Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 14

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log
< September 13 September 15 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rowland Gutierrez

edit

Seems like a nice guy, but he's a non-notable person that fails WP:BIO. Google on him alone leads to a lot of false results, but with the Church shows very minimal presence. I cannot seem to find any way to verify the information in the article. Was proposed but deprodded by user who only seems to contribute on Rosary Church-related articles without any explanation. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

49erholics Anonymous

edit

Internet forum with rather small membership compared to other forums on the net. Fails WP:WEB and reads like an advertisement. –– Lid(Talk) 00:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a very popular "underground" message board with ties to the "inside" of the 49ers front office. Usually with news released before the AP or the actual official web site. Also with its mentions to other sites, I dont think advertisement is the goal.— 68.98.120.85 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Okay - as the author of the article in question I'm a little irked by this. First of all, I just wrote it and planned on seeing how it looked and going back in to edit it to sound "less advertis-ish" around 5 minutes after I wrote it, but it had already been flagged for deletion and I couldn't edit it. Despite the fact that I seem to be advertising webzone and paradise more than the site itself...

Sorry it isn't GenMay or some massive conglomerate message board guys, but wiki has articles on the color of Tom Cruise's naval lint for God's sake... there isn't room for a small blurb about a reasonably popular underground message board? 1000 users is hardly "small" in my book, but that aside, the administrator of the board (who is not me) runs the message board in conjunction with a 49ers news site (49ersnews.com) that provides inside information on the team and its activities, and has on several occasions "scooped" stories about player signing, injuries, departures, hirings and other such events before the official site and other fan boards. I would have included that when I went in to edit that, but as I said, it was flagged for deletion so quickly I couldn't even retouch it to read better.

Oh, and don't even bother giving me that "possible single issue account" BS - I work at an intelligence agency and troll wiki for hours a day. If I see anything else left out, I'd add it. Trouble is, in my research, most of the things I'm looking for are already here, so I have no use for adding stupid BS. I just happened to look it up, and it wasn't there one day, so I decided to add it.

Man, what a giant crock if this gets deleted. I'd like to point out there are articles that are complete garbage about very insignificant things - and yet THIS of all articles gets deleted. Here's a couple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navel_lint http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo_momma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_stretching

...just to name a few...

This is so stupid - I think I'll find another online encyclopedia source to look stuff up in at work.

Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.23.200 (talk • contribs)

None of those are governed by WP:WEB and in their related criterion they pass. You can not rate article merits against articles that don't fall under the same umbrella criterion. There are articles that I myself didn't (at the time) feel needed articles such as Lonelygirl15 under WP:WEB, but this was later overturned due to her featuring in several periodicals. This article fails under this part of the guidelines: Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article.. The website you keep referencing doesn't have an article itself so referring to it doesn't make sense. It's membership is very low as I can find forums with twice or five times the membership numbers and still not qualify for articles. I'm sorry if you feel that as navel lint gets its own article that the forum should too but there are rules and guidelines to wikipedia. –– Lid(Talk) 09:09, 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 04:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Lally

edit

For someone whose article has such big claims it's funny that "Eugene Lally" generates only 78 Google hits, [2] the first two of which are Wikipedia. I think this could be a hoax, or at least non-notable RMHED 00:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was:

  • for the ten "Cakewalk wiki" articles: speedy delete at creator's request.
  • for Cakewalk Sonar itself: convert into a normal article.

-- RHaworth 09:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cakewalk Sonar

edit

plus ten more articles included in what links here.

Attempt to create a wiki dedicated to Cakewalk's Sonar digital audio software. Sorry, no. Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider. -- RHaworth 00:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • My name is Scott, and I am the person creating this set of articles. Or trying to -- they are being deleted before I even finish editing the basic outline for them!

    First of all, I have no connection to Sonar or its manufacturer other than the fact that I use their program.

    The idea for creating a Sonar wiki came about on a huge Sonar forum, due to the fact that there is tons of great information there, but it's not systematized, and as on all forums it is hard to find the prime information and harder to separate it from everything that surrounds it.

    Plus, Wikipedia's article format is ideal for this sort of systematization of the creme de la creme of information -- there are entire books written about using this software, so it is obviously information that is in demand and useful.

    At the forum, the strategy was to create an outline and then have users go and fill it in. But that takes a bit of time -- so I beseech you to please give us a week or two to get up to snuff.
    Thanks,
    ScottS Sadowsky 01:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Scott, we're not out to destroy any kind of good work you're doing, the problem is that this just isn't the place for what you want to do. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means we have articles that describe things. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a user guide. If you want to create a wiki to serve as a user guide, you can follow the links below on starting up your own wiki. Wikia offers free hosting, running the same software as wikipedia. You're welcome to stick around here and write an article about the software, just don't turn it into an instruction manual. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above comments Hello32020 01:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above comments AmitDeshwar 01:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Topic is encyclopedic and worthy of inclusion in Wiki. As far as I can tell, it meets all relevant criteria. If not, we had better review aritcles for Logic Audio and Cubase too. Encise 02:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Encise[reply]

Mostly Delete I think we should have an article on Cakewalk Sonar itself, otherwise delete per above. Dave 02:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Baffled I'm frankly baffled at the speed and zeal with which the Sonar articles are being deleted. This is not an attempt to get "free web hosting" (which is a wee bit offensive) nor to put up useless garbage or advertising. It is an attempt to create an encyclopedic collection of the very best knowledge culled from over 404,000 forum posts (http://forum.cakewalk.com/tt.asp?forumid=2) by world-class mastering engineers, mixing engineers, musicians, acousticians, home recordists and others. If this content is not appropriate for Wikipedia, I must ask you why Wikipedia happily hosts articles about virtually every other piece software used for audio recording, but not Sonar:

And that, in spite of the fact that many of these articles are blatant advertisements!

If you (editors) believe that the Sonar digital audio software is not an appropriate subject for Wikipedia, kindly be consistent and remove the above pages for other digital audio software. Otherwise, please let us try and create our Sonar articles. Thanks,Scott S Sadowsky 01:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You seem to have missed the point. The purpose of this nomination is not to remove Sonar software from Wikipedia. The purpose is to delete a massive user guide for Sonar. None of the other softwares you cite above have anything like the user guide you're trying to build here, and if someone tried to create one, it would be nominated for deletion the same way. Fan-1967 01:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - citing other articles that should be deleted isn't an argument for saving this one. Nobody will stop you creating an article for Sonar Cakewalk if it is encyclopedic and you can establish that it is a notable piece of software. What isn't acceptable is to create a wiki within wikipedia consisting of hints and tips and how to guides. Yomanganitalk 02:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User guides", advertising, inconsistencies So encyclopedic information about a piece of software is not permissible, but blatant advertising is? In any case if someone says he is seeking, for example, to exterminate all birds, but only "happens" to kill crows, pointing out his failure to follow his own stated goals certainly is an argument. Finally, the fact that the Sonar info is broken up into several different pages is simply to make editing less overwhelming -- not to create a separate wiki. You must admit that dealing with the back-end (editing view) is no small challenge once there's a fair amount of text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S Sadowsky (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. I have a very nice solution for you, Scott. 1) Get a Cakewalk Sonar wiki up at wikia. 2) Place Sonar Cakewalk instruction manual type information in Cakewalk Sonar wiki. 3) Create a Cakewalk Sonar article that describes the software, not a howto. 4) Link to the Cakewalk Sonar wiki from the Cakewalk Sonar article. What you really want is for people to access this information, right? So having it in its own wiki will be cleaner and easier to maintain. Just a suggestion. ColourBurst 03:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • PLEASE DELETE ALL PAGES I'm the creator of the pages in question. Please delete them all as soon as possible. This is clearly not the place for us to be. S Sadowsky 06:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If above comment is indeed from the creator, I suggest we close this thing and speedy delete the lot. - Mgm|(talk) 10:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks. We probably ought to have an article on Cakewalk Sonar, a program that surely does meet software notability guidelines, and that briefly describes the capabilities and history of the program. A detailed user guide such as was apparently planned here is a how-to, and as such would be Wikibooks material. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not contain actual information, appears to be advertising. Perhaps collecting all the links into one article would work, but as is, this article doesn't provide enough information to justify keeping it around.Dekar 20:50, 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. Petros471 21:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove

edit

First deletion reason: Conspiracy cruft video. Fails to assert notability by reference to any reliable sources. Fails WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, and WP:VAIN. Not available on Blockbuster, Amazon or Netflix. Morton devonshire 01:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Article appears to be NPOV and appropriate to covering the movie. Not a commercial release and therefore will not show up on Blockbuster, etc. Google search shows 28000 hits for the exact title. Movie's creator (Alex Jones) is also notable enough to be on wikipedia. AmitDeshwar 01:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction: I have struck AmitDeshwar's Google hit allegation above, as the true number is only 380, not 28000. [4]
  • Actually, there are 28,000 hits but only 380 are unique, so technically neither of you are wrong. Either way, it isn't very civil to alter other people's comments without their permission, regardless if it is correct or not, so I'm reverting it (unlesss of course that comment was an attack or vandalism, which in this case it isn't).--TBCTaLk?!? 04:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, as a sentence such as is currently provided would not be enough. Bohemian Grove is one of Jone's most well known works, as evidenced by the Ronson documentary. Calwatch 05:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 02:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

This was nominated for deletion in July 2005 (see the first nomination), but it passed. Since that time, this article has been tagged with a {{cleanup}} template. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the article could ever have that template removed. As the nominator from the first AfD said, Wikipedia is not a source for hadiths, but that's exactly what this article is. It doesn't read very well and, as it has existed for the past fourteen months, is far from encyclopedic. A couple external links or a few paragraphs in another article (perhaps Nikah Mut‘ah) may work, but I fear this article is unsalvagable. -- tariqabjotu 01:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If I saw that on recent articles, I would speedy tag it. Dave 02:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Aaron 03:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning that way-- not paper. Still thinking about it. I think the problem is the question of the notability of the subject. We have two editors far more knowledgeable than I on opposite sides of the discussion. JD raises an intersting point, but I think the article has potential to rise above that criticism. We still have some time to sort this out. :) Dlohcierekim 20:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, JD absatained from his vote, and considering this, what is your current vote? --Striver 01:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems to be a collection of quotes from hadith, such collections are usually stored a Wikisource. Don't see what is wrong with that.--Jersey Devil 20:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is more than so, it is mainly built on scholarly comments of the hadith. It could be argued that this is not the right place to dump hadith, but this is definitly the right place to present scholarly views on notable and controversial topics, and you can not present the scholars view without presenting the subject of the views. You can above see a partial list of the scholars that are quoted in this article. --Striver 20:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To servive, the article must be more than a collection of quotes. To be encyclopedic, the information should be summarized and recast in language a layman can follow. I believe this can be done. :) Dlohcierekim 20:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Revoke vote in respect for our muslim wikipedians I'm just going to revoke my vote so that it is not misinterpreted as solely because of Striver's contributions to the article. I still believe that this should be transwikied but ask that the closing admin not take my comments into regard when closing this afd.--Jersey Devil 03:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, i appreciate that. --Striver 09:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In respect for our Muslim Wikipedians...? I must be missing something. -- tariqabjotu 23:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but thoroughly rewrite and Wikify. The prior AfD contained three votes, one saying the information is useful to understanding Islam. I believe this is so, but to be beneficial, the article must be written in a way that someone completely ignorant of the subject (me) can grasp the essentials. Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 20:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That work will be aided if suggestions for improvements are posted on the talk page. --Striver 21:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and edit. The topic is notable. But it needs cleanup. Dekar 20:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep awaiting re-editing. It should be more than simply a list of hadith, which, as noted elsewhere, belong on wikisource. However, given that interpretation is also being added in, along with reliable sources, I think it deserves to stay. Hornplease 23:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but possibly move the (newer) encyclopedic parts to other articles. As noted by the nominator, this is a badly written collection of primary sources and original research. It seems to me that any encyclopedic content on this subject would have to be in Nikah Mut‘ah or Muslim controversies related to Nikah Mut'ah, any more is probably content forking. Finally, although I agree with Striver that scholarly opinions on religious topics are generally encyclopedic (up to a certain level of detail), this article has only sporadic references to partisan religious websites, and not to statements by actual religious authorities (whoever these may be). Sandstein 06:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean that you do not regard Ibn Abu al-Hadid, Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, Ibn Hajar Asqalani, Muhammad al-Bukhari, Ibn al-Qayyim, Abu Da'ud, Ibn Maja, Ali ibn Abd-al-Malik al-Hindi, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Yahiya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi, Al-Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir, Shibli Nomani as scholars, and the representation of their work as nothing more than OR from my part? Or have i missunderstood you? The difference between this article and Muslim controversies related to Nikah Mut'ah is already covered in the lead text. Thank you for aknowledging that latest editing is helpfull, and as is evident, i am continuing to reaseach and edit to heighten the articles quality.--Striver 08:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about these sources - I didn't read the article closely enough to see them, although the... complicated layout of the article - including very extensive quotes and no inline references - make the sources difficult to discern and assess. The rest of my arguments stand, though. Sandstein 15:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i agree that the layout of the article is complicated. When this afd is over, if the article is kept, i will start the proces of spliting out some parts and start to re-arenge it to make the article more focused on the opinions. --Striver 16:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am at fault for not cleaning it up earlier, i became busy with other topics and forgot about this, but i am correcting it. But surely lack of cleaning up can not be a valid reason to delete the entire article? Do you regard scholarly views about notable topics to be un-encyclopedic? --Striver 21:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, most of the article is not hadith quotes. --Striver 21:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to show the work i have put on it since the proding. --Striver 21:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
POV? In what way? --Striver 00:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is Shia POV.--Islamic 14:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you want it deleted due to that? --Striver 15:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and edit. It may be POV or NPOV but there isn't written anything in its talk page. I remind you there is just one comment in Talk:Hadiths related to Mut'ah. Is it a new trend to delete article before trying to improve it?!!! Haha... You'll find just two persons has worked really on this article during 2006 if you look closely at its history[9]. These are all of the editions which has done between January and September.[10] How could an article be improved when nobody participate in it? It's our responsibility to work on the article not to delete it. --Accessible 04:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is a big mess. it is beyond repare.--Truthpedia 19:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not. I know, since i am working on it. And the information in it is already usefull for those familiar with the topic. The only problem is that there is so much information that it takes time for a single editor to clean it all up. --Striver 19:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It just occured to me that Aisha's age at marriage contain even more hadith thah this article, and even less (almost none) scholarly comments, yet is nobody objecting to that article. I hope it is not due to the sensitive nature of this particular topic (legality of temporary marriages in Islam). --Striver 11:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean per "there is to many hadith and this should be deleted", arguing that Aisha's age at marriage and List of hadith should also be deleted, no mater how many scholars are quoted, or per "no cleanup", ignoring the cleaup i have made so far? Or is it something more in line with the comments of user:Islamic? If the case is the later, then i suggest you help me improve the article, since the topic is surely important. --Striver 17:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not strange to an article to be hard to grasp for the average reader, just take a look at Carminati-McLenaghan invariants, that article gave me 0 (zero) information. This is a higly specialized and scholarly topics, and you need to be familiar with mutliple terms and names to fully grasp all the content. That is hard to eliminate given the nature of the topic, but it has been considerably cleaned up and is still being done so. How much effort have you put in this article? --Striver 01:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see the rest of the article in Category:Tensors in general relativity to appreciate that some articles are hard to make useful to an average reader.--Striver 01:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This one is cool. Sounds like Back to the Future.... --Striver 01:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and in case you are wondering: Yes, there is a scinece to it.--Striver 01:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, i know this article is having a hard time, its hard to comprehend the topic, but its due to its scholarly aspect, its controversial and some people rather have status quo and pretend the controversy is not there, rather pretend that Shi'a are just stupid for not accepting the majority view, and rather pretend that Shi'a can not possibly have any arguements. And there are very few people editing it, but is that really grounds for deletion? --Striver 01:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La Plaza Mall

edit

This article is about a mall in McAllen, Texas that is really indistinguishable from any mall in Texas, the United States or the world. In addition the stores listing which is the bulk of the article proves that it is essentially a typical mall. It probably is already meantioned in the McAllen, Texas article but if not a sentence should be adequate in the article's Economy section. James E. Zavaleta T C E 01:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Somehow it reminded that we have went through this kind of debate before... - Mailer Diablo 04:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Ramah in the Berkshires

edit

This article is a very heavy vandalism magnet (WP:NOT a discussion forum), and the original version is an advertisement and a copyvio of an old version of the camp's website. I think the camp could have an article, but this isn't it. Given the amount of vandalism the article has received, I believe a history deletion is necessary. Coredesat talk! 01:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Camp_Ramah#Ramah_North_American_Overnight_Camps list some other specific camps with seemingly (to me) solid content, I think we should delete and await creation of a non-copyvio (previous or otherwise) entry. - Mgm|(talk) 10:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myself, I’m borderline on the set of them, but lean toward deleting them all except the parent article. Integrate the important material into the main article. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 04:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul M. Spicer

edit

No assertion of notability, except that he's got a job with some little known peridicals Dontdoit 01:46, 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 04:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motox

edit

Non-notable forum site fails WP:WEB. Contested prod. alphaChimp(talk) 01:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell's Dairy Land

edit

Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam.

non-notable, commercial spam -THB 02:00, 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 04:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oilwar

edit

Non-Notable open source game, no references other than newgrounds and game creator's webpage --Targetter (Lock On) 01:59, 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. Redirect is optional. - Mailer Diablo 04:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kshattri

edit

The article at Kshattri was created to mislead Wikipedia readers. The objective was to create a mischievious article ridiculing the Khatris with false information, and to redirect the real Khatri article to it.

The Khatri (Kshatriya) page is a previous incarnation of the same thing. It should also be deleted.

The person who created this scheme has used several different logins.

--ISKapoor 02:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please do not have the Kshattri page redirect to Khatri. It is the aim of the person who created Kshattri to suggest that the two terms are equivalent, and that Kshattri is equivalent to something else etc., and thus confuse people. The Kshattri article should simply be deleted.--ISKapoor 17:01, 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 04:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Individualized Service Plans: Empowering People with Disabilities

edit

See nomination for author Paul M. Spicer. Neutral Andrew Levine 02:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete as WP:POINT. Article may be recreated, but nonserious attempts should be speedy deleted. El_C 10:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violence against men

edit

The article was created by a copy-paste of Violence against women with the word "women" in the original changed to "men". Problem is that "violence against women" is a term of art, with specific denotative and connotative meaning in common use within at least some segments of the world, a fact reflected in everything from legislation like the Violence Against Women Act to book titles to people and groups who identify themselves as part of a "movement to end violence against women" [14], [15], [16], all of which suggest that there is a cohesive idea. "Violence against men," as a topic name for a cohesive idea, has no such evidence for its existence; given the articles on which links to Violence against men have been added, the manner in which those links were added, and the way in which the article was created, it looks like a WP:POINT violation in the form of a neologism and original research. The Literate Engineer 02:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then nominate it. - Mgm|(talk) 10:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This might be sexist of me, but I'd wager the vast amount of violence to males by females is violence to boys rather than men. I believe Charles Beaumont's mother abused him, in part, because she'd wanted a girl. Male on male violence is the main kind of violence reported, at least in the developed world, but that's more crime or gang activity.--T. Anthony 00:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - dont discriminate against males.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What makes this different from Violence against women? It does happen, and it's just as legitimate an issue. --AlexWCovington (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, why not try reading the discussion before taking part? As said above, if this goes then Violence against women will be put up for deletion as being a similar dictionary definition/linkfarm. Discussion of this deletion proposal has nothing to do with the legitimacy of discussing violence against men and everything to do with whether the article a) violates WP:POINT, b) is encyclopedic, c) can be more than a dictionary definition. Vizjim 09:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 04:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/11: Press for Truth

edit

{{PROD}} tag removed in a particularly WP:DICK-violating manner, but to the main point: It's more of the latest rash of 9/11 "Truth Movement" cruft. The article doesn't assert any notability, mainly because it has none. Only 344 ghits [17], almost all of which are sales pitches, obscure reviews or blogrolling. Aaron 02:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. If the tag had been placed in the proper manner (including a link to discussion explaining why the editor sought to delete the article), it would not have been removed. The above profanity in reference to the present editor is objected to strenuously. Badagnani 02:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure what a "ghit" is, but the film draws 341,000 hits. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%229%2F11+press+for+truth%22 There's quite a difference and I believe 341,000 proves notability. Whether you believe the film to be "cruft" or not, it is wrong to remove all mention of it from Wikipedia, for whatever stated or unstated reason. We are here to serve our users. If you view the film and object to its contents for factual reasons, that could be treated in the article or "discussion" page. But simply attempting to delete articles other editors begin for such reasons (especially flawed reasoning such as the wildly inaccurate claim there are only 344 hits) is just wrong, and against what we stand for here. Badagnani 02:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weakest Keep I have ever seen. Badagnani, a Ghit is google hits and it only has 344 unique hits off of google. Please don't speak for other Wikipedia authors or make statements as an authority on 'what wikipedia stands for'. After we remove blogs, forums, wikipedia, and journals it only shows 284 unique hits[18]. Only reason I say keep is because of the NYT article. If that wasn't around, I would say to nuke the article without pity. --Brian (How am I doing?) 05:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: unique Google hits are only counted on the first 1,000 Google hits, so 344 unique Google hits does not mean that there are only 344 different sites mentioning this. Wikipedia has 416,000,000 Google hits (!), but only 384 unique Google hits[19]. Let's delete Wikipedia? I have no opinion on this article, but deletion because of the low number of Unique Google Hits is in this case a bad idea. Fram 09:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The movie is included in the Rotten Tomatoes, Amazon, Moviefone and New York Times movie databases. It has also been reviewed by some notable media sources such as Slant Magazine [20], and The Hub Weekly [21] as well as mentioned in articles in the Scoop [22] and the New York Times [23] (note that the New York Times article requires subscribing).--TBCTaLk?!? 03:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - per TBC. And you have to give the article credit - at least it doesn't prattle on and on about every minor detail (a common technique used to misdirect attention from the unimportance of the subject). My Alt Account 03:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Completely non-notable conspiracy cruft film. Morton devonshire 04:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per TBC. Note also that it's #1,224 on Amazon's DVD rank. (For comparison purposes, Criteron Collection's M is #3,814, Rikki Tikki Tavi/Yankee Doodle Cricket is #1,389 and Bakshi's The Lord of the Rings is #18,969, all of which are clearly notable.) That, and especially the New York Times mention, make it a minor but notable film.--Prosfilaes 04:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there's a load of rubbish placed on WP by advocates of the "9/11 Truth Marketing Opportunity" - sorry, "Truth Movement" - but this doesn't appear to be it. Notability guidelines seem satisfied. Vizjim 06:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no need to advertise for Jersey girls seeking wealth.--Tbeatty 07:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per TBC, especially based on the New York Times article. - Mgm|(talk) 10:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete More conspiracy cruft. Barely any coverage by reliable sources. --Peephole 12:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. If it was expanded, it could turn into a resonable article. +Fin-
  • Keep - A useful stub of what might be a better article concerning a reasonably notable film. This deletion request seems driven by political rather than academic motives, and hence should be scrutinized carefully. I don't agree with the film's conclusions, but I wanted to know more about it, particularly as related to other 9/11 conspiracy theory propoganda. Or am I suspicious for even asking about 9/11 conspiracy theorists? --Nemonoman 16:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment no opinion, but I added an Importance tag to the article because the article makes no case why this film has any relevence, notability, or importance. TBC basically did all the legwork already so interested parties just need to include the sources he's provided in the article (and go ahead and boldly remove the tag after the sources have been included).--Isotope23 16:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, absolutely One of the best 9/11 movies I have ever seen. Furthermore, this is a new movie. If this were to disappear into the fog of time then I could see some argument for deleting it, but why throw out the baby with the bathwater? This movie features the Jersey girls who were on the family steering committee for the 9/11 Commission. The movie documents their story. It also has interviews with Paul Thomson, one of the premier Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11. It is based entirely on excerpted press stories so is based firmly in fact. Facts, I recall, are what wikipedia is about, not delete trolling, which I see a lot of around here. Kaimiddleton 16:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per New York Times. Gamaliel 19:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After reviewing the sources, I have found that the article does NOT pass notability requirements. The NYT mention is NOT an article that focuses on, and only on the movie (which is required. The article must be a full-length featured article about the subject only). It is only a mentioned as a small part of related 9/11 events happening on or around 9/11/06. Rotten Tomatoes is not used as a 'reliable source'. Amazon is used to verify the movie was made though, as is the AOL movies listing but neither provide a reason the movie is notable. Slant Magazine and Hub Weekly are not a print magazines but rather are blogs...which removes them as a reliable sources (blogs are not normally allowed, per wikipedia policy). Scoop is not a reputable website (and this is just a press release), and hence is also voided as a reliable source. Nothing notable about this and does not have multiple, independent, third-party, reliable, full-length featured articles about the film.
On a side note, I want to shake a finger at all the keeps that have not done any research into this beyond looking at the AFD and voting per what ever was said. I was guilty of this until I actually looked up the articles and found user, Tree Biting Conspiracy, lying about the sources. AfD is about researching the topic and basing your own keep/delete on your own research. --Brian (How am I doing?) 19:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lying about sources? First of all, false accusations are not civil, and are a violation of WP:CIV. As for the New York Times article, I did not state that the article entirely focused on the movie, I only stated that it mentioned the movie. Having a profile on Rotten Tomatoes, AOL Movies, or Amazon does make a movie more notable than if it was some sort of home movie made by a couple of teenagers after school. Also, Slant Magazine and Hub Weekly, are considered review websites, and not blogs. Next time, I suggest that you please do not accuse other users of lying before carefully reading their comments.--TBCTaLk?!? 20:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Also, don't blame me if other users don't bother to actually research the topic and simply use "per nom" as an explanation for deletion (which is personally a pet peeve for me too). Though it's true I didn't lie , I'm also not perfect (no one is) so I'm still vulnerable to make mistakes. Either way, be sure to be a bit civil next time before making allegations such as those above. :) --TBCTaLk?!? 20:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with TBC; this comment is rather uncivil. You provided no evidence that TBC was lying about anything, and your differing analysis of his sources was a difference in opinion, and should have been stated like that.--Prosfilaes 04:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as of 14 September 2006: Amazon.com Sales Rank: #765 in DVD.[25] Yet more evidence of notability, and yet more reason why there really isn't any reason to "hide" information from our users. Badagnani 20:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sales figures are transitory. When the numbers collapse in a few weeks, as all DVD sales figures eventually do, will you then nominate this article for deletion yourself? --Aaron 20:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Everything is transitory. Sic transit gloria mundi. But current figures show that it is currently popular, which means it will have some interest in history. As you say, all DVD sales figures eventually drop; should we use that to remove all popular movies?--Prosfilaes 04:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: that is why it is called a "stub." There are a lot of such articles throughout Wikipedia, and we don't delete them all for the reason that they are short. A blow-by-blow description of the film's contents, how it was made, etc. can of course be added but that takes time, with the contribution of various editors (which could include you). But it seems that, at least so far, your edits consist solely of attempting to remove articles written by other editors, and not to create any new ones of your own. Badagnani 21:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: when you say "more notable than," were you perhaps referring to Ludicolo, Laughing Man (Ghost in the Shell), or Vala Mal Doran? They are all treated with loving concern for detail, yet deal with fantastical subjects. If those articles have a right to exist here, so that our users may learn from them (as I believe they do), why not also an article about a widely released new film examining one of the most important events of the past few years, and featuring as its main characters the widows of men lost in that event? Is fantasy more significant than fiction, or is it simply a question of whether consumers bought more of one and fewer of another? As with some other editors here, I believe the "selective deletionist" agenda is more insidious and aggressive. Let's try to respect one another's contributions here. Badagnani 23:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I never heard of those articles or topics, but I agree with you (clearly). I had in mind topics far less notable than this one that add little to Wikipedia like Every time you kill a kitten... God masturbates.--csloat 01:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be confusing your personal feelings with a method of deciding on verifiability and notability (possibly along the lines of the Chewbacca Defence?) Whether you and your Swedish great-uncle have heard of My Life as a Dog is utterly irrelevant - the movie has gained substantial coverage, been nominated for or awarded many prizes, launched the career of a major director, and is clearly significant (and pretty good, by the way). Equally, your strong feelings on viewing the movie "9/11: Press for Truth" are utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand: the question is whether the movie in question has enough significant independent coverage to justify an encyclopedic article and allow one to be written. As far as I can see, this movie passes the low threshold required, so I've voted keep - this despite loathing conspiracy theories. Other disagree. Assume good faith, and display it. Vizjim 09:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think the film represents a conspiracy theory. It sets out a timeline and focuses primarily on the government's failure to investigate promptly and fully as in previous disasters of a similar magnitude, and particularly on the failure to answer the questions developed and posed by family members to the 9/11 Commission, once that committee was finally organized, over the objections of the Bush administration. Probably a lot of the comments implying that the film is akin to some of the other 9/11 conspiracy films come from people who haven't seen it. A glance at the strongly political userboxes of the editor who put this page up for deletion suggests there may be other overarching motivations for his actions (whether conscious or subconscious) than lack of "notability" of this film. Badagnani 11:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "Don't see" is the key phrase here, as it seems you haven't seen the film before voting here. As mentioned above, there are no conspiracies discussed in the film; it is a straight discussion of facts regarding the 9/11 timeline and investigation, and the families' reactions. So what you and many editors say above is really quite inaccurate, and reflects poorly on you in that you would vote without verifying that what you say is correct. When you say it's not "any more notable," does that mean, then, that this documentary is less notable than Ludicolo, Laughing Man (Ghost in the Shell), or Vala Mal Doran? That wasn't answered above. Thank you for your input. Badagnani 04:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't vote delete because it is a conspiracy video. I deleted it because it is not notable. And yes, it's less notable than those things you point out, which means it's really, really not notable. This seems like just more promotion of 9/11 truth movement cruft we've been seeing recently.--Cúchullain t/c 04:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's a legitimate article on a legitimate subject. It wouldn't kill me if merged with Jersey Girls, but if Ray Charles has a separate article on 'Mess Around", I see no reason not to have separate articles on the Jersey Girls and this film. Wikipedia is full of cross references to trivial information, or so sez Comic Book Guy. That's my non-political opinion. My political opinion is that people who see this as "9/11 cruft" could well be talking out of the other side of their mouths soon, because conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan has said that the administration plans to trot out their own "9/11 widows" to drum up support for completing the removal of the Bill of Rights from the Constitution.Ortolan88 18:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Come on. Both "Mess Around" and Ray Charles have much more notability than this film and the Jersey Girls. And I don't know what you're implying with the "talking out of the other side of their mouths" comment, but I didn't vote to delete because of my opinion of the films content (though I do have one), I voted to delete because I think the film is not notable. I'm believe most of my fellow delete voters had the same reasons.--Cúchullain t/c 19:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ortolan88 was pointing out the Ludicolousness of your above statement that you believe a "large bipedal tropical plant"-shaped children's cartoon character to be more notable than a documentary film featuring primary source interviews with the 9/11 family members who were "instrumental in the creation of the 9/11 Commission."1 I don't think much more needs to be said (or can be said, for that matter) about this. Badagnani 19:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm not even going to discuss the pokemon, it's a non-sequitur argument. Just because those things are not notable doesn't mean this is. This film isn't even listed on IMDb, for God's sake. Just because the Jersey Girls are notable doesn't make everything tied to their wagon notable as well. This is just more of the same advertizing for the 9/11 truth movement that has popped up lately.--Cúchullain t/c 20:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is NPOV, so arguing that it's an ad really doesn't help your case. It'd be nice if more of the arguments against the film treated it the same as a documentary about the Pikary fish of east Surinam, and stopped calling it 9/11 cruft and just "advertizing for the 9/11 truth movement".--Prosfilaes 08:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nomination and per Aud, Tom Harrison, etc. Dwain 21:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it will be useful information to many readers on both sides of any 9/11 debate and features significant figures in that debate. Tyrenius 01:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep this film is very well produced and dives headfirst into facts, accounts, and news stories about the war on terror and 9/11. its not a conspiracy movie but a documentary which researches facts not psudoscience. if loose change which is a complete conspiracy theory movie can be kept on here i dont see why 9/11: Path to Truth should ever be asd --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.18.23 (talk • contribs) User's 16th extant edit. Tyrenius 00:21, 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 04:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masters Invitational Math Contest

edit

I can't find any evidence that this competition has received any media coverage, and it really just appears to be a competition conducted on a math webforum - see this link. It may be sponsored by the Art of Problem Solving, but I don't even really see any official evidence of that; the only other source on this which I could find was the AoPS Wiki, which, like this one, is freely editable. Nonnotable neocompetitionism. Might someday become articleworthy but now is not the time. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:40, 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. Yanksox 21:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Waltrip

edit
Don't forget to delete Image:IMG 2657.JPG. - Mgm|(talk) 10:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity, NN, possibly mistaken for a user page. Djcartwright 02:54, 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 Speeedy Delete A1. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mortazavi

edit

Vanity, NN, attack against wikipedia. Vandalism. Djcartwright 02:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete, patent nonsense/hoax. NawlinWiki 18:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Neal

edit

A complete hoax and a vanity article. Speppers434 23:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After just one time? I'd give him one chance to reform at least. - Mgm|(talk) 10:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMO creating a bogus article is much worse than plain vandalism, it takes a lot more time to deal with it. Peus creating links to it. Plus vandalising this page. And I'm not convinced that Crayke Football Club is real. It probably needs an Afd also. --ArmadilloFromHell 13:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect. Petros471 22:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caridee English

edit

This was the lead article in the train wreck AfD here. Non-notable. Fails WP:BIO. Delete. BlueValour 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 Speedy delete, patent nonsense (or WP:SNOW, if you don't think it's patent nonsense). NawlinWiki 20:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dunn Experience

edit

Completely incoherent, but not gibberish, so not patent nonsense. Can't even tell what the article is about. eaolson 03:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Correct. And this "article" is beyond meaningless. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 00:52, 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mark of Conte

edit

This is an insignificant book. The Jade Knight 03:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, the book was published by a notable publisher (Aladdin, which is a division of Simon & Schuster). Also, it won two awards (Southern California Council on Literature for Children and Young People Award for Best Fiction) and it was nominated for another (California Young Reader Medal). [29]--TBCTaLk?!? 04:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to authors page.--Peta 06:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep If you are going to nominate a book for deletion, then please go down to the library and do some real research. It's irritating when I see people nominate a book off of just doing a quick Google search, looking at the Ghit number and basing their entire AFD on it. There are many other sources for research that are just as powerful as the net, and just as accepted for sources. While I agree that all articles need to be verifiable, The book was published by a notable publisher and did win the awards noted (which a quick check at the local library can confirm). But since it is fairly obvious that would be too much work for some people here, I'll stick to their preferred (and inherently flawed) researching tool.
Nominated for the 1982 California Young Reader Medal

of Southern Mississippi has confirmed that it won the southern california council on literature for children and young people award (G-cached site)

If we look at [guidelines for books] we see this

Nonetheless there is no dictum against any book that is reasonably spread or otherwise well-known or remarkable. Ask yourself if several libraries or bookshops, or a no-subscription website have a copy of the book, so that other wikipedians can easily consult the book, or at least have access to on-line or press-published reviews of the book.

Remember this book was published in the 1970's...way before the internet, hence press-reviews online will be scarce. Not many Ghits for "The Mark of Conte" but it is a 70's printed book and this does pass because of it's awards and wide spread among libraries around the world. Looking online though shows MANY libraries have a copy of this book. The first Google page has the Boston Public library and the Juneau Public Library (that's a spread...Boston, NY and Juneau, AK). The next page has the Cairo American College, in Cairo Egypt listing the book on their shelves, as well as the Wheaton Public Library (wheaton, IL), City of Tempe Public Library (Tempe, AZ),Logan Public Library (Logan UT) and a listing by the The Missouri State Library and Nassau Library System (Nassau, NY). A search of the ODIN database for the Tri-State area of North Dakota, Minnesota, South Dakota found that 52 libraries in those states carried the book. I think that proves this is a keep. --Brian (How am I doing?) 06:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The links Brian provided are secondary... - Mgm|(talk) 21:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Beat me too it, MacGyver. :). Side note, did you know that Richard Dean Anderson has a home in Cass Lake, MN (right on the lake). Met him a few times...really great guy! --Brian (How am I doing?) 21:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That source (sing.) is secondary, but contains no more information on the book than is currently in the stub—my point is that the article is unlikely to grow, and would be better off merged with Sonia Levitin. The Jade Knight 01:14, 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 Speedy Delete A6 and A7. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States Achievement Academy

edit

Prod removed without comment. One of these companies that publish a yearbook of "notable" high school students, in order to sell high-priced copies to the parents. Spam. No indication of notability. Fan-1967 03:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Greene

edit

A search of "Chuck Greene" javelin only gets a few dozen hits [30], mainly retreads of this article, his achievements are minor at best. Renosecond 04:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to point out that the Maccabiah Games are basically the "Jewish Olympics" and even the article says that they are on a lower teir than even the Commonwealth Games, which most medal winners do not have articles based on those accomplishments. And I couldn't find anything verifiable based on my search. And looking at the contributions, I have a feeling that said subject created his own article. Look at the names and oddness of the pic. Renosecond 22:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Therapeutic Value of Creative Writing

edit

See nomination for author Paul M. Spicer. Andrew Levine 04:07, 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 redirect. History still there if anyone wants to merge. Petros471 22:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jennipher Frost

edit

Part of the abandoned Afd here. NN. Fails WP:BIO. Delete. BlueValour 04:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cruft is not a reason for deletion, please be more specific about your reasoning. - Mgm|(talk) 09:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gwnage

edit

Neologism. No relevant Google hits. eaolson 04:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge. Please note that 'delete and merge' is not a valid option as a merge involves preserving the page history. Petros471 22:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Crosby

edit

Main claim of notority is being the father of Sidney Crosby, hockey experience is just playing in the junior leagues and being drafted almost last in the 1984 NHL draft, never playing in the NHL. Google search gets about 250 unique hits 1, most are just retreads of this or Sidney Crosby pages that say the memebers of family. Renosecond 04:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

I think the list's items should be added to appropriate categories Midnightcomm 04:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 02:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopes and Fears Tour

edit

Not notable music tour. More Keanecruft. Ogdred 04:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO THIS ONE NOT. This kind of articles have their own category. I'm getting mad for dealing with you bunch of... Why do you hate Keane bloody hell??--Fluence 15:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and don't merge, what is notable about a tour by a band?Richyard 16:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A non-notable tour sure to be forgotten by most people within a few months. Perhaps if this were a legendary, historical tour by a genuinely accomplished band such as The Beatles it would be worth documenting. The Mekon 16:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one for the fansites, not here, methinks. As much as I like Keane, articles about individual tours ain't good for whatever band. The JPStalk to me 17:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, self-explanatory. - 85.210.176.175 18:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, thanks Mekon, you gave me a weapon. Delete all tours made by every band, including The Beatles, and I won't fight keeping the article. Comments made by Richyard and Painbearer shoudn't be taken serious. They just like to destroy Keane.--Fluence 23:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Really, what part of Wikipedia policy do people not understand? And if you are to actually carry out your threat, Fluence, you may be blocked (by others) for violating WP:POINT. --physicq210 04:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or delete depending upon the reason. Tour articles are definitely justifiable in a number of cases, as some of Wikipedia's better existing tour articles attest. For many artists, concert performances and tours are a more powerful and/or popular manifestation of their work than their albums or singles, the latter two of which Wikipedia relentlessly documents. That said, this particular article is an ungodly mess; much more than two (inconsistently formatted) setlists are needed to justify a tour article, and the 'Worldwide popularity' section is mostly off-topic. So a case could be made to delete this article and let someone else write a new one, if they can include material warranting an article. Wasted Time R 03:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete it. Keeping the content and noting that some people would like it to be merged, and that can be decided on the talk page rather than here. — CharlotteWebb 00:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Iron Sea Tour

edit

Another not notable tour. Keanecruft Ogdred 05:03, 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 04:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inter milan online

edit

Appears to fail WP:WEB. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 05:28, 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 No consensus--Konstable 07:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Car insurance ireland

edit

Essay/unencyclopedic. Prod was removed by article starter. —Xezbeth 05:50, 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--Konstable 07:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casio Exilim EX-S600

edit

Individual camera model information is unnecessary at this level of detail. Prod removed by poster. ArmadilloFromHell 06:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:NOT a camera user guide. Erechtheus 06:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made that page, and you want to delete it because it's to detailed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiftysixmoha (talk • contribs)
    • First, sign your posts with ~~~~. Second, try reading WP:NOT as linked by Erechtheus; it mentions that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which this article definitely is. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 06:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the nominator is wrong. Some subjects can be covered in this level of detail. However, only if one doesn't contravene our Wikipedia:No original research policy by doing so — i.e. there must be multiple published non-trivial sources (independent of the subject and its manufacturer, per our WP:CORP criteria) that already cover the subject in this level of detail. Given that this article cites "My Casio Exilim EX-S600 Digital Camera, and myself" as its references, it clearly isn't based upon sources. Please always use sources when writing articles, and do not perform original research. Uncle G 09:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per those above. Casio's a notable manufacturer, but not everything which comes out of their factories is notable in and of itself. Also, note that the author removed the AfD template from the article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 09:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC0
  • I read the WP:NOT and my article is perfectly fine within thoses lines! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.248.103.67 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment: A bit of semantics... please note that this is not "your" article, per WP:OWN. --Kinu t/c 14:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • REPLY I get the fact that the article I wrote infact does not belong to me, because it is a contribution from me, that is what I ment by "my" article, and what does that have to do with my article being deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.248.97.80 (talk • contribs)
        • Deliberately citing yourself as a reference is within the field of original research. Beyond that, even if the article is well-written, the topic isn't that notable. A style of architecture is noteworthy, but not every one of the thousands of examples of it are. A company may be noteworthy, but not necessarily everything it makes. A particular device may be described in general, but not every make and model of it need be explored in depth. There are explanations of what cameras are and what they do; we don't need an article about every camera. Djcartwright 20:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • ReplyAt this point, I would like wikipedia to keep this article, at this point will my article be deleted? if so -or- if not, pleaes notify me ASAP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.248.97.37 (talk • contribs)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Wing000 01:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, wikipedia should have a list of all digitals cameras.--Taida 23:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Wikipedia already has an article on Digital cameras which seems to cover all the important aspects thereof. Why is any one given exemplar of the type any more notable than any other? BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 00:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; if there is any useful content (i.e., that does not read like a product review), then it should be merged into Casio Exilim and the page should be redirected there. Information on the various models of this line of camera may be useful for comparison purposes in that main article, but as it stands, a page on each individual model seems unencyclopedic, and seems to provide a magnet for addition of POV content that would turn Wikipedia into epinions.com. --Kinu t/c 17:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BigHaz nails it. —ptk✰fgs 22:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was BJAODN. I'm leaving the image as it is since it's PD. - Mailer Diablo 04:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mythical creature hierarchy

edit
Deleting administrator should remember to delete the image along with the article.
I have copied this article to BJAODN for its humor value, please keep the image. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contested prod, if you can believe that. Original prod reason was "Completely unsourced and unverifiable, severely POV ("by far the most awesome mystical being?"), verges on patent nonsense" VoiceOfReason 06:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centrifugal Force Misconceptions

edit

Part of a series of articles, unencyclopedic apprach to the subject which is explained better and more accurately on the Centrifugal force page. Delete --Peta 06:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Science Misconceptions: Greenhouse Effect, Global Warming and Ozone Depletion

edit

Unencyclopedic guide for teachers on how to explain global warming, delete --Peta 06:23, 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 04:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strip Monopoly

edit

Previous nomination here which resulted in was "no consensus" for deletion. Four months later the article still lacks cited sources, and existence of reliable sources appears unlikely. Although "strip monopoly" scores pretty well on Google (11,800 hits), none of them appear to qualify as a reliable source for anything official. Rather, Monopoly is a popular game and some people will naturally start inventing "strip" versions of it and post their own private rules on the internet. (Compare this to strip poker which is more widespread and which had a world championship(!) arranged in London.) Note that a number of those who argued for the article's inclusion in some form last time did so provided that sources were provided. The article remains original research. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:16, 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 KEEP. If it turns out that this guy really is Jesus Christ, I for one do not want to have to explain to St. Peter why I deleted this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs)

Jose Luis De Jesus Miranda

edit

Jose Luis De Jesus Miranda is (or is not) a cult leader, dpeending who you believe. A search for the exact name cult and a search for the exact name -cult give approximately equal numbers of hits, but both numbers are small. A few mainstream cites, but only really for his organisation, on which we do not have an article. So I say delete this, since we have here two sentences, of which one (the one with citations, ironically) is the subject of an edit war. Guy 07:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While I would prefer an article on the organization rather than the person, the fact there's a few mainstream citations about his organization makes him the leader of a notable cult. I don't see how leaders of a notable cult can't be notable themselves. If the edit war bothers you, block offenders, get it protected or ask for mediation. There's enough ways to resolve this without deleting verifiable information. - Mgm|(talk) 09:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete let's see... man starts religious evangelism, proclaims himself the second coming of Jesus Christ, gets a few minor mentions on various websites, and a puff piece on the Today Show... and this meets WP:BIO how? I say weak though because I suspect there may be sufficient sourcing in Spanish Language texts to meet WP:BIO and I will reconsider if someone can produce them.--Isotope23 16:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep When someone is mentioned on a a segment of a TV show, they garner some buzz. Buzz helps establish notability. This guy is getting mentioned and it appears that he is note worthy. Also per MacGyverMagic. Yanksox 21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I second Mgm. The guy IS information. I came to this article hoping to learn more about him after encountering his claims elsewhere. I'm sure there are enough people in a similar situation to warrant an article. The article does need a lot of work, though.--RichG 08:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I think this subject is very interesting and notable. Especially considering that he has been on the news, and that his followers have given him cars and lots of money. EliasAlucard|Talk 19:43, 15 Sept, 2006 (UTC+1)
  • Keep per the above comments. RFerreira 22:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Programmer's day

edit
Programmer's Day was nominated for deletion on 2004-09-12. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Programmer's Day.

Imaginary/joke holiday. Ridiculously few Google hits given its subject area, and no sources cited. Dtcdthingy 08:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why not make it an actual Holiday, and give credit to Wikipedia for initiating this Holiday. BTW, I am really not joking — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdeyab (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nominator. - Mgm|(talk) 09:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Nigel (Talk) 09:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Friends of mine do observe this 'holiday' in one way or the other, me too (yes, I am a coder). This is no new idea, it's been around for a while. Or do you think "what I can't find with google does not exist"? BTW: I know it longer than the wikipedia - only i don't know who told me about in the first place. Tim
    • Please cite sources to prove your assertion that this idea is not new. The onus is on you to demonstrate that this article is verifiable, not on other editors to defend their good faith attempts to find sources for an article that doesn't have any. Uncle G 11:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unfortunately, unless the person who told you is a reliable source then the no original research policy means that the article should be deleted. Google is not the only means of finding reliable sources, but in this case it should provide a fairly good guideline. If the holiday was celebrated by a recently discovered tribe with no written language then maybe we expect to find a lack of references on the web, but that's not the case with a coders' holiday. I assume the correct title should be "Programmers' Day" anyway, or is it for a specific but nameless programmer? Yomanganitalk 11:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Real programmers don't take holidays. Sjc 12:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what kind of references would be satisfying but the holiday was mentioned in PC World Komputer - a Polish edition of a PC World magazine (read by about half a million people) which sort of proves that the concept was not made up recently by a random guy who only wanted to edit Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.96.228.130 (talk • contribs)
    • Yeah, but it's not about whether the idea exists. Neither that link nor the one that's been added acknowledge it as anything more than a semi-joke proposed holiday. Semi-joke proposed holidays that barely exist don't belong in Wikipedia. --Dtcdthingy 14:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see why. SAAD is a semi-joke as are most of the things related to geek culture. I agree that calling it holiday is a bit too much, but a little of reediting the article should solve the problem. -- mina86, 217.96.228.130 19:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Citing sources is what would actually solve the problem. Uncle G 01:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've given an URL to a Polish article which clearly states that 13/09/2006 is the Programmers' Day. I assume that company such as IDG is a reliable source. At this point I don't really know what else you expect. It's obvious Programmers' Day is not an official holiday, however, the fact that it was mentioned on a website of a respectable magazine and the fact article on Polish Wikipedia was created on 25/07/2003 proves that it's not new idea shared among small group of people and as such should be mentioned on Wikipedia. The thing that astonishes me the most is that you want to delete Programmers' Day but want to keep SAAD whereas both holidays are a semi-joke and unofficial. -- mina86, 217.96.228.130 14:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've just noticed that the article was deleted 2 years ago and reading the previous discussion shows another valid points: Why do you want do delete Programmers' Day but keep Pi Day, Mole Day, Square root day, Towel Day, and mentioned previously SAAD. There's also another reference which shows that the idea of that holiday was there in 2001 ("Last year Balt addressed with similar idea"). -- mina86, 217.96.228.130 15:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please don't create straw men, or use the fallacious "If article X then article Y." argument. The article that you cite reports that 1 person is campaining to have this day made an official holiday. Where are all of the other people documenting this purported holiday? Uncle G 00:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • All I'm saying is that I don't understand what's the big difference between Programmers' Day and the other days which make the former nominated for deletion. The article I cite also reports that "Many programmers considered this day [256th day of the year] the informal professional holiday." And finally, the other people documenting this holiday are the editors of PC World. -- mina86, 217.96.228.130 13:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DON't Delete Knowing of this day made me really proud. Perhaps i would pick another day, so we could also celebrate on someone. Please keep these article so we can spread it. Thanks.— Camus SoNiCo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete Non-notable, unverifiable. Looks a lot more like something made up in school than anything ever taken seriously by professional programmers. Fan-1967 14:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Moscow Times has a 2002 article, which gives the subject some credibility. Larisa Naumenko. "Programmers Want Their Own Holiday", The Moscow Times, 2002-10-23, pp. 9. -- I fail to see the value in speedy deletion of this, as the only purpose that serves is taking away people's opportunities to actually do the research and find references. It should also be noted that content veryfing the existence of the holiday has been deleted from the article, see the 17:48, 13 September 2006 edit— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.236.208.22 (talk • contribs)
  • DON't Delete Redefine this article as a reference to a proposal instead of a real holiday so this way it can be spread. The idea does exist so it must be documented as what it is, an idea.Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.92.4.151 (talk • contribs)
  • Don't Delete! The idea of this article is good. There must be a reference for programmers holiday on WiKi!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.170.72.226 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per all the "DON't Delete" votes which are making a good case to delete it on their own. Danny Lilithborne 18:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SAVE The concept may not be a religious holiday, but there are outside references: "Explanation-guide.info" "encyclopedian.com and even greeting cards: "123greetings.com" - NLloyd (edu SMUMN)
  • Delete, nn to the point of non-existence. Vizjim 21:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Try Uncyclopedia. Pavel Vozenilek 23:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I never knew about it. Sounds interesting. May be we can spread the word, and get a chance to relieve our stress at least once a year.
  • Delete. However I'd love to be able get an extra day off work, and cite Wiki as the reason mlk [[User_talk:mlk|<sup style="color: orange;">&#9993;</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/mlk|<sup style="color: green;">&#9836;</sup>]] 08:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DON'T Delete. Please dont delete this. I'm very proud of that holiday and I find that only a small part of the programmers know about it. We sould preserver it and keep it spreading.
  • Keep. Firstly, it hasn't got to be "a day off", it's more like April Fool's Day (that also to Sjc). MacGyver: Common sense doesn't help in any case (ref to your google evidence). BTW when I googled for "Programmer's Day" I found alot of hits that were referring to the article's topic - of course in between babble about "a programmer's day looks like..". On the other hand, deleting does not stop me from 'celebrating' that day. And the lack of 'written' documents about it that don't just cite wikipedia (or rather the tiny fractions of google hits that don't!), doesn't make it easy to come up with evidence. tim
    • This points you to the route to having an encyclopaedia article: Have this day properly documented outside of Wikipedia. Have the oral history written down, and published in a journal article or a book. Uncle G 13:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This day is actively celebrated and honoured by more people than 70% of the holidays mentioned in Wikipedia. If we can't see the reality, then we don't deserve to reflect it. -- 85.187.156.88 10:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Danny Lilithborne's observation above that the keep votes are the strongest argument for deletion. Michael Kinyon 11:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Made-up. Fredrik Johansson 13:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable to non-existent. Ergative rlt 14:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense. Gazpacho 19:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per significant PC World mention; PC World is definitely a reliable source, making this notable. Saying that something should be deleted just because new users want it kept is a silly reason to delete something, and I presume that the closing admin will disregard those opinions. Also, the nominator said that there were "ridiculously few" google hits, without giving a link. Upon further investigation, there are actually 15,000. Not quite ridiculously few. --Rory096 04:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a few days ago, there were barely any hits at all. It's gotten many mentions in the last few days only because a few popular blogs have linked to the Wikipedia article. I suppose we could rewrite the article to state the "Programmer's Day is a fictitious holiday invented in a Wikipedia article that was mentioned in many blogs in 2006", but covering such temporary internet fads doesn't make sense. Let's recreate the page if people still "celebrate" the holiday three years from now. Fredrik Johansson 12:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This 'holiday' is definitely older than from this year. I remember greeting cards for this occasion available on yahoo some 5 years ago. Yes, that's not a reliable source, and I have better things to do than looking for one. At least your 'made-up' above was too quick a shot - at least it wasn't made up on wikipedia. I already gave my opinion/vote as "tim", so... Bullhaddha 20:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • To the contrary, there were absolutely no mentions to Wikipedia in any of those pages. Note the "-wikipedia" in the search term. --Rory096 16:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about days like that: the Talk_Like_a_Pirate_Day. As I understand, we only need somebody claiming having invented Programmer's Day, and it'll be valid. I already said I heard about it from somebody else, so.. who wants? Bullhaddha 20:20, 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, the article was a lesser copy of Muse (magazine). The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muse magazine

edit

Contested prod which does not assert the notability of the subject magazine. Reason for contesting was "If this is a real magazine I don't see why it should be deleted. A stub template may be more appropiate. I've done some minor changes." MER-C 08:33, 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 merge to Now.com.hk. Mangojuicetalk 13:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MOOV

edit

Don't believe that this passes WP:WEB. Dweller 08:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"MOOV" also describes part of the MP4/QuickTime codec, so it might be worth redirecting there. 68.39.174.238 20:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted, CSD-A7. ➨ ЯEDVERS 10:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Lerner

edit

This appears to be a vanity article, subsequently vandalised BTLizard 09:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge all to relevant cycle. In looking at the articles, I have to agree with Mgm that there's no info we need to preserve in any of the articles, except for Rebecca's, so the rest will be redirected. Mangojuicetalk 13:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cassie Grisham

edit

Reality TV show cruft, not notable outside contested TV show. Nominating after a train wreck. Also nominated are:

  1. Kristi Grommet
  2. Kelle Jacob
  3. Magdalena Rivas
  4. Julie Titus
  5. Tatiana Dante
  6. Rebecca Epley
  7. Brandy Rusher
  8. Noelle Staggers
  9. Sarah Rhoades (ANTM)

MER-C 09:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there's nothing worth merging, I think they're still worth redirecting. - Mgm|(talk) 12:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean weathers

edit

WP:V: unverifiable: only sources I can find are myspace pages. If the movies have been made, they seem to have had no impact at all, in which case he fails WP:BIO. Fram 09:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. "High schools are notable". - Mailer Diablo 04:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St Richard Gwyn Catholic High School, Barry

edit

Does not meet Wikipedia:Schools criteria. Hera1187 09:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — Notable.[34][35][36][37] — RJH (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as usual. Gazpacho 19:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  ALKIVAR™ 00:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets proposed criteria. Silensor 23:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunately the links given by RJH seem to be the only thing that could possibly establish any notability for this school and as explained earlier they do not. I was not able through google searching to find any other relevant links that could argue for notability at all. JoshuaZ 01:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, schools are notable, as usual. bbx 02:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no reason to deprive users of encylopedic coverage of a verifiable and established school such as this. Kappa 02:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep worthwhile topic, with ready supply of verifiable information. --Rob 05:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as article makes nor provides no claims to notability. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 05:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Public institutions get public money and thus have a community interest on wikipedia. However, private schools, for-profit or not, need to meet the same standards of notability for other businesses or organizations to ensure WP:V. This school, of less than 600 people, asserts nothing and fails WP:V. Once it meets notability standards it will also meet verifible standards, and thus warrant an article. There needs to be guidelines for this or every and their brother who decides to open a school is going have an article. Arbusto 05:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does this school fail WP:V? Kappa 05:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have one article about one grant from 2002, some obscure award with just the same of the school (is this the school mentioned in the article) from 2004, a 2004 notice to add more buildings, and a blog from the "The Anti-Jihad Pundit." To verify this school and its merits, you need more than that. Would this four links be acceptable for a article on a business?Arbusto 06:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please per rjh this is notable meets proposed guideline too Yuckfoo 18:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Silensor to allow for organic growth. Verifiability over notability. --Myles Long 16:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No one makes any claims about "organic growth" to any article other than schools. It isn't clear to me whether the term has any meaning at all or is just a catchphrase (especially since it isn't clear to me how "organic growth" differs from "growth" in this context aside from possibly sounding more convincing). JoshuaZ 17:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please stop making verifiably false claims to support an untenable position. Organic growth arguments do crop up all over the place all the time. Are the legit? I have no idea. But don't let zealousness to deleting encyclopaedic content override the obligation to at least try to make true points. WilyD 18:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I'd be very interested in seeing explicit counterexamples to my claim. I have never seen the statement used outside school AfDs. JoshuaZ 18:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, for instance here's one about a band Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fa_Lun_Hai_(Farenheit) to pick the first one i could find. WilyD 18:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thank you for the example. I will refrain from making that comment in the future. Incidentally, slightly off-topic do you have an example that isn't a school where organic growth was an argument used and the article didn't end up getting deleted? JoshuaZ 18:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Can't say that I do. I much preer arguments of verifiability and encyclopaedic value. Arguments like notability and organic expansion seem to be a euphanism for I got nothing. WilyD 19:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Just wondering if someone wrote an article about a random friend of theirs and we declared it to be not-notable would you see that as an I got nothing argument? JoshuaZ 19:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I might. The article you imagine fails WP:V and WP:VAIN - but WP:BIO uses the word notability with respect to people - so it's not really a comparable case (since then, there is a relevent guideline or policy that discusses notability). But it's not transferable, guidelines that set notability set specific criteria because notability isn't subjective if it's to be used for deletion per WP:NPOV WilyD 19:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Two questions. First, if people explain why they think something isn't notable or if they use some set of criteria that they consider to be reasonable notability criteria is it then acceptable? Second, if the existence of WP:BIO is what matters does that mean we can only make notability arguments if an essay or proposed guideline exists? This would seem to lead to the absurd result that if I write an article about my left sock it can't be deleted on lack of notability grounds since we don't have a standard for socks? (and don't any jokers dare point to WP:SOCK). JoshuaZ 20:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Within the context of WP:BIO or WP:CORP notability has a very specific, nonsubjective meaning. Here no such policy exists. As for your sock, it could be deleted based on the policy WP:V - who cares about notability? On a more practical level, I would argue that if we wanted to have a notability guideline for things generally, we'd be happily surprised to discover we already have it - WP:V - a far more neutral point of view on whether something is notable or not. Not Do I find this notable? but Is there a significant viewpoint that finds this notable? WilyD 21:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        • So notability is only a standard that we are allowed to apply if someone has an essay or proposed guideline? Does that mean that if I write a list of what I consider to be notable that is then an acceptable thing to cite since it is objective? As to the WP:V as a gatekeeper that doesn't work well with schools because many schools will be permanent stubs following WP:V yet because we have verifiable information we are forced to have articles. To use an example without the WP:V issue there might be easily enough info to write an article about a local attraction or building, should we then definitely keep that based on the same criteria? JoshuaZ 21:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                          • No, I mean notability is a standard we should only apply if there's a guideline or policy - proposals and essays are not good for this. Will some schools stay eternal stubs? Possibly, I have no idea. But I don't really think stub is a criterion for deletion. WilyD 22:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sourced, encyclopaedic and meets common law standards of inclusion. No arguments have been presented for deletion that hold any water. WilyD 17:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Many schools close as no consensus and at least one has been deleted within the last few months. There isn't any "common law" standard for them. Furthermore, saying that the deletion arguments don't hold water isn't an argument but a statement. JoshuaZ 18:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • For high schools, there's an obvious precendent to keep, for elementary schools its not as strong - this is a high school, however. There is a definite common law to keep all high schools. As for the deletion "arguments" not holding water, that's only an observation. The closing admin will be able to see it to be transparently true, however, so I just felt it appropriate to call attention to it. WilyD 18:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No there isn't any such precedent. No consensus means just that- no consensus. The fact that they are kept is inherently procedural. Furthermore, even now highschools are occasionally deleted. See for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rochester Hills Christian School. JoshuaZ 18:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • One exception to a long standing tradition does not precendence destroy. Nor does no concensus vote results in keep change that high schools are kept by the common law. The precendent exists and is real. WilyD 18:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • No consensus does not provide any precedent. Under many common law systems (to use your favorite analogy) there are the equivalent of procedural keeps all the time. For example for the US Supreme Court if a justice is recused and the resulting vote is a tie the lower court is upheld and no precedent is established for future cases. So using your analogy these aren't keeps. Between that and the counterexamples(there are other similar counterexamples) the precedent claim bears little weight. JoshuaZ 19:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • It does serve precendent value, which is most obvious if you consider the purpose of precedence. It makes no sense to apply standards unevenly, nor is it benficial to anyone involved. High schools (almost) invariably end up getting kept - the precedent is that they are kept (though occasionally through no concensus - doesn't matter, the article is still kept) - and this is the precedent I appeal to. Combined with the fact that the article passes every relevent guideline or policy that could be applied to argue for deletion, the precedent is just the icing on the cake. WilyD 19:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Ok, so here we disagree. No consensus does not serve the same purpose of precedent. It simply says "the community doesn't agree on this either way. To be on the safe side we will keep it for now." That isn't the same at all as the community agreeing to keep. JoshuaZ 20:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I'm not talking about a precendence of intention, but a precendence of outcome. WilyD 21:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • A precedence of outcome is a precedenct that's merely a descriptive statement and should have no bearing on whether we treat it as precedent at all. In fact we don't apply that sort of logic- note an AfD that closes as no consensus is not treated as a relevant precedent for keeping if something becomes re-AfDed. So we don't even do that in the individual case, let alone the general. JoshuaZ 21:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 02:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of warez groups

edit

Most of this article will never be able to meet policy on Verifiability or no original research. Notability of many of the groups listed can't be proven, and the nature of the article makes it a magnet for vanity, unsourced statements, and vandalism. Furthermore, several points of What wikipedia is not appear to apply. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per my nom - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. I assisted her with this nomination. See also my prod tag. — Werdna talk criticism 10:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the valid points made by multiple keep voters in the last nomination. If needed, all unsourced entries can be commented out. Prolog 10:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - original nomination here Yomanganitalk
  • Delete - stupid listcruft. Though I will note that the supposed "legal concerns" cited in previous AfD's struck me as sort of stupid as well. The ever-so-important and fascinating info about each warez group is mostly not verifiable (plus nobody cares), though I will grant that it's not really a problem to verify that the groups exist, as some people claimed in previous AfDs. Tangentially, only a small minority of warez groups will ever earn their own articles, e.g. DrinkOrDie. As an organizational method, I would be more than satisfied with seeing all the genuinely notable warez groups inside the Warez Groups category. I think that works just fine, no need for a list. My Alt Account 10:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, many of the entries on the list are considered notable enough to have articles of their own, so their status should be verifiable enough to keep on here. Being a magnet for vanity, unsourced statements, and vandalism isn't a criteria for deletion--otherwise we'd delete George W. Bush for all the vandalism he gets. Prune, cleanup, but don't delete a useful index for the sake of vandals. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Alt account, a list provides a nice one-line summary that a category cannot: replacing a list like this with a category loses useful information. Also, to the nom, just what criteria on WP:NOT do you think this is violating? Vaguely asserting that it violates one without specifying which isn't a valid reason to delete. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria that I feel this list violates are:
1.8 Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
1.3 Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought
1.7 Wikipedia is not a directory
- Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 20:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It discriminates. All these groups are warez groups and if it's properly cleaned up, they're going to be only that minority that recieves third-party coverage of their activities.
    • It's not original, all of these groups have been identified as warez groups in other sources.
    • This article doesn't contain directory information, like web page links or phone numbers, just encyclopedic description of the groups. Your objections are baseless. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - in this case, the list is superior to a caregory, as it has the option to hold entries that would not make any more than a stub article. It also escapes tha major list problem, since many of the groups are defunct and the rate of new ones does not make it an "unlimited and unmaintainable list". Ace of Risk 15:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they aren't notable enough to have more than a stub written about them, then why are they notable enough to include at all? - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 20:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOR and WP:V don't go away when they are inconvienient. Any material carrying a warning about verifiability can and should be removed on site. We can only add or keep information that has been verified by reliable outside sources. Regardless of the outcome of the AFD, any material on that page that can't be verified can't be kept, per policies on no original research and verifiability. As far as I can tell at least 3/4 of the material there is unverifiable, and simply due to the nature of the subject, will never be. Whats left, if there is anything, may be better off as a category, or merged back into Warez, if we even want to keep it at all. Given how much of the article can't be verified, AFD made more sense. If you really think the article should be saved, then I'd strongly suggest you start finding sources for its content, as a Keep outcome won't stop WP:V and WP:NOR from being applied to every single statement and claimed fact in that article. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 03:33, 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 04:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. - Bobet 08:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Wojtanik

edit

Does not meet the notability criteria guideline

Springnuts 10:30, 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. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 02:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Urban Academy

edit

Spammy contested prod that does not assert notability. MER-C 11:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Petros471 22:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge Celtic

edit

Non notable junior team in non notable junior county league. Dodge 11:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 08:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marjorie Wee

edit

IMO,NN Dave 12:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Went to school. Got a degree. Got a job. Has a family. I'd have considered just going with a {{db-bio}} --Onorem 12:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article selected for deletion ?
What is wrong with the article ?
I think it should be retained.
She is quite well known among Singaporean legal circles as one of the best general counsel int he business. She was recently nominated for an award in the Asian Legal Business Awards as corporate counsel of the year.-- Singaporelawyer Moving comment from talk page --Wafulz 14:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As Singaporelawyer (talk • contribs) points out, she is notable within the legal community as well, not just within the company. Group general counsel is typically one of the eight or so highest positions in a company. "She is quite well known among Singaporean legal circles as one of the best general counsel int he business. She was recently nominated for an award in the Asian Legal Business Awards as corporate counsel of the year." She would have played a large part in any significant transactions that the company engaged in, including the acquisition of other shipping lines. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ay yi yi... WP:V, WP:NN, sockpuppetry... -- Kicking222 17:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

•[Comments moved from Discussion page:

1."KEEP - Its refreshing to have an Asian lady lawyer who is not a politician." (unsigned)

2."I see from Google that this same lady lawyer is also featured on websites in the US and the Philippines in connection with her work. I don't think the comment "I'm not convinced that she is notable outside of the company" was a fair one. Check these external websites out: Singapore International Chamber of Conmmerce[http://www.sicc.com.sg/who_weare_committees2.htm, Law Society of Singapore - 2 separate committees: [42] & [43]." User Dave|User Dave

3.WHY DELETE ? 2006 In-house counsel of the year award! And still this is not enough for the earlier user who stated: "Went to school. Got a degree. Got a job. Has a family." ? Definitely notable in my books."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.9.2 (talk • contribs)

4.Keep - If a Singapore lady attorney can look after the legal affairs of the American President Lines, then I say please keep."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pik Chiang (talk • contribs)

•New Comment - Disagree with Kicking222. Keep. Subject 114 hits in Google. Checked Google for "Kicking222" - no hits. Score now: Subject - 114 vs "Kicking222" - O. I am Spartacus too! 02:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Other than Truthbringer Toronto, all the editors opining keep are new accounts registered in the last couple of days... and several of them have an odd penchant for tagging vandalism edits with a "cleanup" edit summary.--Isotope23 20:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am emphatically not accusing User:TruthbringerToronto of sock- or meat-puppetry. I am, however, offering an opinion that some other people who (unfortunately) happen to agree with TbT look like multiple {sock|meat}puppets of others who have "voted" above. Not naming specific names, again, TbT would definitely not be among my list of those who might be the puppetmaster. I am clarifying this solely because my comment above, along with Isotope23's reply, could be misunderstood to be an accusation. --Storkk 01:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment... and I wasn't accusing User:TruthbringerToronto of any misdeeds either... I was merely pointing out that TruthbringerToronto is the only editor in good standing who has opined Keep.. I wasn't suggesting he was in any way connected to any of the other editors opining keep(to seperate TbT from the rest of the Keepers who are all new accounts). TbT and I fundamentally disagree on a lot of things, but I've never seen TbT do anything disruptive here at Wikipedia.--Isotope23 15:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restoring my strong delete comment that was deleted by 218dot186dot9dot2. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A senior executive at a large corporation can sometimes have rather more power than an elected politician, even though their activities might not be as well documented. This discussion is about notability, not about inappropriate behavior by new or anonymous editors. In general, I think that it would be helpful to have more articles about senior corporate executives, and I am afraid that this discussion will discourage editors from writing such articles. I'm also concerned that Wikipedia is better at providing coverage of the entertainment industry than it is at covering shipping lines and their senior executives. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For a large, notable company, I would not automatically grant notability to any employees except the one or two most senior officers. Otherwise, there most be some other assertion of notability to meet the criteria of WP:BIO, and that's missing here. --Satori Son 06:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battu Chinbat

edit

Non-notable person, assertion of notability is unreferenced. MER-C 11:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, certainly, this person could indeed be a superstar in Hong Kong. But without sources that say so, we can't just take 212.44.18.150's word for it. wikipediatrix 23:50, 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 04:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stand-up comedy clichés

edit

Delete The article is completely unsourced and unverifiable. Much of it is original research and speculation. There are point of view issues as well, such as segmenting cliched jokes by race. It fundamentally violates the policy that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This article was subject to a previous AfD debate which ended in no consensus in May, since then no discernable improvement or attempt to add sources has been made, in fact the article continues to deteriorate into Original Research. Enough time has been given to see this turn into a useful article. Gwernol 12:43, 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 04:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siahi

edit

Contested prod about a non-notable band. MER-C 13:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article has already been db'd (by me) and prodded, both times the template was removed by the original author. -- Klacquement 13:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn--Jusjih 13:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. Allow me to explain the reasons. Firstly, in WP:MUSIC, it is stated that the band or individual in question has to release two or more albums to satisy the inclusion of the topic here. However, in the article itself, under the sub-section of discography, the band has only released one album and the other album was only a demo. Moreover, in a google search for the band in question was done, it failed the WP:GOOGLE massively. Although there was about a hundred hits, almost (or all) of the hits were NOT refering to a band at all! Thus, it is also impossible to verify the article as well and even primary sources for the subject in question was impossible to find. To add weight to my argument, the external link of the article sends me to an error page as well! Thus, this article has to be deleted based on the various criterias on this project. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:45, 14 September 2006
  • Delete per nom. However, WP:MUSIC does NOT state a band must have two albums, it must satisfy only ONE of the listed requirements. This band, however, appears to satisfy none.66.201.16.35 07:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Yes, I am aware of that. My apologies if my above comments did not accurately state this. I should have made my comments clearer. Thank you for emphasizing this here. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hero class

edit

Hero class is something that is still in the works, nothing is known about it and it has even been removed from the official World of Warcraft homepage. I tried merging it with Classes in World of Warcraft, but it wasn't welcome, so deleting it as a last resort to add it again when and if Blizzard actually does anything with it. Havok (T/C/c) 13:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This has been mentioned in about every gaming article that I know of. This isn't a game guide at all, it is a description of a class found in a game. A guide tells you how to play a game, which this doesn't. Please look at Strategy guide for more information. --Pinkkeith 20:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not a game guide, and it's not even a crystal ball thing. The article is about something that was announced, but hasn't been talked about since it's announcement. Crystal ball would be understandable if it speculated on what the class was, but seeing as the information is from Blizzard themselves, it's not speculation. And as described above, a game guide would indicate that you learn how to play the game, and you don't here, it simply tells you what this is. If you mark this as a game guide we should just delete all articles about any game on Wikipedia. Havok (T/C/c) 07:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it is sort of a game guide. It's not a strategy guide or a walkthrough, but it is intended to be a guide to an aspect of a game. What else would one call it? A biography? An anthropology article? It doesn't mean that we need to delete every article about games; just the ones that offer excessive detail by giving obscure (or unused) character classes their own articles. Kafziel 12:06, 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The One Million Masterpiece

edit

The existence of the project is verifiable, but I don't think it's notable. It's a web-based charity project and this article was basically written as an advertisement for it. It claims to be a huge project, and the name would lead one to believe that, but there are actually fewer than 800 participants. Perhaps it will break the world record of 25,000 some day (I doubt it) but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We shouldn't be keeping this article around just because the subject might be notable someday. The only news coverage is based around advertisements and press releases from the project. I'm not sure whether this falls under WP:CORP or WP:WEB, but it fails both. Delete. Kafziel 13:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I originally added the {{notability}} tag back in July [44], but Novacatz considered it sufficiently notable to de-tag. I'm still not particularly convinced - whilst I don't dispute that it appears to be a charitable endeavour, rather than commercial spam, the tone of the article remains very much like advertising and I'm not convinced its notable advertising. DWaterson 15:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. While I think the concept and intent of the project are very interesting, the number of participants is very low. After a more significant number of people have participated, I would not object to seeing this article recreated. - CNichols 21:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know my nom may be worded a bit harshly, but I agree with you. I think it's a neat idea, and if it breaks records and makes history someday, then it would be notable enough to stay. Just not yet. Kafziel 21:37, 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 redirect and merge merged the image to the other article. Whispering(talk/c) 13:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pontypridd Town AFC

edit

This article has a considerably shorter edit history, and is much less informative, than the article at Pontypridd Town A.F.C. which there is currently a proposal to merge it with. There is no information in this article which does not also appear in the "A.F.C." one. -- Arwel (talk) 14:20, 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. Harro5 09:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Worker's Party

edit

Non-notable ("some 100 members but some believe that it just has two or three") vanity article about a party founded "on the 14th 10th of August 2006". See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Workers Party. --Zoz (t) 14:23, 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 -- Samir धर्म 10:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald, Cheese & Mini

edit

Seemingly non-notable, self-indulgent programming article. Should be deleted as per WP:NOT Drak 13:40, 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 04:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broom (clean)

edit

Not exactly sure why this was deproded. Anyways, the article claims that some Dutch hotels require that you sweep your own room with a "Dutch sweeping style". The whole thing strikes me (and at least one other editor who put up the prod) as highly doubtful. Note that I'm not contesting that the requirement that you clean your own room does not exist but that most likely is not as widespread as the article suggests, is not as typically Dutch and has nothing to do with a sweeping style. Pascal.Tesson 14:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoop snake

edit

There's not a single source for any of the statements in [Hoop snake]]. All are all attributed to Weasel Words like, "it is said," "several sightings have been alleged," "it has been suggested," ad nauseum. This is a good example of Wiki articles that need to be deleted because they are utterly unscholarly and seriously harm the reputation of Wikipedia. Askolnick 15:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


No, mud snake already has an article (in which the hoop snake myth is mentioned) - this article is on a different topic: the folk tale. That's possibly a reason for adding a disambiguation link at the top, but not for moving it to mud snake. Yomanganitalk 09:21, 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. - Bobet 08:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IAMAS Corporation

edit

See User:Vilerage/Iamas for the backstory on this article. There are at least three different separate organizations called IAMAS. Previous edits by User:Iamascorp have falsely claimed a connection between a non-notable country music manager based out of a PO Box in North Carolina and this "IAMAS Corporation", a non-notable "academy of arts and sciences". Neither organization passes WP:CORP nor a Google test: most hits are for IAMAS (International Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences). wikipediatrix 15:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, --Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 02:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Festival Bay Mall

edit

Just a shopping mall, of which there are hundreds in the United States alone. Nothing in the article indicates any importance that this mall exhibits over any other mall. Also, as a mall is a business, this falls under WP:CORP, which it clearly fails. Was prodded, but the tag was removed. Indrian 15:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A company or corporation is notable if it meets any of the following criteria:

  1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.
    • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following:
      • Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company. 1
      • Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories.2
  2. The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications.3
  3. The company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate stock market indices.4 Being used to calculate an index that simply comprises the entire market is excluded.

Guyanakoolaid 07:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastview Mall

edit

Just a shopping mall, of which there are hundreds in the United States alone. Nothing in the article indicates any importance that this mall exhibits over any other mall. Also, as a mall is a business, this falls under WP:CORP, which it clearly fails. Was prodded, but the tag was removed. Indrian 15:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Large mall that is (apparently) unique within the Rochester area in that it is able to draw visitors from outside its trade area. Major malls are notable. The article does, however, need a rewrite to look less like an ad. Kirjtc2 19:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently unique? - based on what? Please quote policy/guideline that states major malls are notable.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LOCAL explicitly states malls as examples of places of local interest that can have articles, if the proper information (history, architectural design, etc) is included. Kirjtc2 16:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes WP:LOCAL does list malls as an example of things known in in a local area but not outside of that area. Further down in the proposal (the second paragraph) it states, "It is the purpose of this guideline to suggest how to apply methods illustrated in existing policies and guidelines to this situation. It is not the purpose of this guideline to create new methods of handling concerns about these articles, or to define additional criteria for inclusion or deletion of these articles." (emphasis mine)--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 18:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any merge would require that the merging information meet the requirements of policy/guidline to be notable and sourced - this article fails WP:CORP and WP:RS.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Malls are important landmarks, that only exist in relatively small numbers per market. This mall certainly qualifies as any other, thus there would have to be a policy change to warrant deletion of this article. -newkai t-c 17:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a source to the policy (or guideline) that would need to be changed to alow for this to be deleted.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Malls easily meet "Criteria for products and services" on WP:CORP as they are in news all the time. -newkai t-c 15:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The malls=schools argument is faulty. The reason (although it has not reached consensus) schools are notable is that they are build and operated using public funds; malls are privately funded for the purpose of commerce.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Malls are often built with public tax breaks, and often contain public elements, such as libraries. -newkai t-c 15:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My take: malls are much more notable than schools because malls serve in many ways as the main attraction in the area and an important piece of the local economy. Schools are neither. --TMF T - C 18:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What particular part of WP:CORP does this article meet? The three criteria are: 1. multiple non-trivial published works, 2. listed on ranking indices of important companies, and 3. share price is used to calculate stock market indices. None of these three criteria is met.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know how often a mall is in the news!? Crime, new stores, expansion plans, etc. -newkai t-c 16:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, we are talking about this article specifically, not malls in general. Second, have a look at the article and sow me where there are any multiple non-trivial published works provided and how any of the information in the article is sourced using sources meting WP:RS.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 18:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying the article needs a lack of sources tag. I agree that the article needs some work, but that doesn't warrant deletion. -newkai t-c 00:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CORP doesn't require the non-trivial published works be cited in the article, merely that they exist. The article can use exclusively trivial published works as sources and not run afoul of our inclusion guidelines. Powers T 01:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple non-trivial published works. Here's one: [48]. Here's two: [49]. There are even more here, but they're in the paid archives. There's also "Mall expansion signals upscale shift", from the October 31, 2003 edition of the Rochester Business Journal. I could go on. Powers T 01:55, 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 04:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Www.endradio.com

edit

Contested prod2. Doesn't register on Alexa, doesn't assert notability, POV. --ais523 15:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Why delete? This is accurate information. Do not delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eddiebyrd (talk • contribs) 16:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


This site DOES register. Stop being an jerk.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=vmn&p=endradio

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=endradio

http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=endradio&FORM=MSNH

need more? Eddiebyrd 15:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eddiebyrd (talk • contribs) .[reply]

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

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

Thank you.


Alexa is not the only search engine, nor is a rule that a site must be found in Alexa, please refer to my other links, and the sites previous name. 24-7radio.com http://www.alexa.com/data/details/main?amzn_id=null&url=24-7radio.com/ alexa stats there. Notice 24-7radio.com redirects to endradio.com. Stop being a jerk about this.Eddiebyrd 15:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does have an Alexa on it.Eddiebyrd 15:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Alexa traffic rank is often considered a good way to estimate how notable a website is: The search engine test, and the website doesn't have one, not even on the redirect. You would need to give a pretty good reason why it doesn't register for the Wikipedia community to consider keeping the article. --ais523 15:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Whatever, delete the page, lowlifes. You didn't even give me 5 minutes to set it up anyway. Get a real life.Eddiebyrd 15:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


(Personal attack removed) You didn't even give me 5 minutes to set it up anyway. Eddiebyrd 15:56, 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 10:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

411 Building

edit

This building is neither architecturally nor historically significant, nor is this a directory for buidlings Criticalthinker 08:07, 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adnexus

edit

delete non notable biotech company, no notability asserted. No apparent sign of passing WP:CORP. Website ranked in the 1.6millionth, 328 unique Ghits out of 25100, which are mainly internal hits, biotech directory sites, their venture capital partners, or non-us companies with the same name. Company formerly known as 'Compound Therapeutics', 307 unique Ghits/784, of which many are re patent registrations. Alexa ranked in the 2.8 millionth Ohconfucius 10:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Adnectins do seem to be a novel approach to developing anti-cancer agents, and the company may well attain notability. However, neither adnectin nor their lead product CT-322 get any hits on Medline, suggesting that their development isn't currently very advanced. Espresso Addict 18:11, 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 redirect —Xezbeth 16:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After Dark I Feel

edit

Page has...little content

Also any information is already covered in the albums page..this is only a song Fethroesforia 15:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gore III

edit

This article has no bearing on anything to do with an encyclopedia.--Ceruleanblue 02:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteThis has no information of value and is intensly not neutral. It doesn't mention anything biographical except his arrest record. Where are his school records or his current activities? --Conja
  • Keep I believe he is notable for his accident. This was widely publicized at the time and he should rank above a typical son of a politician for this reason-- Mikemoto 00:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article could use some cleanup, but Al Gore III easily meets WP:N. --Aaron 16:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this was already up for AfD on July 25-August 4! Way too soon to re-nominate it! PT (s-s-s-s) 20:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I said in the last AFD, I believe that his legal troubles only made the news due to who his father is. Thus, he is a "biographical subject only in view of his being related to a notable personnage". As we do not believe in notability by relationship, and the U.S. is not a feudal or monarchical country, he is not notable to the WP:BIO standards. GRBerry 01:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Gore III has received lots of coverage for his arrests and for his accident and the ensuing effects. Remember, WP:N is not a formal policy. There is sufficient verifiable, reliable material for the article to be written in a neutral POV. SliceNYC 01:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable due to accident, arrests, per others. - CNichols 15:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SliceNYC. He has obviously had a signifigant impact on the life and actions of Al Gore, which makes him just as notable as both Roger Clintons. But consider this, how many countless people get busted for reckless driving, DUI and pot possession? Yet why when the Bush daughters, or Noelle Bush or any other "minor" royal do these things they're broadcasted on CNN and the like. People pay attention to these folks because there is notability in who they are and what they do. It is that same notability and curiousity that lead folks to type that name into the search engine here on Wikipedia. There should be an article here to see. Agne 18:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and stop relisting this for deletion, the subject is verifiably notable. RFerreira 22:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep — Please note that the nominator, (Ceruleanblue has a total of 5 edits to wikipedia, counting this AfD nomination. Also note that Conja is linked to Summerlin. (who has 0 edits, though the IP (162.94.28.71 that posted has 26 edits. (but this IP is editing with the username Conja or Summerlin. see diff here. I leave this to others to figure out, but I am going to say strong keep based on the prior nomination being so soon. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 00:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep this one please it is bad faith nomination see also past noms Yuckfoo 18:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notorious misfit of the Gore family... as notorious as the bush daughters... etc... if their parents are famous and the subject is just famous for association, that would be one thing... this numbnut is famous for doing retarded things on his own and being related to a major public figure. He certainly qualifies under WP:BIO.  ALKIVAR™ 19:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the majority of comments made above; the subject is individually noteworthy. Yamaguchi先生 23:14, 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. It may be helpful to point to WP:CORP, which is the basis for the delete votes here. Mangojuicetalk 14:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Auctioning4u

edit

Yet another eBay drop-off service. Precedent is to delete these. Contested prod.

I am the company's CEO and therefore my view might be regarded as biased. I believe, however, that our industry has a major change on how people live their lifes and the emergence of what we refer to as Auction Culture (see also Daniel Nissanoff's 2006 book on FutureShop. We are the oldest player in Europe and are often asked by the media (BBC, ITN etc.) to comment on major issues in online auctioning (like recently where we were asked to comment on the eBay strike in the UK). Christian Braun

  • In respect to Wikipedia we have endevioured to include as much factural information in the article as possible, and have followed closely the model of i soldit entry (another major chain). In answer to the question of the oldest drop shop in Europe, this is difficult to prove. However we have been trading since 2003 and there are 42 drop shop in the UK and europe who have opened after us. We are the only substantial chain of eBay drop shop in the UK (i.e. more than one store) and recently raised £2.1M in funding (a total of £4M over the last three years).

Trevor Ginn - Head of Consulting

  • Thanks for all your comments. We have de-personalised the entry and hope it conforms to much more objective overview of the company. We would welcome further comments on how the entry might be improved. Re: the comment "there is a precedent for keeping" as in 'I Sold It' entry. We concur.

Dominique Radclyffe - Retail Manager


That's an old dog and does not hunt - defend this article not question another. I'll take a look at the article you mentioned in the morning, if I think it's chuff I'm nominate it for AFD myself. --Charlesknight 23:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just read more about the AfD process and Wikiquette. For the avoidance of doubt I am the company's CEO commenting above as such and further below under my user name [joschik] Joschik 23:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There's no sense in keeping this debate open when a simple redirect to the existing article will suffice. --cj | talk 04:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian banks

edit

does not add anything that is not already in Category:Banks of Australia Jon513 13:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While there are 4 delete !votes to 2 keep !votes, two of the delete votes are from the primary editors of the page, whose only reason for deletion is that they can't agree. The main points for deletion are WP:NEO, which doesn't have consensus, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which doesn't apply to the article. Mangojuicetalk 14:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Average frustrated chump

edit

Neologism. Ryan Delaney talk 05:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. When I got to this article, it was a big pile of original research and POV violations, with poor or nonexistent sources (like quoting non-notable people on non-notable dating forums). Even worse, some parts of it were lifted by User:Yakuman from the Nice guy syndrome article which was deleted for good reason. See the warning by the admin Gwernol on the discussion page. I knew it would be deleted as soon as more people saw it in that state, so I tried to save it by being bold with a rewrite. My rewrite was at best a work in progress, but it eliminated at least the original research problem, and it wasn't just a dictionary definition because it included discussion of the concept. Yakuman took exception to my rewrite, and has started re-adding his original research and crappy sources back in, preferring edit war instead of discussion (see talk). Since I was already borderline on keeping the page for reasons of WP:NEO, I think it's best to delete for now. --SecondSight 06:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Petros471 22:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bedlam (Play)

edit

Play written and performed at a school. Unnotable. Prod removed without comment. Marasmusine 08:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Whispering(talk/c) 20:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bleikvasslia

edit

Delete I have proposed that this article be deleted per the fact that it refers to a topic of little signifigance. The article says it is a small mining town with 600 residents in Norway. I don't believe that qualifies as a signifigant town or city. My elementary school had 400 people in it.  Daniel_123  ► ► 13:34, 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 delete. As only one person proposed deletion, I'm treating this as a WP:PROD (i.e. if anyone objects it can be restored and taken to afd again for full debate). Petros471 22:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Cross/Blue Shield Service Center

edit

The Blue Cross/Blue Shield Service Center is not architecturally significant or historically significant Criticalthinker 08:04, 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. - Bobet 08:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bluepeel non-surgical face lift

edit
  • Delete A "bluepeel" is a propriety name (owned by Dr. Obagi) for a varient of traditional TCA acid peels for skin treatment. There is no reason to have a featured entry on a specific product as compared to to chemical peel which already exists. There is little to distinguish this product from hundreds of other formulae in this general category Droliver 16:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Bluepeel non-surgical face lift should remain as an article. While the Obagi peel is a chemical peel it is not identical to other chemical peels. It has a different formula that makes it unique, much in the same way that Coca-Cola has a unique formula that sets it apart from Pepsi-Cola. Both are colas, but both have their own Wiki pages. Both are trademarks owned by their respective organizations. The same could be said about the various distributions of Linux. An RPM for RedHat Linux will run on Fedora and Centos, as they are almost identical, however they are different distributions of the same core product.
Comparing a small market product to multi-billion dollar corporations (Coke/Pepsi Co.) kind of misses the point. There in fact is little to distinguish Obagi (other then its brand identity) from hundreds of similar products. For the purposes of Wikipedia I think all chemical peel type of treatments are better addressed in a single heading without proprietary product entries.Droliver 03:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless some incredible notability surrounds Bluepeel. For example, is it now the standard formula used by a vast majority of dermatologists? Does it differ significantly from the other untold numbers of Trichloroacetic Acid Peels alluded to on the chemical peel page? Without some significant separating factor of notability or inventiveness, I don't think the article should stay. Sure, RedHat, Fedora, Coca-Cola, and Pepsi have their own articles because they are huge entities. A cola I brew myself and sell at a local market stand to a few thousand people a month or a Linux kernel I put together aren't notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article unless they show signs of or do become the next Coke/Pepsi or Fedora/RedHat. Xiliquiern 21:50, 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 04:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Duff

edit

Prod tag was removed by IP, Like the original tagger, I think this person is non-notable Lucasbfr 19:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. As only one person proposed deletion, I'm treating this as a WP:PROD (i.e. if anyone objects it can be restored and taken to afd again for full debate). Petros471 22:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bucoli

edit

Not notable group. Most of the 533 google hits are for proper names or domain names, what sources there are on this seem not to help its notability, only add to verifiability, like [[50]]. Sorry, mention is not notability.-Kmaguir1 01:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Petros471 18:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Butterflies (song)

edit

Covered in Butterfly (disambiguation) Ashadeofgrey 19:10, 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. Petros471 22:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris O'Rourke

edit

Subject not notable and appears to be original research Orayzio 01:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Yanksox 21:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confederation of Hackers

edit

Couple of weeks ago I saw the "linkless" tag on this page and I tried to do something about it. Now people have gotten tag-happy and my work on that article was all for nothing. I abstain from voting in this debate. Plinth molecular gathered 14:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete Controlled-Demolition Theory (9/11 Conspiracy Theory), which is what is up for deletion. Keep (or at least no consensus, which is effectively the same thing) Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. The principle of splitting long articles up with short introductory paragraphs in the main article, linking to a fuller article on a sub-topic is well established (if people believe less detailed content needs to be included that needs to be decided editorially using article talk pages, not the blunt all or nothing afd result). However, here we have the trouble of two articles serving the same purpose. As this is the one up for deletion, I'm deleting this one.

As always articles need continual improvement, and it is clear that Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center needs to be made more neutral etc, but this is going way outside the area of AFD- time for you to get back to the article talk page to sort these things out. Petros471 09:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controlled-Demolition Theory (9/11 Conspiracy Theory)

edit

This article was split off from 9/11 conspiracy theories without any discussion. I believe one 9/11 conspiracy article is more than enough, similar to the Kennedy assasination which also has only one page dedicated to CT's. Peephole 20:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • To the closing admin: If no consensus can be reached in this afd, I would suggest deleting the article anyways. As there was no consensus in the first place to split off the article. --Peephole 19:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the closing admin: I cant really see how peephole can justify deleting something just because no consensus is found!? a) Its highly unlikely consensus will be found considering the widely differing views. b) Peephole, is very obviously biased, looking at his other posts, arguing the case very strongly against such conspiracy theories, hence has a vested interest that this article be deleted. c) A huge amount of detail/information is contained in this page because this is a key part/question over the offical version of events. I agree however it may well need to be edited however it is an invaluable resource and unfathomable why it should be deleted. --Chrisp7 12:53, 20 September 2006 (GMT)
  • To the closing admin: Chrisp7 has made only 11 edits ever, three of which are on this page. --Aaron 00:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What in the world has that got to do with anything!? Why is my point any less valid? And why are you even mentioning this, what has it got to do with you? My point is very relevant. --Chrisp7 16:50, 21 September 2006 (GMT)
      • Comment Peep, why do you want this article deleted AND are deleting WTC 7 info from the main conspiracy page? see the edits: [(cur) (last) 15:31, 19 September 2006 Peephole (Talk | contribs) (clarified intro and deleted WTC 7, again, that is duplicated in the specific demoliton article)]--Chrisp7 13:21, 20 September 2006 (GMT)
        • Comment I was not the one who split off the article. Don't blame it on me.--Peephole 01:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I understand that, just see your position confusing, where would you rather have WTC 7 mentioned then, since you dont want it in the main conspriacy page or the controlled demolition page. --Chrisp7 16:50, 21 September 2006 (GMT)
            • Comment No, I just didn't want to have duplicate copies all over. For some reason we now have the main conspiracy article and TWO Controlled-Demolition conspiracy articles. --Peephole 16:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment Ok, I accept that:). Just as long as important info is not lost in the process, ie deletion of material before it has been decided if one page is to be deleted or an expanded section created in the consp page.--Chrisp7 16:50, 21 September 2006 (GMT)

Note for detailed dicussion on this AfD, please see the talk page.

Note Due to a procedural error in this split, we are trying again. Naturally, we will respect the outcome of this VfD as applying also to the newly created article, but a look at 9/11 conspiracy theories#World Trade Center as it now stands, and Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center will give a better impression of the issue at hand.--Thomas Basboll 13:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; the 9/11 conspiracy theories page is over 120 kB in size and needs to be split up. This article is already 22kb, and probably should take other parts of the other article as well and will probably end up being about 30 kB in size. We have seperate pages for Creationism and Intelligent Design; just because people are kooks doesn't mean that they aren't notable, and given how many people believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theories (especially regading WTC 7) I think it is relevant to Wikipedia. In any event, having a 120+ kB article is rather unreasonable; its just too long and deserves to be split up into a number of subarticles rather than just being a 40 page long mess. Titanium Dragon 20:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as per Titanium dragon. Good article too. --Pussy Galore 21:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC) indef banned user for trolling[reply]

  • POV fork? This is a copy of the sections from the main 9/11 conspiracy theories page; if there are NPOV problems with it, then they should be corrected anyway. Also, I added in the rest of the relevant sections having to do with this topic from the main article; once this vote is over and we decide to keep this subarticle, we should remove those sections from the main article and summarize them, with a link to this article. As of right now, this article is 32kB, right up at the maximum limit.
I agree that the intro needs work; I wrote it but it isn't really very good at introducing the article. Obviously, help is appreciated. Titanium Dragon 00:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Titanium Dragon. Fiddle Faddle 23:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)***Comment Fiddle Faddle, why did you edit Titanium Dragons 'strong keep'??[reply]
    • Strong Delete Ok, in view of Peephole's comment 20:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC) that the original text remains in the original article this cannot be anything other than a POV fork, since it was never actually split in the first place. Since that text remains I have changed my vote to delete, and withdraw my arguments below in favour of keeping the allegedly split article. A half split is no split at all. Fiddle Faddle 20:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
      • Comment Hey, but this is exactly what are we voting for, aren't we? - to replace this part of 9/11 Conspiracy theories article with an overwiev and work further on the CD offspring. This hasn't been done yet, as Peephole, in his infinite vigilance, nominated this article for deletion within minutes from being forked. So, I guess now everyone waits for decision... (I do) --SalvNaut 16:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No. we are voting on a matter in a compartment. That is the continued existence of this separate article. It does not matter that the article has merit or has no merit, since it is also contained within the "parent article". Voting for a split is done on article talk pages. Where a split has already happened by virture of a 'bold edit (and no harm in that) the original material must be removed and a short prćcis put in its place. Since this was not completed the article we are voting on is, by definition, a POV fork. So, let's get rid of it. Then, if it is the correct thing to do, let's have an editor who understands the issues split it properly and completely. I'm disappointed, because I view the concept of a split as correct. It is this unfinished split that must be ended. there was nothing to prevent the splitting editor from finishing the job, nomination or no nomination. Fiddle Faddle 19:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • C'mon, don't be a bureaucracy type :) The discussion on the Talk:9/11 Conspiracy theories had begun before TitaniumDragon created this page. 4 or 5 ppl were discussing this matter. There was no clear consensus - everyone stood with one's arguments. Then, sort of indenpendently, this page was created and the case went "public". I see it as a continuation of that discussion, I understand you may not. I know it does not follow "protocols" but since we're already here - don't let the bureaucracy machine got you between it's gears ;) --SalvNaut 22:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it looks like bureaucracy. But this AfD has become so complex and so oddly political that it would genuinely behove us to delete the thing, and to do the split as a separate exercise. There is a huge danger of confusion otherwise, and the closing admin doesn't stand a chance of getting it right. There are times when a procedure is needed, and when things have become overcomplicated, such as here, I believe process is approriate. Note that I am in favour of a proper split. I just do not think that this is the discussion to do it in. I fear that if we do it here then everyone loses Fiddle Faddle 09:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is hot issue right now and will continue to be -- the official story defenders have not yet examined it in detail, so the debate rages. It does have a huge amount of detail that bogs down the CT page. Agree with Titanium Dragon. bov 23:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork. --Mmx1 01:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork. The main 9/11 conspiracy article can be shortened by eliminating material that is poorly cited, with unreliable sources, and summarize the article more. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 02:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork, and yes the main article can have about 100kbs of junk science taken out and the issue of splitting up is resolved.--MONGO 04:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On Wikipedia, alternative points of view should be discussed and analyzed, not suppressed. — goethean ॐ 14:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. It has a role in documenting as an encyclopaedia the phenomena of the world. Thus articles which are notable, not original research and which have or strive to have a neutral POV should be created and survive deletion attempts. However, this AfD is not about any of that, since it is, or should be, discussing the clerical activity of splitting a lengthy article. Were this article about rabbits I doubt we would be having this AfD issue at all. Fiddle Faddle 22:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Crockspot 05:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article will allow us to make the 9/11 CT article much more surveyable, i.e., easier to read and use, while affording editors a separate space to hash out the many tricky details of the WTC argument. It seems to me to be exactly what splitting articles is all about. Opponents might think of this as a temporary solution, a place where the WTC section of the CT article can be improved until it can be merged back into the CT article without causing undue clutter. It's way too early to suggest deleting this potentially very useful work-in-progress.--Thomas Basboll 08:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork. Adding more unreliable sources on top of unreliable sources and self-appointed "researchers" doing clueless junk science is not an improvement. Weregerbil 08:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I do not see the logic in this argument from the encyclopaedia's perspective. I am not singling you out, here, but am really answering all such comments. As an encyclopaedia it is part of Wikipedia to document in an encyclopaedic manner the phenomena of the world. The various conspiracy theories, whether pseudo-science or founded on reality, are individually and collectively a phenomenon worthy of inclusion, the more so since they are properly cited. The article that has been split off and the parent article which spawned it have a place here. The rationale for the split is simply a matter of filing, not a matter of forking any point of view. We need to be very clear that this anniversary period of the atrocity is a period when clarity of thought about an article set to which many people have a huge emotional attachment is essential. Let us please look at editing standards, not at other issues. Fiddle Faddle 10:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Titanium Dragon and Fiddle Faddle's comment. Those who don't like it might want to look under Internet phenomenon and see how many junk forks link from there. It's our job to document reality (people's beliefs are part of it). --SalvNaut 10:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another 9/11 conspiracy theory pov fork, not supported by consensus on the talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 14:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think we did this a month or so ago. Is this a speedy delete as recreation of deleted material? Tom Harrison Talk 14:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Tom, this is not a POV fork. This is not the article about "how did it happen" but "what common people (and some researchers) say about it" on the Internet. This could change your view on sources. As Thomas said(Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories, the criticism would apply even stronger on the splitted page. I see it a bit like internet phenomenon. You must admit that CD became a very notable myth. It is a fact from the field of sociology that many people do not want to belive the official explanation of the collapse(with a variety of reasons for it - looks, CTism, pseudoscience, NIST report, WTC7, science(?Jones), etc..). The topic is definately worth it's own article. Titanium Dragon, Fiddle Faddle, Thomas Basboll made similiar remarks. --SalvNaut 17:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question This AfD is a strange phenomenon. As a general principle we split articles which are too long into articles which reference other articles.. Patently the parent article is too long. According to the author all that has been done is to split out and slightly reword for clarity the section suggesting CD, but that the new article is a verbatim (plus minor edits) version of the original text. Under those circumstances how can it be a fork? How can it be allowing conspiracy theories to grow, and how can it suddenly be non NPOV? Surely there can only can only be a fork if the original text has been left behind? I admit to not checking in detail if the text remains in the original article. If it does then the simple solution is to finish the split and discard this AfD? Perhaps the author would comment on this. Fiddle Faddle 13:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- It was POV before it was split. The original article has failed and will continue to fail WP:OR and WP:RS, but we tolerate it because it is a catch-all for this sort of thing. We don't, however, tolerate an expansion of what's already broken. Morton devonshire 18:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe you don't tolerate it, Morton, but wikipedia is not about the tyranny of the majority. If the believers of the official story have a point to make then that is provided space on wikipedia. Alternate viewpoints are also provided space. This issue is not large, it is huge. Over 100 million Americans believe something fishy is going on with 9/11. And that's just Americans. Just because en.wikipedia.org is in English doesn't mean it is the "Voice of America." If wikipedia can have individual articles about and obscure primitive fish-like animal from the Middle Cambrian Maotianshan shales of China then it definitely has the space, in fact the imperative, for articles about the thesis that the collapse of the twin towers and building 7 on 911 due to fire, an unprecedented historical event, is untrue, and that the event is more consistent with controlled demolition. If you don't like the article, list points that refute it, but you may not delete it. Kaimiddleton 20:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP: OR and WP: RS are very important, which is why this page is so well sourced. All research is original; OR bans users from doing original research then putting it into articles. However, this is not OR from readers, but external OR which is readily verifiable. As WP: RS points out, our job is to report facts and opinions; a lot of this article is about opinions of people, and as such the title of the page reflects this. Additionally it is pointed out who thinks these things and why, the sources of these opinions, and the sources they got their information from (such as video footage of the event). This article has very few things which are not sourced, and though it could certainly use some work making it read better and sound more professional, on the whole it is one of the better sourced articles on Wikipedia; it isn't like Otherkin or Therianthropy, other articles I try and deal with but which have severe problems with source material being unreliable as it makes sweeping claims but often does so without any actual basis for those claims, and as they are trying to describe a phenomenon rather than what otherkin.net says, it is a problem. This article doesn't have this problem as it is about what conspiracy theorists say and various theories they hold and why they hold them; the fact that they are conspiracy theorists doesn't matter as we want to know what they think and why, not what actually happened. This article describes one of their theories, and is, I think, pretty clear on the matter. It needs some work, and I'd be glad to have help cleaning it up. Titanium Dragon 23:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have no doubt in my mind that it is appropriate to keep this article. 1) The controlled demolition debate is deep and non-trivial thus justifying an in-depth, continuing, exposition. 2) Many authors write about this subject, thus providing many links. 3) There is a clear pattern of obstruction by certain editors who prefer to extinguish very important, very topical current day discussions, and these editors should not be permitted to brow-beat those who wish to give clear exposition on the subject. Kaimiddleton 20:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep' - the article is clearly a distinct subject matter and should be allowed to stand.Eva Jlassi 22:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sort of Weak Keep - article isn't exactly great, but it is salvageable. I don't consider its length to be an argument for keeping, however. If it continues to accumulate cruft without the theory gaining more widespread interest, I might reconsider. My Alt Account 23:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep as a reasonable branch of a larger article. At present it has only some NPOV issues that are repairable and the main article is too long. JoshuaZ 23:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork. --Aaron 01:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completely impertinent comment - I'm wondering, if the Illuminati were trying to provoke the US into war, why didn't they just do a nasty UNCONTROLLED demolition? It would have done a hell of a lot more damage to nearby buildings, plus it wouldn't have set off the radars of the conspiracy nutbags defenders of truth and justice. Furthermore, I think it was a poor decision to let the towers sit there smoking for so long before they collapsed, they could really have killed a lot more people if the collapse took place ~30 minutes earlier. Maybe someone here knows the answer to this. My Alt Account 01:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh man, you really can't think of a reason why US gov (illuminati - where did you got them from?) wouldn't like the towers to look like being blown up? I'll give you a hint - "1993 bombing, security strengthened,who's to blame?" Eh, those home-made "debunking" arguments... Focus on the article, sources, papers, etc. --SalvNaut 10:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completely impertinent response: Actually, the way the Towers were designed, pretty much any failure of its internal support structure, no matter how or where it was caused, would have let to a straight-down collapse. You might be able to have designed a way to "get lucky" and have the collapse tend to be directed a few hundred feet in one direction or the other, but that's about it. A lot of people think that if, say, you'd knock out all the ground supports on only one side of a building, that it would tend to tip over horizontally like someone knocking over a soda bottle. But that's just not the way physics works. (Okay, okay, if Godzilla came along - a really f---ing gigantic Godzilla - and yanked the towers right out of the ground with his mighty paws, I'm sure a lot more damage would have been caused in the immediate area. But that's the only way.) --Aaron 03:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, one of the things I've heard about skyscrapers is that firefighters really fear this type of design that tends to "pancake" vertically (usually without much warning) in a chain reaction fashion. Anyway I still feel that the controlled-demolition theory forces us to conclude that the illuminati are both lazy and stupid. I predict that a new class of more clever evil overlords will soon unseat them. My Alt Account 03:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, I thought at first it would likely tip over as well, but once I thought about it at length I realized that the physics I'd learned in HS pretty much showed that it would just pancake. The only way a building like that wouldn't is if it actually got hit hard by something which pushed the building a long ways horizontally without destroying enough of its veritcal integrity that it would just collapse straight down or near straight down. Of course, some of the local stuff might be ejected, but given the building stood up to the inital blow (a plane really doesn't weigh -that- much compared to something as big as the WTC towers) it should have pancaked. Of course, a lot of the basis of the argument is that the tower shouldn't have collapsed at all, given no other scyscraper had. Titanium Dragon 07:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • C'mon, you (me too) probably don't know anything about the towers for real. All you know is something you heard about the towers and what you like to belive. Bazant&Zhou paper - tell me, which one of you understands it completely? Let the scientists do their job, we will report it. --SalvNaut 10:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Theory has wide currency (whether true or not), and the merits or flaws in this theory should be discussed in this article. This is clearly an important function of our project. Badagnani 02:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep too big now to be merged back. If this one is a POV fork, then 9/11 conspiracy theories already was anyway. --Húsönd 19:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article needs some work but is large enough to deserve its own page. Mujinga 23:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it needs editing, feel free. A large segment of the public believes something likt that happened, however unlikely, so use you editing skill to debunk the theory better than the 9/11 Commission did. NIST is still investigating controlled demo as an explanation of the third building to collapse. Edison 23:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Lovelight 00:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have no time for those who peddle flawed and irrational claims like this - those who prefer drama over sense and science. Nevertheless, there are those who take the question seriously and therefore it must be dealt with seriously. The conspiracy enthusiasts must be able to state their point of view and make their claims, and the public must see clearly how easily those claims can be refuted with a little logical thought and basic research. The article should stay. - Adaru 02:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete PoV fork, forked without discussion or consensus.--Rosicrucian 00:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment Anyone who takes an objective look at the 9/11CT article in its present form can see that much of the material on the WTC needs to be removed for the sake of length, surveyability and general tidyness. No consensus can be won for simply deleting it. So the split is the best way forward. Does it normally take this long not to delete an article that has as much support as this one does?--Thomas Basboll 09:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but let's do it properly. Splitting is not complete until the old article has the stuff removed. That has led to this whole discussion. Far better to start again by deleting this (but allowing re-creation), recreating with a proper split, and splitting out other splittable stuff correctly. This then becomes an exercise in controlled editing, not in POV fork discussions. Fiddle Faddle 09:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've read your comments up there and here. Starting the case from the begining doesn't appeal to me (will it take so long, too?) but I trust that your experience tells you (and the closing admin) the right thing to do. Just to note: some have already started working on Controlled-Demolition Theory (9/11 Conspiracy Theory) article and it's more current than the subsection in 9/11 conspiracy theories.--SalvNaut 10:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • One more thing - we aren't here to excercise but to write a better article. This split has been proposed many times before but a group of editors decided to keep all 9/11 conspiracy theories in the single article (so the article to be clumsy I guess). My POV is that it was mainly due to their POV on the CTs - this should not matter here. We want a better article which deals (contra&pro) with CD theory. The topic deserves it. --SalvNaut 10:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • By exercise I mean the noun, not the verb. I also mean let us get to a datum point and then split. To this end any editor can be bold provided they do not create a POV fork and provided the split is performed correctly, which this one, technically, was not. Splitting the article into correctky manageable chunks provides readability and editability, thus a better article is written. Fiddle Faddle 11:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Correct. If for example the namespace was more focused on 9/11 World Trade Center conspiracy theories in general (Including for example the theories on Larry Silverstein's insurance stake, the gold reserve beneath the WTC, and so forth) it would not be a PoV fork, and would still serve the purpose of trimming the main article to manageable standards. It would also be a much more desirable search term.--Rosicrucian 18:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid, relevant, a key question on the 911 offical story of events and a sub topic all of its own. I see absolutely no reason why this should be deleted, however yes edited. Chrisp7 13:00, 20 September 2006 (GMT)
  • Strong Keep per Titanium Dragon. Just because you dont like what it says, dosent make it not notable and suddenly subject to deletion. --Shortfuse 00:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please would a brave admin close this one way or another Fiddle Faddle 16:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. Whispering(talk/c) 14:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Rickman Jr

edit

TV character that hasn't appeared on TV Markspearce 19:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Petros471 18:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric N. Perrin

edit

Originally proded but I forgot to add the rationale. Anyway, does not meet WP:BIO. Basically no Google hits for eric n. perrin, or for "eric perrin" + AUC. The AUC magazine has no real notability. Again, you would think that being "catapulted into the national spotlight" because of the sex issue would result in more than 9 unique ghits. The one (very very weak) claim of notability is unreferenced and doubtful: this is also not picked up by google. Pascal.Tesson 01:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merged. Petros471 18:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fish River, Eastern Cape

edit

Reason Samuel 21:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fish river in the eastern cape is the same as the Great Fish River, the offical name and a bigger article

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Globus Cassus

edit
  • Delete This article does not deserve article status, it's non-notable and it's nothing more than a whacky idea/joke of which it's kind has no place or perpose on wiki. It's impractical and much less impossible. Faris b 06:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article. However much one may dislike the subject matter there are no grounds for deletion of this article. The Globus Cassus project was proposed - and published - by a notable architect in notable circumstances (the Venice Architecture Biennale), it has been widely discussed and is therefore worthy of an article. It is worth noting that Globus Cassus is largely a thought experiment, since there is no pragmatic basis for its implementation in the near future anyway. With that in mind, the project is akin to many other "futurist" proposals such as terraforming, interstellar travel, time travel or closed ecological systems that if ever realised would undoubtedly pose major problems, but that are unlikely to be realised anyway and that, right now, serve as thought experiments. There are articles on myriad horrendous subjects (Mein Kampf springs to mind), but none should be deleted merely because they're horrendous. There is no way deletion is justified in this case. Pinkville 13:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pinkville. —Keenan Pepper 14:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe comparing this to terraforming is not just, because terraforming has been around for a while, at least the idea and has been mentioned/done on many Sci Fi series while this has not therefore, I believe this is not notable, at least not notable enough. Faris b 04:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The newness of an idea is not grounds for its being described as non-notable. Far from it. Look, if you want to argue against any proposal to actually implement Globus Cassus, please go ahead, though I don't believe the necessity will ever arise, since the project is hopelessly impractical. Please re-read and consider this description of the project (from the article): Globus Cassus acts as a philosophical model for the opposite-based description of the Earth/World and as a tool to understand the World's real functioning processes. That is a critical caveat to the basis of your objections, which, anyway, are groundless since we're talking about an article about Globus Cassus, not the project itself. Pinkville 13:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you people kidding? This article is whacked. It's not a striking idea, it's horrifying, appaling, terrifying and just plain whacked. This idea is impossible, plus, what happens if it broke down which you know it would? Everyone dies! Fine, keep your dumb article as it's apparent I won't wint this, I don't care, but if it gets deleted, I'll be happy. No offense but I can't imagine anyone ever thinking this is something that anyone would ever want to know about. Faris b 22:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose of an encyclopaedia is not to keep articles about nice, happy, cute things everyone likes. It's a collection of notable facts and ideas. The (probably far far far away) day in the future mankind will discuss the Globus Cassus, just sit among the oppositors and let your voice be heard. I personally find the Globus Cassus one of the most beautiful hypothesis for the future of mankind. --Cyclopia 13:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I think the idea is putrid, but I wouldn't dream of removing it from an encyclopedia! Pinkville 13:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can be construed the unimaginable anyone, for I want to know about. The implausibility and/or impossibility of an idea shall not be taken as a signal of innotability. This way all articles discussing "science" in fictional works (eg. Star Wars, Stargate, ...) shall be deleted for innotability. On the contrary, this fictional creation is more notable than those aforementioned. It is so by the virtue of this being created for other purpose than entertainment of the common people. --TMA 09:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course! I don't get why someone would consider deleting this article... Just because it won't be true in the near future, doesn't mean that it's not a living project, even in a philosophical manner. --Vag.stephanou 19:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pinkville. The concept is capital-D Dumb, but unfortunately we live in a world where Dumb can get a lot of media attention and critical acclaim if it's wrapped in a veneer of elitism (like, for example, the Venice Architecture Biennale). --Aaron 16:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a putrid concept for a number of reasons. 1) It's most likely entirely impossible regardless of reasonably imaginable future technology. 2) It would certainly destroy much life and destroy the world as we know it. 3) Most of the world's current problems are solveable by us with technology we already have. There's no reason for poverty, hunger, most disease deaths, environmental degradation, etc. except that these are the necessary price for maintaining the priveleged lifestyles of a very small percentage of the world's population. Globus Cassus presupposes that we cannot or will not solve these problems without resorting to a mega-project of monumental risk, expense and dubious (at best) viability... but if Globus Cassus were actually necessary, humanity would already have passed the threshhold of survivability. (And if humans had already settled such issues as competitiveness and conflict, then Globus Cassus would be unnecessary). 4) Even if it could be realised, it sets up an inherently risky dichotomy: there are two halves of the world facing each other which, given what we know of ourselves, suggests a future of terrible hemispherical rivalry and conflict. Pinkville 01:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per above. I should also point out that Wikipedia has articles on far, far less notable topics, such as Edward Penishands. -Interested2 22:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is in my mind comparable to Dyson spheres and other vast construction ideas. Also, as for the aesthetic objections, who is to say that this will be done on Earth as opposed to some other planet? It's just an idea. --greenmoss 00:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Petros471 18:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homewrecker

edit

This article seems to have no encyclopedic relevance at all; WP is not a dictionary. Plus, its main purpose is listing alleged homewreckers apparently, while providing no sources at all. It also seems entirely incompatible with WP:BLP. Furthermore the artilce once started as a description of Grey DeLisle's second album "Homewrecker". Sloan21 11:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete but primarily because WP is not a dictionary. Could be encyclopedic if expanded to include cultural significance. List of homewreckers is way too short, should be a list unto itself. Listing "homewreckers" is not necessarily incompatible with WP:BLP. It is incompatible with WP:BLP only because of lack of sources. Presumably these widely known facts can be sourced easily.

Delete (or Transwiki what's salvagable) anything to do with adultery/affairs and restore the more complete version of what was previously in the article about the Grey DeLisle album. The portion having to do with adultery is mostly opinion or supposition presented as fact, without verification. Agent 86 18:21, 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 of the debate was to Keep the article. --Konstable 10:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insex

edit

Non-Notable company. Disguised reference to two commercial web sites. Atom 17:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This might not be notable to you, but it actually is for a lot of people; Insex returns over 500,000 hits on Google. Plus this was by no means intended as advertisement, since the site doesn't even exist any more. If the two links to the successive websites are the problem, they could easily be deleted. -- Sloan21 18:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I counted ~21,000 refs for insex.com, and 1,420 refs for insex.org. Just looking up "insex" does give around ~586,000, but just a quick looks show most of them seem to have nothing to do with the company. I see references to intersex, to a band called insex, and to a 2006 movie called Insex. Perhaps with all of my years in the BDSM community I've managed to miss it. The article, especially minus the two web site references, is almost a stub. The only think that seems notable to me is that the claim is made that it was targeted by the Bush admninistration and put out of business. I wonder how many sex oriented web sites have gone out of business as a result of the aggressive policies of the Attorney Generals office? We can't feature all of those. Atom 21:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 21,000 hits still seems a lot for a non-notable company; there is a featured article around here about a Australian netball player "Cynna Kydd" that would only return 2,000 refs. Anyway, the fact that it is almost a stub can't be a reason for deletion, since it was created merely one day ago. Plus it does have a certain worldwide notability, there is even an article on the Japanese Wikipedia for instance, ja:Insex.
The ja:insex artcile is a stub, with less than three lines associated with it, and no pictures. Not really notable. Atom 13:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Insex is definitely notable within the BDSM community. In fact, I searched for it some time ago and I was suprised that there was no article for it, while other prominent (mainstream) porn sites have pages on wikipedia. Also, the Japanese article speaks for itself, regarding notability. EnemyOfTheState 21:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Assuming that article is true, it clearly states notability. Dave 20:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep genuine website, the most notable website in its genre by far. No longer active so won't garner the same level of hits that it would two years ago. MLA 10:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Provisional) Weak delete. If the article's claims to notability are true, then the site is probably notable enough. But the only sources for these claims are what looks like the website owner's own FAQ and a lengthy Indymedia rant that is so incoherent I can't stand to read it for more than a few seconds at a time (and as such I can't establish whether it upholds these claims or not). Unless better reliable sources are added, this must be deleted as original research. I assume that the above "keep" voters are basing their statements on personal knowledge of the site, which isn't sufficient as a source in light of WP:RS. Sandstein 05:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I included three more sources, I hope that proves that the site actually exsited. Sloan21 12:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to weak delete. The problem is not whether the website exists, but whether there are reliable sources to attest to its notability. I think "www.bondagenews.net" can't really be taken seriously, and the other two sources just mention it in passing, although they say it's "popular", whatever that may mean. Sandstein 18:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The mass media won't report about such a topic obviously. Not sure what sources you expect, NY Times? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.7.86 (talk • contribs)
Just reliable published sources, i.e. not just any website. That's the same rules that apply for every topic, mainstream or not. If there are no reliable sources, there's no article to be written. Sandstein 21:14, 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. Petros471 18:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Art History Forum

edit

Non notable web CartoonDiablo 01:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)cartoondiablo These forums are of very little importance to wikipedia and are definitely non notable web.[reply]

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

The result was delete. Petros471 18:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Reeves (competitive eater)

edit

It asserts no notability for its subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsotrain09 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep - I thought that I better check that this chap exists! He does here. However, the article needs a thorough clean deleting those claims that are not verifiable. Within his, admitedly strange, field he seems notable. Bridgeplayer 22:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only a very few people achieve notability by participation in niche sports such as competitive eating. The list of Mr. Reeves accomplishments does not suggest to me that he has. If non-trivial news coverage can be found to show that his contirbutions have been widely recognized per WP:BIO he should be kept but nothing that suggests such is found in the article. Eluchil404 22:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I'm not sure that "top 12" qualifies for inclusion in this sport, even once the claims were verified. TewfikTalk 16:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jörg Schilling

edit

The article about Jörg Schilling does not meet the notability requirements set forth in WP:BIO. Smorsh37 23:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem to meet the requirements of notability on WP:BIO.Robert 23:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable sounding from article. People Powered 23:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Author/maintainer of important Linux CD burning program, cdrtools. Also involved in recent controversy. Hydra3 23:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - cdrtools is very important package in the Linux world, and the recent (and ongoing) controversy around it and Schilling is important.--SirNuke 01:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the article is now, it does not state anything about cdrtools or Schilling's notability. It seems that Schilling may be important, but the article does not give any indication of that. The article should be redone. Somebody should at least add why he is notable, especially relating to cdrtools. Also, the references need to be used in the article, not just a list at the end. Smorsh37 02:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hunh? Did you read the article? It certainly does mention Schilling's role as author of Cdrtools. As for the external links, my understanding is that one does not normally put external links within the body of the article.Bill 04:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rework & keep. I think Schilling is notable-- the article just needs to be reworked a bit to show that. A Google search with his name and cdrecord yields close to 90,000 hits. Nephron  T|C 06:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Schilling is both notable and notorious. —Neuropedia 16:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Relevant to cdrtools and cdrkit as well as being notorious among the Free Software/Open Source community. -- EmperorBMA|話す 02:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the fellow is significant in having written a very popular program in linux and the controversy generated when we switched licenses. Brianski 08:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The whole debate is very notable and there's even a recent Slashdot story about him getting kicked off Debian's development team : [53] I-baLL 01:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article (as it is now, at least) is fine enough. Since somebody fixed the cdrtools link problem, I am willing to admit that Jörg appears to be notable enough. However, I still think that there should be more references in the text of the article. Note, Bill, that I said 'references,' not 'external links.' These are appropriately at the end of the article. Smorsh37 03:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep author of a notable software package (yayyy!)... and the guy who forced every freaking CD-burning Linux user on the planet to compile scsi emulation in their 2.4 kernels (gaaah!). There's Random OSS Developers, and then there's people who stick in mind, for good or bad (in this case both). Notable enough in my opinion. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:06, 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. Petros471 18:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KaffeineNet

edit

Minor network, no real value. Possible vanity article.

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

Although I am a key contributor to this article, and I'm most likely not a person to be in a position to defend the article, I don't find the style it's written in to be considered "Vanity". Also, this is not the only "minor network" with an entry on Wikipedia. See AppliedIRC or others in the category. Dhp1080 23:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's unique google hits (i.e. hits not coming from similar pages on the same site). —Mitaphane talk 01:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Possible single purpose account: Rrv1988 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
Comment: Dhp, please don't remove information from the discussion (specifically this WP:SPA tag). If Rrv1988 wishes to expain his position that's fine but he has made no edits outside this discussion. —Mitaphane talk 22:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ttkgeek is the creator of KaffeineNet. Mitaphane talk 22:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karen O'Neil Ganci

edit

Does not pass WP:BIO. She is only famous for being a contestant on Big Brother 5. Comedy240 14:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep meets WP:BIO for being an artist, in addition to involvement on a hit TV show. Articles like this help her satisfy WP:BIO's criterion that "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person". One can consider each aspect of her insufficient for an article, while considering the combination (artist and TV involvement) to be worthwhile. The nominator hasn't addressed her status as an artist, so I assume s/he didn't read the article, and picked this article out of the Big Brother category (not the first time). --Rob 19:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe some Big Brother people namely Jamie (Miss Washington), Lisa, Brittany, and Holly (real actresses), Will K. and Mike M. (owners/investors of famous restaurants), Janelle, Howie, Kaysar (interviewed and guest appearances galor), and some others I am forgettting "deserve" articles, but Karen is not a well enough known artist to get her own article. Comedy240 21:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is it she doesn't meet the WP:BIO test: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person"? --Rob 03:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO isn't a test, it's a guideline. J Ditalk 08:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually WP:BIO says "...these criteria are a fair test..." (emphasis addded). --Rob 15:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khatri (Kshatriya)

edit

The article at Kshattri was created to mislead Wikipedia readers. The objective was to create a mischievious article ridiculing the Khatris with false information, and to redirect the real Khatri article to it.

The Khatri (Kshatriya) page is another incarnation of the same thing. It should also be deleted.

The person who created this scheme has used several different logins. --ISKapoor 02:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - POV fork.`Bakaman Bakatalk 01:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lodore Resources Inc

edit

This article was the only submission of the only contributor, and seems to be fairly self-involved. ENeville 04:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Petros471 18:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Morettini

edit

Non Notable actor, very brief roles in a few movies and TV shows SouthParkLover22 17:19, 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. Petros471 18:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark yellen

edit

Originally nominated as CSD A7, this did not reach any of the speedy criteria in my opinion. Thus I am relisting as a AfD. To me it looks slightly spammy and gets 666 ghits. Looks like it fails WP:BIO Delete —— Eagle (ask me for help) 12:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to keep. Petros471 19:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mini hockey

edit

Wikipedia's not for stuff made up at school one day. Non-notable to the extreme. Angry Lawyer 22:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC) This wasn't made up one day at school almost every hockey team plays this in the hotel hallways when not playing hockey.secondly are you even a hockey player?if not then shut up.[reply]

  • Keep. A thirty second Google search shows that this isn't just something that was "made up at school one day." Equipment for this game is professionally manufactured by at least one supplier. Bryan 23:52, 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 transwiki. Petros471 19:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire Confession of Faith

edit

While I have absolutely no doubt of the sincerely and deeply held beliefs of the author of this article, it is no more than a statement of his beliefs, and as such has no place in Wikipedia.--Anthony.bradbury 23:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Copied from the discussion on the main article) This article is not a sermon as claimed by User:Anthony.bradbury. Rather, it is a historical Baptist confession of the same type as these already existing entries: 1644 First London Baptist Confession, 1689 Second London Baptist Confession, Treatise on the Faith and Practice of the Free Will Baptists and Baptist Faith and Message. It is also already mentioned by name in the following articles: List of Baptist Confessions, Baptist Faith and Message, Old Time Missionary Baptist.Garretro 05:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy transwiki. despite its size it would have qualified for speedy deletion for lack of context. -- RHaworth 09:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 original research. No need to prolong this. P.S. Dark energy remains hypotehtical (sorry, just had to add that!). El_C 11:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or Not Dark Energy?

edit

Original research / essay, prod removed by author without comment. Marasmusine 17:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to remove this? This is something original written by me, and I ask you please to keep it! Thank you, Tom Weil

Hi Tom, I'd like to remove it because it is 'original research'. Please see WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Marasmusine 17:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a scientist, and this article is my understanding of the observable facts of the universe! I am not the only scientist who has this understanding of the expansion of the universe, so PLEASE keep it!!! Tom Weil

You are CRAZY to delete this!! This is Real Science!! Dark Energy may not turn out to be Real Science!! Tom Weil [email removed]

I suggest, then, that you write a paper on it and submit it to a scientific journal. –Joke 18:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to include it if I make a $100. contribution to Wikipedia? Tom Weil

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paraball/Temp

edit

lacks importance, it's a "newly invented game" Goldenrowley 18:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, as there's nothing to merge (especially with no article existing for composer). Petros471 19:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prelude and Fugue

edit

There are a plethora of works with the name "Prelude and Fugue". It is difficult to place value on this single piece because a media company commissioned its creation. It certainly has not gained any fame. I believe it should be deleted because it is at best a piece of trivial information. Storm Rider (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was to Keep the article. --Konstable 10:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Reisman

edit

user is writing about himself (see History page of Reisman). He is adding advertisement about his book on some WP pages (see his contributions). I'm not asking for speedy since I'm not sure it's the procedure in that case. Lucasbfr 02:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Konstable 10:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Godless (band)

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

The result was keep. Petros471 19:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln

edit
  • Strong Delete This article has not reliable sources is filled with POV and is basically pro homosexual. I suggest delete the thing or at least merge it with the main article. Most of it has no refs. Potters house 14:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The point made above would be fine but those issues aren't disputed. His sexuality is, and as always when the issue of possible bisexuality or homosexuality arises with an historical figure, those objecting to it demand infinitely greater detailing and citations than heterosexual speculation. The scenario always goes like this: (a) someone inserts the claim (b) claim disputed and citation demanded (c) citation provided (d) single citation disputed as slim evidence and claim deleted (e) claim inserted with addition citations (f) detailed and referenced claim now disputed as imbalancing the article (g) article split off (h) split off article now claimed to be unnecessary. Rinse and repeat. In other words, it's impossible to placate bigots, because they only operate on a policy of absolute denial. The split off article is the best compromise to provide detailing of the possibility of Lincoln's bisexuality, given that even the mere suggestion of such will never be accepted, or indeed tolerated, by some, and further, because Lincoln's relationships were of a complexity that requires length to properly detail their context for both sides.

(Comments irrelevant to AFD discussion elided to help keep debate from degenerating.)

(Comments irrelevant to AFD discussion elided to help keep debate from degenerating.)

    • Comment None of that really matters. The topic of this article was not created by one Wikipedian and one Wikipedian isn't the only source for the claim that Lincoln may have been homosexual. The article has a number of citations that show a number of authors have made this claim. Whether the claim is true or false is somewhat immaterial to whether this article should be kept. There is clearly some debate on the issue amongst a number of notable scholarly sources and this is a topic that is noteworthy enough to stay. In any case, the article does not claim that Lincoln was in fact homosexual. The conclusion it seems to draw, insofar as it draws any conclusions, is that he might have been homosexual or bisexual, but probably was not. -- KillerDeathRobot 19:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Comments irrelevant to AFD discussion elided to help keep debate from degenerating.)

  • Delete I don't see why an entire article on this subject is warranted. A paragraph under the primary Lincoln article would suffice. J.R. Hercules 06:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment when that was tried, one paragraph became 2 became 7. The topic is one discussed in several books & articles & is not easliy confined to one paragraph. I do think it still requires more balance, however --JimWae 06:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this article has potential as an extensive topic. It is perhaps too extensive to be merged with Abraham Lincoln's main article and requires independence due to its controversial nature. Though it is controversial, it does have a number of reputable sources and I feel this is a definite keep with room for improvement (as do all articles on Wikipedia). Valley2city 05:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Historically it is of interest. The sources are strong and there is clear and compelling reason to suspect that the move to delete is politically motivated. Jliberty 03:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I found it an interesting and well-sourced article. A good encapsulation of a controversy that has swirled around Ol' Abe in recent years, but certainly nothing that attempts to further a case in any direction. Pleather 00:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Just saw this, checking the recently changed pages list. I read through the article quickly, don't see anything wrong with it, certainly don't see any reason to delete it. Disagreeing with the theory the article is discussing is not a reason to delete it, and the only reason I can see anyone would try to delete it is just that, they disagree with the theory. Riphal 00:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. POV fork. Merge what little can be verified if at all (i.e. is not just some writer's speculation) to Abraham Lincoln. This article is inherently original research no matter what references it cites, because those references are themselves speculation and original research. KleenupKrew 02:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's been a great deal of speculation as to Abraham Lincoln's sexuality for a while, and whenever a large publisher releases a book that mentions it, it gets nation wide coverage. For me, that does establish the notability of the subject. I don't see the article as being POV. There's (at least in some of the sections) mention of the arguments as to why some of the "evidence" doesn't show him being gay. This is the sort of subject that I can see people looking up in Wikipedia the next time a book that mentions the subject comes out (no pun intended). --- The Bethling(Talk) 04:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article deals primarily with the debate over Lincoln's secuality. That debate is academically notable as the article makes abundently clear. Whether in fact Lincoln was actually gay, straight, or bi is almost completly besides the point. Claims that this should be deleted or merged because we can never conclusively prove anything in this debate also miss the point. If that was the standard of notability, then almost all articles on history, anthropology, archeology etc (at least the interesting ones) should be deleted. Indeed, almost any article involving competing claims and contravsial subjects would need to be deleted. Wikipedia does not require that issues be settled. Only that they be verifiable. The material in this article cites crediable secondary sources in a notable controversy. It also discusss criticisms and alternative interpretations. This is fair game for a stand alone Wikipedia article. Jdclevenger 05:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per KillerdeathRobot and others above. The topic is a subject of scholarly debate (Just the same as Intelligent Design) and whether or not it's true does not matter (Just like with ID--and who would argue that they have an agenda?) as long as the article is sourced per WP:RS and WP:NPOV. The article is not perfect but it certainly not grounds for delete. As a side note, I do like the suggestion to rename to Personal life of Abraham Lincoln for the reasons mentioned by JimWae. Not only would that lessen the claims of an agenda behind it, it would open the article up to other relevant details of Abe's life. 205.157.110.11 07:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Delete What's next on Wikipedia, we write articles called, "Food preferences of Abraham Lincoln" and people vote to keep based on how well sourced it is? There's no reason or purpose to such stuff. It might be enjoyable to speculate whether or not Lincoln enjoyed cherry pie more than apple pie, but really, an encyclopedic article on such a preference? Hey, did he prefer white socks or black socks? Obvious POV fork and complete nonsense. Let's not let idle minds with lot's of free time for historical speculation ruin a perfectly good encyclopedia.Bagginator 11:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If several books and numerous scholarly articles and a number of symposia were available that dealt with "Food preferences of Abraham Lincoln", then yes we should have such an article. I personally happen to have a strong interst in food and culture. But those materials aren't there and so neither is the article. Bagginator and others may feel this is trival. They are welcome to their POV. But there is sufficent debate, controversy, and documentation to warrent the inclusion of this article. Regarding, the title, I think it should remain as is. It accurate reflects the issue, without sensationalizing it. Would people really be happier with an 'Abe was gay' kind of thing? Jdclevenger 15:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Note that I've tagged it with {{cleanup-tone}}. — CharlotteWebb 01:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Srikanth (actor)

edit

This article should be deleted ASAP 'coz it's totally ridiculous. It has gems like "He got a flick in his first movie itself."!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sriram sh (talk • contribs) .

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

The result was DEEEEEELETE!!!!11111111 - Mailer Diablo 04:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TEEN TRUTH: AN INSIDE LOOK AT BULLYING & SCHOOL VIOLENCE

edit

does not seem notable, and is also in all caps. --TIB (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Petros471 19:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TNA Impact 2006

edit

Wrestling results for shows aren't needed here. RobJ1981 19:42, 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. Petros471 19:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Perry

edit

This person does not appear notable and only links to one article. JASpencer 23:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Petros471 19:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 4 aces comic

edit

Non-notable ad. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 51 Worst Offenders In WWE History

edit

Non-notable one-off magazine that is fancruft and listcruft. Previously proposed for deletion but had template removed. Oakster (Talk) 16:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nonsense/hoax, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki 17:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Danny Rodrigues Experience

edit

Can't find anything on this musician on google[59][60][61][62][63][64]. Hoax or non-notable. Article author deletes all {{unsourced}} tags without comment, deprodded. Weregerbil 08:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I re-read the article I'll strike out "or non-notable". Let's just call it utter bollocks. What with all those drugs, booze, fighting, on-stage recorder burning, and mountaineering. Man those recorder artists are a wild bunch! Weregerbil 11:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The_Last_Great_Snail_Chase

edit

Seems to be a nn-film article created by the production company (User:Whitebalancepicutres [sic]). --AndreniW 03:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. I'm treating this as WP:PROD, i.e. if anyone objects to this deletion it can be immediately restored by any admin for expansion or relisting on afd. Petros471 19:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Patterson

edit

I nominated this article for deletion on the grounds that his notability is questionable. If he is notable, it is as a global warming skeptic in which case we should say that in the article Tim Patterson. The article Results of the Canadian federal election, 2004: Western Canada and Territories links to a Tim Patterson, but I suspect that is a different person (unless he recently moved from Western Canada to Ottawa for which I see no evidence). There were also some links to a computer programmer named Tim Patterson but I took the liberty of changing those to point to Tim Patterson (computer programmer). Crust 18:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, my view is weak delete. Crust 18:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Petros471 19:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trolley Plaza Apartments

edit

Trolley Plaza is not an achitecturally significant, or historically important structure in Detroit Criticalthinker 07:52, 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 The Demonata. (aeropagitica) 22:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vein (Character)

edit

I think the article Vein (character) should be deleted, because she is an unimportant character who has only appeared in two of the three books. Also, Grubbs is to be the main narrator, and she is never going to appear in a Grubbs book, so it's unlikely she will be important. Andy mci 08:10, 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. -- Steel 23:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magic the Gathering - MTGTwincast.com

edit

Delete. Non-notable bulletin-board fancruft. --Wetman 20:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MTG Twincast is to my knowledge the only website dedicated to delivering news and strategy specifically for the United Kingdom. In the three months since its' inception MTG Twincast gets 650 unique visits a day and our fan membership has doubled in the last 30 days. The site's run on a non-profit basis and has many sponsors and links from other local and commerical Magic stores and clubs situated in the UK.

Although the site has a bulletin board, the web content is updated on average 3 1/2 times per week, in the month of August it received 13,000 page views. Although our project is in its' infancy I would not call it non-notable.

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

The result was delete. —Xyrael / 10:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peterhouse Politics Society

edit

Delete, non-notable student society. I tried to have it speedied it as nn-bio, but the author asserted that it was notable, and also removed a later editor's {{prod}} tag, so I'm bringing it here. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I find it absolutely appalling that 'Dave' accuses the society of being a drinking society when he can clearly know absolutely nothing about the society. Before making such assertions perhaps he should contact some of the frontbench politicians, such as the former leader of the Conservative Party Michael Howard, who attend the society's events and ask them whether the society debates serious issues or engages in drinking. Perhaps he should also ask the 150 students who attended the Michael Howard event (average weekly attendance at the Cambridge Union is rarely over 30). And as for there being 39 hits on google, your average Cambridge student lives in the real world.
It should be clear to anyone that the society exists and has held the events listed with the frontbench politicians named in the article about the society on wikipedia. This can be easily checked with those politicians' offices and Peterhouse itself if necessary. It should be clear to anyone that any society that holds the events the Peterhouse Politics Society does is a serious society and thus merits its entry on wikipedia: it is utterly ridiculous to suggest that so many famous politicians would come to the society's meetings if it were merely a 'drinking' society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppspps (talk • contribs) 18:43, September 14, 2006
Cambridge Union is notable because of its history, if nothing else. I don't see the disrealians (for instance) on wikipedia. And the idea that any society at Peterhouse isn't a drinking society is laughable. Dave 02:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Comments by 'Dave' are immature, ignorant and wrong. As it has been clearly stated, the Peterhouse Politics Society is worthy of note based upon its reputation and standing within the University of Cambridge as a focal point and premiere speaker society for political discussion and debate. If Dave is so concerned about pointless drinking societies appearing on the pages of Wikipedia, perhaps he should turn his attention to the entry for the illustrious Pitt Club, a drinking society par excellence. As already noted, if he is so concerned about Peterhouse Politics Society being a drinking society, perhaps before making wild and inaccuarte assertions he should contact the prestigous speakers cited in the list of Peterhouse Politics Society. But be warned, they are all extremely busy people who probably would not take kindly to having their time wasted with questions from an individual who evidently knows nothing about what he is debating and has far to much time on his hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsthatcher (talk • contribs)

  • Comments. Ppspps and MrsThatcher: Just to let you know that you can (and should) sign your comments on talk pages, by adding four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Thanks. I also agree with you that Dave's comments are out of order. We should be talking about whether the society is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, not just casting aspersions. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Pitt Club is not a drinking society, it's a gentleman's club, (at least the bits that are not Pizza Express). Again, like the Cambridge Union, it has history on its side. Give PPS 15 years and have the atendees (not the speakers) in power, and it may well be notable. At the moment, it isn't. Feel free to email me through my profile if you would like further discussion. Dave 17:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Pitt Club is a gentleman's club only in one of the seedier senses of the phrase... Bwithh 00:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge pruned version with Peterhouse. College societies don't generally merit separate inclusion, and this society seems younger than many. Espresso Addict 18:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it may have a high calibre of speaker, but it is non-notable outside a very small environment. It is not a long-standing society nor has it had an influence on other sphere, unlike other Cambridge societies like the Apostles or the Union. Greycap 18:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete The Henry Jackson Society is a notable Peterhouse society. This appears not to be. Bwithh 00:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As for the comments about the Peterhouse Politics Society being young, it can't really help that. If Wikipedia had existed in the 19th century when the Cambridge Union and Pitt Club were just starting up and someone had created an article about them, would they have been met with the same response? Just because the society is young it doesn't mean it's not notable Ppspps 14:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, in so far as one can imagine such a hypothetical, I expect they would. Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree - and even now I am uneasy about the Pitt Club article, too. I would be happier if it were an article on the phenomenon of clubs devoted to Pitt, and his personality cult, in general. (The Cambridge Pitt is hardly notable beyond those who've attended the university). Yes, you're right that it can't help its age, but it's not just the age that means it is not notable. It has not had enough impact beyond Cambridge to warrant an article of its own; this is what matters rather than the significance of the speakers (which is why the speakers are in Wikipedia for the most part) - a section in the article on Peterhouse is more appropriate, I think. (Sounds like a good society though - wish it had been in existence when I was there) Greycap 18:40, 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. Yanksox 02:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logan L Productions

edit

Contested PROD, does not appear to meet WP:CORP. No significant media coverage, not listed on stock exchanges, no inbound wikilinks apart from an AFD listing for a related page (which was deleted in July). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:49, 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. —Xyrael / 10:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Diaz

edit

Delete. Vanity article apparently written by subject. Journalist who is no more significant than others in his field. The page could have been created as some kind of advertisement; in any case, it fails to meet the acceptance guidelines in WP:Vanity. Tschel 16:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you remove the last two paragraphs, the article will still be relevant and not advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.14 (talk • contribs)

True, but keep in mind that the article was written by himself. Furthermore, Google turns up virtually no results on this guy except for an occasional web page written by himself. Because of this, it is nearly impossible for any other Wikipedians to contribute to the article, and there is no way of confirming the objectivity of most of the information there. Therefore, this would be considered a vanity article according to Wikipedia guidelines. Tschel 20:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. It may be vanity, but as WP:VAIN states, "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of assertion of notability is." If he's a staff writer for a major newspaper and had a role on a national reality show, I'd be inclined to say he meets notability thresholds. That being said, this barely qualifies as a stub. Also, both claims are unverified. If the guy really is a journalist, I'd expect him to come up with something more substantial than this. Pleather 00:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True but if you google Johnny Diaz and Boston, you can verify that he is a reporter and see some of his articles. All his information is verifiable.

Well, in its new state (3 short sentences), all the information certainly is verifiable. However, the article now makes no assertion of notability. Yes, he may have played a token role in a national reality show, but thousands of the rank-and-file can make that claim. I really don't see any reason to keep this article. Before it was pared down, it made all kinds of wild, unverifiable claims, and now, in its "just the facts" form, it lacks any kind of significance.
It's not hard to figure out why the article is here in the first place. This fellow is writing about himself! But is his autobiography significant and neutral enough to justify an encyclopedia article? Maybe not. --Tschel 21:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A search of his name shows that he was part of a reporting team at the south Florida Miami Herald newspaper where he shared a Pulitzer Prize when that news organisation won the prize for the coverage of Elian Gonzalez, the little Cuban boy who washed up ashore in Miami and who was seized by the federal government via Janet Rio in 2000. Between the MTV show, the Thomas Roberts news item and the Pulitzer prize, perhaps Mr. Diaz should remain as a wikipedia article.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, patent nonsense. NawlinWiki 17:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin j. skeetsville

edit

looks like vandalism Akriasas 16:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Boucaut

edit

Was a highly negative article about an Austrailian businessman convicted of fraud. Mostly blanked supposedly at the request of his family. Information is at least partially verifiable from the Austrailian government PDF link provided. But I'm not sure that this person meets notability requrements. An Austrailian business-man convicted of fraud. I don't find him in Google, other than WP mirrors. So, while the negative versions of the article are likely salvagible even under WP:BLP and WP:RS, if he's not really notable, why bother. Also involved is a redirect at Warren George Penn Boucaut. TexasAndroid 16:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, almost speedily. Kusma (討論) 15:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Marini

edit

Article subject does not meet the WP:BIO guideline criteria. Delete.--Isotope23 17:00, 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 19:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neon FM: Dance Radio

edit

product never released; much of this article is just speculation as to the existence of a PC version and the reason for the arcade version's scrapping - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball ---Hosterweis 00:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Product has been verified by me (deepbluevibes) to be in production; I have spoken with the game's creators, it is being independently produced and published as far as i've heard; article does not need to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepbluevibes (talk • contribs)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Xyrael / 09:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As this game's website has not been updated in over a year, it is less and less likely to hear anything about it. The article doesn't need to exist as of now, but if the game is released it could be re-created. It just seems pointless to have information in here with no source other than heresy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T-4 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per WP:V. The article does not provide any reputable, third-party sources whatsoever, and I was unable to locate any. --Satori Son 21:12, 12 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, Fernando Rizo 17:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Whispering(talk/c) 20:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Second Avenue (Highland Park, New Jersey)

edit

Wikipedia is not a street guide. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Fourth Avenue (Highland Park, New Jersey) for further discussion. Badbilltucker 17:17, 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. Whispering(talk/c) 21:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Third Avenue (Highland Park, New Jersey)

edit

Wikipedia is not a street guide. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Fourth Avenue (Highland Park, New Jersey) for further discussion. Badbilltucker 17:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 05:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Fourth Avenue (Highland Park, New Jersey)

edit

The article does nothing to establish the notability of the street. Wikipedia is not a street guide which can have every named street on the planet listed. This nomination is also intended to cover North Fifth Avenue (Highland Park, New Jersey), North Third Avenue (Highland Park, New Jersey) and North Second Avenue (Highland Park, New Jersey), and any other similarly created or proposed pages. Badbilltucker 17:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You hit the nail on the head. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:33, 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. Whispering(talk/c) 21:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Fifth Avenue (Highland Park, New Jersey)

edit

Wikipedia is not a street guide. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Fourth Avenue (Highland Park, New Jersey). Badbilltucker 17:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 05:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resist and Exist

edit

This article has been tagged with {{music-importance}} since February 2006, with no notability forthcoming. Either some should be provided, or the page should be deleted.  Tivedshambo (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete They do claim to have gone on a national tour here: [66], but... The venues seem to have been very small and their own webpage doesn't meet reliable source standards. PunkNews.org has a not very enthusiastic page about them here: [67]. They're not completely off the map, but they don't quite reach WP:MUSIC either. - Richfife 21:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cue sound of crickets chirping - Richfife 20:53, 11 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) 17:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I could go on a national tour of some of my relatives' houses, and get pictures that look a lot like those shown on the band's website. That kind of national tour isn't quite what I think was meant when that criterion of notability was established, though, and I don't get the impression from the photos that this one was either. Badbilltucker 15:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Wryspy 03:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Ignoring the potential copyright issues, and also ignoring the article's authors' and defenders' involvement with the organization, it is plain to see that the article's contents fail to establish the movement's notability aside from the involvement of certain notable individuals. This discussion also fails in this respect - notability and worthiness of an article based on our inclusion guidlines have not been established. While the existance of the organization is verifiable, some of the lofty claims made here are not. If the organization were to verifiably become truly notable like so many of the religions, groups, cults, movements, philosophies, and ways of life listed on Wikipedia, then inclusion would be a given. However, at this stage in the movement's existance, this is not the case. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, although the article has been deleted by another admin on copyright grounds, the above decision stands for the recreation of a legal article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Movement

edit

Nonnotable church congregation; also, article largely reads like a sermon. NawlinWiki 17:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this un-encyclopedic entry. Wryspy 03:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nuances that lend the article to sound like a sermon will be removed. However, the content is verifiable and legitimate concerning the Portland Movement. The content of the Portland Movement is encyclopedic and significant particularly when observed in conjunction with the former International Churches of Christ (ICOC).CdHess 18:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Sermon sounding" phrases were removed. If there are any other please let me know. It is in my best intention to make this article as encyclopedic as possible.CdHess 00:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are extensive articles on Wikipedia regarding the International Churches of Christ (ICOC), and a recent addition of the biography of the individual (Kip McKean) who started the Boston Movement (which was renamed the ICOC in 1994). If these entries are considered encyclopedic, then Portland Movement content has it's place in this Wikipedia - the affiliation with McKean as well as the ICOC are factors which make the Portland International Church of Christ a notable congregation in the context of Wikipedia. Please assist by pointing out examples of "sermon-like" content in the article, they should be discussed, and then edited or removed appropriately. In the very least, this content has its place as a section in the Kip McKean bio or perhaps somewhere in the ICOC content. Jeremy Ciaramella 19:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Ciaramella, it's only fair to point out that you are self-described as a "cybervangelist" for Mr. McKean in your profile. As to pointing out examples of "sermon-like" content, here's a sentence I plucked out almost at random: "Beginning with just nine disciples, God has increased the Latin Ministry to almost 70 disciples as of 2006." --Pleather 20:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. "Plether", my affiliation does not change the aforementioned contextual facts. How do you recommend rewording the above quote, "Beginning with nine members, the Latin ministry grew to 70 members as of 2006?" Removing references of God's influence on the phenomenon of church growth, or references that are similar ("x" happened because of God) is feasible, albeit awkward given the religious subject matter of this article. This fact (the growth of a ministry) is related, as it illustrates the momentum that the Portland Church is creating, much like the Boston Church created during the formation of the Boston Movement (now the ICOC). Jeremy Ciaramella 21:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd thank you not to assume my gender, if you please. And yes, I do happen to believe that statements of divine causality have no place in an encyclopedia. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make that clear. --Pleather 22:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pleather -- Please observe pillar four of the Wikipedia:Five Pillars. I do not think that it was Jeremy Ciaramella's intent to offend you. This forum exists to facilitate a civil discussion as to whether or not this article should be kept.CdHess 00:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As my mother always said, "its not what you say, its how you say it."CdHess 01:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would strongly caution you to not infer tone, i.e., "how you say it," from the statements of your fellow Wikipedians. You might want to keep in mind another key tenet of contributing here, which is Assume good faith. Now, could we please get back to the topic at hand? Pleather 01:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pleather - I am sorry I assumed your gender. It's easier to communicate in a civil fashion with someone using their given name. I'd prefer "Jeremy." I do not disagree with you about the causality statements. I would rather see this content reworked and refined and made useful than deleted. There are cross-content relationships between the Portland Movement, Kip McKean, and the ICOC. Our goal is to present all the pieces accurately - including this one. Jeremy Ciaramella 09:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I can't see why you would delete this. The ICOC became, at one time, the fastest growing religious movement in the world. That is a notable accomplishment. Kip McKean led this movement, and it began by breaking away from the traditional Churches of Christ. This is not a non-notable church, simply because it is the church in which Mr. McKean has again broken away from the 'organized' church - except this time he created the church from which he is breaking away. His prior break had great impact on the Churches of Christ and the world. This break may have similar results, and a thread should be maintained so this can be documented. Other persons notable for breaks with traditon: Martin Luther (using the above criteria, should we not delete the entry on Lutheran Church?), Jonh Wesley, John Calvin, William Tyndale - the list goes on. Kip McKean is a modern reformist - and the Portland Chrurch is certainly noteworthy enough to stay listed in Wikipedia. If you remove this article based on this complaint, you must then remove all protestant reformers and their resulting denominations on the same grounds.Scooterjonz 20:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Scooterjonz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
Article regarding the Portland Church of Christ. The Portland Church remains one of the fastest growing church's of Christ in the country. For all practical purposes the church attendance as of Jan. 2004 was 120 people with 1 baptized teen and 2 campus students. In two years time the church has multiplied three times its size to 360. They have grown the campus ministry to well over 55 people on 11 campus in the Portland area. They also have now built up a zealous teen/middleschool ministry with well over 45 people. All of this growth has been accomplished while simultaneously sending out and supporting numerous church plantings. For 2006 the church is on a pace to baptize over 100 people. There are many churches of Christ with larger numbers of members yet, unfortunately, are not as dynamic (dynamic meaning in a state of change and growth). Static churches remain the same for a period of time and than wither away. The Portland Church of Christ believes in praying for those churches and answering any call for help that might come. The church also believes in making positive changes for their community, state, country and world. These facts are true and verifiable. While any church such as Baptist, Catholic, and Methodist have their critics - not unlike the Portland Church of Christ - it behooves the Wickipedia researcher to have fair and accurate information available so that an intelligent and logical person can make a fair judgement. Laurenchristine 22:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Laurenchristine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
  • Strong Delete. First of all, this was speedy-deleted yesterday as copyvio (it's a cut-and-paste from a church website), then reposted today. Secondly, the text hardly bears out evidence of a so-called "movement". There are vague references to "discipling relationships" in areas outside of Portland, but the only clear claim of organizational momentum is the growth of the Portland International Church of Christ from "approximately 275 disciples" ( i.e. congregation members) in 1996 to "Over 500 in attendance on Sundays" today. Those are the only hard numbers asserting notability, so far as I can tell.
Thirdly, for a mass movement with "the dream of evangelizing the entire world in a single generation," this one appears to have attracted almost no mention in the media. I get a grand total of 34 Google hits for "Portland Movement" in conjunction with "Kip McKean", its purported leader, of which ten are derived from Wikipedia. With all due respect, while this may well at some point become a notable mass reform trend, it isn't now. --Pleather 22:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who reposted the article. The article was probably mistakenly thought of as a "copyvio." This article is not a CSD A8 "copyvio" however. Most of the article is original. I also was not notified by the editor concerning the copyvio as stated in the WP:CSD. Some quotes and ideas were taken from some Portland Bulletin articles merely to better justify and back the ideas in this article. If this article is on another website please list the website's url as I do not belive this is possible since I have been in possesion of the writing until it's posting. As far as the "global movement," there is a clear listing of congregations around the world and the US that are affiliated with the Portland Movement. I can put a listing of affiliated congregations if this helps clear things up. With all that said, the Portland Movement is in it's infancy and therefore not as clear as say the former ICOC. This article still meets the criteria in WP:ORG.CdHess 00:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show us something from a independent, third-party source that verifies this really is a international movement, then? NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 01:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete The Portland Church currently is actively overseeing congregations in 8 different nations (Estonia, Northern Ireland, Canada, Sweden, Australia, Chile, Ukraine and the United States of America) as well as in seven states (Utah, Arizona, New York, Illinois, Georgia, Hawaii, and Oregon) demonstrating notable international status - as a religious movement. Is referring to these groups' websites considered proof of being notable - or is that considered an internal source? The Portland Church's initial activity and the Boston Church's initial activity are similar. The Portland Movement is also referred to as "Kip McKean's New Movement" (c.f. Boston Movement addtional links). Because this movement is young, there is not a large amount of press coverage - yet. Removing it from the Wikipedia while including Kip McKean and the ICOC is inconsistent. Jeremy Ciaramella 09:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That's precisely my point, Jeremy. This movement is young. As far as I can tell, the ICOC has broken into a number of schismatic groups, and this is one of them. Kip McKean's notability, such as it is, arise from his earlier involvement in the ICOC, not in this organization. I've never heard of any of these guys before, but this much is clear.--Pleather 14:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response There are many articles on Wikipedia that cover things which many people have never heard of. Individuals will consider some of them unnoteworthy in their own ethos. Just because we have not heard of this thing does not quantify a reason for removing it. The Portland Movement is a part of the ethos of Kip McKean and the ICOC and the Wikipedia articles therein will be incomplete without it's inclusion.
  • Response There are churches in 8 nations and 7 states that the Portland Church is overseeing. If their websites are considered our group's website, then it illustrates that the Portland Movement is internationally noteworthy and tied via leadership this international scope of churches.
  • Comment You missed the point of what I was saying. If this movement really is spread across the nation as you claim to be, can you show us works from independent sources (like newspapers or magazines) that verify your claims? Simply stating it's notable because it has X number of churches or Y number of followers isn't enough; you have to substantiate such claims. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 00:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The wording is "strangely similar because much of the article was written by the same man, Kip McKean. I can go back and edit the wording if that makes the article legit.CdHess 22:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio and as non notable church, and most of the info unverifiable from independent sources. If kept, it needs to be thoroughly rewritten, from a NPOV. Fram 13:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete: Please explain in detail how this church is non-notable compared to say, Lahu Christian churches or any other article such as List of comic strips. My point is is that a notable church to one person may not be a notable church to another. Many people are watching what is going on in Portland. See: "ICOCNews.com" or " A Renovator, not an Innovator." for examples of others who are not affiliated with Portland that are interested in what is going on. The Movement is legitimate no matter how small it may be. As far as the copyvio, see above comment made by me. There were many church movements of the past that never really got very big yet are still considered notable. CdHess 22:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: As has been explained, you have to show from verifiable, independent sources (ICOC is hardly independent) that the church or movement is notable. What is the total number of followers? It all seems very small and limited. I'm not comparing to other churches or other articles (perhaps they are deletable as well), and a list is a different thing, as that is (logically) a list of things that are themselves notable or non notable. The comics on that list (at least the Franco-Belgian ones) have sold millions of copies, have been constantly in print for decades, have been translated in many languages, ... All of them are the source of multiple independent reviews, articles, and often complete studies. They are clearly notable. And could you give some examples of the "many chruch movements of the past that never really got very big yet are still considered notable"? Exclude those that led to mass suicides or large court cases for sexual abuse and so on, as those are notable for those reasons, not for being a church movement as such... As for the copyvio, how are we to definitely know (in a legally safe way, according to Wikipedia policy) that it is the same person that has written the article, and not someone who has just copied it from that website? And an article written by one of its key subjects is often a bad idea and may easily violate WP:NPOV, as you can see in sections like "Division" (calling the new vision "reactionary" is a clear example of POV. Forums "poisoned" the members is another example. The movement is less than a year old, and has no outside sources. It is non notable, not verifiable, written from a clear POV, and is technically a copyvio. More than enough reasons for a deletion. Fram 12:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is very difficult to write from a perfectly NPOV. Everyone has built in biases and therefore will never truly write from a perfectly NPOV. I have tried my hardest to make sure that the article is NPOV. I welcome any suggestions and have already noted your previous suggestions. As far as the copyvio, a letter has been written to Wikimedia that states clearly that I have been comissioned by the Portland Church to write this article. I am not sure if that is good enough. CdHess 16:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In the WP:ACM it mentions "deleting" - the first qualifier there is that something may be "poorly" written, but still have it's purpose. This content has purpose - it is a connection to the Wikipedia Kip McKean and ICOC entries. Ironically, WP:WQT mentions in the "How to avoid the abuse of talk pages" not to lable something as "poorly written." I digress. Jeremy Ciaramella 09:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jeremy, I've moved your comment above to its own thread, as it's generally considered unproductive to insert comments, out of chronological order, in the middle of a thread. Also, you'll note that I added the Comment tag. This is a very useful tool for keeping these discussions readable, as it distinguishes additional information from one's original opinion on retention. Thanks! Pleather 17:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification: the above unsigned comment was from Jeremy Ciaramella. Two things, Jeffery: one, you've already stated Do Not Delete in an earlier post. The accepted mode of participating in AfD discussions is to state your opinion (not a vote, because this is consensus) just once. You label further comments "Comments".
  • Oops - forgot the tilda's. Yes the copyvio response was my post. This is the first "AfD" I've got privilege to participate in. Thank you for the explanation regarding the use of comment and Do Not Delete. My name is Jeremy, not Jeffrey. Jeremy Ciaramella 19:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, the debate at hand is NOT copyright violation; that was the criteria for the "speedy delete" process, which is now over. Please, please understand that the topic at hand is Notability. Just because something is described as a "movement" doesn't make it so: hard data--numbers and facts--make it so. I see "The Portland Church currently is actively overseeing congregations in 8 different nations" and "The Portland Movement is a part of the ethos of Kip McKean". What, exactly, does "overseeing congregations" mean? How does "ethos" relate to notability? Pleather 18:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did not realize that the debate for "speedy delete" process was over. Thank you again for clarification. To oversee a congregation means that the Portland Church directly influences, trains, and works with the given local congregation and its leadership. That local congregation shares the same goals as the Portland Movement, and the same/very similar church building methodologies. It also means that the local church does not practice Autonomy. Ethos is defined as "the character or disposition of a community, group, person, etc." and the ICOC is a large community of churches, with thousands of members - even after its upheavals. The Portland Movement is a part of this community - albeit contraversial - and recording its activity in relation to the ICOC community and a key individual (Kip McKean) rounds out the description of the ethos of the ICOC and Kip McKean. Futher defining both of these entries' dispositions in Wikipedia. Jeremy Ciaramella 19:33, 15 September 2006 (
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of bands with two consistent members

edit

Having two (and only two) consistent members in the lifetime of a band isn't a very interesting thing, not least because there must be a vast number of such bands - most bands only have 3 or 4 members to begin with. Surely all duos would fit in this list as well?

Note that there are two other related lists: List of bands with no consistent members (which has previously been on AFD), and List of bands with only one consistent member. Both of these are more interesting and worth keeping. There is also Category:Bands with only one constant member, which seems like unnecessary duplication to me, although it has previously been on CFD without consensus. — sjorford++ 17:42, 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. —Xyrael / 10:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metro Camel

edit

Clearly Fails the Test of WP:MUSIC. Seems like an Advertisment to me. --Marwatt 13:51, 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 04:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian Golden Age

edit

This article has a number of shortcomings:

  • In terms of its content, it is redundant with a number of articles, including Sweden-Norway, Norwegian romantic nationalism, Norway in 1814, just to name a few
  • As is pointed out by other editors, it has no sources, looks like it's a bit of a walled garden, and is incoherent
  • Its very title doesn't reference a particular topic - the term "golden age" is not a universally agreed-upon term for any given time frame - some say it's the short era between the Viking era and the "400-year night"; others say it's from 1870 to 1920, corresponding with the national romantic movement, others think it's about now.
  • I have asked for further substantiation by the original editor, whose only contributions appear to be this article, and never heard back.

--Leifern 14:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 22:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monsonia

edit

This band has a nice website but it's simply not notable enough. Google renders very few related results. Húsönd 18:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect duplicate pages can be redirected by any user. AfD is not necessary. Eluchil404 22:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Goren

edit

This is a duplicate page of Robert Goren Ken S. 18:20, 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. —Xyrael / 10:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seacourt Pavilion

edit

Smallish outdoor shopping center (strip mall) with a layout similar to an indoor mall. According to the article, the shopping center includes 257,452 square feet; many malls and shopping centers have single stores with more floorspace than this.

I could see having an article about a strip mall this small, if it also had historical significance, monuments or landmarks, or some other reason for having widespread renown. But all we have are hopelessly unverifiable statements about the location's popularity with teenagers and skateboarders.

The article's talk page mentions that the article shouldn't be deleted because "it gives information on a shopping center/mall. It gives information for locals who would like to find an area to shop or dine." but WP:NOT a local shopping and dining guide. WP:AFDP currently holds that shopping malls aren't inherently notable, and this particular one strikes me as being nowhere close to notable.

Also of interest is the fact that the article's title is misspelled. Snacky 13:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 18:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Having lived about a mile away from it for over 16 years, I can attest to Seacourt, lame as it is, is a center of commerce in Toms River, serving over 100,000 people inside the town and 500,000 in the county. I think it should be expanded to include a history section, however. Trnj2000 19:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep in a state famed for its shopping malls, this mall is in an area that has relatively few shopping centers and it is a reasonably significant facility in its area. Alansohn 02:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long War (21st century)

edit

This article documents the use of "The Long War" in reference to War on Terrorism. Aside from the title of a speech Rumsfeld gave and a header in a Department of Defense review it's a neologism. Bobblehead 18:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It is indeed a neologism, one created by the George W. Bush Administration to generate political support for military operations, domestic policies, and other decisions. This article usefully documents its appearance and use. PRRfan 19:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a very notable neologism that has become a widely used catchphrase in the context of the U.S.'s War on Terror, similar to Axis of Evil or rogue state. Apart from the references in the article itself, a Google News search — which covers just the last 30 or so days of news — gives 55,100 results, most of which are very much on topic. See for instance Michael Vlahos (Sep 9, 2006). "The Long War: A self-defeating prophecy". Asia Times. Sandstein 19:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Everything has been said. Hello32020 20:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sandstein. --Aaron 23:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree w/ points above. Tzarius 09:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree per Sandstein William Flowers 19:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per WP:SNOW, the neologism is indeed notable. RFerreira 22:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I thought there used to be articles on "neverending war": this would be a good place to redirect anyone that might make an article on those concerns. Cwolfsheep 16:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to War on terror and Redirect. All of the keep arguments above are valid, but "Long war" is no more than a synonym for the more common term "War on terror" (or war on terrorism). I'm open to being persuaded otherwise, but at this stage I don't think that there is much, if anything, that can be said about Long war that isn't equally true of the War on terror, and vice versa. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:40, 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, there is no evidence (provided here or on the article page) this group meets any notability standard. --- Deville (Talk) 03:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Sorts of Trouble for the Boy in the Bubble Sketch Comedy

edit

Non-notable improv group. Creator removed the notability tag after asserting on the talk page that the group meets the WP:BIO criterion of having "a large fan base, fan listing or 'cult' following", but no evidence of that is provided. -- Merope Talk/Review 19:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Aaron 22:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete. There is, in fact, evidence provided and cited. The second cited tag-- Wheeler, Jake. "Bursting the Comedy Bubble." Indiana Daily Student. September 30, 2004-- is a news article that specifically reports that they have a large fan base, and their venues are full to capacity. The third cited tag--"Best of Bloomington." Indiana Daily Student. November 11, 2004-- details that they were voted "Best Comedy Show" in the 2004 IDS Reader's Poll. Both of these have online links at the bottom of the page.--GoodAaron 03:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that two references from the same college newspaper count as evidence of a cult following. Venues being full to capacity means that on a given night, 80 to 250 kids from the town attend. And while it's only a guideline, you might want to check out Wikipedia:Notability (comedy)--I don't think the group even comes close to meeting these criteria. -- Merope Talk/Review 07:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that this is a discussion and not a vote, and as such you should provide an explanation. -- Merope Talk/Review 07:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for neglecting to include an explanation. My main concern is due to the fact that there are no guidelines for Notability for Theatre Companies, which is what this form of sketch comedy would best fall into. It should also be pointed out that the term "cult following" generally suggests a small but tenacious group of fans, commonly of the high school to college demographic. I agree that the group does not meet the broad Notability requirement for Comedy for national fame, because they have not found national exposure. However, as I have stated elsewhere, theatrical troupes are by necessity tied closely to the community, and usually do not seek national coverage, nor are likely to get it. Nonetheless, the argument could be made on the Comedy Notability requirement for "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city"-- as evidenced by the Bloomington Reader's Poll. The articles cited, while not as diversified as I would have liked, are nevertheless drawn from dates over the course of over two years, and suggest a continued fanbase. Their lasting power as a noteworthy troupe in Bloomington could also be inferred from the fact that the group has existed since 1999 but remains popular, despite the fact that the majority of attendees would graduate yearly from Indiana University and move away. --GoodAaron 19:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by User:DJ Clayworth. BryanG(talk) 20:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle_neufeld

edit

Vanity Xinit 19:33, 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 04:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith brooks

edit

I'm hesitant to use the H word here but the veracity of this article is hard to establish. The fact that these are the sole edits of the creator is not reassuring. Apparently linked to Andre 3000 but Google doesn't know about that. Apparently won the "Paul McCartney Songwriting Award" but Google is not aware that such an award exists. Apparently stared in a production of "The Wiz" but, wait for it, Google never heard of that either! There is another Keith Brooks, however, which apparently is somewhat notable as a soul/Gospel singer and an author listed on Amazon. They are most definitely not this 21-year old. Pascal.Tesson 19:36, 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. Marwatt - use a speedy tag in future. -- RHaworth 08:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC) The user started the article. Wrote a line about the person that "a nice guy". Then deleted that line and there is nothing else. I recommend Speedy Delete. --Marwatt 19:39, 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 04:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pink mist

edit

dicdef Will (Glaciers melting in the dead of night) 19:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Hobo Convention

edit

Seemingly non notable convention, but probably real. 1,410 Google hits, 3 Gnews, none of which are particularly significant mentions. It's borderline. Rory096 19:51, 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. It's also a cut and pasted copyvio from their website and some wine site. - Bobet 07:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justin vineyards

edit

Non-notable, reads like an ad, poor copyedit. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:54, 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 redirect to The_Colbert_Report_recurring_elements, since there's no evidence of it being in use in other contexts and the target article has a better paragraph about it. - Bobet 07:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-inista

edit

Non-notable suffix. Neologism. Most of its non-Wikipedia Ghits [70] aren't related to the definition given in the article. ♠PMC♠ 19:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete OR. Pan Dan 21:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm really not sure what the Google search is supposed to prove, since most ocurrences of the suffix would necessarily be as part of other words, rather than as a free-floating separate word. For example, Googling for "-orama", "-athon", or "-teria" would do almost nothing to tell you how frequently these suffixes occur in actual words. AnonMoos 11:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. WP:Neologism requires that there be sources about the term, not just sources that use the term. The Google search shows that there are no sources that are actually about the term, because such sources would discuss "-inista" as a free-floating neologism, instead of just using it as a suffix. Pan Dan 12:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, due to certain rather basic facts about linguistics and search engine algorithms, the Google search simply does not do what you and PMC implicitly claim it does. Solely on the basis of you sticking to a claim which is misleading by implication, I vote to Keep. AnonMoos 13:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Would you care to take the time to explain to me, clearly a lesser mortal, what those "basic facts about linguistics and search engine algorithms" are?
(2) Maybe you mean that there's a webpage out there that discusses "-inista" without using it in isolation? But such a webpage would surely use at least the three words cited in the article, wordinista, sandinista, and feminista. Google searches for feminista wordinista and feminista sandinista yield 0 results. A Google search for feminista sandinista yields lots of results, but none of the top results, at least, is actually about "-inista."
(3) Even if there are sources out there that are actually about this term, the article as it stands cites no such sources. It's OR. Pan Dan 14:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The most basic fact is that there would be many possible ways in which words using the suffix could be discussed without "inista" occurring as a free unbound form. Furthermore, selecting "English only search" on feministas sandinistas turns up http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=1357745&trail=56 in the first ten Google results. Searching "inistas" plural with English-only search yields some interesting links too: [71] -- AnonMoos 13:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the results. But none of them (except for WP's own The_Colbert_Report_recurring_elements) seems to be a reliable source, and all of them (except for WP) use various -inistas, rather than actually talk about the use of -inista, which as I said above, is what's needed to satisfy WP:Neologism. The only source that talks about "-inista" is WP, so there is really no material that -inista can add to what is already at WP. Pan Dan 14:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as a biography that does not assert the importance of its subject. JDoorjam Talk 06:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Gewurz

edit

My Commiserations with the boy but the page has to go as per WP:BIO. --Marwatt 20:02, 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. —Mets501 (talk) 01:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Law, Officials and Pharaohs: Ancient Egypt

edit

This interesting little essay has a few problems: it's mostly a content fork of Pharaoh, Ancient_Egypt#Administration_and_taxation and others, and it has no reliable sources, making it Original research by default. Given that, it's probably not worth changing its idiosyncratic, non-encyclopedic title (to e.g. Administration of ancient Egypt) and doing the heavy stylistical and spelling cleanup it needs. It was deleted once as PROD already, so I'm going straight to AfD now. Sandstein 20:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marlon Green

edit

not notable Kpjas 20:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alternative hypothesis: the original article did not adequately explain the significance of the subject. Something whihc is now fixed, and the article will be kept. No harm done. Guy 23:01, 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 04:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fenrir (Dungeons & Dragons)

edit

Original research (fan material) CNichols 20:23, 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 04:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ely (band)

edit

Non-notable band that fails the criteria in WP:BAND for notability. Have released one EP - under their own label. Localzuk (talk) 20:24, 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 04:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ont Records

edit

As with the previously listed Ely (band) this is the sister article of that bands independant, homegrown label. Non-notable. Localzuk (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trampoline Wrestling

edit

Small promotion that isn't known enough for Wikipedia. RobJ1981 20:23, 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 04:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of WWE writers

edit

needless list, basically copies purpose of WWE roster Renosecond 20:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Trunk Music

edit

One sentence stub with no references on a supposed upcoming album with the artist's name spelled wrong and a disagreement in the parent article on what it will be called. Oh, and it's written like a promo piece. Aparet from that, and the fact that you can't call it a sophomore album when he's already got several platinum releases, there si not much wrong with it. Oh, wait... Guy 20:37, 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 04:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harzewski Effect

edit

Neologism, WP:NFT, one Google hit. Previously deleted per WP:PROD so can't be re-prodded. Accurizer 20:52, 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. Yanksox 21:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Marin Jr.

edit

I don't believe simply being a 'community leader' and having a tenuous connection to a mayor to be notable, but others may disagree. Discuss! (10 marks) Dave 21:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Boderline speedy, the only thing that's noteworthy is that he was mentored under a mayor. He's not notable yet, give it sometime. Yanksox 21:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I have tagged this with db-bio. —dustmite 21:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- Steel 13:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Online Clan Forums

edit

Prod removed without comment. Histories of a bunch of online clan forums. Fails WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:WEB -- Fan-1967 21:17, 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. Guy 22:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Greenest Piece

edit

fictional band, no hits, no sources and also linked to enviropop all created by single user. H0n0r 21:18, 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 delete. - Bobet 07:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MGS 3 : Crab Battle

edit

This is, in essence, a random YouTube video which for some reason has its own article. Deprodded by an anon, this comes nowhere near being notable but has gained some popularity amongst internet forums. Some sweeping references have been made to it in a couple of magazines, but it's hardly been the subject of "multiple non-trivial published works" which WP:WEB requires. -- Steel 21:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Steel. Frankly, any non-trivial work would probably be of greater significance than the subject here. Guy 22:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 22:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP The article in questionf features information on a popular flash animation that has been featured on multiple pages, YouTube NOT being the main focus or its original intention. In fact, this isn't a YouTube video at all like every other user has attempted to make idle claims to. Misrepresenting this article in order to have it deleted shows poorly on those working against it. Researching and investigating the topic in question before openly calling for deletion is the first step in creating a fair and well-maintained "Free Encylopedia." The article focuses on several points of note, including the satirical nature of the flash animation which is based on the popular Metal Gear Solid. If anything, the article should be revised to include more potentially useful information to anyone creating their own satire of popular video game fiction. With the publication in two widely circulated magazines (with links included), this video has already generated a good deal of non-internet related publicity for itself that is anything but "trivial" Chad Schaeffer 23:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not entirely sure what point you were trying to make with that rant, but I ran a Google search [72] and out of the 700 or so results, the top ones (and probably the rest) were all to flash hosting sites. I don't see any evidence of it being the subject of a non-trivial work. -- Steel 10:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm just glad you actually investigated Crab Battle a bit more. A popular flash video that is known through-out the Metal Gear Solid community. With this being a popular satire, could it merely be suggested that this article be linked to as a satire or fan-fiction creations of Metal Gear Solid? And my rant was long and all over the place, but I do believe I touched on all of the neglected points of note for this article. I'd also like to note, that the article was not originally created by the person who created Crab Battle, thus indicating some desire to inform people about this satirical work of flash fiction. Further review of your own Google Search will also yield links to various forums, fan-created sites, etc. Also, how does this not fall in line with Wikipedia hosting a site about YTMND [73], a site dedicated to "trivial" work. -- Chad Schaeffer 11:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then document it on a MGS wiki. This is a general encyclopaedia, for documenting things which are verifiably significant to the wider world. Tangential content regarded as "kewl" by groups of fans of particular video game does not in most cases qualify as having encyclopadic merit. And this is not "elitist", Steel is an active editor on CVG topics, and was made a sysop even though most of his edits are to CVG topics. Guy 09:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Wing000 01:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I took a look at those "references" and like Steel said, they are trivial! Its not the publicity that needs to be non-trivial (Chad Schaeffer says publicity is non-trivial which is not important), its the references that need to be non-trivial which means that an external source needs to devote significant text on explaining the subject. In all the references I looked it was only mentioned in passing, as a "cool thing to see". Nothing more. Also, this AFD is not about YTMNDs. Shinhan 19:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm amused that no one has commented on my plea to at least link or rework this article in some way. The desire to delete it with no desire to attempt to re-work it or incorporate into the other multitude of gaming related articles on Wiki seems correlate that the attacks against the article have been merely elitist in nature. -- Chad Schaeffer 20:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lexis-Nexis search shows no hits for "Crab battle" other than an atrticle about the battle to save Robber Crabs on the island of Tuvalu from packs of rats.... The media sources mentioned are trivial and thus fail the guidelines for WP:WEB (i.e. non-trivial media mentions, non-trivial awards won, or non-trivial media reprints.) --Kunzite 01:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wow all this over a simple internet flash animation. I did my own Google search and here it it. There about 7 good links on the fron page alone. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Crab+battle&btnG=Google+Search. I dont see why anyone wont add this to a MSG(Metal Gear Solid) wiki page. This is a good thing becuase I use wikipedia for alot of things and i think you should keep this. That is all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.238.103 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment You should do more precise searches. You pull up such things as the Iron Chef Crab Battle; Shadow Battle Crab from Babylon 5 ... Always put quotation marks around the name and you should always exclude wikipedia from the search by putting a " -wikipedia" (space, minus sign, no space, wikipedia.) With a generic phrase like "Crab Battle" you need to include a second keyword to get a proper representation of the google results. Adding "metal gear" (w/quotes) does this. example. Finally, we want to look at how many of the pages google chopped out because they were duplicated.. go to the last page in the google search. It will give the message "we have omitted some entries very similar to the 206 already displayed." So ~230 unique results out of about 26,900 (or less than 1%) are unique. --Kunzite 05:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. To quote the guidelines Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such content will be complete regardless. For example, Ricky Gervais had a podcast distributed by The Guardian. Such distributions should be nontrivial. Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial. Every flash movie on NewGrounds, or YTMND on YTMND.com doesn't need it's own article, unless it has gotten some outside attention(see AYBABTU) Mitaphane talk 00:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Then if you say that YTMD movies have no place on Wikipedia then why have a YTMND page on Wikipedia? Its a page dedicated to trival movies and things of that nature. So why is it still around? I believe that the Crab Battle page should be linked into the MSG: 3 page and call it a day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viningi (talk • contribs)
      • Note:This is the user's only edit
      • We're not discussing the ytmnd article. We're discussing this article. If you don't think ytmnd deserves a page, put it up for AfD, because discussions about it here are irrelevant. -- Steel 18:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Please listen to my orignal comment. I did not say "all YTMND's don't deserve their own article" or "YTMND doesn't deserve its own article." I said, every YTMND on YTMND(or flash movie on Newgrounds) doesn't need it's own article, unless it has gotten some outside attention. As far as I can tell, MGS3: Crab Battle has only been popular on Newgrounds. The article makes the assertion that it has been viewed over a million times and yet google searches only get 479 hits. I think if this flash movie was that big of a phonomena it would garner more hits than that. Mitaphane talk 22:18, 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 due to lack of verifiability. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Academy (band)

edit

Speedied as failing to assert notability, but contested. There seems to be a shortage of verifiable information, according to the author, who describes the band as "obscure". No vote. Guy 21:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are plenty of obscure topics worthy of encyclopediac articles, and I think this is one. RCA recording artist, that meets WP:MUSIC by my estimation. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Parsssseltongue. Dekar 22:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:MUSIC is a guideline, not a policy (bwah!), and is moot any way since the article (including RCA label claim) fails actual non-negotiable policy WP:V. The article itself acknowledges the obscurity and lack of information - And sorry, but this is unacceptable for an encyclopedia: Little else is known about them aside from the fact that one song (their "Keep Quiet" one) carries with it alternate songwriting credits (usually the writing was credited to the band as a whole), crediting N. Fogarty, A. Briscoe, and S. Mayers. The aforementioned three are probably members of the band considering all of the band's material was self-written, but full names are completely unknown at this time. Further information is greatly appreciated. Wikipedia is not a 80s music fanclub bulletin board Bwithh 01:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this isn't "a (sic) 80s music fanclub bulletin board", but the board this thread comes from is certainly one, and we have at least one person expressing an interest in having access to this information. Also, as I state in the aforelinked thread, there was that one other editor who was able to step in and provide a discography, so there IS some interest. May I also remind you that in the early - mid '80s, one album's worth of material could be as little as eight songs? Seeing as though the band recorded a total of six singles (which equals out to at least twelve songs as per the traditional definition of a single), the minimal total output of this band of 12 songs would equal out to one traditional eight-song album and one four-song mini-album.
I wouldn't create an article for another group I'm a fan of, Language, because I know they only recorded a five-song EP and released a couple of singles. That's a minimal total of seven songs, not enough to comprise a pre-CD era album. I might create one for the songwriter/leader of the group, Steven Hale, because of his involvement with other groups (including one whose lead singer, Debbie King, was Gang Of Four lead singer Jon King's sister), but I recognize that an article on Language wouldn't go anywhere. This isn't the case with Academy. I will be eliciting information and assistance from other, TRUE "80s music fanclub bulletin boards" (BTW, on a fansite forum community, people don't discuss groups in such a cut-and-dry manner), and I am confident I can get the required assistance. The article was deleted just one day after it was created. Give it (and me) some time to gather information. If you see the same information on it after a month, then feel free to say, "Ha, see? You couldn't gather up the proper amount of information, even after calling out the cavalry. NOW we can talk about deleting the article." But as for now, I say it deserves to have a stay of execution at the very least. (Krushsister 02:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete: information seems correct, but fails WP:MUSIC. You have to do enough research first to show that the band is important enough to meet our guidelines, and then you can create the article. If you find such info, you can always come back and recreate it. If you have a good idea of what you'll find, but just need the source, then tell us. For now, it seems like you are only hoping that they may be more notable than it seems. Fram 05:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Might require some editing to conform writing standards, but to me seems to be ok as far WP:MUSIC is concerned. Released equivalent of 2 albums on major label. Probably also toured the UK, but I cannot confirm this. Information is very sparse. Wikipedia has heaps of articles on obscure topics. Brambo 09:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of verifiability. I tried searching for sources during the DRV and found nothing, though the word 'Academy' throws up a lot of false positives which makes it harder. Those interested in the subject may have better luck finding sources, which is why deletion of this article should not prejudice a sourced version. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete when insufficiently verifiable. Wryspy 03:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V, userfy if the editor want to continue the research for this article. ~ trialsanderrors 05:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this please because of non-verifiable info but return if sources are found Yuckfoo 21:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wei 2:7

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 06:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meshup

edit

Whether viewed as a technology, company, or website, MeshUp fails WP:SOFTWARE, WP:CORP, and WP:WEB. No matches on Lexis, 220 unique ghits for "meshup" (not all of which are related to the subject of this article, and the first of which is a post by the author of this article). Also no Alexa ranking for meshup.org. Prod removed by author. I warned the author that I thought the article would end up being deleted, but he continued to work on the article without providing any evidence of notability. The references listed in the bibliography have to do with mesh networking but say nothing about the subject of this article. Could be I'm missing something, but this seems to me a pretty clear delete. Pan Dan 21:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First at all, we - the authors - don't have any commercial aim. as Pan Dan point out. I dont understand the obstination to delete a new technological term that increase each day their worldwide use, i.e. IBM initiative of identification are using this ID-MeshUp term, for complex system of distributed networks. You can revise lots of other more obsolete, confuded and bad explained terms i.e. Mashup. Technical articles, comments, podcasts, workshops are using the similar term mashup with different definitions creating confusion. Let us to start defining first meshup that it is now clear, used, understandable and defined at least in Europe, where all is not only based on web integration and applications. If there isn't lexis matches now there are at least one wikipedia match that it is often what the practitioners are looking for the explanation in wikipedia. When We finish with the Meshup article We will start with mashup. I agree that the inclusion of the past bibliography in this article were confusing. Please by patient because this article is not easy to write. Ferran

Ferran.Cabrer Musaabdulrashid, Good morning. I am absolutely agree with you hat this a neologism. Meshup is a Recent technological term, but it is unique and well defined by specialist in IT in particular to network information and communication, when they have to interconnect distributed and heterogeneous data, devices and networks to provide new IT services or applications. If you consider that neologisms don't have space i wikipedia, I delete the article of meshup. thanks in advance for your understanding, Ferran Cabrer en Ferran Cabrer i Vilagut Skype: Ferran.Cabrer CONSEN.org CONSEN (EEIG) Euro-Group Euro-Cluster pro-Information Society Information & Communication Environments Jaume Fabra 12 08004 Barcelona

FP6 European Research Projects: - TOSSAD - SECURE-FORCE

COONDI COoperation ON DIversity WEKOMS web2.0 for your organization on-Net See you in DrupalCon 21-23Sep06-BXL D.TF Strategic Agenda IST-2006 21-23Nov06-HEL Exhibit IST-Media-Profile MeshUp 19-21Apr07-BCN Network 2.0


NO CRIMES OF WAR

  • Comment re: "neologism." To be fair, I don't think the problem with the article is that Meshup is a neologism. I also don't think that the article concerns more than one subject as Musa implies. It seems to me the article is about a technology called Meshup, which would be fine if Meshup were notable, but it's not. I brought up WP:CORP and WP:WEB in my nom to make the point that even if we tried to save the article by somehow viewing it as a business or a website instead of a technology, then it still wouldn't pass WP's guidelines. Pan Dan 12:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Cheh

edit

Not-notable. As a city council politician she would fail WP:BIO even if elected. Delete. BlueValour 23:37, 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. The only keep argument only considers wp:music and doesn't even mention the verifiability issue. It might work as a redirect to Pepsi Tate, but his article redirects to Tigertailz (which only mentions him by name), and redirecting this band to that one when there's no apparent connection is just silly. - Bobet 06:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pepsi Tate Jazz Band

edit

Obscure glam metal band from the mid-80s. According to the article, they had one album released. No evidence of hit singles or national/international touring given, so it doesn't meet WP:MUSIC criteria. A Google search brings up a youtube interview and a forum post, but nothing else relevant. There were no reliable sources given, and I believe the article is not verifiable. --Wafulz 15:46, 3 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 23:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this also violates WP:V Musaabdulrashid 01:51, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_14&oldid=1081097805"