no consensus. I could see a nomination taking place if their existence was unverifiable, but obviously they exist. The fact that we've got an editor who seems to be dedicated to these articles is even better. Catbag 06:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I have seen school AfD going in all directions, the last one I started was deleted: [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rochester Hills Christian School], and the discussion was very similar to this one. In the end, after the deletion, someone made a redirect to the town of the school, which I obviously have no problems with. To argue that this one should be kept because other ones are kept is thus invalid, as the argument for deletion can be made for that reason as well. Fram 07:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Far more are kept than deleted from what I've seen. Catbag 23:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as per Myles Long above.Bagginator 08:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Mylselong. Primary schools are not notable except under very limited circumstances and none of these meet it. JoshuaZ 03:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep articles are excellent starting points for each of these schools, and can only improve with addiitonal work and time. Does not meet any criteria for WP:NOT. Alansohn 04:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, actually, they do meet the criteria of WP:NOT, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (and these articles are just that), and Wikipedia is not a directory (and an article like Iveagh Primary School is nothing but a directory entry). Can you give us an idea of what information, specific for any of these schools, would be added later on? You are basically saying that they are notable and interesting, but that that will only become clear when the article is expanded. If you don't have any info that supports that opinion, then it is only wishful thinking. Fram 11:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Since WP:NOT is being used as a justification for deletion, let's do a review of each of the criteria of WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and see if any of the specific examples included fit this article:

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. Not Applicable

2. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional).No

3. Travel guides. Not even close

4. Memorials. Nope

5. News reports. Not Applicable

6. Genealogical entries, or phonebook entries. Not

7. Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guide or a resource for conducting business. No. This is what was referenced in the vote, but it does NOT apply. This is not a directory; it is an article about a specific school.

8. Instruction manuals - Not Applicable

9. Internet guides - No

10. Textbooks and annotated texts - Not a chance

11. Plot summaries - Nope

I sincerely hope that we can get clarification as to which specific aspect of WP:NOT is being violated by this specific article. Otherwise, WP:NOT does NOT apply. Alansohn 12:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. The answer is...#7. As Fram has repeatedly and reasonably pointed out, these are stubs, the info in them is directory info, and nobody voting "keep" has explained how to expand them into compelling encyclopedia articles. Pan Dan 14:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: like Pan Dan said (thank you)/ Take Iveagh Primary School: the complete article comes from the link "Schools Web Directory", except the age of the pupils and the number of them (a whopping 50, or some 6 per year...). That info comes from the other link, the Good Schools Guide, which is nothing but a directory (the information you getr when you follow the link at least). This article is nothing but directory information. It contains no info on what makes this school notable, how it would be interesting to anyone outside Rathfriland, how the educational system of County Down works, etcetera. The only reason anyone can give to have this article is that for them, all schools are notable, even if there is no info available except the address and number of pupils. I don't have anything against that position, although I heavily disagree with it, but I don't get why most people seem so anxious to admit that that is their criterion, and try to find other reasons, or try to make this AfD look negative on principle. But since this AfD seems at first glance to be going to a no consensus, I suppose we'll have to see in a year or so if a) these articles are indeed vandal magnets (a primary school with 50 pupils? I would be surprised), and b) if they indeed will have improved in a year time. Fram 18:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all As per Alansohn and Myles Long. The chance of these articles getting expanded, in my experience, is much greater now that they have been created. I also think that mass nominations are not good for the project. <font="center" color="#FFFFFF"> Keithology Talk! 13:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I think that very long signatures are bad for easy editing, but I don't complain about them ;-) Seriously, I don't understand the problem with mass nominations, as long as the articles are more or less comparable. Do you think there was anything wrong with e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Willy Peter's Madhouse, and would you propose that I had made twenty different nominations (no wait, that's still a mass nomination: I should have made 20 consecutive AfD's over twenty weeks, I suppose)? Mass nominations are a perfectly acceptable way of dealing with comparable articles with comparable delete and keep arguments. Fram 18:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, touché, you should be pleased, used to have picture there as well! Fair point, on the mass-deletions, I’m not really a deletionist at all anyway. I’m more of a merge and redirect kinda guy. I have to agree with Ardfern (below) if a kid finds their old/present school here, they might add to it and find another article to add too and so Wikipedia grows. It's how I started and I am sure there are many more like me. <font="center" color="#FFFFFF"> Keithology Talk! 20:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all based on precedent for schools. No real policy reason is given. Its not enough to name a policy page (like WP:NOT), but one must explain how it applies. As shown above, nothing in the articles goes against that (or any other) policy. This is no more a directory, than would be euqally tiny stubs on equally small townships. --Rob 19:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to earlier comments ::In the context of these articles, the concept of stubs seems to have been dismissed or forgotten by Fram and Pan Dan. I added the articles (specifically as stubs) to encourage other users (educationalists and professionals, not just school kids) to start to contribute and enter more information, particularly where I haven't been able to find a mass of starting information. Schools are a very good starting point to drive up interest in WP (surely one of the goals??) I thought WP was meant to be a collaborative effort and not about only adding fully and finally researched and completed articles - hence stubs - of which there is a vast volume in WP (and rightly so). Myself and other contributors will add more to the articles in time in the way that WP is supposed to be built up. Could we please be allowed to get on with important work for WP in Northern Ireland and draw this to a close. Ardfern 19:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: No, I have not dismùissed or forgotten the concept of stubs. I refer here to the WP:DP, which talks about stubs (with potential), which should get expanded, not deleted. I considered these stubs as stubs without potential: you can write more about them (and it may be verifiable and sourced), but in my opinion, it would still be an example of indiscriminate, unimportant information. I come back to my bakery example: you can write a stub about a bakery, and probably someone can come along and write something more, with info out a local newspaper, a food inspection report, ... This would still be a perfect object for deletion via AfD, as the consensus (WP:CORP) is that these are not important enough to list. The problem is that no guideline on schools has been agreed on, so that we have to rely on our feeling of what is and what isn't notable enough. Being a stub that may be expandable is not an argument against deletion per se: if the expansion would not make the stub any more notable, then it would still be fit for deletion, unless you feel that all schools are per se notable. The arguments about them being stubs is a non-issue. Either they are stubs, in wich case I can't delete them because they will be expanded, or they are full articles, in which case I can't delete them because they contain lots of info and work. This is of course false: the real choice is that either they are about notable subjects (keep), or they are about non-notable subjects (delete). While for some of the articles more info has been added after the AfD started (which is good), none of them has made the school any more notable. Fram 21:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Above the case was made on the basis these articles violated the deletion policy by containing only "directory information". Now you are saying they contain only "non-notable" information because any information about a non-notable school is inherently non-notable. This is now an argument based on assertion and not any kind of policy. Kappa 00:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep all of these please per precedent they are notable verifiable and important to their communities too Yuckfoo 20:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Excuse me? There is no magic precedent about keeping primary schools. In fact, none of your comment has any relevancy to the matter at hand. There is no evidence that any of these are in any way "important" to their communities and even if they were, so are a lot of little restaurants and hardware stores. We don't have articles on those. JoshuaZ 20:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Fram - Your references to both WP:DP and WP:CORP earlier are entirely spurious and indeed unreferenced from both areas. A reading of WP:DP shows that it makes no reference to "stubs (with potential)" or otherwise, and Primary schools articles have lots of potential if you choose to see it. WP:CORP makes no mention at all that "the consensus is that these are not important enough to list". Both statements are entirely unsourced and seem to be merely one person's opinion. I would be happy to see the quoted references. Comparing bakeries to Primary schools is also illogical and spurious, how can educational establishments not be notable. Obviously Wikipedians in Australia and Hong Kong didn't find primary schools non-notable and set a valid and important precedent - you will have an interesting time suggesting deletion of all those articles (which of course would be consistent with your view). You also didn't answer my question posed so long ago about whether porn stars are more notable than Primary schools - yet WP is stuffed full of porn star articles. Let's get rid of them. What about all those airline stub articles for airlines with one plane - let's get rid of them, or what about comics, why are they more notable. This sort of argument is the road to making this an entirely non-encyclopedic encyclopedia. Ardfern 22:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment Slippery slope is a fallacy, and yes contrary to your above comment if one does judge them by WP:COR they wouldn't make it and many users would be in favor of getting rid of porn-cruft and comic-cruft. As to your comment about Australia and Hong Kong, could you expand on what you mean there? JoshuaZ 22:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to JoshuaZ. Could you please quote the relevant part from WP:CORP to which you are referring - your point is again an unsubstantiated opinion. The references to Australia and Hong Kong were, I thought, pretty self-evident - both countries have many lists and articles referring to Primary schools, which they clearly see as notable - hence the precedent. See: Primary schools in Hong Kong, List of primary schools in Hong Kong, List of schools in Tasmania etc, Also: Schools in Belize, Primary schools in Singapore, Elementary schools in the United States. I think I rest my case, unless all of us in all those countries are misguided. Can I get on with the job now?? Please. Ardfern 22:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Reply to "reply to user Fram", a few posts above: in the "Problem articles where deletion may not be needed" of WP:DP, there is an ecplicit reference to "stubs but with potential", which should not get deleted. I agree;, being a stub is not a reason for deletion per se, and contrary to what people seem to have read in my posts, I don't think I have ever used it. I have used two main arguments for deletion: some of the articles are nothing but directory articles, and all of the articles are about non notable subjects. The first is a policy, the second is a general way of looking at what should be included and what not, again in the spirit of WP:NOT, the general rule that WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is no notability guideline for schools, and that is a pity, but if you put your standard for inclusion higher than "all schools are notable" (which, I repeat it, is in itself a debatable and valid position), then many primary schools, for example the ones up for AfD here, would be the first to go. I hope we can all agree on that? Now, when you try to find comparable guidelines and situations, one you easily find is WP:CORP, which I used not to show that schools should be deleted (as WP:CORP does not address schools), but that the arguments used that an article should not and can not be deleted because it is sourced and verifiable are invalid. A sourced and verifiable band, corporation, person, game, ... can all be deleted if they fail to reach the minimum standard for notability. Since there is no fixed minimum standard for schools, it is up to us, every AfD again, to decide individually what our standard is, and it is the right of the defenders of the articles to give as much information and sources as possible to make the articles pass the standards of more people. I hope that still everyone agrees? Now, the debate is about what your individual standard is, and if any of the articlss have given any info that would make them acceptable to more people than just those who think that all schools are notable. For me, none of the articls have done that, and as my standard is that a school is not notable for being a school, they all should be deleted. Fram 07:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of those schools in those categories look like they should be AfDed also while others actually have minimal claims of notability (and no, no matter how many times the claim is made, existence is not grounds for notability by itself). As to WP:CORP - the point is that if we did use that standard they wouldn't meet it (simply go through the list of criteria there). JoshuaZ 23:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into articles about corresponding villages/towns. If high schools are notable then so are primary schools in my opinion. Just because the kids are younger and take fewer drugs shouldn't affect that criterion. However, I don't think that means there should be atomic articles for each primary school. Much more useful to have the primary school discussed in the context of it's village and general population IN the article about the village/town. Support redirects to the village articles from these. — Donama 00:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a reasonable solution. JoshuaZ 00:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You know, I have read, somewhere in Wikipedia space, how the encyclopedia is not limited on space. I suspect that many rules (regarding WP:NOT etc) were written at a time when space was a premium. Wikipedia has existed for a good number of years now (I remember when it was text-only), and start at a time when hard drive space was comparitively small and costly. Today one can buy a gigabyte of storage space on a handy USB keyring device quite cheaply. Hard drives cost less than 50p (Sterling) per Gigabyte. More importantly though, the size of hard discs is increasing almost exponentially. The first hard drive I bought was 20 Mb. My current memory is 50 times bigger! The current average hard drive storage space is over 4,000 times bigger. The current article about Abercorn Primary School looks to me to be about 1 kb. Two hundred of similar such articles would therefore take up 200k - less than 0.00025% of the average currently sold hard disc.. in total.
I personally don't see the reason why Wikipedia cannot be an encyclopedia on everything: we are not confined by shelving space, portability or storage space.
There are plenty of articles that exist already which are arguably less 'notable' than primary schools in a given region of the world. If an editor wishes to start an article on Navel lint, I don't see why this should be prevented. In fact that particular article's existance could be defended as being 'notable' as most people of the Western World have been 'victim' to it! In summary, at the minute, I feel like we have plenty to be getting on with, and we don't appear to be running out of space in the forseeable future. The rules, which I assume were written some time ago now, are possibly out-dated (in relation to the reasons for their creation). --Mal 07:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naw, WP:NOT (as with the rest) are basically This is an encyclopaedia. For other uses, please go somewhere - which is a perfectly reasonable statement. That's basically all WP:NOT says. That some editors insist that this is a directory entry (which any closing Admin can verify is false) is a seperate issue. Don't let people misusing policies lead you to make judgements on the policies. WilyD 13:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Schools are institutional and a school might affect thousands of people every day in a year. It constitutes the collective memory from generation to generation. Unlike shops, companies or houses, schools are heavily regulated by government authority with special regulation. It is difficult to establish a regular school comparing to bakery.

The very first line of WP:NOT is "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia". It can accept those topics not in paper wikipedia. While iterating through the arguments, "Wikipedia is not a directory" and "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" are repeatedly used but I cannot find anything relevant to the details of two clauses.

Can anyone clearly point out what it exactly violates?

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

Lists of Frequently Asked Questions.
Travel guides
Memorials
Instruction manuals
Internet guides
Textbooks and annotated texts
Plot summaries

Wikipedia is not a directory

Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics
Genealogical entries or phonebook entries
Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business

Someone says that it violates the last statement. But, it doesn't. It does not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules, etc.

— HenryLi (Talk) 16:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- You're correct. The claim (repeated more than once) that this is a directory entry is flat-out wrong. WilyD 17:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating your denial doesn't make it anymore true. I have given this example article many times without getting a reply: in what way is Iveagh Primary School not a directory entry? For crying out loud, the only sources are two directories... Fram 19:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had been looking mostly at Abercorn, which is obviously not a directory entry. Admittedly, Iveagh is a pretty poor article - but the "sources are only two directories" is a really weak argument. Apart from which, none of the implications of WP:NOT seem to indicate it is a directory or directory entry anyways, as opposed to a stub. At some level they may look similar, but they're really not quite the same. WilyD 21:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Iveagh Primary School, it does not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules, etc. as stated in the WP:NOT. It is not a directory at all. Its reference is a directory does not mean the article is a directory, but verifiable. — HenryLi (Talk) 00:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It contains more information than would be able to described with a generic description of a school - hence, it will be valuable for posterity, keep. John Riemann Soong 17:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Fram again. I notice you completely ignored my reference above to the primary school articles in many other countries which set the precedent for these articles. Delete these articles and these others surely have to go too - hardly acceptable or sensible. As an experienced Wiki-contributor I researched this before I started on primary schools articles for Northern Ireland. Perhaps some similar research on the part of others would have prevented this whole argument. I reiterate they are stubs and will be further developed. They are all linked to the towns/villages they refer to, but as these often have multiple schools merging the articles would not seem sensible. Ardfern 18:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that contributors have begun to expand some of the "offending" NI primary school articles already - hence proving the value of adding stubs in the first place and confirming the collaborative nature of our efforts to be encyclopedic. Ardfern 18:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)Can you point me to all those articles on primary schools that have survived an AfD? I'll help you and give articles that don't have subarticles for every primary school, like Beaverton School District. In fact, none of the articles in Category:School districts in Oregon have links to articles about elementary schools (and hardly any middle schools): only high schools get articles. One other random example? Category:School districts in Indiana: many high schools linked, a few middle schools, not one elementary school. There are of course articles about primary schools (sadly), just like there are many, many other articles that have no place on an encyclopedia. I already get nasty remarks about nominating twelve related ones at once, so you can hardly expect me to nominate them all at once... But there aren't that many as you may think: 17 for the whole of Australia (Category:Primary schools in Australia), or 1 for Lancastershire (Category:Primary schools in Lancashire). There is also 1 in Cork (Category:Primary schools in Cork), which if kept is in need of a serious rewrite (even more than many other school articles is this just an advertisement, not an encyclopedic article at all). The content of many of these articles is depressing from an encyclopedic view (Millfields Primary School, Sekolah Kebangsaan Taman Suria, Mearns Primary School (yeah, you can go shopping at lunchtime...)). In the few instances that many articles are created (Category:Primary Schools in Buckinghamshire), they have been left as stubs for almost a year now, with virtually interchangeable contents. Or can you tell the difference between Grendon Underwood Combined School, Steeple Claydon School, Whaddon Church of England School, and Long Crendon School. It's the proliferation of those non-articles (who by the way do not show any sign of being "vandal magnets", as was said above as a reason for keeping (in some twisted way)) that I want to stop. They are uninteresting, interchangeable stubs because they are uninteresting, interchangeable schools. Just like the twelve schools up for deletion here... Fram 19:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to myself. I got a bit carried away, I hope I don't come across to harsh or aggressive here. If any of my comments were offensive, just drop me a note and I'll remove them. I don't want to turn this discussion into a battle, but I suppose most of you know the feeling of frustration when your arguments don't sway your opponents, and you just can't understand how they can have a different opinion on something so simple (well, obviously it isn't simple). I'll step back a bit now and let the discussion finish... Fram 19:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, because schools are notable, atleast locally. bbx 18:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and so are restaurants and hardware stores and small town parks and lots of other things. Local notability does not imply notability. JoshuaZ 19:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Uninteresting, interchangeable schools" - nice - people in Northern Ireland and in those communities would be so delighted to hear this, just as much as this author is delighted to hear it and authors in USA, Singapore etc etc etc will be delighted to hear it. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I do have a problem when it is hampering work many of us feel is important however. As a result the frustration of Fram is, of course, nothing compared to my own. I prefer writing articles and building the encyclopedia rather than Wiki-navel gazing. This has taken up so much time and life is too short .... I agree with Fram, let the discussion finish and let us get on with the work. Ardfern 20:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further Comment By the way Fram I really enjoyed your selective quotation above of "bad" examples and their listing below - it just wouldn't have been right to use some of the "good" examples I quoted. Nice one. Ardfern 20:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Notability itself is not a policy (WP:N) because it is too hard to draw a line. Neither do WP:Schools. It is a trap to compare a school other things. Its nature is simply different. Another can compare it with the states and counties in the United States. You might never know what Valley County, Nebraska is. Why keep the county article if it is only locally notable? Gamma-Hydroxybutyric acid is only notable to a small community. Why keep the article? — HenryLi (Talk) 00:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 16:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, since the content is already in Wikibooks. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B-52 (cocktail)[edit]

Non-notable cocktail, WP:NOT a recipe book, no references. Prod removed by an anon. Even if a reliable source could be provided for its recipe, a recipe alone isn't encyclopedic. Quale 09:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. However, this is a real cocktail so it merits being a redirect the main Cocktail page as B-52 cocktail without the parenthesis and maybe a mention on List of cocktails but it really is a minor variety. No prejudice for later recreation for a non-recipe article with some history and sources. 205.157.110.11 09:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to the Wikibooks Cookbook. A cursory Google search provided ample reliable sources for the recipe. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per 205.157.110.11. Already exists in Wikibooks Bartending - Yomangani ^talk 13:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per 205.157.110.11. - Qball6 04:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually I think this cocktail is notable (at least where I come from). Google returns several reliable sources for its recipe. I don't see any real reason for deletion just because a majority doesn't know it. Sloan21 01:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a cookbook. No evidence of notability. Mukadderat 00:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please it is a notable cocktail 234,000 googl hits [19] source is the classic 1000 cocktail recipes by robert cross Yuckfoo 07:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that the cocktail is found in a recipe book is a poor argument for keeping the article, and the fact that the recipe book contains 1000 recipes makes it even worse. That's an argument for adding 1000 or more cocktail recipes to wikipedia, and I think that's simply a bad idea. Wikipedia in general has rejected the idea that every recipe deserves an article. Quale 16:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this cocktail was/is very popular in Scandinavia. I could imagine myself looking it up on Wikipedia. So lets keep it. bbx 06:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to the wikibooks bartending guide. ALKIVAR™ 18:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bottle-knee[edit]

WP:NOT for something made up one day. Fails WP:V, WP:OR Fram 09:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - mildly amusing bollocks. BTLizard
Delete per nom. VegaDark 09:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unnotable OR creation by two mildly handsome young musicians. 205.157.110.11 09:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT and WP:V. Also, I'm pretty sure that entries that start with a question are generally deletable.- Mgm|^(talk) 11:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR,WP:V. Yomangani ^talk 13:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, also because I couldn't verify if the creators were really mildly handsome young musicians. zephyr2k 23:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 00:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. --- Glen 16:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Judd Boys[edit]

The article looks like a big joke... _{J Di}^talk 09:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vanity. MER-C 09:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly speedyable as nonsense. VegaDark 09:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - patent nonsense, vanity, etc etc. Created by somebody at a loose end. BTLizard 09:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for Collin's sake. 205.157.110.11 09:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep it, a highly amusing and witty article cleverly written and excellently edited — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.152.66 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-08 10:30:11
I have taken account of what you, (the moderator's) have said, and edited the text, please can you instruct me further as to what else needs changing, in your opinion?
In my opinion, original elements of suggested vanity have been removed, it does not violate copyright infringements, it promotes existing links, I have cited external links, and it does not advocate anything controversial.
It contains elements of geographic and cultural interest, it is an insight into modern society, and sub culture, and is informing people on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Juddian (talk • contribs) 2006-09-08 10:42:33
- What you should be doing is citing sources. You haven't cited a single source in the entire article. It appears that you are writing primary documentation, about a group of never-before-documented people, based upon firsthand experience. That is forbidden here. To prove that you are not doing that, you must cite sources. Uncle G 11:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this article should remain as it is an insight to modern life and culture stemming from olden influences. Groups such as the 'Judd Boys' should be promoted in todays society as it promotes social interaction and brotherly unity. Although this may not be a movement rooted in a deep historical background it has the foundings of being so in the future so should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.66.238 (talk • contribs)
Can we move to Speedy on this? It meets criteria as nonsense and vanity. Unsigned and spurious assertions of worth aren't going to cut any ice. BTLizard 13:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of evidence that this group satisfies WP:ORG. A small group of friends who graduated from the same school and enjoy socializing together is unlikely to be verifiable through reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 14:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal is that this ia sub-sector of a fraternity/sorority, WP:V|ORG is applicable for organisations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.192.42 (talk • contribs)
Speedy Delete. I assume the author is wasting our time in good faith, of course. My Alt Account 16:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for obvious reasons. An early close per WP:SNOW would seem appropriate. Any odds on whether we'll need to salt the earth? Fan-1967 19:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per above. There obviously won't be any sources forthcoming. wikipediatrix 23:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Strikes me as patent nonsense. Resolute 00:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Nonsense and vanity Ian Cairns 00:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete where's the speedy grounds? Danny Lilithborne 00:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This is not Wiki material. Absolute rubbish. TGreenburg
I would like to comment on BT Lizards use of the word spurious. Classing other peoples opinions as spurious purely due to a differing opinion is very self righteous. Just because it's different doesn't mean it is false or wrong. I think this statement proves that this entry and others like it should stay to ensure that there remains a balance of items for people with differing opinions. The majorities tastes and opinions do not necessary suit everyone who uses this site. I stumbled upon this entry whilst writing an essay on the increasing influence of American culture on British society. One such example of this is the increasing number of such fraternity/sorority groups and gangs in modern day British culture. I found this entry very useful indeed.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hilder[edit]

Story did get a lot of coverage in UK, but probably non-notable. TigerShark 09:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, although if there is a collection of parachuting accident victims, perhaps he can go there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 09:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't know if it's worth merging anywhere. There is no source listed and the article gives the impression that it may have been a suicide more then an accident. 205.157.110.11 09:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it got coverage but it was just a newsitem - unencyclopedaic Dlyons493 Talk 10:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although there are sources available and it could be argued he passes WP:BIO as "achieving renown or notoriety for [his] involvement in newsworthy events", I think this will fail the 100-year test. Yomangani ^talk 12:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep (but expand please). It think he he was notable enough. This accident was very notable, becuase it's one of a kind. There aren't very many cases of someones parachute risers being deliberately cut in a murder or suicide attempt. It did get a considerable amount of converage, and there were a few documentaries filmed about this story. The name Stephen Hilder is pretty well-known in the skydiving community. There are plenty of less-notable articles here on wikipedia. BennyD 20:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a huge news story and definatly will be something people look back on in years to come especially as there was so much mystery surrounding what actually happened and what caused Stephens death or whom. There are many other articles on Wikpedia and some have not even been big news, therefore if this is deleted then I have a list of lesser events etc which I think should definatly be deleted too. Wikpedia should cover as much as it can so it has variety and can satisfy its readers and fufill there search needs and hence limit itself and the information which it provides.

To delete would be a mistake and it would be like censoring an historical event which happened, what will be next, who should decide what is worth mentioning and what is not ? Freedom of speech is another factor, it was a huge story and people in the future deserve to be able to find out more details regarding what exactly happened. Hence posting would be a good idea. I think in time this story will get bigger as has happened with various events in history for example the Jack the Ripper murders was nowhere near as big an event at the time as it is looked back on today. However I more then welcome people adding too and expanding the story. But it definatly needs to be kept in my opinion... Adam (starter of article) [email protected] 06:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)—[reply]

If you give this article another chance, it WILL be expanded. Like I said earlier, there are entire documentaries about the Stephen Hilder investigation. This is a VERY notable news story. It would definetely be a huge mistake to delete an article about one of the most mysterious and disturbing skydiving accidents in recent times. I definetely think this article deserves a chance to be expanded and become more encyclopedic. I changed my earlier vote to "strong keep" after thinking about it for a while. BennyD 18:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close.

Greek nationalist propaganda[edit]

The page is a redirect to Istanbul Pogrom and is obviously nothing more than a WP:POINT case --Michalis Famelis (talk) 10:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion is across the quad. Uncle G 11:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close per Uncle G's observation. Yomangani ^talk 12:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Also, I speedy deleted the redirect, as it was the result of a troll attempt (a user moving Istanbul Pogrom to Greek nationalist propaganda). bogdan 12:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Non-notable. El_C 10:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calyr Elves Church[edit]

A version of this article was deleted on 19 March, 2006; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calyr Elvin Church. While clearly an interesting religion now claiming several dozen adherents, ~~it still~~the article does not seem to contain verifiable information on its notability. Nothing personal. Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the unique googles run at a rate of under one per church member. Guy 13:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a good example of otherkin culture. Gurvon 14:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the author of the article. Thank you for your interest, and I would like to address your concerns. I am curious about what it would take to verify the information in this link. I, along with a couple of others, wrote the original “Way of the Calyr” in the 1990’s. (I was the main contributor, and the copyright to the book is in my name.) We put the website up this year.

On the Otherkin.net site, (the largest otherkin site) the Calyr Church is listed as the fourth most popular link, even though it is fairly new. The Silver Elves, whom you have had an article about for a couple of years now, has listed the Calyr Church website as one of their special links (they only have around 8 or so, so they aren’t link mills). The Open Directory Project has deemed it worthy of inclusion in their list of religions.

I’m wondering what would warrant inclusion in your site, and whether I would be able to accomplish that to your satisfaction. Could you let me know what the specific problem is? Perhaps if you could explain why articles like the Silver Elves are acceptable, I would be able to update this article to conform to your specifications.

I have checked out quite a few of the new religions in your links, and there are several that I must admit, I am scratching my head to try to figure out why their links are not targetted for deletion if the Calyr Elves Church is. Please don’t take that the wrong way. I have to admit this is a learning process for me, so I would welcome your instruction. Sincere thanks, Freedomelf Freedomelf 15:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that the Way of the Calyr is being translated into Dutch on a totally independent site. In addition, it is set for re-publication in book form in early 2007. (A few copies were printed privately in 1998, but it will now be published commercially.)

Lupa, writer of "Fang and Fur, Blood and Bone" which is listed on Amazon and published by Immanion Press, has expressed interest in the religion and is including it in her next book about otherkin, targetted for completion this year. Considering the Calyr website is only a few months old and has generated no paid advertising of any kind, I believe it has achieved greater than expected interest.

Many otherkin have expressed relief at finally having a faith which relates to their spiritual needs. The Calyr Elves Church is the only organized religion for Elven otherkin. Without it, there is no way for them to address their spiritual needs at present. (And please note, we are the only religion that actually discourages donations on the website. We aren't in this for the money, but rather for the passion of our beliefs and to help Elven otherkin.)

I sincerely appreciate your equity in giving this topic due thought. Thank you! Freedomelf 18:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church for otherkin? Wow. Delete per lack of verifiability and lack of notability. See WP:V for a start on the need for reliable outside sources, et al. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maybe in another year, if the events User:Freedomelf mentions do indeed come to pass, there might be proper sources for the article. Till then, it should be deleted. wikipediatrix 23:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It should not come back until it passes the policy on verifiability using independent reliable sources. The creator should probably draft the article in userspace, then use the deletion review process. GRBerry 01:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn "church" - a couple dozen members doesn't make a group notable or every chess club and sewing circle could qualify. When they have done something notable like raise the dead or pull a Heaven's Gate, then they've achieved notability. Carlossuarez46 20:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Mukadderat 00:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adult design[edit]

Disguised advertisement for non-notable adult website. Sources cited do not even mention the term at all. Note that this does not qualify as a CSD G4 because the article is substantially expanded from previous deleted version. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 13:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Valrith 19:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. HGB 21:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense. Danny Lilithborne 00:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. El_C 11:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clubbell[edit]

Entry is little more than an advertisement for a specific product coupled with unsubstantiated original research; the general class of item already has an entry at Indian clubs. Wikipedia is not a product guide. fbb_fan 10:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per nom--Jusjih 11:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The tool is better known than the Indian Club, and more widely used. Regardless of whether it's a brandname, it's critical info--B-ham 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Another thing - it's considered appropriate to say if you are a primary author or significant contributor to the article being discussed, as you are in this case. This is discussed on WP:AFD. fbb_fan 17:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Better known and more widely used according to who? I fail to see how this is "critical" information. It looks more like a violation of WP:SPAM (specifically the section "Advertisements masquerading as articles") to me. fbb_fan 03:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Better known by simple google search. Compare internet discussions on various fitness boards, and although its a commercial brand, when people discuss "Indian clubs" which is now taken as more of a racial slur, people discuss "clubbells" --B-ham 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    - Comment. Please see WP:REF. Internet discussions are not regarded as appropriate source material for Wikipedia. fbb_fan 14:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. You see WP:REF. Five internet magazines (Dolphzine, Girevik, Powerathletes, Testosterone, and Depew Fitness) each have interviews about the Clubbell not the Indian Club. B-ham 9 September 2006 (UTC)
        Comment. You referred to "internet discussions on various fitness boards" - as you can see if you read the guideline, this is not an acceptable source. So I will ask again - please provide a citation that indicates that the clubbell is "better known than the Indian club, and more widely used." It is not my responsibility to track down sources for you - the onus is on you to provide appropriate sources to establish the notability. A few sites having "interviews" about the Clubbell isn't that significant - that sounds like nothing more than product reviews. As mentioned previously, Wikipedia is not a product guide. fbb_fan 16:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment. It is not my responsibility to prove that the largest online fitness magazines on the internet are "significant" as per WP:REF. Since for some reason you're a female bodybuilding fan, Bodybuilding.com, the largest online bodybuilding resource, publishes his articles, as well as the fact that he is a regular presenter for the Arnold Classic Fitness Expo http://www.arnoldclassic.com/ B-ham 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete Spamalicious Guyanakoolaid 10:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another spam page for Scott Sonnon and crew. Dsreyn 01:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Who is "Scott Sonnon's crew"? I don't see anything spamming about this tool. Even Kleenex has a wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleenex B-ham 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment. I'm sure you think the Clubbell page isn't spam, since you created the page (and as has already been pointed out to you here and in other AfD's, you should disclose when you are the primary author of the page being discussed). I was referring to the flock of Sonnon-related pages you have created (which account for nearly all of your Wikipedia contributions) - Scott Sonnon, RMAX, RMAX International, Prasara, and Prasara Body-Flow. Except for the entry on Sonnon himself, all of these are essentially thinly disguised advertisements for interests which Sonnon is involved with. The appropriate guidelines relating to these types of entries have already been pointed out to you, here and elsewhere. Dsreyn 02:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. And WHO again is this "crew" of Dr. Sonnon's that you allude to? Conspiracies kill the brain.:) There was no "flock" of pages on Sonnon, there were only four: regarding the method of yoga he has shared with the world, the tool he created to help people become more fit, the community service organization which he has created philanthropically donating his time to thousands, and oh, a biography on who this humanitarian is. I offered them all to wikipedia, yes. Do you feel better? Go ahead and vote your heart out to have them deleted. You're only doing wiki researchers a disservice. Whatever.B-ham 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      - Comment. Who said anything about a conspiracy? You listed several of his colleagues / associates / business partners in the RMAX International article, so why are you now asking who these people are? Are you now suggesting that it's a one-man operation? And it's six pages, not four - the five I listed previously, plus Clubbell. Dsreyn 18:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment. There weren't any separate pages listed for his teammates, who are each accomplished world champions in their respective sports: boxing, san shou, tai chi and MMA. There was no "crew" just a one line reference to others who are faculty for their team. I listed the tool he create to help people become fit - the "clubbell". ~~Get over yourself and your conspiracies.~~ B-ham 12 September 2006 (UTC)
        Comment. Sorry, I thought I explained my previous statement clearly enough. The Wikipedia entry for crew starts with A crew comprises a body or a class of people who work at a common activity, generally in a structured or hierarchical organization. In any case, from your closing remark, it's clear that you need to read yet another part of WP:AFD: Don't make personal attacks against people who disagree with you. Along with the other policies and guidelines that have already been suggested to you, you might also consider reading WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Please refrain from conspiracy accusations in the future. Dsreyn 19:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment. Sorry. Retracted.B-ham 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete: For a number of reasons as noted above. For next few months, we must concentrate on improving the existing pages, instead of adding 1000s of exotic pages. We should remember: Wales to upgrade quality of Wiki. --Bhadani 18:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to indian club, which is generic term. Brand name may be mentioned there, but separate article is not notable topic. Mukadderat 00:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Step On My Groove[edit]

Not notable. Completely unsourced article for a supposed release that was canceled. Infobox obviously carried over from the artist's prior single with no modification. No music video or chart placing information, this entire thing is speculative. eo 11:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Move to a Wikipedia in an alternate universe where the single was actually released. - Richfife 19:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maybe someday someone will create an encyclopedia for things that almost happened, but didn't. wikipediatrix 23:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. {{afd}} was not added to the articles on the compilation albums, which makes the deletion of those articles somewhat tenuous - in the past, deletion review has undeleted articles when they were deleted in group nominations but the AfD tag was not added, on the basis that the tag is there so everyone involved in the article can be properly informed. However, the notability of the albums is obviously dependant on the company, therefore deleting the main article and not the sub-articles would be nonsensical, and using PROD or another AfD would be an obvious waste of everyone's time. So I'm going to invoke WP:IAR and delete them anyway. But please remember in future that all articles nominated for deletion must have an {{afd}} tag added, which can then be edited so it points to the group nomination. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agent Records[edit]

Proposed deletion of a small independent record label which appears to fail WP:CORP. Also nominated are the compilation albums it has released :

Greetings From NorCal- The Northern California Compilation,
Agent Records Presents The NorCal Compilation 2003,
Agent Records Presents The NorCal Compilation 2004,
Agent Records Presents The NorCal Compilation 2005

The label scores 404 unique Ghits out of 46,300 for "Agent records" + label, most of for generic terms, also picked up "Free Agent records", "Double Agent records", "Secret Agent records", "Smooth Agent records" in abundance. Company;s website has no Alexa rank. No independent info available about the outfit per WP:V. Ohconfucius 10:44, 1 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, Bobet 12:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All No assertion of notability, and if almost none of the artists on these albums are notable enough for an article, why would these compilations themselves be notable? Resolute 00:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Resolute. --Dhartung | Talk 00:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all nn. Mukadderat 00:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (and clean up). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pasha brothel[edit]

Procedural nomination. Was previously tagged as a speedy deletion. I was apprehensive about Googling this one, but it appears to turn up a relevant news report on google about how they gave into Islamist demands. (I'm still not sure how islam and brothels can mix) Might be borderline notable although that would require a keep and cleanup. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:20, 1 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, Bobet 12:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Del per nom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup per nom. Danny Lilithborne 00:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, few sources about the place itself, a handful more about the controversy, but it was international in scope. --Dhartung | Talk 00:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the fact that brothel's and Islam shouldn't mix adds to the notability; the average brothel in Hamburg, Amsterdam, or Nevada is a yawner. Carlossuarez46 20:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep, rename to official name of the business notable controversy, but the title is misleading. I understand the joke, but it is also insult. Mukadderat 00:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mylunchmoney.com[edit]

Was tagged as speedy A7 but it's not a person or group and prodded for "being not famous enough" which is not a valid deletion criterion. Alexa rank is approx. 1.1 million, but the site appears to have had press attention. They boast as seen/heard on PBS, CNN, etc. on their main site. It might be salvagable, perhaps even for the concept of online lunch money alone. No vote. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:47, 1 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, Bobet 12:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's spam in those sandwiches. No evidence presented of this meeting WP:WEB. Guy 13:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it doesn't read like spam, IMO, but it's still NN. Alexa's never heard of them, one google news result for a local newspaper in Virginia. -- Vary | Talk 14:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Being mentioned in passing on a TV channel as a piece of fluff filler does not equal notability. --Aaron 22:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Two versions to choose from: a made-up dicdef couched in suspiciously racist terms or a "forthcoming" album. The former is a failure under Wikipedia is not a dictionary, the latter under Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Guy 13:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kinfolks[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary for the current version (seems vandalized by anonymous editor). Please note that the current version is not the same as what the 1st editor had intended the article to be. It seems that Kinfolks is better off as an article about it being an album by rapper Big Gipp (though it will need a rewrite as it sounds like it is crystal balling). Also, I'm thinking of a possibility that this become a redirect to Kinfolk. I'm totally at a loss so I deprodded my own prod and sent it here. No vote from me as nominator. Thanks in advance. zephyr2k 13:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Ferrone[edit]

Delete biographical article possibly written by the subject. There seems to be little information about him on the internet; a search for this name yields only 53 hits, dealing with at least three different individuals with this name. (A few of the top hits are about this person, though.) While the awards are commendable, school awards are irrelevant (in this case, the Father Bressani DramaFest awards). I think he may warrant an article in the future if he continues what he's doing, but it's still a little early to include him in WP now. Mind matrix 13:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, article is premature. -- Vary | Talk 13:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete his most significant achievement seems to be the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association awards, which are not in the same league as the Doras or the Tonys. Sorry. Ground Zero | t 14:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ferrone definitely seems to be showing great promise, and may well eventually be notable enough for a Wikipedia bio, but he's not quite there yet. The main claim to fame is the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association awards. However, the association is not in itself notable, as it has no Wikipedia page of its own, and is only mentioned (briefly) in two other articles [20]. If Ferrone continues amassing a body of work, and can achieve notability via other verifiable sources, such as coverage in a major media source, or via a more notable award, the article can be re-established. In the meantime, I recommend that instead of a Wikipedia bio, he establish his own website, blog, or even Myspace page, to promote and document his body of work and current awards. --Elonka 16:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per GroundZero -- pm_shef 17:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/default keep. Certainly a close case, but Rallc's point that "praticing" analysts might be hard to locate in "academic" search engines is not unreasonable. Cleanup the fluff editorially, let's see if more evidence emerges, and this can always be relisted in a month or two. Xoloz 19:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert D. Arnott[edit]

Speedy deleted as A7 but author requested undeletion at WP:DRV, where folks thought undelete and AfD would be the right course, so here it is. This looks very much like a promotional piece, the author's few contributions are to this and related articles, including adding links to this. Uncharitably, I thought of User:MyWikiBiz when I saw that, but maybe not. I get about 370 unique Googles which is heading into unreliability truncation territory, most of the links appear to be of a promotional or press release nature, but I did not look that closely. Guy 13:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The concern I have over articles like this is one of sources. While Mr Arnott may or may not scrape by on notability, where's the multiple independent, reliable, verifiable sources? --kingboyk 13:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above.--Alabamaboy 19:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep although there is a concern about sources, it does seems like he breaks the threshold of notability in WP:BIO. There are a number of Ghits that mention him and 370 unique hits while low is not off-the-radar either. In fact I get 446 unique hits for "Robert D. Arnott" + investing. To me a link like this one is at least weak evidence that he is a respected analyst. I think the article could be kept minus the self-serving fluff content. Pascal.Tesson 14:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - "Robert D Arnott" get's 15 thousand google hits. That is certainly enough, for a productive editor to add and cite more details. Article strength should not be based on those who are not willing to do research. Wjhonson 17:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Delete I'm not convinced that person is sufficiently notable, ~~but am still undecided. He may pass WP:PROF~~. However, he is certainly not "a personality associated with Wall Street". I think one needs to have some media coverage associated with one's personality for that. If article is kept, it needs trimming and humbling. Bwithh 17:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote to delete based on Trialsanderrors' research and assessment Bwithh 19:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm concerned by the number of articles appearing about, in my option, quite non-notable financial people. A lot of these are coming from single-purpose accounts and I'm quite sure wiki now has paid editors. I'm not suggesting that about this particular article or its editor - it's a general statement. Anyway, in this case, I think editing the article would suffice - he is for example the ed of the Financial Analysts Journal Dlyons493 Talk 17:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete About sources, there 42 news sources mentioning RDA, so this is not quite unsourceable territory, but according to the "best" article on Newsbank, Arnott received a modicum of attention for a paper published in Financial Analysts Journal (not a peer-reviewed journal to my knowledge -- no record on ISI). That's about the coverage untenured assistant professors get, so I see him in a league with bishops, surgeons, and mid-ranking military officers. Above average, but not in notability territory. ~ trialsanderrors 17:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The Financial Analyst Journal is the flagship publication for the CFA Institute (Certified Financial Analyst), which is the most important and prestigeous professional association for the finance industry. The FAJ is a double blind peer-review journal (the correct citation index would be SSCI, not ISI), where the rejection rate is 90%. Rob Arnott has served as the editor-in-chief for the FAJ since 2002. He has won two best paper awards (Graham and Dodd Award) and 4 honorable mentions from the FAJ prior to taking over the editorship of the journal. Rob was also a visiting professor in finance at UCLA Anderson School of Management from 2001-2002 and has published in the Harvard Business Review, the FAJ, Journal of Portfolio Management, Journal of Investing, etc; searching for publications with Rob Arnott produces numerous matches. He has written two books on asset allocations (one of which was translated into Japanese): (1) Active Asset Allocation and (2) Asset Allocation. He won the best new index research for 2005 from Index Universe for his fundamental indexation research published in the FAJ. He sat on the board for Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the Chicago Board of Trade. With regards to "some media coverage associated with one's personality", he is a routine guest on CNBC, Wall Street Week, and Bloomberg TV. For another "independent, reliable, verifiable source", Investor Home's "Who's Who in investing" ranks Rob Arnott with the likes of Michael Bloomberg, John C. Bogle, Bill Gross, Charles R. Schwab, Dr. Edward Yardeni, etc. He was also recently named as one of the 30 most influential finance visionaries by SmartMoney Magazine in its upcoming edition. As to the "trimming and humbling", I am certainly open to constructive criticism and if someone could point me to an appropriate template, I would be happy to follow it. However, I was never given the chance as the initial entry was 'speedily deleted' and no feedback provided. Rallc 03:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand corrected on the Fin Anal J. It is in fact listed on ISI. Among specialized Finance journals it ranks 28th out of 40, with an impact factor of 0.542. The top-ranked journal, Journal of Finance, has a factor of 2.549. Top business and econ journal have an impact factor of 4 or 5. ~ trialsanderrors 08:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - And while I'm checking ISI, Arnott's best-cited article gets 16 cites total, of which 4 are self-cites. The others get single digits, mostly zeros, ones and threes. ~ trialsanderrors 09:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - My understanding is that the Fin Anal J is more of a 'practitioner' journal, not so much an academic journal, so its impact factor is not too surprising. Well know publications such as The Wall St Journal and Barron's would receive a citation index of 0 because no academics cite them.

I would like to review some of the guidelines wikipedia has setup to address the issue of notability:

"Published authors, editors, and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" ... FACT: Rob Arnott is the author of 2 books and is editor of the FAJ; he has won Graham and Dodd Awards, as well as Bernstein-Fabozzi/Jacobs-Levy Awards.

"Google Test -- Does the subject get lots of distinguishable hits on Google or another well known search mechanism?" ... FACT: Rob Arnott receives numerous hits on Google.

"The professor test - If the individual is more well know and more published than an average college professor, they can and should be included." ... FACT: Rob Arnott has published 70+ articles.

"The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." ... FACT: Rob Arnott has appeared on CNBC, Wall St Week, and Bloomberg TV multiple times.

Could the specific criteria that Wikipedia has set forth for notability be explicitly addressed for Robert D. Arnott? - Rallc 19:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would like to point out that "peer-reviewed" is not the standard for notability at any rate in financial circles. A person could be a financial crackpot and still be notable. The fact that he gets 15 thousand google hits, means 15 thousand independent sites have found him notable enough to make the effort to say *something* about him. Wjhonson 17:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andarial (DJ)[edit]

Deproded by creator. 43 unique Ghits for Andarial dj, at least some of which are unrelated, 5 unique hits for "Gabriel Marroquin" dj. Currently, only reference is a myspace page. -- Vary | Talk 13:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was Informed today that this artist is currently Designing a new website that is flash enabled. Will be line on web within next month. -- Fenixasin | 14:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DJ Andarial is noted on www.mydjspace.net, where Noted Club DJ's vote every year on the top 100 best in their profession. Dj Andarial was voted number 19 with 9,567 votes.
DJ Andarial Also Dj's and submit's mix's to www.AfterhoursDJS.org under the alias "DJ Blight", AfterHoursDJS.org is Listed in ITUNES, under radio and then electronica, as provided a link to direct stream. http://www.afterhoursdjs.org/ahdjs192.m3u Trance 256k stream -- Fenixasin | 15:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DJ Andarial has a very large following in Texas, if there is an event of noteworthy value, he is there. He has a large fan base, which is adding itself to his newly created myspace as listed. (His website was attacked and taken down, currently being re-designed).
Please note this is an independent biography done on the be-half of Dj Andarial, I am a fan, I am going to one of his shows tomarrow night, it's a 4 1/2 hour show and I travel around 40 miles and rent a room just to go see him perform.
I am also told that Numark has contacted BPM Productions to start commercial sponsorship talks with outfitting DJ Andarial with Numark equipment.
I believe we can all agree that DJ's (Disc-Jockey's) are well known, from DJ Sasha to Paul Oakenfold to Benny Bennassi to Orbital, DJ Andarial is on everyone's tongues in the Dance music scene (hate that term) but he is, and you will hear them talk about a "musical revolution taking place, switching from Rap and Hip-hop to hard trance and techno and house music, they give only one name that is responsible, that's Dj Andarial. People know and use his name.
DJ Andarial is not going anywhere, he has assigned dates for a European tour, and is finalizing contracts for those venues, DJ Andarial is going to become part of the Dance music and DJ Historical Record. -- Fenixasin | 15:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ... none of which has any relevance to whether this person satisfies our WP:BIO criteria for people to have encyclopaedia articles. However, your explanation that you are a fan writing a primary source biography of this person from your own firsthand experience indicates that you are not aware of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Unless this person already has a published biography, it is not possible to write an encyclopaedia article containing xyr biography. Wikipedia is not a primary source. If you want to write a never-before-published biography of someone, please publish a book. Uncle G 17:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fenixasin, whose long exposition above makes it evident that WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC are not satisfied. My Alt Account 19:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fenixasin indeed. If, as he says, "DJ Andarial is going to become part of the Dance music and DJ Historical Record", then come back when he's done so, not before. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. wikipediatrix 23:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So how are you supposed to do anything, wait untill it's in a magazine, then it has relevance? Seems kinda underhanded to me, I mean what the guy has to die before he can have a biography in the encyclopedia? I mean jeez, what about the Kat von D article on here, what she got on a show for tatoos, she's doing that now, it's the same thing here, I want more discussion on this, the articles you cited have appeal clauses in them. I want to invoke those clauses and get more than 2 people to propose a delete. Fenixasin | 5:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's a perfectly normal part of being a tertiary source, and not underhanded at all. I repeat: Wikipedia is not a primary source. If you want to publish your firsthand, primary source, biography of this person, please write a book, write a magazine article, or use your own web site. Uncle G 10:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipediatrix. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per everyone. So how are you supposed to do anything, wait untill it's in a magazine, then it has relevance? Exactly. Danny Lilithborne 00:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fenixasin, who has obviously violated Wikipedia is not a primary source with his self-inflated biography. This is not a spot for you to run on about yourself, get verified then you can be published here until then, do something constructive and not deconstructive. ShadowKeeper 00:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete A8 by User:Alabamaboy. ColourBurst 18:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brisca Heat[edit]

Spammy contested prod. MER-C 13:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a copyright violation of http://www.weboriginals.co.uk/bh/faq.htm and I just speedy deleted it.--Alabamaboy 13:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BriSCA Heat Another version of the same text - Skysmith 13:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already deleted that one. Every article and image this editor created were copyright violations and they've all been deleted. Best, --Alabamaboy 13:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My, my. I'm getting slow in this :-) - Skysmith 14:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete A8, copyvio by User:Uncle G. ColourBurst 18:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global Consultants Inc.[edit]

Self-glorifying advertisment, contested prod Skysmith 13:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Kleist[edit]

Vanity page written by David A. Kleist (talk · contribs) about a poet who writes a lot but refuses to publish it because he seeks to "find his way as a writer outside the realm of traditional publishing". The prod tag (along with other cleanup tags) was recently removed by the same user who explained on the talk page why he thinks this should stay. My prod rationale read "Well if David Kleist refuses to publish his work, I see little reason for Wikipedia to publish advertisement for him..." and I stand by that comment. On the talk page David Kleist explains why he thinks a deletion would be unfair and this includes the argument that "had it existed in his time, Vicent Van Gogh never would have graced the Wikipedia's pages". Well I suppose I am ready to take the risk of being viewed in a hundred years' time as the imbecile who failed to see David Kleist's genius but in the meantime the content in there cannot be verified by reliable independent third-party sources. Pascal.Tesson 14:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above comments were moved by the article's subject at 20:20, 9 September 2006. As the introductory post is intended to present the reasoning behind the nominator's action, it has been restored to the appropriate position. Victoriagirl 20:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia, she be many things, and a wonderous ride, but she ain't a free webhost, no siree and WP:VAIN and so many, many more - like WP:V, one of my favourites. WilyD 14:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article does not meet verifiability policy, nor does it meet teh biographical notability guidelines. Even if the nom is "the imbecile who failed to see David Kleist's genius", Wikipedia isn't meant to be on the cutting edge of notability... as an encyclopedia it is meant to take notice only after other published sources have. --Isotope23 14:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and add me to the list of imbeciles who fail to see the genius in deliberately not publishing one's writings. (And incidentally, Van Gogh was indeed not notable during his life. It was not until after his death that he became famous and verifiable sources began to be generated about him.) wikipediatrix 16:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wiki is not a place where he may eventually post his manuscripts on-line. Dlyons493 Talk 17:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is an autobiography. When this was pointed out, David A. Kleist (talk · contribs) stated that it could be "verified by checking the profile data" at Amazon — which in fact is another autobiography (It begins with "In my own words".). We only have the author's sole word for any of this. This article is original research and unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 18:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per every single comment above. What more can one add? Victoriagirl 19:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE: Despite repeatedly referencing verifiable sources (Who's Who Among American Teachers; Outstanding Young Americans, 31st Anniversary edition), Wikinazis below insist that this submission is unverifiable. I stand by MY claims that the article is NOT a vanity piece. Note that I explicitly state that I AM published (Christianity and Literature; Amaranth; The Rolling Coulter; The Manuscript; Pen and Ink; etc.). So-called little magazines have never been so villified as by you so-called encyclopedists. The so-called editors of Wikipdia apparently don't know how to closeread an article submission. I would call Pascal Tesson an imbecil in the PRESENT time, not in one hundred years. "Genius" is never invoked here; notability is the criteria of Wikipedia, Pascal. I maintain Who's Who Among American Teachers is a reliable independent third-party source and that my article, if deleted, will be expunged by petty demagogues. Again, PUBLISHED SOURCES HAVE CONSISTENTLY TAKEN NOTICE OF THE WORK OF DAVID KLEIST. And, of course, Van Gogh WAS notable during his lifetime, having been recognized by Gaughin and others while alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David A. Kleist (talk • contribs) 2006-09-09 20:20:48
- Comment Now now. Let's not get too carried away. I think it's important to point out that no, the Who's Who Among America's Teachers is not a reliable independent third-party source. For one thing it's not clear what criteria they use and they mostly try and evaluate an individual's qualities as a teacher, not as a poet. Now I may be a petty demagogue and an imbecile but I sure know vanity when I see it. Let me remind you again that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and it should strike you as odd that in the month and a half that your article stood no one (besides yourself) has cared to edit it except to tag it as inappropriate. As hard a landing as this might be, we the petty demagogues of Wikipedia feel that you fail to reach the threshold of importance which would justify the effort of maintaining this article in the future. Pascal.Tesson 22:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a terrible piece of vanity work. I'm not opposed to this person having an entry on WP, it just definitely should not be written by him. Danny Lilithborne 00:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KLEIST 16:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)PLEASE DELETE. How naive for me to imagine that normal publishing was less than gratifying![reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Bartel[edit]

Article does not explain how DJ Bartel is notable. He is not a widely recognized entertainment figure, has no significant fanbase, and has not achiieved noteriety otherwise. Fails WP:BIO.--§hanel 14:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If the article is correct, this guy apparently isn't notable enough to hold down a steady DJ job at one station for long. wikipediatrix 23:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article does not meet the criteria of notability. Bastique▼^parler _voir 14:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some evidence of notability is on offer but it is not clear to me that this particular DJ is notable enough to merit an article. Delete per nom. ++Lar: t/c 16:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph chaula[edit]

Delete. This person does not appear to exist, except maybe as a student (? I don't understand Danish). Prod tag (No Google hits for "Joseph Chalua" and no mention of him or his albums on the Copenhagen Records website.) was removed by anon. ... discospinster _talk 14:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding to this AfD the two related articles, per Bikeable:

The World of Chaula
Join Joseph and The Pussycat Dolls

... discospinster _talk 16:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Geogre's Law. Apparently a hoax (After hearing about the succes of idol 50 cent he got a friend to empty an uzi-magazine in his chest, just to be cooler than 50 cent). The link discospinster gives appears to be details of a student at a Danish high school (but I don't read Danish either). Also up for WP:PROD are two albums, The World of Chaula, which is listed both as being on Reggi Records (which appears not to exist) and as being on Copenhagen Records, which has no such listing [21]; and Join Joseph and The Pussycat Dolls, listed as Gangsti Records, for which no google hits. What a waste -- I want those 90 seconds of my life back. bikeable (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them all, hoaxes. NawlinWiki 16:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. Even if they're not hoaxes, they're not verifiable or notable enough to easily tell for certain. wikipediatrix 23:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stupid. Danny Lilithborne 00:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infinito 2017[edit]

I speedied this once, and author recreated it and added a bunch of hard-to-read data. It looks to me like all his "albums" are self-produced mixtapes. But bringing it here to make sure. NawlinWiki 14:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - content is not article material, and no notability established. Egil 16:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the press release that some of this material apparently comes from, it is at least legible. ☺ Uncle G 16:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as recreated deleted content which is still not notable. --Storkk 16:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XXXchurch[edit]

Anti-pornography website that does not meet WP:WEB. Previously deleted here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xxxchurch and recreated a couple of months later. This site was featured in an ABC news story and has been mentioned in a few newspaper articles, but most of the mentions are trivial (though a few are full page write ups). This is right on the cusp of WP:WEB. I'm nominating this as a procedural measure because this article is a recreation with no further information added since the article was deleted that makes a strong case per WP:WEB.--Isotope23 14:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, already been deleted once. Protect it against re-creation this time. wikipediatrix 16:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete exactly per Wikipediatrix. Protection has become a must. Srose (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, they seem to have recieved enough media coverage to establish notability. How many websites get on both the daily show and Good Morning America? "Multiple non-trivial media mentions" seems to be sufficient for notability, and this site definitely has that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really dont understand why this should be deleted?

So...the article should be deleted cause it's not a popular topic? Or are you against the principles of the site? - JP

- Comment, Please read WP:WEB. This isn't a question of whether or not the topic is popular or if people agree with what the site is trying to accomplish (I actually quite like their T-Shirts). If you feel this site meets the WP:WEB guidelines, you should try to demonstrate which criteria this site meets (as User:Night Gyr did above).--Isotope23 11:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD G4. It should be deleted because there was a vote before and it was deleted then, and nothing has been changed. Danny Lilithborne 00:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per others before me. Anomo 01:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as recreation of deleted material without any real change in circumstances. Carlossuarez46 20:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Simply put, it's been the subject of non-trivial works. Though I agree it needs a cleanup. -- Steel 13:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TDIndustries[edit]

Non-notable corporation per WP:CORP. Valrith 14:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep According to this website, it is one of the top 100 best companies to work for. It also won the respect Innovation award in 2003 according to this website. A google search also shows quite a number of hits for this company, so there is no problems of meeting WP:V, which is an official policy of Wikipedia. Incidently, WP:CORP is a guideline, so the question one must ask is which is the more important criteria here? Is it WP:CORP or WP:V? Lastly, this article meets WP:CORP! According to this website, it is named number five on Fortune Magazine's List of "100 Best Companies to Work for in America". --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 18:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of which causes this company to pass WP:CORP; I don't see "voted as a great company to work for" among the criteria. Valrith 19:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Sourced, verified, Fortune 500, "5th best company to work for", pretty much passes WP:CORP with flying colours. ColourBurst 18:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Clean Up. Apart from the sources cited above, a Google News Archive comes up with 264 results including an article in the Wall Street Journal see [22]

Needs a clean up though. Capitalistroadster 23:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Up at least "our" from the article, it seems the article is written by employee, someone should clean up if the company meets the WP:CORP creteria (just comment). --MaNeMeBasat 14:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stanza inter[edit]

This article is truly tertiary. Stanza Inter is one race course on basically one game (notwithstanding its "Special Edition") in the Wipeout video game series. ENeville 14:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it has been on here way too long. Punkmorten 18:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. ~ trialsanderrors 03:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DAVEnavarre[edit]

Advertising for non-notable blog, deprodded. Accurizer 14:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources can be found to establish any type of notability at all. DrunkenSmurf 15:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Note: it's the user's first and only contribution. Can we transfer it to the creator's userpage prior to deleting? zephyr2k 16:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shen Chuan[edit]

Advertising for non-notable style of martial arts developed in Texas. I'm no expert, but this doesn't appear to have spread very far beyond the inventor's own gym business. He's notable enough himself but that doesn't convince me about this article. Google hits are mostly on completely different subjects. Mereda 15:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Joe Lansdale is notable for being an author, not a martial artist. The fact that he doesn't even know that the "shen" he uses doesn't really translate into spirit, well... ColourBurst 18:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 00:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remain. This article was already here when I edited it a few days ago. I guess I have an interest in it, as I'm a student of Joe Lansdale and administer our website in my spare time and am disclosing that fact per wiki rules.

People in martial arts circles are always asking what exactly is Shen Chuan. A few have advised to explain it in Wikipedia. I did not know what that was until coming here. So I came here to explain it, and found an existing article. I edited some with what little time I had, and came back today to take away the ranking and belt section as I felt it should not be there (it was there from the previous author).

As to the initial charge from Mereda, Joe Lansdale is quite well known in martial arts circles, by many well known martial artists, here in the states and abroad (England, Germany, Italy to name a few), Google hits notwithstanding. You may also Google Lansdale's Self Defense if more hits are desired. This was meant as an explanation of Shen Chuan (as in an encyclopedia) and not an advertisement.

Charge two from ColourBurst... As stated above, Joe Lansdale is notable in Martial Arts circles. As for the interpretation of Shen, I would ask you to type it the wiki search box to left and see if it does not also translate into spirit. Also, when forming the system the interpretation was posed to a Chinese Linguist (Professor actually) who had no problems with that translation.

In closing I hope that I followed wiki rules (I read everything I could in the short amount of time I had) and procedures, and I would ask the you reconsider deleting the page. If it crosses some wiki advertising boundry, I can understand. But the other arguments aren't holding water in my opinion. Sensei6 12 September 2006

Delete Unsourced. ~ trialsanderrors 03:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A7, fails to assert notability, fails WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki 16:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the desk of eastham[edit]

Band whose origins "can be traced back to a lunch period in November." No album, no notability. Speedy tag removed twice. Delete per WP:NFT and WP:MUSIC. Sorry, guys. bikeable (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete after discounting IP addresses and single-purpose accounts which failed to explain how the supposed notability of this term is verifiable. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leg! Fashion[edit]

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

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

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

Prodded as an advertisement, tag removed by anon IP without explanation so bringing it here as per policy. Company appears to be relatively new, no opinon from me. DrunkenSmurf 15:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete, I agree, the word itself is becoming increasingly popular - i have heard it from complete srangers personally - so i think this 'cult' is certainly worthy of a page Fillup 06:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC) -- note: this is the creator of the article DrunkenSmurf 14:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete, Company does not seem to be selling anything, more of a slang term becoming popular in New Zealand. Stunt sausage 06:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC) note: users only edits are to this AfD -- DrunkenSmurf 14:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- note: I have only recently started wiki, have made several edits since then Stunt sausage 11:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Delete, as spam. I'm sure they're nice people though. Jefffire 15:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not at all notable, even in the fashion industry. Akradecki 16:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete, Extremely popular slang term, used by the majority of Auckland University Students. heather 23:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC) note: users only edit is to this AfD -- DrunkenSmurf 13:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The company itself does not yet appear to meet the requirements of WP:CORP, and the section on "Popular usage" is completely unsourced and thus fail WP:V. --Satori Son 14:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete I came here from trademe looking for a definition of the word-i couldn't find it elsewhere so i turned to my favourite knowledgebase! Perhaps the company info should be removed, and the word itself preserved? 203.109.223.97 03:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete I am now using this word in everyday spoken text and the fact that other likeminded people understand it surely means that it is becoming more than just slang.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suzie Wylie[edit]

Seems a non-nobable vanity page, recreated after already being deleted. Unverified to boot. Jefffire 15:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, already been deleted once. Protect it against re-creation this time. wikipediatrix 16:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, national student organizer for Socialist party is not notable for that. NawlinWiki 16:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not-notable. BlueValour 03:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and protect CSD G4. Danny Lilithborne 00:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As those above. Although she is a lovely person, she never did her washing up. Bjrobinson 13:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above.--JK the unwise 18:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. Redclaire 16:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nerine Shatner[edit]

This article fails notability test at WP:BIO on points 1, 4, and 6. Point 9 is only relevant due to her marriage to William Shatner. Most of the material in the article is derogatory and poorly sourced. The information about this subject is already concisely included in the Shatner article. Delete -- Malber (talk • contribs) 15:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, info already on William Shatner page, don't need it twice. Akradecki 16:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Akradecki. Only other inbound link is a list of drug-related deaths. --Dhartung | Talk 00:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plant fetish (formerly: Dendrofilia (sexology))[edit]

del neologism and original research: a sexual attraction to trees. Not a single reputable source. `'mikka (t) 15:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Akradecki 15:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Is it possible that this word exists in Spanish but not in English? [23]My Spanish is mediocre, but the first definition listed seems to be pretty obviously a defintion of this word (not apparently lifted from Wikipedia, though I'll defer to any bilingual readers obviously.) And the link on the bottom of the article is to a Spanish website. Though there's no entry for it on the Spanish wikipedia. Feh, it's easy to make neologisms if you know Greek roots. It doesn't make it a word. I'll stick with my delete. Dina 15:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google will be showing Spanish because of the spelling of the title - try dendrophilia instead. Dlyons493 Talk 20:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- comment there is an entry on the spanish version now
Delete per nom. Haakon 16:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the word certainly exists. There was a book whose protagonist was a dendrophiliac (book name escapes me just for the moment, but I can quote the supposed Turkish proverb that was used in the preface). ~~By all means merge to sexology.~~ Dlyons493 Talk 17:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! A Melon for Ecstasy by John Fortune and John Wells. But it's a coinage mainly for humerous use rather than a real condition as I read it. Dlyons493 Talk 17:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:NEO. Anomo 01:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep its a real -philia, can we consult an expert in sexology or phychology before we delete it?Qrc2006 01:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia does not use "experts", we use verifiable sources, none which seem to exist for this topic. Haakon 05:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - actually it uses both, thats why there this little tag "expert" that you can type in between braces, ultimatly it must be verifiable but i provided a link to a article on the subject, i can speak spanish, perhaps ill translate it on the talk page, i didnt invent the article in the portuguese wikipedia either, its definatly a word thats been around, not a neologism, alltho i do think there isnt much research on the subject, there are many articles with much less validity, can we give it a chance to find some more info in english or consult an expert maybe at a sexology institute who can provide citable verification?Qrc2006 21:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, needs a better source than a fictional character. NawlinWiki 02:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, total nonsense. Let me know when that sexology expert arrives. RFerreira 05:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment i added more information about masterbation with cucumbers which the articles clasifies as dendrofilic behavrior and a referance to 40 days and 40 nights and a spanish film where flowers are used to ahcieve orgasmQrc2006 22:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ive added lots of more useful content and links too!

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Football Forums[edit]

non-notable web forum; unencyclopedic article Akradecki 15:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article does nothing to show if this is notable. Egil 16:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable website. --Al e x ^{(talk here)} 17:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Versoma[edit]

Nonnotable band, fails WP:MUSIC, article speedied five times so I'd like to get a definitive decision here. NawlinWiki 15:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, recreation of previously deleted material. If deleted, would the admin please also protect the page so we don't have to keep dealing with this one? Akradecki 16:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and protect against re-creation. wikipediatrix 16:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/default keep. Xoloz 19:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Dellegatto[edit]

A DRV consensus overturned the previous deletion of this article because its AfD was infested with now perma-blocked sockpuppets. For details, see the DRV; the previous AfD should be ignored entirely. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Subject seems widely known in his region, and is looked to as an authority. I realize that this doesn't really meet the strict reading of WP:BIO, but I believe it does meet the spirit of the rule. Dellegatto has also received 3rd party media attention for his dealings with hurricane forecasting, and I've added one such link to the article. Akradecki 16:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 18:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has not gained any more notability since the first Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Dellegatto. Can we please expunge these sort of blooy non-notable articles about minor American local television figures? Lost Knob 01:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't deserve to be brought back to life and as someone who spends a lot of time in Tampa and knows the area and scene well, I've never heard of him. —ExplorerCDT 02:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - The article is all about his meterological resume. Seems slightly like "non-notable professor". He's notable because he is doing his job? And it just happens to be televised? I'm skeptical about the notability. And more so because the article says nothing much about him personally, i.e. it's boring. Wjhonson 17:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,notable. He is rapidly becoming an icon in the Tampa Bay television market due to his excellent hurricane forecasting. 71.251.68.232 23:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've been down in Tampa during Hurricane season for years (it's the best time to visit Tampa) and never once heard of or saw him. This guy, even if he is broadcasting, is so obscure, I bet if you asked 1,000 Floridians if they've heard of the guy, or know his name, they wouldn't be able to. And people know their weatherman. Every city I've ever been in, everyone knew the name of the weatherman on TV and Radio...Steve Jerve, Dick Fletcher, for example. This article smacks of one thing wikipedia is not...a crystal ball for predicting upcoming notability, or a place where "wait and see" if he becomes notable. This article is in bad form. Still delete.—ExplorerCDT 15:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments in first AFD. Kirjtc2 14:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am a long time resident (33 years). If you live in this region then you know who he is. I searched for him and I am glad I found the information. I wish there was more! Hurricanes are a critical part of life in this fast growing area. One of the most respected meteorologists in the region, and perhaps the country deserves a listing. There is an expanded article about Dick Fletcher, another meteorologist on television here, if Mr. Fletcher has one, that is not subject deletion, then certainly Paul Dellegatto deserves one with even more information. 66.12.131.250 14:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The multiple national appearances and 16 years as a televised meteorologist(sp) seems sufficiently notable. RFerreira 00:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PortaOne[edit]

Not notable, self-promotional advertising article. This article has been deleted multiple times by different admins (the article has also appeared under alternate spellings). Alabamaboy 16:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Alabamaboy 16:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to pass WP:CORP. Akradecki 16:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fairly blatant spam which fails WP:CORP. Since this one keeps popping up, consider protecting. My Alt Account 16:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appologise for not reading carefully WP:CORP. This was not meant to be spam. I removed the article. - Kamaniskeg

I totally understand. However, please don't blank the article until this AfD is finished. Best, --Alabamaboy 18:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/Durley F.C.

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

The result was technically no consensus - with only two editors participating, relisting would be the normal course. But as Tenebrae has stubbed the article, which removes his first two concerns with the content, and seems to be fine with keeping the article for now judging by his last comment, there doesn't seem to be much point. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Ribbon Comics[edit]

Blue Ribbon Comics is simply a checklist of stories in a comic-book series, is done with HTML markup rather than wiki coding, and is contrary to policy Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information -- Tenebrae 20:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the article is atrociously written, that's not why we put things up for AfD. There's a precedent for Golden Age comics to be worthy of Wikipedia articles: see Comic Cavalcade, Phantom Lady, All Star Comics, Impact (comic), Blackhawk (comics), All-American Comics, Feature Funnies, Doll Man, Spider Widow, Black Fury, Marvel Boy, Yellow Claw, etc., etc. This one just needs to be overhauled. wikipediatrix 23:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a question of Golden Age worthiness; I created the All-Winners Squad and Mystic (comics) articles, among others. The Black Hood Comics article is simply annotated checklist with one sentence up top, and I can do no better than to quote knowledgeable fellow editor Chris Griswold who said in a discussion of this very thing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics: "Checklist-style listings of plots by issue are not valid for inclusion in WP:CMC artic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are other sources and wikis for information such as that." Remove the checklist, and this is less than a stub.-- Tenebrae 00:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there's general approval of the way I freeze-dried and condensed the checklist information into a more concise and functional article on Black Hood Comics, the same can be done to this one. wikipediatrix 00:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I admire you for wanting to do the work. This had looked to me like a case of better to demolish the house and rebuild it with a better foundation and materials than to try and refurbish. But yeah, if you think you can do it, I'm in your corner and I'll go in later to do what I can. -- Tenebrae 16:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, as the nominator appears satisfied and there are no other calls for deletion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Hood Comics[edit]

Black Hood Comics is simply an illustrated checklist of stories in a comic-book series, is done with HTML markup rather than wiki coding, and is contrary to policy Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information --Tenebrae 14:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the article is atrociously written, that's not why we put things up for AfD. There's a precedent for Golden Age comics to be worthy of Wikipedia articles: see Comic Cavalcade, Phantom Lady, All Star Comics, Impact (comic), Blackhawk (comics), All-American Comics, Feature Funnies, Doll Man, Spider Widow, Black Fury, Marvel Boy, Yellow Claw, etc., etc. This one just needs to be overhauled. wikipediatrix 23:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a question of Golden Age worthiness; I created the All-Winners Squad and Mystic (comics) articles, among others. The Black Hood Comics article is simply annotated checklist with a sentence or two up top, and I can do no better than to quote knowledgeable fellow editor Chris Griswold who said in a discussion of this very thing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics: "Checklist-style listings of plots by issue are not valid for inclusion in WP:CMC artic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are other sources and wikis for information such as that." Remove the checklist, and this is less than a stub.-- Tenebrae 23:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just rewrote it. Check it out and hit refresh. wikipediatrix 00:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Somewhat notable Golden Age comic. Has the potential to be expanded by other editors. Serpent-A 02:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite (as Freddie Prinze used to say) lookin' gooooood. --Tenebrae 06:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - there doesn't seem much doubt that this is a notable comic and a valid subject, and the nominator has been working on this and other articles to correct his concerns by editing. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Winners Comics[edit]

Timely Comics Index - All Winners, since moved to All Winners Comics, is primarily an illustrated checklist of stories in a comic-book series, is done with HTML markup rather than wiki coding, and is contrary to policy Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. (Additionally, page-creator Neufen01, who has been blocked for 48 hours for vandalism, has resisted editors' efforts encouraging him to learn the basics of Wikipedia, and has simply added cursory textual information while retaining the checklist-bulk of the page.) Please note there is a seperate, longstanding All-Winners Squad article with which this should not be confused.-- Tenebrae 16:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but remove gallery and condense. The use of first person and other information suggests much of this is an NOR violation, however All Winners Comics was a legitimate publication and therefore is eligible for its own article. I'm sure there's enough info here to generate a good stub at least, with one cover image. 23skidoo 16:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the article is atrociously written, that's not why we put things up for AfD. I would say it's a given that any Marvel/Timely comic qualifies for its own article. This one just needs to be overhauled. wikipediatrix 23:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timber Hawk[edit]

This is essentially an advertisement for a company that fails WP:CORP. Delete. Xoloz 16:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the thing is a copyvio with the entire text lifted from their site here. -- Whpq 16:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - and shouldn't this have just gone through PROD? -- Whpq 16:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly, but the writer seemed the type who would remove the notice, so I brought it here for finality. Xoloz 16:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I smell pork. Delete per WP:VSCA. Appears to be posted by the company personnel, so arguably consent for reproduction is implied. Don't know how well known this company really is in the "outdoor" world, but its not received any news articles I could find in google, so don't know how it would meet WP:CORP. 66 unique out oe 143 Ghits. It has no rank per Alexa. Ohconfucius 01:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Whitrod[edit]

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. There is little assertion of any notability. Deli nk 16:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Obviously NN. Egil 16:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Whitrod is the UK representative for Chow Gar Southern Praying Mantis. This is a style and a topic that is of interest to many people. It would be a shame if it was deleted, as I am sure there are bios of many other people on wiki too.
Weak Delete. Unless anyone can furnish more sources per WP:V. Practitioner of a very obscure branch of martial arts (per his website). If there is only one practitioner in the country, it would not be difficult for him to be the country representative, so the statement is without substance. Notability does not seem to be asserted. In this field, competitions are very common and frequent, and the absence of any cited competition wins would suggest lack of notability. However, as a counter-argument, he does appear to have authored 2 books listed on Amazon.co.uk. The one released in 2006 has a ranking in the 96 thousandsths which, for an obscure arts form could be respectable. No evidence of any review of the books. Ohconfucius 02:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the tests of WP:BIO. -- Aiditor 15:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Ohconfucius - Chow Gar is not that obscure, there are hundreds of people that study it in the UK, and thousands worldwide. The Beijing police force also learn it for self defence. Also, it is not a competition style, so Chow Gar practitioners will not enter Karate / kickboxing competitions (unless fighting under different rules). One of the problems of references/sources with the less well known martial arts is that much of the information has been passed on verbally. Every written article has to start somewhere surely? My understanding (from what I read in the article on Wikipedia in teh Observer on Sunday) is that its purpose is to allow the more obscure facts and information to be shared. I am obviously biased as I study this style. If you read his biography though, you will see that he attained UK representative (i.e. Master) by living and training with the late Grandmaster of the style, Ip Shui, at his home in Hong Kong. This was after proving himself to be a worthy student after joining Ip Chee's (the current Grand Master) class in London when he first arrived i nthe UK. Oh, the style was also featured on a martial arts documentary series, I think it was called "Mind, Body and Kick Ass Moves". I did a Google test, the he got 1550 results. Has the Google Test criteria been expanded upon? Is there a minimum? User:Jonpaulwade

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

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Dan Brown[edit]

Rather than a criticism of Dan Brown, this is basically a criticism of his books, each of which already have their own "criticism of" pages. How many pages did Dan Brown really deserve? Also, almost the entire page is a criticism saying that Angles and Demons and The Da Vinci Code has similar plots, considering every author that writes sequels uses a similar style, similar plot formulas, etc etc, there is nothing in this that is really unique to Dan Brown, so it does not justify its own page. A simple link from Dan Brown's page to criticisms of his books should be more than sufficient Sad mouse 16:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge - couldn't it be merged into Dan Brown? --Al e x ^{(talk here)} 17:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind, delete. --Al e x ^{(talk here)} 20:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, 99% original research anyway. Just do away with it. Recury 17:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's a hack writer who reused the same plots, just like Thomas Harris did with Red Dragon and Silence of the Lambs. However, that is an OR, NPOV opinion. Nothing here worth keeping. Fan-1967 19:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. There are many criticisms of this author's styles which are not related to a single book, so a central location is appropriate. I do agree that any criticism on the page should be carefully referenced to ensure that it is verifiable information from outside sources, and not just a random comment by a passing editor, but as long as that standard is met, the information is clearly notable and appropriate for Wikipedia. Indeed, on the talk page at Dan Brown, there are routinely comments from passing readers about why there isn't a "Criticism and controversy" section, since it's fairly obvious that Brown and his works have been among the most controversial subjects in the world over the last couple years. Accordingly, we are doing our readers a disservice if the biography article contains only positive information. We have to make sure that articles on Wikipedia present a well-rounded view about a subject, both positive and negative, in a fair and neutral fashion. --Elonka 17:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please if you're going to have criticism of him, don't make a criticism section. Just put it in the article at the appropriate places. Recury 18:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per Elonka. Hornplease 06:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Hopelessly POV, a few words maybe on the Dan Brown page, but this belongs on a message board or other forum, not an encyclopedia Guyanakoolaid 10:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete - Its merely going to be an attack page.Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not by its very nature. Its our repsonisbility to make sure it doesnt violate NPOV. Hornplease 18:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. Aside from obvious POV problems, all of this info belongs in the articles on Brown's books, and in fact it's already there. —dustmite 16:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete because 1) original research; 2) most material is already included under criticisms of books in individual entries. Since everyone has been delete or merge (and the non-original material is already present in other articles) is it time to delete? Sad mouse 16:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Itrw[edit]

This page was one of the contributions of User:rktect, and was regretfully missed in the cleanup process after the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rktect, where he was banned indefinitely from all articles which relate to weights and measures. For questions wrt the validity of the content of this article, please read the text of the arbritation. There is nothing of value here, anything relevant to Egyptian measures should be in Ancient Egyptian units of measurement (which requires a thorough cleanup, but that is another matter). Yes, there exists a unit of measure like this, but the conventional spelling in English texts is atur. Egil 16:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what is valid and isn't already in Ancient Egyptian units of measurement. Itrw appears to be an archaic term, per about 700 google results for Itrw measurement. Many of these results are either Wikipedia (the article itself and its mention in Ancient Egyptian units of measurements), mirrors of the Wikipedia results, or completely unrelated blogs and/or businesses. After reading the RfAr, I'm quite sure that the reason I cannot find any online source (even an unreliable one) to back up half of the claims in the article is that they're fabricated or original research. I looked for confirming sources under the term "atur" as well. Srose (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe there's something worth merging but I trust Egil's judgement on this one. Dlyons493 Talk 18:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GOOD Magazine[edit]

The issue at hand is whether or not a magazine that has published exactly one issue meets notability standards. It's a nice-looking publication, definitely not a scrubby little zine, but is that sufficient? I'm undecided myself, but I'm putting this here to see what the consensus is. --Pagana 16:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Pagana 16:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it was only launched this month, then it probably isn't notable yet. Few ~~magazines~~ publications are capable of being notable before publishing a dozen issues. zephyr2k 17:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the publication has wide enough distribution, the is going to be a demand for encyclopedic information about the publication. (Disclosure: I wrote the article.) --Ldrhcp 17:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Newer magazine doesn't belong here. It's not hard to wait until it's been out for a while longer (to see if it lasts for one thing, and for another...to see if it's even worth being here). RobJ1981 17:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until the publication has a track record to determine distribution and notability. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Fan-1967 19:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn, until such time as it becomes n, if ever. --Aaron 20:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Condado Plaza[edit]

I origanaly prodded this article. Original author removed prod without comment . Failure of WP:CORP. Failure of WP:NOTABILITY Blood red sandman 16:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think you could have speedied this. It asserts no notability whatsover, and is hardly encylopedic. It may be the best "luxary hotel" in Puerto Rico, but there's no way to tell. --Pagana 05:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for deletion, but this seems like an uncontroversial redirect which could have been done without bothering with AfD, so I've redirected it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angry White Boy Polka[edit]

Non-notable song. All information on the page is already on its' album page. Joltman 17:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, completely redundant article. My Alt Account 17:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect without wasting our time at AFD. Kappa 18:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redirect back to the album, so people can still find the information. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redirect I Agree, point it back to the album page Stunt sausage 03:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EBay (song)

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

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

The result was delete. To respond to Pagina, an AfD on the basis of non-notability essentially is a request for sourcing. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M31570[edit]

nn musicians.--Vdbk 17:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - blatant self-promotional vanity. Can't find any sources establishing notability. Seems to fail WP:BAND and certainly fails WP:V and WP:OR. My Alt Account 17:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prompt for sources. If this person can indeed be established as "the originator of the genre elektro-tek", and if "electro-tek" can be established as a real genre--and he can be held up to WP:BAND standards, this could be a strong keep. It's possible the author didn't know what criteria had to be established (i.e., record labels, media attention, etc.) Doesn't read like typical bandcruft to me, so I'd ask for sourcing and clean-up before I pulled the plug. --Pagana 05:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since the single assertion of notability, "originator of the genre elektro-tek", still has not been verified by any sources whatsoever, delete as insufficiently notable per WP:MUSIC. --Satori Son 05:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanada[edit]

Nonsense. Anthony Appleyard 17:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete for being ridiculously hoaxy (but not patent nonsense.) ColourBurst 18:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was thinking it could be merged into Deviant_Art#Terminology, but even on deviantArt it's not well-known. It seems to be an inside joke. Inside jokes have absolutely no place in an encyclopedia. Srose (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense is a polite word.Victoriagirl 19:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Del per nom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! Horrible writing. Cannot say anything. Englishfun 17:44, 3 September 2006
delete per WP:NFT - joke, as stated in the article. Note, however, deviantart.com seems to be a high-traffic website: Alexa rank of 177th. Ohconfucius 02:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete imaginary Goldenrowley 08:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
del per Victoriagirl, 'cos she made me smile. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gonads. Danny Lilithborne 00:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggoth[edit]

Hoax. Google finds nothing for "Suggoth" except Lovecraftian fictional demons. Anthony Appleyard 17:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Del per nom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V. Irongargoyle 00:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
del per nom - UtherSRG (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most places where Google finds "Suggoth", it is part of a demon name "Yog-Suggoth", which is likeliest a wrong form of Yog-Sothoth. Redirect to Yog-Sothoth? Anthony Appleyard 06:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect seems a hoax tree or a misspelling that cannot be resolved; the search function of Suggoth will get any user to the right page fine enough. Carlossuarez46 20:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, though as this is Articles for deletion, not the talk page (the venue for gaining consensus for a merge or move), some more discussion about whether the article should be deleted or not might have produced a more definite result. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indian blogosphere: About Indian bloggers[edit]

The Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info Computerjoe 's talk 18:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Del per nom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge & redirect - UtherSRG (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Merge & redirect to which page? --Gurubrahma 13:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blog, I'd guess. Computerjoe 's talk 15:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Aksi_great (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Blogging in India (more appropriate title), and cleanup. I find it notable though I may be biased because I am myself an Indian blogger. There's a lot of room for expansion as the "Indian Blogosphere" is a fast growing group, with many eminent bloggers already. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thaksinocracy[edit]

hoax or non-notable Anthony Appleyard 18:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think it's a hoax after reading this article[24]. zephyr2k 18:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Xinua, The Nation, The People's Daily, and Knowing Thaksin would all disagree. Keep. Uncle G 18:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Del per nom, or create Criticism of Thaksin or somesuch. Non-notable neologism. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You noticed the three major news agencies and a book that have noted this concept, didn't you? Moreover, "Criticism of" articles are inhenerently non-neutral, and are a bad idea. Uncle G 07:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep - UtherSRG (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Del The article is about an individual's political criticisms of a specific politician. A soapbox, basically. It makes no attempt at a NPOV (noting that critics are jealous doesn't make it NPOV). I thought Wikipedia wasn't a soapbox. Criticisms of Thaksin appear in the Thaksin Shinawatra article, which gives weight to both his supporters as well as his critics. Patiwat 18:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this term is pretty famous now. Google test for Thai word (ระบอบทักษิณ [25]) cames out almost 70,000; pretty high number since Google doesn't recognize Thai in-sentence words --Manop - TH 22:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably the the article might be a better fit to the Thai Wikipedia. But read the Wikipedia policy against articles on neologisms. Criticisms of a politician's policies should be located in a biographical article or in articles about specific policies, e.g., George W. Bush or War on Terror. The general political views of a public intellectual belong in an article about the person's general views, e.g., Politics of Noam Chomsky. But an article about an individual's general criticisms of an individual politician turns Wikipedia into a soapbox. Patiwat 03:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the term has a significant impact to Thai society. This article merits to be included in wikipedia; however the currect version need to be re-worked and NPOVed. underexpose 17:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously notable and not a neologism. —Nightst a llion (?) 10:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike's Carpets, Leeds[edit]

If it's about a carpet company then it should be deleted for reasons of vanity. If it's about the building then either more information needs to be given or it should be removed because it's not possible to list EVERY listed building on wikipedia. Barry m 18:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Del ad. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure if this is an ad, but it's certainly not notable enough to be in Wikipedia. The book it is on the cover of doesn't even have a page (and Steve Bruce seems to be a soccer player and not a sociologist). Irongargoyle 00:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIt is on the cover of the book. Question is do we wnat an article about the listed building (we don't about the carpet shop, but that's easy to edit). Dlyons493 Talk 01:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Venturesome[edit]

Fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Chock full o' spammy goodness. -- Merope 18:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Del per nom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite as a stub and get rid of the promo stuff. Some of the information about funding models etc could possible be added to Social entrepreneurship. Would do it, but am focusing on categorising uncategorised articles at the moment...--Sepa 12:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced spam. ~ trialsanderrors 03:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertions of notability that would meet any of the three criteria listed in WP:CORP. Entire article is unsourced and unverified, and as such does not meet WP:V. And while not a strict reason to delete, the entire article reads like an WP:ADVERT; nothing worth salvaging here. --Satori Son 20:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 21:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cartesis[edit]

Reads like an advertisement Martin.duke 18:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads like an advertisement, and contains multiple POV statements.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin.duke (talk • contribs)

This nomination was incomplete. Yomangani ^talk 00:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yomangani, what specifically is required? I believe I followed the deletion instructions step-by-step. Martin.duke 15:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Del per nom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
del, but further investigation shows this to be copyvio from the company's own website. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as WP:COPYVIO. Danny Lilithborne 00:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kasamba Inc.[edit]

I don't think the article passes WP:WEB. _{J Di}^talk 18:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find much on google, other than evidence that it's a scam/psychic service. But not a particularly notable scam, apparently. My Alt Account 18:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ditto for deleting! This article is clearly a spam effort. If one tries to insert any information concerning the so-called "psychic" services for which they are best known, Kasambas' socks go into revert mode.Smiloid 04:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Jackson[edit]

This article fails notability test at WP:BIO on points 1, 4, and 6. Subject's only notability is as a child of Peter Jackson. Child is mentioned in both parents' articles. Also not suitable for inclusion per WP:BLP as a private person. Delete -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe later. - Richfife 19:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Usable content has now been merged into 'trivia' section of Peter Jackson. Ohconfucius 02:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that all usable content has been transcribed, let's delete this. If and when subject becomes more independently notable, let's rewrite it originally. Bobo . 17:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Grutness...wha? 00:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. No unverifiable content or non-public knowledge included. Agree that it verges on non-notable trivia though. -- Avenue 01:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Jackson[edit]

This article fails notability test at WP:BIO on points 1, 4, and 6. Subject's only notability is as a child of Peter Jackson. Child is mentioned in both parents' articles. Also not suitable for inclusion per WP:BLP as a private person. Delete -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe later. - Richfife 19:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Usable content has now been merged into 'trivia' section of Peter Jackson. Ohconfucius 02:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Ohconfucius and as per my rationale for Billy Jackson. Bobo . 18:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Grutness...wha? 00:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. No unverifiable content or non-public knowledge included. Agree that it verges on non-notable trivia though, and the important points are covered in Peter Jackson. -- Avenue 01:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, with no arguments for deletion expressed since the posting of this link, which contains the coverage Bearcat refers to in arguing for keep. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Manvils[edit]

self published local band, local gigs, local press, see WP:MUSIC ccwaters 18:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason at all why this article should be removed. I am a fan of the band and only wish to set up a Wikipedia page as have countless others here. Please do not delete the article. Alternatively, please provide me with more detailed information about what you do not find acceptable about this particular page as your links to such information are very ambiguous. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The manvils (talk • contribs)

The guideline for band articles is at the link I provided (WP:MUSIC). ccwaters 18:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so why do this band http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_High_Dials (friends of The Manvils)of whom the Manvils have toured with get to have a Wikipedia Page? The Manvils have played/toured with many more well known bands of notability, plus their guitarist is second guitarist for Stereophonics when on their tour.--Manvils Fan #1 19:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD is about "the Manvils". It doesn't concern any other other article that may or may not be a candidate for deletion as well. Now are you really just a fan? Just wondering because you declared the images related to this article as your own work. ccwaters 19:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"How come X gets an article when Y can't?" will get you nowhere on AFD. The editors of Wikipedia are working on article as they see them. We can't evaluate them all at once. And, in answer to your question, The High Dials have toured England and the US. I can't find any evidence that The Manvils have ever left Vancouver. - Richfife 19:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your comment "Now are you really just a fan? Just wondering because you declared the images related to this article as your own work. " I photograph the band occassionally. You can check out my website if you like at www.maryanovich.com it includes many famous celebrities of whom I have photographed as well as The Manvils.--Manvils Fan #1 19:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - from what I can find via Google it looks like the band has potential, but as of today they do not meet WP:BAND. -IceCreamAntisocial 02:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if we could rely on the band's own website (which we can't), it would appear that they have only played in Vancouver area. There is no indication of the band's singles or albums ever having charted anywhere. Thus the band fails WP:MUSIC. Ohconfucius 03:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to neutral, subject to verification of the reliability of magazine articles quoted in Project Opus which I found and link posted to the article. Ohconfucius 03:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in Chart, Exclaim! and Hour? Airplay on CBC Radio 3? That's all good enough for me; WP:MUSIC explicitly states that coverage in major national music media is itself a sufficient criterion. Close to the line, I admit, but as far as I'm concerned, they're just enough on the keep side of where I consider the line to be. Bearcat 23:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the musician in this band is determined a Keep at his AfD, than this one should keep, too, since it would be the band of a notable musician. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 18:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to List of fictional books within the Harry Potter series. - Yomangani ^talk 15:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Libatius Borage[edit]

Borage isn't even a character in the Harry Potter series. He simply is the author of a book (Advanced Potion Making) that had a prominent role. I think the book should possibly have an article, but not its author. Clamster5 18:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Harry Potter somewhere if the info isn't there already. - Richfife 19:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Historical characters in Harry Potter unless someone can find a better location. Irongargoyle 00:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Historical characters in Harry Potter or List of characters in the Harry Potter books per Irongargoyle. Surely there's a limit to how many articles on HP characters are useful. Espresso Addict 19:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Yes there's a limit to how many HP articles are useful and this is pretty much what the WP:FICT guideline is about. But there's no limit on useful redirects! Pascal.Tesson 21:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Seat Check[edit]

WP:NEO? The only things I can find on Google are sites that use the word seat and check, but not together; and the only source there is Urban Dictionary. _{J Di}^talk 18:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete We needed an AfD for this? Sigh. Dipics 18:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article for calling shotgun...if nothing else, you could put this as another one of the American Culture stub articles.--Binoly 19:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The phrase "calling shotgun" gets about 24,000 ghits. This one gets none. Dipics 19:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One reason for making this article is because there are references to it Calling Fives, and not a lot of actual informaiton. If there is an article for calling fives, cooties, and the five second rule, this article should be equally considered. Members of the military use the term seat check countless times every day. If nothing else, allow it to go to the American Culture section. --Binoly 19:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Del per nom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and on the grounds of extreme pointlessness. --Aaron 20:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Aaron. zephyr2k 03:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article is great. It is kind of the same thing as the fives thing, but if there is room for that, then why shouldn't there be room for this?--R1seagainst 09:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

del per nom. Possibly merge some info into one or more other articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 22:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Parry[edit]

vanity article of a local musician see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The Manvils ccwaters 18:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see no reason at all why this article should be removed. I am a fan of the band and only wish to set up a Wikipedia page as have countless others here. Please do not delete the article. Alternatively, please provide me with more detailed information about what you do not find acceptable about this particular page as your links to such information are very ambiguous. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The manvils (talk • contribs)
Weak Keep - He is apparently now a touring guitarists for the Stereophonics, who are notable. The may be WP:RS issues with this claim, though. - Richfife 19:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The band opened for the Stereophonics in one gig. Ohconfucius 03:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Word on the street has it that local Manvils guitarist Mark Parry has been tapped to take on second guitar duties for the Stereophonics on their upcoming U.K. tour this fall." Chart Attack

http://www.chartattack.com/damn/2005/05/2712.cfm--Manvils Fan #1 19:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The phrase "Word on the street" doesn't inspire confidence. - Richfife 23:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Word on the street" is that he refused the gig. However, the band appears to be more notable after having done some searching. Googling for "Mark parry" + stereophonics turned up some interesting articles. No vote yet fom me. Ohconfucius 03:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless you can provide a link showing he played guitar on stage for the Stereophonics, this is not notable per WP:MUSICGuyanakoolaid 10:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment for edification: Guyanakoolaid is a relatively new user. His/Her contributions extend only to voting on AFDs (which he/she must have discovered today) and by editing two articles: Starlight International and The Joggers. Per policy, his/her vote might not be counted. —ExplorerCDT 11:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. —ExplorerCDT 11:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the bit about Sterophonics squeaks him past the WP:MUSIC line. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 18:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UFOP: StarBase 118 RPG[edit]

This article is pure advertising. Please delete it from Wikipedia. ResurgamII 19:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"We are the editors of Wikipedia and we are committed to deleting your article - Richfife 19:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think the article asserts notability of the subject. Is there a reason this isn't speediable? My Alt Account 19:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not advertising as such. Instead it is an entry that records the existence of a community that has been in existence since 1994. Although a web-based community, there is an argument that a web-based community that has been in existence for over a decade is in fact as important as an actual geographical community, both in terms of how its members related to one another and its role in everyday life. There is indeed an external link, however, this is referring people to more info on the community. As such, I do not see how this is any different to a page on the City of London with say a link to the London tourist board. I would therefore strongly feel that this entry should not be deleted. I see nothing in the deletion policy that says this should be deleted -speedily or otherwise. Thank you for your time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.39.104.118 (talk • contribs) .

Comment - "If you want to learn more, just head to our website and click on the "Prospective Members Entrance" link on our index page. We'd love to have you join our group -- see you soon!" That does not sound like advertising to you? The article does not sound encyclopedic as well (and please sign your name with ~~~~).ResurgamII 19:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Just because it's not for profit doesn't mean it's not advertising. This article would make a very nice MySpace page, but it is not a Wikipedia article. --Jaysweet 19:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I made this comment, the article is no longer so ad-like, but I retain my "strong delete" stance: Now that it doesn't sound like an ad, the lack of notability is painfully obvious. Sorry if I sound like a jerk, but here's the score: If WP:NOT means my band can't have a Wikipedia page, then your trekkie forum can't have a Wikipedia page. Them's the breaks. --Jaysweet 05:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - According to Wikipedia:Notability (web) --Afed 19:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Article has now been re-written. Is it now okay? ~~R.

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 03:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I spent years with Star Trek PbEMs. I ran a couple, even. I only barely heard of this group (and I'm not even certain I'm positively identifying them as being what I recall), and in the fairly exhaustive survey of the Star Trek fanbase that I have on hand (in liquid metal: the science fiction film reader; ISBN 1-903364-87-6; particularly Henry Jenkins III's treatment in "Star Trek Rerun, Reread, Rewritten: Fan Writing as Textual Poaching"), it is not mentioned at all in the author's survey of the net community. As such, I can conclude fairly easily that this group has not made a substantial and lasting contribution within their field of influence, nor have they been recognized as an exemplar of the field. As such, the article about them should be deleted, particularly since we can't verify any information about them from Reliable Sources
Note that I could have said all of this by saying WP:WEB, but given that these are new contributors who don't understand Wikipedia policy... I figure they deserve a little more, you know? Captainktainer * Talk 04:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already per Captainktainer and concur that the newbie here may be wasting our time in entirely good faith. My Alt Account 04:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As Spock would say, "Fascinatingly deletable." Utterly non-notable. MikeWazowski 17:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if a search doesn't even bring it up, like what the person who went in depth on notability said, then it must be gone. guitarhero777777 21:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Good faith, pointless article. Axem Titanium 01:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Clean I'm going against the grain and saying that this should be kept. This is the oldest and longest running Star Trek play by E-mail game. This is a notable game among Star Trek PbEM players. If deleted Star_Trek_games#Role-Playing_Games entry ought to be expanded. --Pinkkeith 15:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just noticed that the creator of the site is a member of Wiki. User:Wolf530 I was trying to look for references regarding their notability. I know they have been mentioned in Star Trek fan magazines, but I don't know if they have been mentioned by web-based magazines or not. --Pinkkeith 15:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As above. +Fin- 16:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - there seems to be consensus that the claim to notability is good enough, and I'm not seeing a problem with verifiability. The stub could be considered unverified, true, but being unverifiable is what gets articles deleted; the fact that this man wrote The Blue Angel and is a lecturer is clearly verifiable. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Hoad[edit]

A non-notable university lecturer, who seems to have a page for no other reason than that he once co-wrote a single Doctor Who novel. Angmering 19:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Theres no notablility there Clamster5 19:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom.Victoriagirl 19:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the minutaie of Doctor Who which is considered notable on Wikipedia and the current massive popularity of the TV show, I can't see how being the co-author of one of the most popular and, conversely, most controversial, Doctor Who novels is non-notable. StuartDouglas
- Comment - I don't know that every single author of books in the Dr. Who series warrants an article. However, given StuartDouglas' post I may be convinced to reconsider my vote. As it stands, nothing in this entry (nor that for The Blue Angel) indicates that the novel was more popular or controversial than any other in the series. Victoriagirl 18:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - It also remains the only Who novel to have been dramatised [[26]] and has generated at least one spin-off by a recognised and published author [[27]]
    - Comment - I'm not suggesting the information above is irrelevant - but let's be accurate. It would appear that the dramatisation of the novel, available for view on a fan site, has never been performed. The "spin-off" is a short story contained in a small press publication described as an "unofficial collection of wild variations on the theme of Doctor Who". Neither project would do much to strengthen the entry on Mr Hoad (indeed they aren't mentioned in what remains a very weak one sentence entry). That said, both pieces of information should be added to the Blue Angel article. Victoriagirl 18:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - indeed. I'm not aware of any evidence that The Blue Angel is either notably popular or controversial. Angmering 19:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - For instances of both controversy and popularity see the Jade Pagoda Yahoo [[28]] lists extensive public archives, the various reviews on Outpost Gallifrey [[29]] and the rather notorious review of the book here [[30]]StuartDouglas
      - Comment - while that's certainly all good notability for the book, I'm not sure it adds to the Hoad article. At the moment there's nothing in his single-line article that couldn't be covered with a note on the book's page. Angmering 14:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment I take your point and the book article could certainly do with being beefed up a bit (there's no mention of the fuss caused by the Doctor being portrayed as homosexual in the book for a start), but it would seem odd to put details about the author in the book article rather than in a linked article on the author (as with other authors).
        Comment - The point is that, unless he writes something more at some point or does something else of note, his article is unlikely ever to expand beyond the single line description currently there. Which frankly seems like a bit of a waste of time. Angmering 18:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - Is there a need for more than one book to qualify under WP:BIO - i.e "Published authors, [...]who received multiple independent reviews of [...] their work" - there have certainly been numerous independent reviews of the book and he may well write more in the future?
        Comment - Is there a need? Not at all. However, being the author (co-author, in this case) of a title that has been reviewed doesn't necessarily mean the subject is worthy of an article. After all, the above quotation from WP:BIO is preceded by "People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles..." (emphasis mine). I think it likely that the subject will write more books, but this is speculation and falls under WP:NOT. That said, I recognize that Blue Angel was published in September 1999. Victoriagirl 20:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Fair enough. I can't think of anything further to add - the popularity (as evinced by the fact that it has generated some form of spin-offery and conversion to another medium, as well as multiple reviews and general ongoing discussion) and notoriety of the book seem enough to qualify for inclusion of the author to me, (possibly also worth noting his publications with the National Postgraduate Council [[31]] about which, I admit, I know nothing other than their existence) but I may well be in a minority.StuartDouglas
Keep, has written written several DR Who books published by the BBC; other non-vanity publications include Strange Boy which was apparently covered by the Guardian [32], the Observer Review and the Independent. [33]. If this wasn't an obvious keep, it would be mergeable with the book. Kappa 09:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Erm... the books you mention and the links you provide all refer to Paul Magrs, who is apparently Hoad's partner, not Hoad himself. Angmering 09:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Keep or merge with the book, or partner/co-author Paul Magrs. Kappa

Keep Unless there's a general view that Doctor Who articles are proliferating out of hand, Hoad is notable for his contribution to the series' spinoff fiction, which as Stuart suggests is significant. The idea that the article be merged with the Paul Magrs or Blue Angel articles tends to minimise the contribution that a co-author makes to a book: co-authorship is a very different process from ordinary writing, and Magrs has said that the two of them wrote every line together. As far as I'm aware it's Magrs's only such collaboration, which is arguably significant in itself given his profile outside the Doctor Who arena as a respected literary (and young adult) author, teacher of creative writing etc. I can see arguments for expanding both this and the Blue Angel article, but not for deleting Hoad now he's here. Phil PH 08:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Co-writing one Who novel seems of marginal notability to me, but I like to err on the side of including articles and, heaven knows, there are literally >100 Doctor Who articles on more obscure topics. However, there isn't much point in having a separate article if it is never going to grow beyond the current stub. So keep if the article gets expanded, or merge with The Blue Angel or Paul Magrs otherwise. Bondegezou 09:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Bondegezou. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil PH, co-authoring a Who novel amonst other publications meets our WP:BIO test for notability. RFerreira 00:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't want to appear difficult, but I am wondering what other publications are being referred to here. I see no sign that the subject has done more than co-author a seven year-old Dr Who novel. If he has indeed written other work, it is possible that there would never have been a nomination for deletion in the first place. Should they exist, I suggest that information on other books be added to the article - it can only serve to strengthen. Victoriagirl 18:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment' This is possibly a reference to my mention of "his publications with the National Postgraduate Council" above, although it could also be referring to his journalism for The Times, Guardian, Independent etc or his publication in academic magazines, all of which can be verified by a quick Google search StuartDouglas 09:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suppose we can't really know to what RFerreira was referring. That said, I don't think co-written contributions to the website of the National Postgraduate Committee, "a charity to advance, in the public interest, postgraduate education in the UK", speak to notability. Mr Hoad's articles in The Guardian are few and far between (four short pieces on education since 2000). I'm afraid I cannot find any Hoad contributions to The independent or The Times (at least not archived at www.independent.co.uk and www.timesonline.co.uk). I think the issue of notabiility rests on the co-authorship of a Dr Who novel published seven years ago. Not really enough to these eyes.Victoriagirl 17:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that the novel is the claim to notability, but obviously disagree on your conclusion re same StuartDouglas 18:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per StuartDouglas - hotblack
Delete Tenuous claim at notability isn't even sourced. ~ trialsanderrors 03:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry - where and what isn't sourced? Could you be just a little more precise please?StuartDouglas 09:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, the article is about two lines long and has zero sources. How much more precise do I need to be? ~ trialsanderrors 15:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given that this discussion revolves largely round whether co-authorship of the Doctor Who novel The Blue Angel confers notability, are you suggesting that he didn't co-write that book or that some source other than the cover of the novel on the novel's entry is required? Presumably not - so a little more precise than you were, frankly. StuartDouglas 15:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about WP:V, I'm talking about the missing sources that establish the claims to notability, of which there are two here: 1. he co-authoried a book; and 2. he's a university lecturer. Both things should be easy to verify, but verifiability doesn't establish notability. The book, btw, isn't sourced either. ~ trialsanderrors 16:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Possibly I'm being dumb, but the claim to notability (largely of the novel and Hoad's co-writing of it) is what we're discussing here. Sources for same are quoted in this discussion. I'll go look up some sources for the lecturer part if it'll make you happy though StuartDouglas 18:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, given that he's co-author of the only Who novel (to the best of my knowledge) being taught as a University text [[34]], isn't that enough in itself to confer notability? StuartDouglas 10:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this novel actually being taught as a university text, or did it serve as the basis of a script that is expected to be presented to students of a course in costume design in May 2007? Might this be crystal ball? Either way, I don't think it speaks to the notability. Victoriagirl 17:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the course is crystal ball in that the course is definitely taking place (I mailed the lecturer and asked him) and regardless of actual use of the text I would also argue that its use in any context does add to its notability, given its uniqueness in that respect StuartDouglas 18:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. To the author and subject, our guidelines for notability are generally not satisfied by passing mentions in the media - articles should be directly focused on the subject if being used to satisfy WP:CORP. There are two links which were posted a couple of days ago and have not been discussed, but I don't feel that I'm compromising my summary with personal opinion by saying that both articles only make passing mentions of Enigma and are not sufficient to reverse the consensus for deletion here.

To reply to Royalguard, there is a backlog on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old at the moment, so few discussions are being closed after only the minimum five days. You can help out if you want - see Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enigma software group[edit]

Corporate vanity page of corporation that fails to satisfy WP:CORP. Valrith 19:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seven employees, traded on OTCBB, and only one obscure product. That article, SpyHunter, should also be deleted per WP:CORP. --Afed 19:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article created by company related editor. NPOV! --Bill.matthews 15:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Our company is relevant if you refer to WP:CORP you will see the first criteria for corporations is that the company should be "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself" that is the case with our company as we have been written up multiple times by leading publications there is even a link to a full page article in PC Magazine on this page. Additionally this is a publicly traded company with investors listed on the Nasdaq OTCBB I don't see why there should even be a debate at all on this see the third criteria on WP:CORP. (Disclosure: I am this article's primary author. I have a vested interest in this article being published because it is about our company.) --enigmasoftwaregroup 15:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In regard to the PC Magazine article - it's about your SpyHunter software program, not your company. So there isn't even one published work in evidence, let alone multiple works. There are thousands (tens of thousands?) of publicly traded companies, which is why you don't see that in the criteria. And since the OTCBB is not an index, the third point of the criteria doesn't apply to you either. Valrith 20:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are correct on point #3. However, Enigma Software Group does not fall under the deletion rule you pointed out. According to the rules on page you referenced:... "A company or corporation is notable if it meets any of the following criteria:" We clearly meet the criteria on point #1. In regard to your comment that there is not one piece of published evidence talking about our company I will refer you to these articles which talk about Enigma Software Group the company. http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,112146/article.html http://antivirus.about.com/b/a/083597.htm and http://www.latimes.com/technology/chi-0607310091jul31,1,5430030.column?coll=la-utilities-technology — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigmasoftwaregroup (talk • contribs) 21:16, 12 September 2006
  - I think my last comment clearly closes the debate and there is no reason to discuss this further, I am removing the deletion heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigmasoftwaregroup (talk • contribs) 21:27, 12 September 2006
    - The first article mentions Enigma in passing in a single sentence near the end. The second is a single paragraph about an ad campaign for SpyHunter. The third is again a single mention of Enigma in a single sentence near the end. These are all trivial, failing the notability requirements. Valrith 21:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Valrith you are not being fair here, nor are you abiding by the very rules that you pointed out. According to the rules it is the publication that should not be trivial. The publications I referenced are not trivial they are major publications. Additionaly the rules go on to say that a trivial mention would be to "simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories". Again that is clearly not the case here. There is absolutely no rule that says the entire article has to be about the company. Our company clearly falls under wikipedia's criteria of a notable corporation under the first point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigmasoftwaregroup (talk • contribs) 23:08, 12 September 2006
        I'm still not fully convinced that Enigma meets the notability requirement. But even if it does, it still requires POV work so that it reads less like your corporate web site. In addition, I should point out that the information at http://antivirus.about.com/b/a/083597.htm is negative to your company and product and I am suprised you linked to it. Assuming the article survives, I will add this information so that it will be a more well rounded account of Enigma's activities. --Afed 22:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is quite well written, but it seems to be vanity - I say this because Enigmasoftwaregroup is obviously a part of the company... I'm not too familiar with WP:CORP but having looked at Spyhunter it looks like an advert. If the article is changed so it is written more NPOV, and also Spyhunter which seems to be the company product then I'll say keep. Also the name needs to be changed to Enigma Software Group. If not, I'm sorry it'll have to be delete. --Al e x ^{(talk here)} 22:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Just barely fails to meet the criteria. Close, but not quite. I'd also suggest that SpyHunter be seriously revised or deleted (NPOV) Trnj2000 22:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm working on this right now. The article is fairly poor considering the system requirements are wrong- they're copied directly from Ad-Aware's article. --Wafulz 00:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete with some of the following reasoning:

There is exactly one non-trivial publication, when WP:CORP explicitly states that multiple are required. The publication isn't even about the company though- it mentions it, but it's focused entirely on the product. Think about it this way: do the articles provide any information that will help keep the article neutral and informative? The LA Times piece says at the very end "oh, try this too." The about.com entry is one paragraph in a blog, which is overwhelmingly negative and only about the company's pop up ad, and the PC World article says "Enigma makes spyware detection software" at the end. In the end, while it has been mentioned several times in passing, no information about the company has actually been published except that it has a pop-up campaign. In fact, the majority of the information within the company article is about its product.

If there are more publications in the future about the company, I could see this article existing, but not with the current lack of third party information. The article currently reads very positively about the company, despite the only real information published being

It makes anti-spyware software
This software isn't particularly good
The company's ad campaign is very bad and misguided

I can see the product having an article, but not the company. Also, I would not recommend writing about a company you work for due to inherent bias- it kills me to see that the company I work for has had a one sentence stub for several months, but I leave it because I can only say positive things about it. --Wafulz 23:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak delete 1. User:Enigmasoftwaregroup should read Wikipedia's policy on autobiographical articles to see why writing about your own company is a bad idea. 2. It seems to me that most of the published mentions about this company are more about the products than the company itself, and then the mentions are usually trivial. 3. The non-trivial mentions are very critical of the company's products, yet the article does not mention this criticism, thereby violating Wikipedia's policy on Neutral Points of View. This in itself is not a reason to delete, articles violating NPOV should be cleaned-up, not deleted, but there's no point if the article is going to be deleted on notability grounds anyway. 4. Posting messages on other user's talk pages asking them to come vote on an AFD is considered impolite at best.

Like some of the other users, I can see the product having an article. Having read the product's article, it needs clean-up to reflect a neutral point of view, and it needs to be better sourced. However, having articles about both the company and the product seems a little much.

All of that said, I rarely support deletion in an AFD. I've found that for articles where I agree with delete, there are more than enough other people arguing delete that I'd just be one voice among many saying "delete per nom", so I just don't participate in those. I tend to be a bit of an inclusionist, and often jump into deletion debates on marginal articles saying "keep". If not for the message left on my talk page asking me to participate in this AFD, I probably would not have paid it any attention, or, if I did, I might have said weak keep instead of weak delete. This is just one of several reasons why it is a bad idea to spam user talk pages asking people to vote in an AFD. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 13:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity article on NN company by someone connected wit the company who mentioned, apropos of nil, the existance of this discussion on my talk page–♥ «Charles A. L.» 16:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems to me that the original author came out and said, in this very dscussion, that the article was intended as an ad.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 16:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ad, and this AFD has been open for nine days (a decision should have really been made already). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 06:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

This is User:enigmasoftwaregroup again. I have read all of your comments and your input has been educational. While this process has been a little frustrating. I cannot argue that the way Wikipedia is edited works very effectively. It is a great portal, and this has been quite a learning experience.

I have edited the article again. Being affiliated with the company it is impossible for me to have a Neutral Point of View. So in order to comply with that rule, I have reduced the entire article to a stub.

To answer Charles A.L.'s comment: This page is was never intended as an advertisemtent for the company. The reason I disclosed that I was affiliated earlier was to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. There are a lot of guidelines here and I am new just learning the rules. Now that I am more familiar with them I will make sure our company abides by them.

Now that the article should be compliant with NPOV. I think this page should stay as SpyHunter definitely meets the guidelines for a notable product. And Enigma as the author of a notable product should have a minimum of a stub

I feel that if the editors here determine that Enigma Software Group does not meet requirement 1 for a notable corporation from WP:CORP that the editors here must then rewrite WP:CORP guidelines. The guidelines of WP:CORP stated that listing shopping hours, or simply being in a directory did not count. There was nothing that said one or two sentences about the company didn't count, all stories ever written had to be positive, all editors had to like your product, or that talking about a companies products is not talking about a company.

More Press on the company
Here is another article from Red Herring Magazine http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:JIhEsENj3cgJ:redherring.com/Article.aspx%3Fa%3D11282%26hed%3DIE7%2Bdue%2Bthis%2Bsummer+redherring+%22enigma+software%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6 the link is in google cache. You need to login to read it directly.
Here is another article from Smart Computing Magazine http://www.smartcomputing.com/editorial/article.asp?article=articles/2005/s1603/10s03/10s03.asp All in total I think our company has been mentioned in publications well over 20 times in the last 3 years. Usually just a sentence or a paragraph some positive, some neutral, and some not so great.

Thank you all for your input and your patience with us. Enigmasoftwaregroup 07:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Valediction, I guess. El_C 09:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yours truly,[edit]

~~Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also contains many unverifiable claims. Contested prod.~~ Merope 19:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Valediction. I doubt anyone will search for Yours truly, but then that's a point which can be made fot the deletion of the article in the first place. That being said, redirects are cheap and I doubt a redirect to the album Yours Truly would useful at all. There might be some stuff to merge, but unless there are some references added to the claim of most common valediction, I'd say no. Irongargoyle 19:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Yours truly already redirects to Valediction. Irongargoyle 19:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gorram it, I checked for a redirect first but only got the album. We can redirect to Valediction, but then I'd just tag the article {{db-redirtypo}}, so that brings us back to deletion. -- Merope 19:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I merged its contents into Valediction, minus the stuff advertizing the music album Yours Truly. (Also, Yours Truly looks rather like non-notable run-of-the-mill pop music.) Anthony Appleyard 20:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted the unsourced "most common valediction" claim from the text merged into valediction (as I doubt it would ever be verifiable), and rephrased slightly to make it a little tidier. DWaterson 22:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the merging of content, I would think the deletion discussion is now whether Yours truly, should be a redirect to Valediction. Redirects are cheap, and I suppose it's possible for someone to type it in with the comma (particularly if English is not his/her first language). Given that, I'm fine with voting for Redirect to Valediction. -- Merope 04:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Kootnikoff[edit]

A non-notable writer with three titles listed in his bibliography: Getting Both Feet Wet (a collection of fourteen essays written by students and teachers of the Japan Exchange and Teaching programme - Kootnikoff is co-editor), Anthology of International Poetry (a book with an ISBN unrecognized by Amazon.com and Abebooks - Kootnikoff's participation in this title is unknown. Contributor? Editor?). The third is not a book, but a compact disc of Kootnikoff's music (apparently released by Kootnikoff himself). Commercial links are provided for the first and last titles. Likely countering WP:VAIN - the original editor 202.92.165.207 has participated in Wikipedia eleven times, eight of these changes concern Kootnikoff. Victoriagirl 19:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per my nom and the fact that the Google search "Anthology of International Poetry" + "David Kootnikoff" brings results for Wiki related/sourced pages only. Victoriagirl 22:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per well-researched nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Blues Vultures[edit]

Seen as a contested CFD; please determine the claims of notability here. The Land 19:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Del per nom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. No entry on allmusic (not that that's the sole criteria, but it doesn't look good for notability). --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 20:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
del, NN. We don't need everyone's favorite little band in the 'pedia. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.ima[edit]

This is an article about an image format and/or image transformation software both of which fail WP:SOFTWARE. The author of the article is the author of the software, which makes this an article consisting of original research. Google search turns up no secondary sources describing this format/software. Valrith 19:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same situation with Microsoft products. Why should open-source software be treated differently?--Mihai cartoaje 19:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo has written that we are allowed to write articles about our products and WP:SOFTWARE is a proposal not a policy.--Mihai cartoaje 20:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MS advantage Not quite; MS products will launch with a million people buying them the first day. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about winfs? It has an article an no one bought it.--Mihai cartoaje 20:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

libima can be added to linux and *bsd distributions, in which case it shall have millions of installations.-Mihai cartoaje 20:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in the article is verifiable.

.ima is notable because,

It has an original image transformation which is not covered anywhere else.
The technical features compare well to other image formats.
It is open-source so everyone is free to read it and learn from it.
It is a community project in which everyone can participate, like Wikipedia.--Mihai cartoaje 08:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Del per nom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question for Mihai cartoaje: Do any applications use this library? Do any distros package it? Is the ima format finalized? Do people use it? If not, is there some really remarkable research aspect of this work that we should know about? My Alt Account 20:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Command line apps for converting to-from png.
I have not asked yet.
Pretty much, except that I have applied for a license to use spiht for entropy coding. If I get it I shall change to that.
I don't know anyone else.
The most original part of libima is the transformation. It is multi-resolution analysis, which means it looks the same every time we zoom in or out by a factor of 2, unlike JPEG which has a hardwired factor of 8 in the DCT transformation. Yet it has the same computational complexity in time and memory when decompressing as JPEG. It also allows lossy and lossless compression to be done using the same integer transformation. This allows programmers to implement them both using the same API without making the codec bigger. In the SPIHT version, it implements the spiht algorithm using little ( O(log n) ) memory when decompressing by using recursion instead of lists and encoding bits in the inverse order they are read. The spiht version to which I don't have a license yet is here [35]. I have not seen this way of implementing spiht anywhere else. (libima does not implement the full wavelet transformation found in the spiht demonstration programs. Instead, it only uses spiht to encode coefficients by allocating less bits for small coefficients and more bits for large coefficients, also known as entropy coding).--Mihai cartoaje 03:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your work is interesting (to me) but not fit for wikipedia. In a nutshell, nobody's using it but you. However, you might find a home for this at Multimedia Wiki. You can add all the technical detail you want, including full specs, and that'll actually increase the chances that people will like the article. Make sure to mention that it's experimental, as you should have done here. My Alt Account 03:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- What makes this notable, if that can be demonstarted please keep, if it cannot, delete. ---- Eagle (ask me for help) 22:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No assertion of notability. Resolute 00:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As best as I can tell, nobody's using it but the author. My Alt Account 03:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft's media photo was added to wikipedia while it was still being developped [36]. --Mihai cartoaje 18:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The .ima article is not contrary to Wikipedia's no original research policy because everything in the article is verifiable either from the libima website or the source code. Much of the information on computer programs on Wikipedia come from similar sources. --Mihai cartoaje 15:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, since everything on the libima website (which includes the source code) is original research, it's not usable as a reliable source for purposes of verifiability. Valrith 18:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Why are we even debating verifiability? I think it's plenty verifiable. The real problem is that nobody is using it. It's beyond obscure. Only the author of the format is known to have made any use of it. My Alt Account 19:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It takes a lot of time and lot of effort to push a new graphics format for wide use. Pavel Vozenilek 02:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep or merge. I'll do the keeping, someone else can do the merging. ;) —Wknight94 (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Łańcut (vodka)[edit]

advertisement Anthony Appleyard 19:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not an advertisement. There are two external reviews mentioned, including an international gold medal. If you think there's a POV problem then tag it or fix it. Melchoir 21:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, I think all the brands of Polmos Łańcut should be merged into the article itself. The articles for the brands are generally not lengthy and as I can see, the links for the brands in Polmos Łańcut are already suffering a red link syndrome. zephyr2k 03:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are red links because I ceased creating the articles when this one was tagged for deletion. I didn't want to waste my time. I have no problem with merging it however, esp that I'm not going to develop the articles any further. I just didn't want to have red links in the main article.--SylwiaS | talk 17:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Zephyr2k, good idea.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The articles about the particular products is indeed a bit short, but without a doubt worth keeping. I think they could be inserted into the main article in order for them not to look like Stubs. Keep up the good work!/Janicz 06:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
keep per WP:BIAS it is a award winning vodka notable to many europeans Yuckfoo 05:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yuckfoo, promotional language should be dealt with using the editing process rather than deletion whenever possible. Yamaguchi先生 23:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CaCee Cobb[edit]

This is an article not about the former personal assistant to Jessica Simpson. This is a borderline speedy deletion candidate in my book; prod tag was removed back in July 2006 by the author but I honestly don't see how being the personal assistant to any pop-star is notable in and of itself. RFerreira 19:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Del per nom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The personal assistant must be notable in her own right, other than just being an assistant for a pop-star. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
del per nom. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If the person has other achievements, then perhaps I'll reconsider. zephyr2k 03:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is not notable because she was Jessica's assistant. She's notable because she was on Newlyweds (which was a very popular show) all the time, and secondarily because of the tabloid coverage of the rumors regarding her and Nick. Everyking 04:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think every person that appears on a popular show classifies as notable. zephyr2k 04:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then that's your opinion; however, all the votes so far seem to be based on the idea that her only claim to note is just being Jessica's assistant. Everyking 05:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, someone on a popular show all the time passes WP:BIO. Kappa 09:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Guyanakoolaid 10:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as much as I loathe current popular culture b.s., she is notable, and if I may posit the analogy: about as much so as Olivia Williams is in regards to the movie Rushmore. —ExplorerCDT 11:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The one show she was in has been dead for eighteen months.StuartDouglas
Delete. I do not believe this passes WP:BIO, as she lacks name recognition, a fan base, endorsements, and anything else that would suggest notability. —dustmite 02:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sana Khan[edit]

Dictionary definition of a Japanese phrase. Orphaned nomination; no vote for now. GTBacchus^(talk) 19:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Del per nom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sana Khan is not Japanese; the Japanese language has no "Kh" sound. Looking at google, seems like something a bunch of kids made up in school one day. (It links to a real person.) ColourBurst 22:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ColourBurst. The source is Urban Dictionary which more or less screams delete. Yomangani ^talk 23:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
del per ColourBurst. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete protologism. Danny Lilithborne 00:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Sludge[edit]

Fails WP:WEB; vanity article. Contested prod. -- Merope 19:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom says it all. My Alt Account 20:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Del per nom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
del per nom - UtherSRG (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also a note, listing the handles of "notable" posters doesn't help an article in any way, shape or form. Danny Lilithborne 00:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers as religious symbols[edit]

Preaching / religious excogitation Anthony Appleyard 19:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Del per nom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why delete? It's funny and interesting. My friends will appreciate it. francis68
- Funny and interesting, perhaps, but that is not a reason to have it in an encyclopedia, unless it's an encycloppedia of funny and interesting things. It has to stand up to a more notable and sophisticated standard than just "funny and interesting" for inclusion in Wikipedia. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a guide on how to pray with symbols/numbers. zephyr2k 21:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. <sarcasm>The list isn't complete without 666, anyway.</sarcasm> HalJor 21:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (And hey, don't forget eleven. I read some religious site once that said the real reason the World Trade Center was destroyed was because it looked like a giant eleven. Uh huh.) wikipediatrix 00:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
del because the number 23 told me to. However, some information might be merged into the various number articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 42. Danny Lilithborne 00:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 02:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with francis68. It could be set in some secondary religious directory about new spiritualities. angie75

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fwicki[edit]

This started out as a non-notable neologism and was turned into an article about a non-notable product/application when de-prodded. There are 21 unique Google hits, none of which provide a verifiable source to rebut the WP:OR-ness of the article. Erechtheus 19:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Del per nom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely NN.My Alt Account 20:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
del' this is crud. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as no consensus. What is up with all the bold text?(!) El_C 09:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gay naturism[edit]

Listing here since prod tag was removed. Originally prodded as original research and unencyclopedic. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 19:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was original prodder. -- Merope 20:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This is nonsense. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has 12 references and could be revised. There are certainly many worse articles in Wikipedia -THB 20:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the article is poorly written, but the underlying content is notable. There are historically tensions within the naturist movement that are more or less explicated here. Jdclevenger 23:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Atrociously written and filled with POV/OR, but the subject itself is notable enough an offshoot of the Naturism world. Googling "Gay naturist": 51,700 hits. "Gay nudist": 238,000 hits. wikipediatrix 00:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless this is somehow more than the sum of its parts. Otherwise I think it can be adequately covered by a section in naturism. Damn that WP:POINT preventing me from similarly forking BDSM!--♥ «Charles A. L.» 18:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as it appears to be salvageable. It reads like a copyvio but Google fails to find a doppelganger. Tagging for cleanup. --Dhartung | Talk 00:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as the article appears to have revised significantly, with many subjective references removed. -- lucas_st_paul 13:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: this editor's only edits have been to this AfD discussion. --StuffOfInterest 18:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipediatrix. Carlossuarez46 20:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Let me know if you want a copy of the article for merging. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Eagle Escadrille[edit]

This is an article about a non-notable high school marching band. The article has no references to its fantastic claim of being the largest in the world and is mostly crufty information that could be included on the school's article if absolutely necessary. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 20:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 23:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep and expand or merge it into Allen High School, but definetly do not delete. Although the article has no references, there is no proof of a bigger band. The escadrille is winner to the Sudler's Shield award, which makes this band honorable as it is only the fifth one in texas to get this award. This page does not need deletion, just more information and references which I could help with.

Strong Keep and Expand or Merge as nominator. DanielES15 02:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Fleming[edit]

To quote its talk page

"

Editors

List of editors who are likely John Fleming.

User:172.202.217.164
User:172.201.66.18
User:172.213.252.110
User:172.213.214.212
User:172.201.153.23
User:172.200.148.9
User:172.188.159.226
User:172.203.105.52
User:172.216.171.11
User:172.200.224.168
User:172.188.20.11
User:85.210.14.6
User:85.210.61.200

User:Thejohnfleming

The addresses starting with 172 are AOL addresses and the addresses starting 85 are Pipex ADSL.

All the other editors contributions are limited to style edits, adding links or ISBN numbers. AlistairMcMillan 20:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this entry anything other than vanity publication?"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bingo99 (talk • contribs)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - who cares about it? --Alex ^{(talk here)} 15:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, who cares about anything, really? I'm the John Fleming the article is about. The Malcolm Hardee autobiography which I ghost wrote sold (I understand from Fourth Estate the publishers) around 7,000 copies. The Janey Godley autobiography which I edited was, in August 2006, listed for two weeks in the Sunday Times paperback bestseller list as No 10 in the general (ie non-fiction) section, selling around 5,000 copies each week and, yes, that is information available on line at the Sunday Times website. Can anyone tell me what sources need to be cited in this article? If anyone can tell me how apparently random (some but not all) "Star Trek" episodes are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, perhaps I could understand the system better. What is the actual specific objection to this article on me (which I did not originate)? Is "who cares about it?" a carefully considered and balanced opinion? It's a bit wearisome. Can I just randomly object to some article too for no particular reason? I don't care about the Emperor Claudius. Can you erase that article, please? There seem to have been an awful lot of people adding things to this article and tinkering with it who did not object. So, come on, exactly what IS the objection? User:Thejohnfleming 08:42 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- It sounds like vanity to me. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 11:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like vandalism to me. The first time this article was marked for deletion, it was by someone near Glasgow. where Janey Godley - who is very controversial - comes from. (I edited her autobiography) This second time it appears to have been marked for deletion on 31st August by someone who comes from Edinburgh, where I have just been writing Edinburgh Fringe reviews of shows from 6th-27th August and where I was co-ordinating three shows by Janey Godley. It was marked for deletion with no discussion page until I queried this. Then an additional bit was bunged on about no sources being cited. Then two links were removed from the article - to the websites of the late Malcolm Hardee and the living Janey Godley - the reason being that they were irrelevent although the references to the two autobiographies were left on the article's page. How relevent can you get in an encyclopaedia? The links were to websites giving more background information on the subjects of the autobiographies - and both websites include extracts from the books. This sounds like straight snotty vandalism to me. Is this page just going to be marked for deletion every four months? User:Thejohnfleming 16.29 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There has been a note on this Wikipedia entry for over a week saying "Some information in this article or section has not been verified and may not be reliable." Can anybody tell me which information has not been verified and needs to be verified? Can anybody tell me exactly what information may not be reliable? It also says "cite sources". Can anybody tell me which sources should be cited and sources of what information? Or are these notes just being randomly attached to the page without any logic or actual practical point?

In the Wikipedia article "The Ontario general election of 1990" it is said that the election was held on September 6, I see no source cited for this. Presumably there are sources, but none are cited. It says Leonard Wood represented Cochrane North. I see no source cited for this. It says that, in Burlington South, a Don Pennell (FCP) received 1707 votes. I see no source cited for this. Why has no notice been put on that page saying that some of the political and statistical information may not be reliable and sources need to be cited? Why has the "John Fleming" page allegedly got unreliable information? Who says so? What unreliable information? I am the persan referred to. I can't see anything unreliable in the entry. Can anyone else? If so, what? If not, why was this note put there, who put it there and why does it continue to remain there? User:Thejohnfleming 07.27 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a single sentence in the article is backed up by a direct source citation. Having a "Books" section and an External links section isn't the same thing. Get some references that specifically back up the claims made in the article, and attack them with ref tags. If you don't know how, check out the code for the John Mark Karr article to see how it's done. wikipediatrix 22:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

: Relisting to seek clearer consensus. - RFerreira 20:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not quite notable enough. My Alt Account 20:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I could be swayed if there were sources, verifiable and reliable, attesting to his notability. Without them, I can't take any of the article's information just on his say-so. wikipediatrix 22:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VAIN, and WP:V unless his claim to have co-written these books can be established. Not many points for editorship, I'm afraid, seeing that he's only done 1 book which claims "bestseller status" (but has been independently reviewed) and 2 other very-mediocre-selling books. The book he claims to have co-written ranks 446 thousandsths per Amazon.co.uk Ohconfucius 03:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care either way, but will no-one actually tell me specifically what is actually being queried here and what sources are supposed to be cited? No-one has actually been specific about anything. It's all very well to say "I can't take any of the article's information just on his say-so" - Which information? The spelling of the name "Fleming"? The TV credits? (Get copies of the programmes) I have a legally-binding contract with (the late) Malcolm Hardee specifying the percentages we share for my writing his autobiography. What am I supposed to do? Send it by post to someone? If I didn't write the Malcolm Hardee book, why else is my name printed in it as co-author and on the copyright page as co-copyright owner? What does "claims bestseller status" mean? If "Handstands in the Dark" is printed in the Sunday Times bestseller list as one of their bestsellers, is that an unverified claim? - Sunday Times August 13th 2006 www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2102-2304534_2,00.html + Sunday Times, August 20th 2006 - www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2102-2314665_2,00.html The book "I Stole Freddie Mercury's Birthday Cake" is, indeed (at the time of writing this) 445,738 on amazon.co.uk - and Evelyn Waugh's "Brideshead Revisited" is 815,071 on amazon.co.uk Presumably this means that the Wikipedia entry on "Brideshead Revisited" should be deleted as being not notable and an entry should be created for "I Stole Freddie Mercury's Birthday Cake" as it is verifiably more notable - citing the sales figures as being objective. Amazon's verification of sales figures show the out of print Malcolm Hardee autobiography as being almost twice as notable as far as current readership numbers is concerned as the in print Evelyn Waugh novel. Please please please will someone actually specify what is being queried. User:Thejohnfleming 10.08 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, you want some quotable verification..... I can only guess of what..... In the Malcolm Hardee obituary in the Guardian newspaper, 4th February 2005 http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,,1405432,00.html are the references "in the autobiography he wrote with John Fleming in 1996" and "In 2003, again with John Fleming, Hardee edited Sit-Down Comedy, an acclaimed collection of prose by comics such as John Hegley and Stewart Lee"..... In the Malcolm Hardee obituary in the principal showbiz paper The Stage, 10th February 2005 http://www.thestage.co.uk/people/peoplestory.php/6392 are the references "He wrote his autobiography I Stole Freddie Mercury’s Birthday Cake with John Fleming in 1996... In 2003 he published Sit-Down Comedy - Stand-Ups Swap the Stage for the Page, a collection of short stories co-edited with Fleming from comics such as Dominic Holland, Arthur Smith and Stewart Lee"..... In the news item on Malcolm Hardee's death on BBC News Online, 2nd February 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4230789.stm there is a reference to "the book he wrote with John Fleming, Sit-Down Comedy"..... In fact, I wrote the "Freddie Mercury" book myself using taped interviews with Malcolm, all of which I have retained. If someone would like to sit through the 20 or 30 ninety-minute tapes tapes, they are more than welcome to. Now will someone please tell me what needs to be verified with what sort of citations and what is actually being queried? Please? I can only prove I exist with my birth certificate. To whom should I send this? User:Thejohnfleming 10.45 9 September 2006 (UTC)

In the Acknowledgements (page vii) of Janey Godley's autobiography "Handstands in the Dark" (available for a bestseller price of £3.73 in Tescos and not available to read online) Janey acknowledges: "John Fleming, who saw me perform comedy , thought I would make a writer, then introduced me to Ebury and constantly encouraged me to write this book - he made me explore the language and enjoy the process". I also have a written contract with Ebury Press/Random House specifying that I edit the book. It is not available for you to see online. To whom would you like me to send this legal contract for verification? User:Thejohnfleming 11.14 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, Mr. Fleming, that is not really how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is designed to be an online encyclopedia, and thus serve as a tertiary reference source. A legal contract or other such document would constitute a primary information source. If, say, a New York Times reporter reviewed the document and referenced its contents in a printed story, then that Times story would constitute a secondary information source. Editors of Wikipedia could then use that secondary published source to update the article here. In fact, we are specifically prohibited from posting facts we have personally verified from the primary source by the policy WP:No original research.

As far as what secondary sources are appropriate to verify the specific facts stated in an article, they must be “credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.” Please see WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources for additional information and rationale.

Such requirements are the basis for notability standards in the first place. If the subject of an article is insufficiently notable, there is a dearth of secondary sources. Without sufficient secondary sources, it becomes difficult to ensure the article meets the criteria of official Wikipedia policies such as WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research, and WP:Neutral point of view.

I realize that all of these rules and guidelines can be frustrating and confusing to someone who is just trying to verify facts about themselves. And I’m sure it is equally frustrating that other articles are out there that do not yet meet these standards, but have not yet been deleted or corrected (we get to them as we can). But if your bio article ends up being deleted, please do not take it personally. The volunteer editors here are simply trying to interpret and apply Wikipedia policies as best they can. Thank you for your time. Yours, Satori Son 13:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not a bit odd that Wikipedia is prohibited from verifying facts from primary sources but can only verify facts from the hearsay of respectable secondary sources? Can I refer you to the photograph on http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-1948election.htm showing clearly that Truman lost the 1948 Presidential Election to Dewey? That is an example of a fact verified by a reliable source. I have actually written for a US desk encyclopaedia and I understand it is common practice for encyclopaedias to include at least one false entry to see if any other encyclopaedia is stealing their information. Because secondary sources are inherently unreliable. But what IS very frustrating is that even you (who seem a very helful and friendly chap) still do not say specifically what facts are being queried and may be unreliable in the Wikipedia entry on "John Fleming". If it is the use of the word "bestseller", then the Sunday Times confirms that (see above). If it is my authorship of the two earlier books, then the Guardian confirms that. If it is what I did on the latest book, then it is printed in the book itself by Random House Group, the largest publisher in the world. If it is, for example, the fact that I staged a 5-hour live show in London in 2006, then I refer you to the 4-star review it was given in The Times http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,14936-2027809,00.html which confirms the show, the venue and even the duration of the show. There is also a review on the main British comedy industry website http://www.chortle.co.uk/standup/sufeatures/malcolm.php I am the contact for the 2007 show http://www.malcolmhardee.co.uk/show2007details which aims to spend anything from around £7,000-£15,000 sponsoring new acts - Admittedly the whole sprawling www.malcolmhardee.co.uk website might have been faked by me since February 2005 simply so that I can claim this in September 2006, but it's a tad unlikely. Chortle (the main British comedy industry website which supplies showbiz news to the BBC on a contract basis - ie the BBC use them as a primary source then repeat what they say as fact) also has an article written by me in 2003 explaining exactly what I did on the "Sit-Down Comedy" book http://www.chortle.co.uk/books/bkfeatures/fleming.html and, in a 2003 news item, reported my involvement in the "Handstands in the Dark" book http://www.chortle.co.uk/news/nov03/godley.html It is a tad difficult to verify facts if one is not told which facts you are supposed to verify. It seems to me that the person who marked this entry for deletion has never said why it was put up for deletion, did not start an article for deletion (that seems to have been done later when I complained there was no discussion anywhere) and he or she has not contributed to this discussion. If the person who marked the article for deletion has no specific reason why it should be deleted and can't be bothered to contribute, isn't that a bit odd? So I can only repeat yet again what EXACTLY and SPECIFICALLY is being queried as unverified on the "John Fleming" entry and what EXACTLY and SPECIFICALLY is required to verify it? You have, above, facts 'verified' as secondary sources by the Guardian (a major UK newspaper), The Stage (the main showbiz trade paper), the BBC (a large broadcaster), The Times (a major world newspaper). User:Thejohnfleming 18.03 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete - Self-created vanity/advertisement article. Wooty 22:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vanity. It's very difficult for someone to be objective about themselves, we know. That's why we frown on autobiographical entries. --Dhartung | Talk 00:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete User:Thejohnfleming needs to read WP:AUTO (which I am very disappointed that no one has linked to before). Danny Lilithborne 00:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I actually didn't create the entry myself. I am a tad disappointed that still no-one has said which "information... may not be reliable" I don't care about being deleted, but why on earth put notices on articles that unspecified information in an article may not be reliable in unspecified ways? I have repeatedly asked and never been told what information is said to be unreliable. I presume (*Delete per WP:VAIN, and WP:V unless his claim to have co-written these books can be established) means The Times, Guardian, Stage and BBC are unreliable? User:Thejohnfleming 06.55 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge into the Conservative Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election article. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Paine[edit]

Article on non-notable failed candidate created during the last Canadian federal election. Subject's domain name now offered for sale. Victoriagirl 07:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Conservative Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. Kirjtc2 11:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
second that Merge--ZayZayEM 15:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

: Relisting to seek clearer consensus. - RFerreira 20:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Conservative Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election as per Kirjtc2.Victoriagirl 20:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Content has now been merged. Ohconfucius 04:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Mckernan[edit]

Non-notable poker player. Allegedly finished 6th in an EPT event, although there is no record of this in the Hendon Mob Database, therefore fails WP:BIO and WP:Verifiability. Also uncategorized. Delete Essexmutant 07:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

: Relisting to seek clearer consensus. - RFerreira 20:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Delete, best placing was 6th somewhere, how renowned is that? --Dhartung | Talk 23:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I googled "Shaun Mckernan" -"wikipedia" and got 40 results. All were related to tech support questions and a high school student's profile. AFink 16:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yianni Papamanolis[edit]

WP:NOT a memorial. This is a sad tale but not in any way unique; also an "inspirational young basketball player" who died aged 11 having suffered from leukaemia for three of those years is not a particularly plausible claim. No sources. Sole claim to notability is a single human interest story on ESPN. Just zis Guy you know? 11:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Tonywalton | Talk 13:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

: Relisting to seek clearer consensus. - RFerreira 20:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Aaron 20:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Resolute 00:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 23:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 00:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph D. Schleimer[edit]

Article has undergone major revision and deletion, including possible vandalism. In its current form has no independent references and no verifiable notability of the subject. Requires either major revision, reversion to a previous edit acceptable to consensus, or deletion. Dugwiki 20:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. My appologies if I'm using the wrong template here. This is the first time I've had to deal with re-proposing something for deletion. Also, please note that it appears that user Wellreadone has altered multiple revisions to this article with no discussion or reasoning in the edit history, including removing sections of the article and notability tags. This has left the article with almost no information verifying notability of the lawyer. So either the old information, if verifiable, needs to be reverted in, or the article should probably be deleted. Either way, it seemed prudent to reopen for discussion given how much the article has changed.Dugwiki 20:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability established. 34 unique Google hits (out of 164), including a significant number on Wikipedia or mirror sites. --Thorsten1 18:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

: Relisting to seek clearer consensus. - RFerreira 20:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This revision (among others) states that he's worked for a lot of famous people. If there are any high profile actions in connection with those, maybe there's a basis for an article. Otherwise, this should probably be deleted. My Alt Account 20:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable entertainment lawyer, from what I can tell. No articles link except, oddly Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ... if it's the same guy, the article isn't particularly notable. --Dhartung | Talk 23:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - I noticed that, once again, Wellreadone has reverted the article without comment and deleted the prod tag. Will reinsert the tag he removed. Dugwiki 15:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WinHunter ^(talk) 12:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GameWinners.com[edit]

Info about a website such as this on Wikipedia is hardly encyclopediac. It's mainly advertisement. Why are there not other sites like these that have articles on Wikipedia? Delete.Richard 20:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 03:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 03:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other sites like this do have sites on Wikipedia, and they are equally lacking in assertions of notability or proof thereof. That's why we have AfD :-) Captainktainer * Talk 04:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article has a very notable website that really needs cleanup more than deletion. guitarhero777777 21:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If they were really (to quote the article) "Widely acclaimed by such magazines as Game Informer and other published works as the San Francisco Chronicle" then that would be notable enough. It isn't sourced but an AFD isn't the way to deal with that is it? Chris M. 22:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, it is. We assume good faith toward contributors, not articles. There is no verified claim of notability in the article. Captainktainer * Talk 23:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just because there are other similarly weak articles doesn't mean we have to keep this one too. And even if it had a rewrite I can't honestly say this site is all that noteworthy compared to the mighty GameFAQs, so that's a second strong reason for me to vote delete. Garrett^Talk 00:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is currenly recieving a huge update with extreme amounts of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyboy1334 (talk • contribs)
Keep: ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A Start!!! Notable, and a very complete site--Much more complete than other strategy/cheat sites out there. very notable. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 07:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:WEB. "Widely acclaimed by such magazines as Game Informer and other published works as the San Francisco Chronicle, it is a very popular site with many different sections." is a pretty big claim. Checking this claim over at their own website yields a dead link for Game Informer and a mention in a SFC article about the website "http://vgstrategies.about.com/" ( a.k.a. "Our partnership with the Video Games Strategies site at About.com (formerly MiningCo.Com)" ). Of the links on this page that aren't dead, none mention gamewinners.com --Mitaphane _talk 23:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Peephole 11:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. +Fin- 16:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete? it may be a very good page; but a whole article in this page is just publicity ... i think this could be on a link; but not in a whole page (thought; i'm not sure). +lol man- 21:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Damiano[edit]

Does he really need an entry? He's not as known as John Bunnell. Ken S. 20:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, according to the main article he was "so popular that he became the only police officer to receive an entire 30 minute episode devoted to him". Kappa 09:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is probably the most well known cast member of a show that is one of the longest-running television programs in the United States. Most fans of the show know him and even more idolize him, or at least his mustache. Bcruss 21:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Low participation, but with the sole editor being a single-purpose account, the band having only one just-released album (even with one review on some website) and the fact that the deletion can be undone if seriously contested later means I don't see much point in relisting. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rimfrost[edit]

Non-notable minor pop music band Anthony Appleyard 20:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. No Colours Records confirms the upcoming release of their first full-length, but the band has only 41 listeners on Last.fm, which is a very small number even for an underground black metal band. Prolog 11:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilderness (RuneScape)[edit]

What Wikipedia is not clearly says that Wikipedia is not a game guide. What do I see here? A game guide. An unnecessary article. The RuneScape Wiki has an article on the Wilderness (help is welcomed), I strongly suggest you edit that if you want to keep this. Delete.--Richard 20:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect, There is non-guide info here that is important. It just needs to be skimmed and put in the RuneScape locations page User:KainsSon 02:39, 16 September 2006 (EST)

Delete, it's just a game guide. TJ Spyke 21:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any non-game-guide information to the main article and delete the rest. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 00:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to RuneScape locations, using information in this article to expand the appropriate section. That's what was likely going to happen anyway, as the same has happened to a lot of similar articles recently. Starting an AfD, if anything, slows this process down. It is worthy of inclusion, in the same way as Mordor, Tatooine or Tamriel (to name a few examples) as a highly significant fictional location, the article only looks like a game guide because of a large number of crufters, who are unfamiliar with policy and guidelines and ignore the large fancruft notice on the talkpage. However, I'm not sure if there is quite enough to be said about it to warrant a separate article; although a lot of action takes place there, as the name suggests, there is not very much to see there in comparison to other ingame areas (apart from rocks, hills, ruins and player killers). CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 01:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_patch) 03:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Take a look at RuneScape locations. That article is already huge and unwieldy, and given that the Wilderness comprises roughly half the game, it can easily sustain its own article, using the following:
- Skull - A key game mechanic, best handled in the area wherein it has relevance
- A brief discussion of the advancing level limit (to answer questions from people who wonder "well what if I bring in a new character????") and referencing the free world limit.
- Location of the area within the game world. Fairly self-explanatory; provides context, which is one of the strengths of wiki.
- Key locations and key NPCs/monsters.

I think there's some misunderstanding of the section of WP:NOT dealing with game guides. Look at the context: it's embedded within the "Instruction manuals" section. A key element that many deletionists miss, I think, is that this section is essentially saying "Say what, not how." This article, with the exception (to an extent) of the PvP section, describes what is there. Furthermore, the existence of other wikis should in no way define what is available on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's mission statement should define Wikipedia. Did we immediately remove all Star Trek content because of Memory Alpha? Hardly. Yes, instructions and prescriptions should be nuked on sight. But is this article offering up instructions and prescriptions? If you take two minutes to remove the instructions and prescriptions, is there still an article? Indeed, there is still an article, and a fairly substantial one at that. Captainktainer * Talk 04:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a note, there seems to have been a long and drawn out previous AfD, with nothing reached: AfD Archive (Edit: However, that article seems to be refering to something else, even though it's on the talk page for Wilderness)♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and pay attention to the comments (and refine the content to what, why but not howto). The Wilderness is a major feature in the game, particularly in the free version, as the main area where players can combat each other. There should easily be enough cruft-trimmed content to sustain an article. Ace of Risk 11:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very small proportion of article is game guide. After a small clean-up, it is an article, a very good article at that, which deserves to be kept. J.J.Sagnella 20:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Very important aspect of RuneScape, different from virtually every other rpg. RS locations is too big to hold this stuff as well.- User:Merlin Storm

KEEP - for all the Keep reasons above. The Wilderness is not just a location in Gielinor; it is a completely different aspect of playing the game of RuneScape. As someone above said, it is the only place on the free worlds that players can combat each other. It is the only place on free and paying worlds where players can combat each other freely, with a "no-holds-barred" kind of fight. Yes, you can multi-combat in the fight arena. But you don't lose your items if you die. The duel arena has its rules and regulations. The Wilderness is a free-for-all, take your chances, get out there and battle to your hearts content area. The Wilderness is the main purpose for most clans, and that section could use some filling out (without listing clan names or game guide type information). There is a little bit that needs to go away. But the article is worthy to stay and is a positive part of the RuneScape series. It needs to stay. Xela Yrag 05:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Enclopedic description of a location which is highly notable within the game. Not an instruction manual, so the mention of "game guide" in WP:NOT doesn't apply (and needs to be reworded to stop this kind of misinterpretation). Kappa 09:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. Simply enough, it's not fancrufty enough to merit an AfD, but it does need a lot of cleaning up to do, and also should be placed in Locations. Oh, and if one did want to know any further information about this place, why not ask Jagex themselves instead of relying on the wiki? Makoto
Strong Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. +Fin- 16:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete In no way should this be included. Wikipedia is not a gameguide. (Koolsen0 22:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Merge to RuneScape combat and redirect. The wilderness can doubtless be mentioned in Locations too, but the majority of what is here would be better suited to combat, with the Location article being updated later. Even with the material that was still present a few weeks ago ('notable' locations, non-prosificated NPC list), there wasn't enough to warrant a seperate article outside of combat. Whilst I'd echo views that listing more articles from the RS series for AFD -before- merging has taken place is swerving things all over the place, in the case of the wildy article, it's a copy and paste job. Nothing that would help readers understand just why the Wilderness is such an important aspect of RS will be lost by porting this info to combat, and Combat will be strengthened as a result. Since weapons and armour are now merging, combat needs more info or will itself be unsafe. QuagmireDog 23:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, I'd said I would oppose this article coming up for AFD. However, this is the last article out of the five articles which could be linked in with combat (combat itself, magic, weapons, armour and this article) left unaccounted for. Merging would result in pretty much every base being covered, I don't see how a particular aspect of RS automatically requires a seperate article if said aspect will quite happily fit in another. Seems like taking half the clean plates out of the cupboard and stuffing them in the tumble dryer 'just cos' to me. QuagmireDog 23:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major part of a major game. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup/prune considerably. Altair 17:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve sources. MasterRune 00:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia is not a large collection of unsuccessful AFD nominations of RuneScape articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalphite Queen, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape armour, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape armour (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Construction (RuneScape), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape skills, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape Community, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runecrafting, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape skills, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape gods, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape armour (3rd nomination). Enough is enough! John254 00:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Kappa. An important part of RuneScape.Jam01 23:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a Gameplay of RuneScape article. — Deckill e r 06:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it just needs some cleaning up. But as everyone else said, the Wilderness is a very important aspect of RuneScape. This article is also not a game guide. I play RuneScape (well, I used to), and this article would NOT help anyone trying to play the game.--Ed^{talk c E} 13:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What worries me about the wilderness article is that up till now the 'experiment' of letting the articles run free had resulted in this article being stuffed to the roof with non-notable info, 'storytelling' wording and more focus on wandering NPCs than the nitty-gritty of what the wilderness -is-. The wilderness is two things, it's a very large location, a considerable slice of RS' map, it's also the only free-for-all PvP area of RS where players stand to lose most or all of what they're carrying. Those two sections, -in- their respective articles put some weight behind those articles and give a subject worthy of writing-up in detail. If the article should be kept, I see no outcome apart from two other articles being considerably weaker than possible and a whole article ready to be typed back into a non-notable mass. Regarding locations, it is now the last bastion of unchecked, just-like-mamma-used-to-make fancruft still present in the RS series. Should it be trimmed, I would be extremely surprised if it couldn't accomodate the relevant information. QuagmireDog 00:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, whilst I'd appreciate any thoughts on that ^, has this AFD nomination gotten lost? Seems to have had plenty of opinions already yet it's ten days old now. QuagmireDog 00:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentYeah, it should be closed soon, and not in another 5 days.Hemhem20X6 01:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wish that you could request that administrators close AfDs. Hemhem20X6 05:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Cancelled. Can't really get an AFD going when nom. votes to merge. Feel free to merge but this isn't the place to propose that. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign UCLA[edit]

Should be merged with UCLA as is not encyclopaedic THB 20:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well have just slapped a merge tag on it, then, instead of bringing it to AfD. wikipediatrix 22:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above, seeing as this isn't closed yet. --Storkk 16:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

St. Clements University and St Clements University[edit]

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

The Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization lists St. Clements University as unaccredited.[37]
St. Clements is called a "degree mill" by List of non-accredited colleges/ universities by State of Maine (see listing 564)
A "who is" check shows this Carribean school's address is a PO Box in AUSTRALIA with an IP in that country (prices in US dollars).
Delete per the St. Clements University's description, "As a commercial university, St Clements role in education is to assist candidates obtain the qualifications they need."[38] This ad fails notablity per WP:CORP and WP:V.
"St Clements University" gets 340 yahoo hits with the majority of hits being promotion in online forums. Arbusto 20:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep. I agree with TheronJ. If we are going to do lists such as List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning that include this school, then I would think we would need articles on the components of said lists - in fact it is a quasi-requirement of wikipedia list guidelines[39]. This nom is a frequent contributor to various diploma mill lists [40] , but wants this deleted because it is a "non-notable diploma mill" and "can not be verified". If that is true, what is the point of listing it? Why are we doing lists of diploma mills (all of which are by definition more or less "non-notable" and unverifiable) in the first place? --JJay 19:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually TheronJ did major cleaning it up and kindly contacted me my talk about the changes. Don't personalize matters with vague inferences based on false assumptions. Arbusto 00:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not sure what you mean by "false assumptions" or "personalize matters" since I merely quoted from your deletion nomination. Please review the list guideline page linked above. --JJay 01:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TheronJ, thanks for doing the hard work. Wikipedia could use more editors like you. Bagginator 01:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a gold star for TheronJ and his fantastic cleanup. This is the best possible outcome of an AfD. William Pietri 06:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Death... Fukk You![edit]

Non-notable pop music album Anthony Appleyard 20:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Category:Sadistik Exekution albums, which We Are Death... Fukk You! is the only member of. Anthony Appleyard 20:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both category and album Sadistik Exekution easily meets WP:MUSIC (5 full-length albums on a notable label: Osmose). And it isn't even a pop band. Anyway. creation album articles for notable bands seems to be the norm. And WP:MUSIC also states that categories should be created for albums even if there is only a single album.Spearhead 20:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Spearhead and incorrect listing. Michael Greiner 21:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above by Spearhead, meets the guidelines, etc. Dace59 21:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Spearhead, no reason to delete (or even to nominate actually). IronC hris | (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per all the other keep votes above. Prolog 19:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brevcom.Com[edit]

Prod removed without comment by anon. Fails WP:WEB Total 15 unique Google hits, Alexa rank over 6 million Fan-1967 21:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Blatant vanity. My Alt Account 21:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable website. Some P. E rson 22:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark 22:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mango juice^talk 05:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand Mülhens[edit]

Not notable. Kevlar 42 21:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Prominent perfume manufacturer and hotel owner. See also 4711, Hotel Petersberg and Eau de Cologne. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As is, article violates Wikipedia policy. Keep if reliable sources are cited. -AED 03:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a start, there is an article on him in the Neue Deutsche Biographie, according to the index. I would be pretty surprised if there weren't much more written on such a famous business and the family that owned it. up+l+and 07:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable manufacturer with entry in German Wikipedia, I added a reference to 4711, which covers this article as well. Lazy nomination. ~ trialsanderrors 03:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to List of important publications in biology (which has slightly more support as an alternative name). I hope those who wanted this article not deleted and recognized the importance of watching it to prevent self-promotion will do so, it's a very important point. Mango juice^talk 16:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of publications in biology[edit]

24.163.65.156 added this AfD notice on the page. I'm making the AfD page for them. This article was previously nominated for deletion, and it can be seen here. I'm nominating this article for deletion under the pretense that this is such a general topic, and has no guarantee of veracity since it says "important publications". Some people might have different opinions about different publications, so this article isn't very factual and can't be verified. --Nishkid64 21:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - This article is far too broad and biased toward certain publications. It is impossible to list all notable biology publications. This is an absurd idea. Also, many articles here are posted by the writers themselves (aka vanity). --24.163.65.156 22:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is the subject that is broad. The list of subcategories makes it workable. To be of value it doesn't need to list ALL notable publications, only a few in each area - then it serves as real value to those looking to find more information. SteveWolfer 16:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of important publications in biology or something more specific. Personally I think its a great idea to attempt to list the most important publications in a field - I think it would be very useful to a lot of people. However, there need to be tougher inclusion criteria to prevent an overload of self-promotion. I'd suggest defining the inclusion criteria more strictly, eliminating the "Latest and greatest" option (since a "latest and greatest" idea should be inherently important otherwise and a separate listing may allow people to sneak in cruft because its new. Also, its probably a good idea to delete all the entries that don't establish why they're notable. GabrielF 00:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Making a page List of important publications in biology would violate WP:POV since you would be expressing your point of view on deciding which biology publications are important and which are not. And even if you could determine notability of all publications listing every single 'notable' publication is physically impossible. In my opinion, it would just be best to add a category of Biology publication/literature and then mark all biology literature pages with that category. [This may have been already done, you need to check]. --24.163.65.156 02:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Taken too literally, EVERYTHING is POV (isn't it your POV that 'importance' can't be determined except as POV?) We need to focus on value to the readers as well. This can be a valuable source of information. SteveWolfer 16:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Uncontrollable listcruft. Choess 07:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. However, all entries should not be kept if they do not assert importance and users should be free to call for a debate on the talk page about whether an entry should be deleted or not. If consensus can be reached about entries this is an important introduction for people to what are the most important publications in particular areas of biology. --Bduke 08:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - then the article will express the POV of several Wikipedians. --24.163.65.156 20:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just like the results of AFD. Kappa 08:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per everyone. Danny Lilithborne 00:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this is something hard to impossible manage without stable article feature and expert overview. It has value but WP isn't yet ready for such articles. Pavel Vozenilek 02:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, more useful than a category because it can explain when something was published and why its important. And yes these things all belong in a category together. Kappa 08:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Seminal publications in Biology or a more specific name, otherwise delete. While it would be nice to have an annotated list of the key publication, these pages don't seem to do the job, ending up as a rag bag of books by peoples PhD advisiors. There might be a way to make such lists work by making them more specific and being vigriously monitored. Limiting the scope could work, say with one page for key historical works (say 100 years old or more), one for paradime shifting/breakthrough works, one for text books and one for popular science books. p.s. I've just removed all those entries which don't assert importance. --Salix alba (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Seminal publications in Biology or List of important publications in biology and live with the fact that it will be a conflict magnet and draw lots of 2nd rate books and need lots of attention. It is worth it. Few things are as valuable as a place to discover a good book in the subject area you want. Be firm in deleting entries with no justification or support and mark those in dispute with a letter D (in brackets) to indicate it is in dispute but has multiple supporters. SteveWolfer 16:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not rename. It's useful as is. ~K 17:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list cruft that takes too much effort from too many good people to police. It should be a category at best. --Buridan 21:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it should stay, they could tighten up the criteria by including only publications that have merited an article for an author, the main theory purported or the book itself i.e Darwin's origin of species would count on all three, some of the others on this page would count on two counts as well. I still think this is an important page as a start for people, even if it doesn't conform to usual Wiki policy, although I think with my suggestion it gets closer. If absolutely necessary I'm sure we could get references that talk about science references in these sort of terms or even reviews in journals and newspapers. Terri G 14:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (although I wouldn't oppose a rename). It is a useful page. Itub 15:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly rename. Could be of interest to someone looking to purchase a textbook in a particular area. As it's an extremely basic guide to a few key publications in various biological subjects, a large number of people should be able to verify the book/article's importance, reducing the inherent PoV problems. Renaming could be useful; I'd suggest 'basic' or 'fundamental' rather than 'important', as many of these are student texts. Alternatively, it could be split into textbooks and historically significant research articles. Espresso Addict 19:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mango juice^talk 16:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Onyx (wrestler)[edit]

Tagged speedy A7 but notability is asserted. However... a couple of tryouts with WWE and an article essentially devoid of biographical data suggests that this may not be one of the more notable wrestlers. Guy 21:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as editor placing the A7 on the article. Erechtheus 02:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zadok Inc[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}}.

A truly hideuous article about a website which offers no credible evidence of meeting WP:WEB, deleted (but not by AfD) and re-created, so strictly a contested deletion and needs AfD. Although to be honest I was tempted just to be a bit WP:ROUGE and nuke the sucker. Guy 22:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no hope of meeting WP:WEB. Valrith 22:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark 22:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete its a good article and has good content (BTW it was orignally deleted when it had 3 words and i was typing)Evilflip 00:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilflip (talk • contribs) 04:52, 9 September 2006[reply]
Delete per nom. Unless they agree to make me a mod on their forums, in which case, expand. My Alt Account 06:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a bad article and has no content. Danny Lilithborne 00:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete It's up for improvement, i say he has the room to improve it under the sole pretenses that no one else will want the section Zadok Inc, and therefore gives him the right to it until a more popular candidate requests it. Soda-Sama 18:43, 10 September 2006 (CST)

Note: Previous vote was signed with an invalid user name by 68.63.39.115 (talk · contribs)

Don't Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.218.214 (talk • contribs)
Its an alright article, could use some TLC but just give it a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jingleboy (talk • contribs)
Don't Delete It is part of the worlds history and IT is a website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.207.140 (talk • contribs)
Don't Delete the web sites ok and the article needs some work, but this could be a great article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.252.163 (talk • contribs)
Don't Delete Contains suitable material and is subject to improvement. Could be great, let it live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.23.143 (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 00:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ogdred 03:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some Sunday Morning[edit]

No information provided

Some Sunday Morning is a solid candidate for deletion. There is no information here, no references and no links. Jagvar 22:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —ExplorerCDT 23:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD A1/A3. Danny Lilithborne 00:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete —Xezbeth 10:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

DAX Technologies[edit]

Self-promotional corporate page. Obviously so as a prior edit includes the word 'we' self-referentially ot the company, and was put there by an account named for the company. ThuranX 22:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was trying out and cut and pasted some text initially. I do not want to be self promoting or anything, wanted to have a page with a few facts only. Honestly I was surprised that corporations have pages in the wikipedia. and there are big corporations and corporations that I have never heard of. please delete this page if you think it's not appropriate, but please recosider all the other company pages in that case. I gues to be fair and ballanced is not a bad thing [email protected]

~~Speedy Delete~~ The fact that you cut and pasted from the company's website is enough to speedy delete (we can't accept copyright violations, which copying from the site entails). Read the guidelines on corporations to see which companies are allowed. And remember, Wikipedia is not a business directory. Try yellowwiki. ColourBurst 22:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete revising after article creator changed the wording, but still deletable unless reliable sources are given to verify it meets WP:CORP. ColourBurst 22:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I was suprised to find company pages on wikipedia. I agree with deleting this page. I apologieze for my experiment. A note though: wikipedia is a bussiness directory for "important" companies. [email protected]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indiafinest[edit]

Contested PROD. Delete due to no evidence of meeting WP:WEB; appears to be WP:SPAM. No WP:RS indicating notability, only 122 registered members from site stats. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I endorsed the original prod. It's a non-notable forum (per nom). alphaChimp^(talk) 23:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly fails WP:WEB. Less notable than my online collection of kitten pics. My Alt Account 00:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark 00:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.-- thund e rboltz ^(Deepu) 10:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Aksi_great (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thoroughly non-notable. Doesn't even have an Alexa ranking at all. Geoffrey Spear 00:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello mods, All your comments seem like you all are just for passtime here. Whatever your comments on my non-noticable forum are, i dont care. But according to wiki system, my entry is actuallky valid, because my entry is a real entity, maybe its new and starting right now, but its more real them much of listings here on wikipedia.

Please remember its not DMOZ or a directory listing its a wiki, you control here so that no fake content comes here, But dont try to make this your personal liking, and nobody cares if my article is listed here or not, even me myself.

Comment - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Content must be encyclopedic, and must conform to Wikipedia policies, particularly, in this case, the guidelines for notability. Please read WP:WEB. The fact that this is a wiki, which allows anyone to edit, does not imply that any edit is automatically permissible. You may think that this conflicts with the "Wiki Way", but the consensus of the memebers of the community agrees with the rules as they're written. Geoffrey Spear 13:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; endorsing the above comment, --Gurubrahma 13:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well it makes me amaze, how you people wrote about a true entity.

@GeoffSpear : It has an alexa rank, check Yourself, maybe its not as good, but it exists on alexa.

@one_who_has_online_kitten_pics_website : If your kitten pics actually attract more traffic then indiafinest.com, i.e. 400+uniques and 14000+ pageviews daily, I am ready to close indiafinest.com now.

@All who say its not compliant to WP:WEB, I dont see even a single reason why it is not compliant, Its a new community but its for real. Its not popular in certain group of people living outside india and soon it will pick up with many more things.

Its not WP:SPAM at all, If you have evidence, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiafinest (talk • contribs) 23:12, 12 September 2006
You're correct. It's gone from having no Alexa ranking to a ranking around 2 million in the past few days. This doesn't come close to meeting the standards in WP:WEB. Geoffrey Spear 22:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ok i went to this website, there are about 200 users, with barely half of them having made no contribution. The other half have an average about 10-15 comments each. Compare that with the Indiatimes blog, and you have 1000's of members with more than one lakh blog topics itself.--Ageo020 18:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
^ Well you yourself saw the website, its an active community, being a clean and a complete attempt to make a dedicated community. What you pointed about users is true, we do have active and loyal users, and the facts you provided about posts is actually we have 4200+ messages in total. We are a 44 days old community of users came from various other forums and collectively worked here in IndiaFinest.

I doubt a lot why you compare with indiatimes community, They are different people with different aims, we are here for different purpose, Indiatimes blog is none of our category and they are highly commercialised people, But we are here not for any commercial purpose. I claim IndiaFinest community may have less usres and less messages, But i am sure we win when compared to indiatimes community in moral values, in culture values and we are NOT here to compromise with indian culture values, like all commercialised ventures do. To sum up, if you compare us with size, then I have a point that we are going through exceptional growth per day. And If you point content quality and vision, I must say we are the winner, because we are here only for quality community. I hope comparing an cultural community with a commercial one, and with least moral/cultural values one is not a good comparison, Because we are winner in both paces with good growth, and good quality. So i dont think anybody can think this article is amy sort of WP:SPAM category, because we are for real, we have clear objective and we DO have something to work on dedicatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiafinest (talk • contribs) 19:46, 13 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. Mango juice^talk 16:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Yates[edit]

Contested WP:PROD. Notability is asserted, but not terribly plausibly. No real evidence of significance. Guy 22:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. --Aaron 22:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tagged this article for improvement, because it is just a mess. Very little has been done to change it for the better. It is poorly written, sloppy, full of information that is irrelevant---e.g., the addition of the notable people who are dropouts from the same college, as though Mr. Yates becomes more notable by associating him with Mr. Redford, Mr. Wozniak, etc.---and, the tone is one of vanity and self-importance. That said, he does seem to have done a couple things that can be interpreted as notable. The article needs drastic improvement immediately. ---Charles 03:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, but needs improvement. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he has done more than the average journalist, I don't see it. ~ trialsanderrors 03:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability--Peta 04:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simona Poustilnik[edit]

del Russian biologist and philosopder of dubious notability. `'mikka (t) 22:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm wary of wading in and deleting an academic from a non-English language country, but the article contains nothing verifiable that fulfils the Wikipedia inclusion criteria. Espresso Addict 19:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of songs about food and beverages[edit]

I think this qualifies as "unencyclopedic listcruft". I mean... why does it exist? Is it a research tool, or a pointless exercise in trivia? I say delete. GTBacchus^(talk) 22:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's an unfortunate Wikipedian parlor game: posit a list of items with vague open-ended criteria, and then encourage other editors to try to fill in the blanks and think of new items to add to the list. Such lists violate WP:NOT and the fact that 99 percent of these songs don't even have articles of their own makes the list useless for any other purpose than its own sake. wikipediatrix 22:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not for things made up when thinking about dinner one day. ColourBurst 22:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. It gave me an appetite though. Bwithh 23:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom zephyr2k 03:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm starting to think that maybe all articles whose names start with "List of songs" should be nuked. Danny Lilithborne 00:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Age at first marriage[edit]

WP:NOT, indiscriminate collection of information. No sources given whatsoever, so it's most likely either original research or a copyright violation, or both. What's next, Age at first egg cream? wikipediatrix 22:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is his source:[41]. zephyr2k 23:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed as an External link, not a source. I don't click PDF files, but I'll take your word on it. Since there's no other text in the article, and if these statistics were indeed cut and pasted from this un.org site, then it's a copyvio. wikipediatrix 23:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a summarized version of it with no new content added. Maybe we should change this into a copyvio. zephyr2k 23:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This information is important enough that the UN collects data on it. "Age at first egg cream" is not. Fg2 01:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is the UN policy on copyright of its statistical data? Fg2 01:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Copyright information: [42]. Terms & Conditions: [43]. zephyr2k 02:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks. That's quite clear. Fg2 04:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  I can't really understand this legalese. Doesn't this mean it's a copyvio? "None of the materials provided on this web site may be used, reproduced or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical ... without permission in writing from the publisher" zephyr2k 23:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 02:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but only if it's expanded to give context to the numbers, and clear sources are identified within the article (not requiring an external link). Has potential to be an interesting list article (for a change). 23skidoo 06:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If kept, should be renamed to Average age of people at first marriage by country or something similat. VegaDark 07:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename according to VegaDark. The article does need a little clean up but the information is of encyclopedic merit. Marriage is a social institution that drastically affect the lives of it's participant, just as much as say average age of death. What this article needs is to actually have main article like Life expectancy that can put the age of marriage into context (with various cultural norms, social and medical factors etc) which would have this list serve as an applicable content fork. Agne 16:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not indiscriminate information. Kappa 08:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename per VegaDark and state source. Interesting, encyclopedic information. I'm not sure what copyright laws hold. Under English copyright, extracting figures from another publication shouldn't ever be a copyright violation (unless the complete tables are replicated) provided the source is given. The source should definitely be clearly stated. Espresso Addict 19:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the case and this is not a copyvio, then I have no problem keeping this article. Thanks for the clarification. zephyr2k 22:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete —Xezbeth 10:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Dog Jones and Lamont Macandrewes[edit]

The articles claim influence on New York local acts, but no sources are given. Doesn't seem to pass WP:MUSIC otherwise. Searching "Dog Jones" in google brings up a lot of unrelated hits. The only google hit outside of WP for Lamont is [44], which shows a picture of him and nothing else. ColourBurst 22:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable muscian. -Royalguard11(Talk)(Desk) 04:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Dorismond[edit]

tagged db-bio but notability is asserted. However, WP:NOT a cellotaph. Sad, yes, but not the stuff of encyclopaedic biography. Guy 22:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His notability is there; the story was a big issue in New York, on par with Abner Louima and Amadou Diallo. The article is quite POV; there's an overt anti-Giuliani and anti-NYPD bias. However, that can be fixed with cleanup, as there are ample sources to improve the article and make it less of a cellotaph. SliceNYC 00:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and dis-POV (is it really necessary to lead with his family status?) per SliceNYC, though I'm not sure how far you can get from Columbus Circle and still be someplace he's notable. I recognized the name immediately, but I'm from Brooklyn.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 18:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Echoing the statements above, really. This was an issue in NYC, and is certainly something that someone who is researching Giuliani or the NYPD should be aware of. Needs cleanup, but not deletion. TheGrandHooHa 02:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Especially since Giuliani may run for president, all actions and decisions he made would come under scrutiny.Muntuwandi 02:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there can be demonstrated a need for this article and others like it, a suggestion would be to merge into a NYPD incidents article, along with Ousmane Zongo et. al. OBILI 15:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable incident, well known in New York and covered by the press to a persuasive degree. Serpent-A 08:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. El_C 09:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Knowledge[edit]

A three sentence article that doesn't really say anything; what little it says is unsourced. Prod tag was disputed OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Oh, I know what the article is about. Though, we call it the unknown, things beyond the human capacity to understand, the absolute truth, etc. Meh, I shouldn't have slept through my philosphy classes. Delete per WP:NOT. zephyr2k 23:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some References to "Dark Knowledge" in theologies --

"Gregory P Rocca, OP, “The ‘Dark Knowledge of God’ and Our Worship of the Divine Mystery,” Nova et Vetera 3:4 (Fall 2005): 807-823. Aquinas’s theological epistemology of the divine names weaves together positive and negative theology in service of the liturgical language of worship. Such language is “iconic”: a mean between agnostic and idolatrous speech, balancing both true knowledge of God and insisting that it is also dark knowledge. Rocca analyzes various negative features of Aquinas theology, such as "
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:F24NgcXwakAJ:www.aquinas.avemaria.edu/Nova/PDF/Vol_3_4/Abstract.pdf+%22dark+knowledge%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=28

"The dark knowledge of God. JOURNET, Charles. class: 231. Shelf: JOU. accession No: 41100. tr. by James F. Anderson. Sheed & Ward, 1948. xiii, 122p. GOD. Knowableness"
http://www.catholic-library.org.uk/catalogue/search_results.php?action=find_subject&cur_page=0&find=GOD.%20Knowableness

Critique --
One critique of "Dark Knowledge" is that is assumes that knowledge exists independently of sentient beings. However, people like Hume, Kant, Piaget, present arguments in favor of knowledge (such as causality) being a creation and belief of the mind.

- Yeah, the term exists. Took my philosophy in Filipino language so I know it using a different term. But the article is still essentially a dicdef. Not sure how this article can be expanded. Any suggestions? zephyr2k 02:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef, without possiblility of expansion. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arlee Reed[edit]

tagged db-bio but notability is asserted. Bit-part actor, no significant or starring roles listed. Looks like Trekcruft. Guy 22:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nomination. Only played in minor and/or unnamed roles. Gsearch did not turn up much, other than confirming his participation in TNG and Mash. Ohconfucius 04:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Valrith 04:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Star (Spoof Version)[edit]

De-prod by article author. Non-notable song. "Somebody once told me, the world was macaroni" gets 9 unique google hits. Wikipedia is not for things made up at school one day. Fails WP:NFT Irongargoyle 22:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No-brainer delete. No assertion of notability and none to be found as nom says. Oh, and "So I took a bite out of a tree" gets 5 unique ghits. Pan Dan 02:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's also the kind of silly nonsense only children could find funny. Danny Lilithborne 00:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minjas[edit]

Non-notable, fairly new webcomic with no Alexa rank. Most Google hits have nothing to do with the comic itself. Wikipedia is not where things go to become notable. Contested prod. Core des at talk. o_O 22:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 01:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails all of our possibly applicable content policies and guidelines. -- Dragonfiend 19:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 19:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Delete. I am unable to see that an encyclopedia article can be written on this subject. —Encephalon 08:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mango juice^talk 17:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Competing Hypotheses[edit]

I see no evidence that this term is in wide use. The Google hit for instance finds 155 unique hits. Well that's not good although it's not terribly bad either. Of course a number of these are wiki-related and there is also a problem because it's a very natural sentence to have without refering to the concept described in the article. However, proponents of this concept usually use the abbreviation ACH and if you search for both you get 62 unique hits. That's too low I think for this to be anything more than a neologism or some Dilbertesque fad. Pascal.Tesson 23:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add context. 152 hits for heuer "analysis of competing hypotheses", apparently it's an influential idea. Gazpacho 23:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gets a fair number of hits in google scholar. Seems to have some use by the CIA as well. I think this bears further investigation. Irongargoyle 00:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reasons above. Needs expansion. —ExplorerCDT 03:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless expanded, with WP:RS added. The article, at the present time, says nothing that could be disproved. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, I could replace the title by some other term, and it would be just as good an article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rubin.--Peta 04:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gazpacho. It looks like a legimate term that could be expanded into a very worthwhile encyclopedic entry. 205.157.110.11 09:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Slanina[edit]

tagged db-bio but notability asserted. Very short, not really sure that teaching Paul Gertner qualifies as an encyclopaedic claim to notability Guy 23:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete Google doesn't seem to have anything at all on this person. There is a Ron Slanina, but he appears to be an actor and not the person this article refers to [45]. IrishGuy ^talk 23:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverified - seems to have been broken out of the Paul Gertner article where the claim is unsourced. Even if correct it's unimportant Dlyons493 Talk 01:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Gonzolas[edit]

This is about an un-wikipedia like as articles come; a Google search on the subject gets five hits, only one of which (this article itself) relates to the subject. Not notable, unencyclopedic. Quaerere 23:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although he will merit an article once he succeds in his latest venture to ride on the ocean floor from Brisbane to Hawaii Dlyons493 Talk 00:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable. Probably a hoax -Nv8200p talk 02:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be fair, though, I think this article deserves enthronement in BJAODN. Quaerere 05:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "without a doubt" outside of quotes should never appear in a Wikipedia article. Danny Lilithborne 00:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot believe you object to this article. I can assure you that Fernando Gonzolas is 100% true. I even have someone to back up my case who is a user on Wikipedia. Diadora. He will prove you wrong, I can assure you. He works for Diadora. (Boonter 09:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reno DeNada[edit]

This is a biography of a non-notable person by Wikipedia standards (fails WP:BIO). There are 14 unique Google hits for "Reno DeNada" and "director", and none enhance the credibility of this article. The editors involved so far have attempted to bootstrap content that is non-notable and has no article of its own as coverage of Mr. DeNada. That isn't acceptable. Erechtheus 23:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, fails WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. Irongargoyle 00:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. His "notable" porn site ranks in the 1.75millionth. Ohconfucius 04:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 feels like nominating the other goal scorers lists for deletion, I would suggest that the FA league ones be put with each other, and the others be grouped together. Mango juice^talk 17:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apertura 2006-07 goal scorers[edit]

Football cruft. Now I understand having an article about the season and so on but an exhaustive list of goal scorers? Now that is getting a tad ridiculous. Let me preempt the "it's verifiable knowledge and Wikipedia is the sum of all human knowledge" argument which is bound to pop up. While WP:NOT, I must admit, has no entry that says that Wikipedia is not a list of goal scorers of professional football league, I think this can be explained by the fact that no one in their right mind would see this as potentially contentious. I would respectfully add that this being the Honduras football league makes it even more obscure as the league is relatively weak. (Not that I would support keeping such a list for the English Premiership) Pascal.Tesson 23:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Scottmsg 23:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Elisson • Talk 23:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete excessive fancruft. Resolute 00:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All below as well. Also: FA Premier League 2005-06 goalscorers. Resolute 15:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others. Other articles that should go on the same grounds include Jupiler League 2006-07 goalscorers, FA Premier League 2006-07 goalscorers and La Liga 2006-07 goalscorers. Punkmorten 13:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ changed to Keep or merge.

I agree with all the above arguments, though the article indeed contains verifiable knowledge ;) and ultimately could just be handy for one season to keep track of the top goal scorers (remove thereafter?). I would like to point out that the page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#FA Premier League cruft contains a lot more of these so called 'cruft' pages which probably also need the same treatment. --Pelotas^talk 22:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind, I agree with Sam Vimes' comment below, so keep or merge. --Pelotas^talk 22:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with relevant seasons. However, if they've already been split out because the season articles are too large, then there's no reason to delete the information simply because someone labels it as "cruft". Sam Vimes | Address me 23:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary detail. Conscious 09:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marshmallow's Last Stand[edit]

There's a delightful entry for this toon on the Homestar Wiki. Check it out! While this may be a seminal HR toon, I don't think it's notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Plus, the HR wiki article is way more complete. I suggest a delete and redirect to Homestar Runner. Dwiki 23:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete+redirect as per nom. HR is awesome. So is HRWiki. No reason for article about this film though in Wikipedia - a link to the great HRWiki article in the main HR wikipedia article would suffice. That's how the fan-wiki to wikipedia relationship should work Bwithh 23:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as per above. wikipediatrix 23:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As much as I love Homestar Runner, I don't think individual cartoons belong on wikipedia. A link to the HRWiki entry from the HR article here, on the other hand, is about right. - The Bethling ^(Talk) 07:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Homestar Runner. Danny Lilithborne 00:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casino Universal Money[edit]

Entirely useless, non-notable, badly written, incoherent, vanity entry made by user with same name as entity being pumped 2005 23:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's just a skin of Gambling Federation. Not even a legitimate site in its own right. Rray 00:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd be tempted to speedy it as patent nonsense. Resolute 00:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark 07:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 00:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. W. Watkins

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Marketplace Mall[edit]

This is a non-notable mall. It has been de-proded citing WP:LOCAL, but I do not believe it fits that criteria.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep or merge "one of the busiest commercial hubs in Monroe County" [46] per WP:LOCAL. This mall is important to the town of Henrietta, New York and a significant component of retail in the surrounding area. Also the article provides a basic understanding of its history and development. Has potential for expansion from press coverage such as [47]. Kappa 01:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your first link above describes the town that the mall is located in as a commercial hub, not the mall itself. --Daniel Olsen 01:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think so. Kappa 02:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would be most accurate to say that the mall anchors one of the two or three major commercial hubs of the county. The town of Henrietta is largely rural; it just happens to contain The Marketplace and the resulting major commercial strip in the northern section. Powers ^T 19:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge into Rochester, New York or Henrietta, New York. If it's so important to the town, perhaps it should be in the article about the town. What little info is here says nothing special about the mall, just that it IS a mall, and has department stores. Non-notable. --Daniel Olsen 01:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not just important to the town (although it is); it's also important to the city of Rochester (and the surrounding area), and to the county. It can't be merged into all three articles, surely? Powers ^T 19:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If schools are inherently notable, I see no reason why major shopping centers shouldn't be (there are a lot fewer of them, after all). Powers ^T 19:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two flaws in that argument: 1) schools are not inherently notable. 2) We get mall articles for strip malls on here some of the time, so there aren't significantly fewer malls than schools. GRBerry 01:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Malls are businesses, in the business of renting space to retail stores so the mall owner can make money. No evidence or assertion of meeting WP:CORP. "Article" is spam. GRBerry 01:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It does meet WP:CORP ("multiple non-trivial published works"): [48] [49] [50].
Delete per GRBerry. I've been there, and it's just a mall. Might be worth a mention in the Henrietta, New York article, for the reasons Powers gives. Electrolite 06:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:CORP - no third-party non-trivial articles, no awards; notability neither shown nor implied. Argument that 'if schools are inherently notable, then malls must be', only begs the question. This form of argument only states everything is notable, since anything can be inserted into the second half of that argument, and it's already known that WP is not a collection of everything. Tychocat 02:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Only if those "anything"s are more notable than schools, which I believe malls to be. I recognize that this is my opinion, but I'm entitled to it on this issue. I never claimed it to be something everyone would have to agree with; I specifically said "I see no reason [they] shouldn't be [notable]", not "obviously [they] are [notable]." Powers ^T 23:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In any case, please note GRBerry's comments. I might suggest sticking to stated WP policy and guidelines, rather than inventing notability standards for schools, malls, or whatevers. Tychocat 04:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Who's making things up? WP:SCHOOL is admittedly just a proposed guideline, but it seems to have wide support. I really don't appreciate the aspersion. Also note my (new) reply to GRBerry's comments. Powers ^T 15:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since this is your first direct mention of a WP guideline, I can't see how I'm casting aspersions. And the mall would still fail notability standards. Tychocat 16:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I apologize for not linking WP:SCHOOL earlier; I thought it was a well-known guideline. Anyway, the mall meets WP:CORP as I mentioned above. Powers ^T 13:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and GRBerry. Indrian 15:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kappa. Keep all schools and malls. --JJay 19:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all...malls, based on what criteria, policy or guideline?--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastview Mall. Powers ^T 14:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Malls easily pass WP:CORP as they are in media all time. -newkai t-c 15:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my argument on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastview Mall. Marketplace is equally as notable as Eastview. --TMF ^{T - C} 18:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow for organic growth. Verifiability over notability. --Myles Long 04:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete `'mikka (t) 04:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Developing Leadership Capacities Through Action Inquiry[edit]

Appears to be original research, and/or an excuse for a link to the commercial leadership-seminar provider mentioned in the External Links section, [51]. NawlinWiki 14:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consider including Developmental Action Inquiry in the deletion - it's the same thing, more or less. Zetawoof^(ζ) 04:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Personally, I can't make heads or tails of it. What the heck is an "action logic" supposed to be anyway? Zetawoof^(ζ) 04:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see this article retained. It is a useful summary of some significant issues for leadership development.147.56.247.28 20:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Richards (User's only edit is to this AfD discussion)[reply]

Keep but Rename to just "Action Inquiry". It's sourced, so it doesn't appear to be original research, rather a sysnopsis of Tolbert's work. It does seem to be a particulary dense way of saying bland and obvious things, but I'm not congizant enough of the field to know if this is so. It doesn't appear that "Action Inquiry" is just Tolbert's brand name for his particular theories, as there are 42,000 Google hits for the term. Herostratus 23:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Herostratus 04:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, rename to Action Inquiry. For context, see Action research. Torbert is a prof at Boston College, I think this is actually legit stuff, but someone desperately needs to translate this out of management/social science-speak, if that is possible. --Brianyoumans 05:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In its current state it doesn't appear to be anything readable for the encyclopedia ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vehement delete as complete bollocks. Vague, vacuous, abstract prose like Action research not only adds to general knowledge, but also plays a role in people's and organizations' development. People and organizations developing to later action logics become capable of supporting personal and organizational transformations in others has a tendency to make my blood boil. This article is nothing but a tissue of vague ideas polysyllablized for extra impressiveness. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Swat and Smerdis, in what must be the first instance of my opposing anything composed of (gratuitously) polysyllabic words; if the work of Tolbert, per Herostratus, is notable (as likely it is), I'd think that a rename per Brian and Hero should be in order, but I don't think there to be anything salvagable here, such that a better disposition might be to list the topic at WP:RA, with a note to the effect that the text of the deleted article will be userfied for anyone who undertakes to write an article apropos of the topic. Joe 00:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not an encyclopedic article. Zaxem 02:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thoroughly POV piece that fails to analyse what it purports to describe. BTLizard 09:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A particularly egregious example of business-writing gobbledygook. Robertissimo 13:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge with Developmental Action Inquiry under Action Inquiry. I have removed the advert link. The bigger question is what is the copyright status of the text and tables? That, though, is not for this AfD. It is obviously sourced and though this sort of stuff makes my head spin it does have encyclopaedic content and I don't see any reason to delete. TerriersFan 02:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Would be my suggestion/two-cents. I've added some preamble to give the piece some context. The article is distinct from published articles (I'm doing my PhD on this stuff) so is OK copyright-wise. I agree that some of the sentences are vague and (dare I say it) vacuous- but the entry is, after all trying to summarise a rich theory into a page or so. Hence unless you (say) read the HBR article (2005) by Torbert that's referenced, trying to 'get' the theory based on this entry alone won't be possible. I'd suggest that quantum physics is also gobbledygook when inferred from encyclopedic entries.70.59.17.138 Roger S.
- Hmmm I think Roger S.'s comment is worth a lot more than two cents, I hope the closing admin will give it considerable weight, as Roger S. seems to actually know what this is about. Herostratus 06:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's kind of disturbing, really, that I'm able to extract more meaning from that introduction than from the rest of the article combined. If Roger S. is willing and able to rewrite the rest of the article in this manner, then I'd wholeheartedly vote to keep the result (although it may belong at a more sensible title as well). Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Herostratus 20:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonnotable essay. Mukadderat 00:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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