Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 15

< August 14	August 16 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

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

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 07:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Paul Donovan (Filmmaker)

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

Is there a generally accepted timeframe for how long a stub can remain so before deletion? As to the notability question, I'll point in the direction of the "What links here" page. I originally created the stub page as the articles all linked to the incorrect Paul Donovan. --Anthony Hersey 22:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 07:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Michael Donovan (producer)

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

If I may ask, what's the generally accepted timeframe for a page to remain a stub before speedy deletion? This stub article had been up for just over a day. --Anthony Hersey 22:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shrange

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

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

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

I think this is a perfect example of Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Editor88 22:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 23:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no google references. Michael Greiner 23:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete author even admits it's obscure.--Nebular110 00:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So wait, "shrange" = "http://www."? That's almost BJAODN-worthy as a WTF-moment. humblefool ® 01:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, unverifiable. Rohirok 01:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A joke. <KF> 01:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is no hoax. I attend a west coast university and this term is common usage there. Tehkweeyan
Note: This user has no other edits. Editor88 02:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

spelled sideways

subject has article at other wikimedia site and zero data attached here Ben iarwain 00:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can be nothing more than a dictionary defintion. Not verified. Rohirok 01:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary -- Deville (Talk) 02:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR more suited to urbandictionary.com than wiktionary. Google seems to indicate more than one approach to use of the phrase. --Dhartung | Talk 06:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung reasoning. feydey 08:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, unenclyclopedic. HighInBC 12:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per Deville. Cynical 14:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Michael 19:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom -- Whpq 19:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki — to wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. M a rtinp23 20:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is so sad, but it looks like I'm going to have to say d3l3t3. Yours sideways, Cyde Weys 02:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlinked to neologism. Why bother transwiki when nothing actually refers to it? StuffOfInterest 18:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete see above. will381796 05:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. SynergeticMaggot 04:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Graphology

A copyrighted term about a test you send for in the mail to learn about, and then they send you a certification. It's some pseudoscience that says you can tell a person's characteristics by their handwriting. Just see the page and their site. I don't think this is notable, and the article is certainly POV mboverload @ 00:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is impossible to copyright just one word. That organization is just one organization, and this article is not about that organization. If it's a pseudoscience, that's not a reason to delete it. Michael Hardy 00:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Well-known pseudoscience with a venerable history. The term is a perfectly good dictionary word: AHD says "NOUN: The study of handwriting, especially when employed as a means of analyzing character."[1] Heck, there could even be something in it, although I vaguely seem to recall studies showing that different graphologists' analysis of the same handwriting samples didn't yield consistent results. All articles of this kind need constant watching for the insertion of promotional material and links and for point-of-view pushing; this one could probably benefit from some careful attention, but it doesn't even look particularly bad. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC) P. S. Britannica thinks it's worthy of an article[2]; so does Encarta[3]. I said "venerable," didn't I? How about a 1919 book on "Graphology and the Psychology of Handwriting?" [4] Dpbsmith (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a Google Scholar search yields 1400 hits, quite a lot for a Scholar search. You can judge for yourself what's the balance of research fur it and research agin' it... but its definitely a serious topic of serious research. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the 1440 makes it notiable. I also don't believe the copywright argument is valid in this case. --Edgelord 01:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a real topic, even if it may be a pseudoscience -- Whpq 01:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wasn't using the fact that it was copyrighted to make a case to delete it. --mboverload@ 01:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If that is the case why then was it part of your opening sentence? --Edgelord 01:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Possibly because xe was thinking about trademarks, not copyright, and about Graphoanalysis, not Graphology. I wonder whether the nominator nominated the article that xe intended to nominate. Uncle G 01:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I was asking the nominator why he stated the term being copyrighted in the first sentence if that was not being used as a reason to delete the article. I also believe that the correct artilce was nominated because bith the nominator and one of the people voting keep stated that it was about studying handwriting.
Speedy keep. Graphology is one of the most notable forms of pseudoscience in the modern world. This is like nominating Scientology for deletion. Just make it less messy, source it, and keep it free of the spam and unscientific claims it will surely attract. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, this is a real pseudoscience that has successfully slithered its way into American courtrooms a few times. The independent report on the Killian memos discusses its significance in the handwriting field. Gazpacho 01:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per others -- Deville (Talk) 03:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, the word is a notable pseudoscience term and the article just needs to be sourced and referenced. --Ter e nce Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 02:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep... Popular pseudosciences are notable unless you really want to delete Dianetics, Rolfing and Chiromancy too. wikipediatrix 03:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparently well referenced, and a well-known term. More references never hurt, though LinaMishima 04:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's pseudoscience. It's crap. The article needs to indicate that. But it's a real pseudoscience, better known than many, and worthy of entry. Travislangley 05:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starsomething

This webcomic was originally nominated and deleted last year at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starsomething and can be found on the comic genesis free web host, here. The reasons for this nomination are the same as the original, it is not a notable website, there are no respectable third party stories relating to this subject. The comic's authors have gone onto arguably more notable projects since this, but they don't have the midas touch. Just as we don't have an article on Moby's high school band, we shouldn't have an article on this random website. - Hahnch e n 00:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. However, if the authors have gone onto really notable projects and have an article, merge and redirect there. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See above. --Planetary 01:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Above. Actually, This article was nominated for deletion in last year. Daniel's page ☎ 02:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn webcomic. --Ter e nce Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 03:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, webcomic, deleted before. -Royalguard11^Talk^{My Desk} 03:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article about the authors. Cynical 14:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn, or merge per cynical if the authors are clearly notable AdamBiswanger1 14:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 14:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom -- Whpq 19:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — and merge per above M a rtinp23 20:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and mention it on the RPG World and Adventurers! author's pages. I've read it - there's not much there. humblefool ® 01:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They didn't go on to notable projects. They came from Adventurers! and RPG World, for pete's sake. These are both hugely popular webcomics. They are at the level, and have been around long enough, that they don't need to put themselves on rating lists or similar. Starsomething was visited by large chunks of both their fanbases.--Mobius Soul 03:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - My apologies for confusing them. They were a sideproject running alongside the arguably more notable comics, but my point still stands, they do not have the Midas touch. - Hahnch e n 14:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable through reliable sources and WP:NOT an internet guide. As far as being associated with the "hugely popular" webcomics Adventurers! and RPG World goes, is there a reliable source that suggests these webcomics are "hugely popular"? They appear to have the hugely not very popular Alexa rankings of 291,620 [5] and 308,925 [6] respectively. -- Dragonfiend 04:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 04:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Keep per Mobius Soul. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. StuffOfInterest 18:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 02:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald Winter

Another webcomic, found here. Using a google search to look for "emerald winter", the best source I could come up with was a review on a podcast[7]. It's Alexa rank is 1.2 million for those interested. - Hahnch e n 00:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable comicruft. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Daniel's page ☎ 02:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable webcomic. -Royalguard11^Talk^{My Desk} 03:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Cruft death to webcomics. SynergeticMaggot 04:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — nn M a rtinp23 12:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - low Alexa ranking is not a good enough reason to delete. Cynical 14:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator's "the best source I could come up with" is a reference to the article having no reliable sources and the nominator being unable to find any. Our content policies require that articles be based on reliable, third-party sources. -- Dragonfiend 03:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are just so many webcomics out there, and I don't see how this one is notable in the least. While Alexa ranking isnt the be-all end-all, it certainly does not bode in the comic's favor. Do you have any reason for voting keep other than in defiance of the use of the Alexa ranking? AdamBiswanger1 14:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 14:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. --Satori Son 16:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete webcomic cruft that is unverifiable through reliable sources. WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Delete Per above. StuffOfInterest 18:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn with no sources. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 02:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and unverifiable will381796 05:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halobabies

This is the second nomination for this article, it was previously deleted here, and I pretty much agree with the original nomination. A non notable webcomic which does not pass WP:WEB. Its Alexa rank is 580,000. - Hahnch e n 00:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and block recreation as per nom. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, good comic, but it's only marginally notable and only within the Halo community. Fails WP:WEB. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 02:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn webcomic. --Ter e nce Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 03:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 03:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per above. SynergeticMaggot 04:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete — CSD G4 M a rtinp23 12:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G4 Cynical 14:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--G4 seems a little like censorship sometimes in that it calls for deletion without a thought as to what the article says. AdamBiswanger1 14:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nominator but not G4 unless it is actual recreation Yuckfoo 18:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete webcomic cruft that is unverifiable through reliable sources. WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]
No Opinion But id like to point out that you've got 8-bit theater (also a webcomic) on here... Held in much esteem by Final Fantasy fans, much as Halobabies is held in esteem for Halo fans... yet this one is up for deletion and the other is not? Just making a point, ive no opinion on this matter. Kupofather 15:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and block recreation. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 02:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Totally Kotor

Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic fan fiction webcomic found on the free web host Smack Jeeves, here. Although the free web host Smack Jeeves claims to host over 2000 websites on its article, the entire domain only manages a paltry Alexa rank of 120,000 of which this comic is the most popular. Even the most popular website on Smack Jeeves only manages to return 30 Google hits for "Totally Kotor". I think I'm going to have to nominate the host next. But that's for later, what's certain is that this is not a notable website. - Hahnch e n 00:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable website. -Royalguard11^Talk^{My Desk} 03:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 06:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn webcomic. feydey 08:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Jonnymoblin 09:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Alexa rankings are nonsense, 30 Google links is fine. Cynical 14:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remember WP:WEB, also. AdamBiswanger1 14:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 14:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:WEB criteria.--Isotope23 15:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom M a rtinp23 20:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete webcomic cruft that is unverifiable through reliable sources. WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 02:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. The article fails our WP:WEB guidelines miserably. RFerreira 21:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Zibes

Although giving your webcomic a transgendered theme is a sure fire way to ensure its success, it fails here. Take a look at the webcomic here, it's 40 google links here and lack of Alexa rank here. - Hahnch e n 00:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable webcomic about a mishmash of game universes. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 02:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 06:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 40 Google links is fine, Alexa rankings are unreliable nonsense (they only take into account the activities of those with the Alexa Toolbar spyware installed). Cynical 14:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only 40 Google hits is not fine. My Uncle Ned's fishing blog gets more than that. wikipediatrix 15:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom and not meeting any WP standards. Wickethewok 15:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. --Satori Son 16:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom M a rtinp23 17:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete webcomic cruft that is unverifiable through reliable sources. WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Delete when it becomes notable, it should have an article - but it's not there yet. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 02:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per above will381796 05:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved to Talk space and speedy delete the leftover redirect. Kimchi.sg 06:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stargate SG-1: The Alliance/To do

I don't know what to do with this, maybe move it to Talk:Stargate SG-1: The Alliance? TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 00:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Super King 00:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I assume it's pending cleanup items on the article, so I'd say Merge to Talk:Stargate SG-1: The Alliance. Fan-1967 01:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you guys undestand how this page came about. Every page in the Stargate project has this template (at the bottom of my post). Contained within this template, as you can see is a feature to create to-do-list subpages for the talk pages. It was a system the project desgined to create to do lists for articles. Either delete this feature or keep it, but don't delete this one page without adressing the issue. Also, this should be on MfD not AfD. Tobyk777 01:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ Oppose - This was created in the wrong area - The todo should be off the talk page. Talk:Stargate SG-1: The Alliance/to do. I created this page and copied over the todo list. After Review - However, it looks like the template used by Stargate puts the talk page off the article and not off the talk. Since this is how they have set it up, I don't see it is any interest to make them change all the articles under this project. Such an effort would be huge. Morphh 02:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close This has been moved to the talk space now, so this AfD isn't required. The template looks like it's creating in the talk space to me, and that part of it hasn't been edited since this AfD started, so I'm a little confused as to how this page was created. It should have been a talk page from the start. --Tango 03:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close Messed up nomination per Tango. Tobyk777 05:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Someone db-author it if its merged already. SynergeticMaggot 05:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep so Project can fix it. - LA @ 05:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 1ne 22:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PESWiki

ATTENTION!

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

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

It is a vanity page, quite possibly unverifiable, and an advertisement (since it prominently links to sites that earn money from ads and from the sale of the "energy-related" articles they promote). Looks like a non-notable forum for fringe technologies, and also like someone's trying to make a point. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response from PESWiki Founder The page was posted by the suggestion of User:Meco who posted the invitation to create such a page on User_talk:sterlingda's talk page on 25 May 2006.

The argument that the site earns money from ads and therefore is unworthy of a link is not balanced inasmuch as most sites on the internet (and which are linked from Wikipedia) are supported at least in part by ads.

The argument of "unverifiable" is also irrelevant inasmuch as many of the technology feature pages most often include documentation of just what is or is not validated on a given technology. Indeed, the New Energy Congress, which is hosted at PESWiki.com was founded with the purpose of documenting technologies and rating them based on a set of criteria, one of the ten criteria being "credibility of evidence."

The site has been built over two years, through the collaborative effort of many people, and contains many well-developed articles akin to Wikipedia.

The argument that the site is merely a "non-notable forum", that is likewise groundless, inasmuch as the ratio of viewers to posters is highly disproportionate. Most of the traffic comes from viewers, and most of the changes are made by a few individuals who are careful about accuracy and credibility. Very little dialogue, or "forum" activity takes place on the site.

As for "fringe technologies," we prefer to use the terminology of "cutting-edge," and yes, that is our specialty -- to push the envelope. We spend most of our effort outside of the mainstream box. That is why the site was created, rather than just populating energy-related content at WikiPedia. Such content was not welcome here, so we created that site, and it has been a tremendous success. Many professionals from a wide berth of disciplines visit the site and refer to it often.

Of course we're trying to make a point. Isn't that the point of any written document? Maybe I'm missing some nuance of some Wikipedia jargon. Whatever.

Finally, let me say that one thing I do not miss at all about Wikipedia (rarely visiting here for the purpose of posting), which is nearly completely absent at PESWiki, is this sort of mindless quibbling about content that is obviously meritorious to most observers -- especially those who know what they are talking about on the subject. Mr. Pablo-flores is able to post a notice of putting the page up for deletion, and he has obviously spent just a minute or two looking at the site, while there are several individuals contributing to PESWiki many hours a day, day after day, week after week, and now two years total, making it a very significant work -- a point completely lost on Mr. Pablo-flores. I don't mean disrespect to him in staying that, I'm just criticizing the culture here at Wikipedia which is so knee-jerk busy-bodyish, that productivity of serious contributors is wasted on responding to such silly nonsense.

I'm so glad I have a place mostly absent of such mindlessness over at PESWiki, where we can post unfettered, for the most part, limited only by a quest for truth, and hardly ever having to be bogged down by politics of groundless and unnecessary interactions such as this.

I'm the "Jimbo Wales" of PESWiki, and am treated with respect there, and I try to treat others who contribute with the same respect. Yet here at Wikipedia, I'm treated like an imbecile. Do you think that that is inviting to good content contributions? Hardly. I spend every waking hour, nearly, focused on cutting-edge energy technology, surveying the field, reporting, writing, compiling, etc. Yet Mr. Pablo-flores treats my posting with about as much respect as if it had come from some punk just flinging some information on the site for a kick. Man I don't miss Wikipedia!

If the inventor of a technology comes to PESWiki and posts content, we rejoice. We don't call it "self-promotion." Sheesh, if Tesla were alive, and dared post something about himself at Wikipedia, you would ban the page because of "self-promotion." Who better to compose an article than the subject of the article? Come on folks. When are you going to get a clue? Sterlingda 06:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Different Wikis have different purposes. The purpose of this Wiki is to be an Encyclopaedia - so non-encyclopaedic content is excluded, just as words you personally made up at excluded at the Wikitionary. Perhaps you're looking for Wiki - uh - what does Wikisource do? WilyD 14:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:WEB. Sorry. The most significant inboudn link seems to be a Digg ... and a Wikipedia article. [8] --Dhartung | Talk 06:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cutting edge and painful to read. --Musaabdulrashid 08:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, no references, no sources for claims like "an authoritative source" and the promotion of corporate sites. feydey 08:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - fails WP:WEB, not notable enough, not enough links in, article reads like an ad and needs serious wikification. --Draicone ^(talk) 09:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - Strong KEEP!!! - SUCCEEDS WP:WEB, notable enough, enough links to validate technologies outlined, article reads like normal news ezines and needs to be maintained. IT IS ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT A LOT OF THE POSTS REQUESTING DELETION ARE FROM THE SAME OR SIMILAR IP ADDRESSES...NICE TRY. --altenergy ^(talk) 07:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is what I meant by making a point:

Many of the topics are on subjects that Allan was not able to post at Wikipedia when he attempted to do so back in 2003. At the time, such content was considered too controversial, or not sufficiently established scientifically. Several of these topics now have significant Wikipedia entries as well. (emphasis mine)

The article has other problems, already outlined above, which cannot be solved by removing those sentences.

Yes, Mr. Allan, Wikipedia is picky and yes, some of us do quibble about content. Our content (I speak of us as part of the community, which you aren't and don't want to be, as per your own admission) is subject to policies. You're free to have other policies in your site.

I won't discuss the quality or scientific validation of the content, or the work put into it by its contributors. That's not the point of this AfD. The point is that the website is not notable (see above), and the article makes claims that are not verified outside of it. Wikipedia is not a source of information; ideally, it's a repository of already reviewed, verified information.

Of course many sites employ advertising. But your site has a "Top 10", for example, that is a directory of commercial websites selling controversial technologies (cold fusion for home theaters, energy extraction from the vacuum, etc.). The Wikipedia article doesn't add to our knowledge of these, it merely increases your visibility. You have to be visible (notable) before you have an article in Wikipedia.

Your response only reinforces the idea that you're trying to make a point. Wikipedia is not "on the quest for truth". There are other places for that. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom. Non-notatable. Jefffire 12:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it references no reliable sources. WilyD 12:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep digg is a far more reliable measure of notability than Alexa. Cynical 14:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, site does not meet WP:WEB criteria.--Isotope23 15:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable?

In Response to those who say the article should be deleted because PESWiki is non-notable. . .

According to Google, which has a very strong algorithm for page ranking, PESWiki consistently pull up high, often coming in the top three for specific companies, inventors, and technologies for which PESWiki has a feature page; often coming up even higher than Wikipedia for certain topics. This indicates that according to Google, which bases its algorithm largely on incoming links and traffic, PESWiki is a highly significant site, on a par with or even surpassing Wikipedia when it comes to PESWiki's coverage of cutting-edge energy technologies. If that is not significant, then neither is Wikipedia significant.

Sample topics that come up higher in Google for PESWiki than for Wikipedia:

(Commented out, irrelevant to discussion)

References:

http://Google.com
http://googlehigh.com - by PES Network, gives reason for its high returns at Google; no gimmick, just consistently good page layout that is rewarded by Google for reasons of honesty.

Sterlingda 13:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Google is not helpful in establishing notability of a website. People here are sometimes impressed by high Alexa Rankings, which Peswiki is rated at 59,969 - because that measures the traffic - i.e. how much the website is used, not just how good it is at scamming google. Mayhaps you should take a gander at WP:WEB to see what Wikipedia is really looking for. WilyD 13:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - As documented at http://googlehigh.com, PESWiki's page rankings are not due to short-term tricks or gimmicks, but are due to quality and presentation of content. These high ratings are a consistent feature of PES Network sites, and do not come and go with the latest trick. An Alexa rating in the region of 59,000 is quite respectable for a niche-topic site as PESWiki is. Sterlingda 14:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - An Alexa ranking of 60 000 is not atrocious, but it's hardly a criterion for inclusion - it just means a site may be able to establish itself as encyclopaedic (which this has not). WilyD 17:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wookieepedia can have an entry and not PESWiki? WTF?!?! 134.193.168.251 14:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wookieepedia does have a reference with the Scifi article - that's not to say it'd pass AfD is nom'd. WilyD 14:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PESWiki Has a few references also (in a few articles). And there has been a systematic push to keep the site out (defenders of "truth" not fact). Sad to see the Wikipediblog do this. AfD use to be alot better a few years ago (when it was VfD), but the bias is rampant now in Wikpediblog ... 134.193.168.251 14:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- On this point you would be mistaken - the article does not cite any reliable sources. WilyD 14:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD is not a competition to see if PESWiki is better than Wikipedia or any other site. Please read the policies that have been pointed out to you and try to understand what this is about. And please move long replies to the talk page (AfD main pages are for votes and short comments only).
  You might like to read up on Google bombing to understand what's happening with your Google ratings.
  I've removed your comments about the list of wikis, not pertaining to this process. Tu quoque?
  BTW, you can nominate the Wookieepedia article for deletion if you feel it doesn't deserve a place in Wikipedia. If you simply dislike Wikipedia, either challenge its policies in the proper places or leave. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Google bombing is what wikipedia does. That is why in the Manual of style that Wikipedia recommends that 'all links in an article are internal wikilinks. Inaddition Many Wikipedian don't follow the WP policies or twist them to support thier point.
    BTW, Wookieepedia meets these condition that this article is criticized for ... but thye voters here twist the rules how they like .... 134.193.168.251 17:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wookieepedia does have a single reliable-ish source in it - however, articles that haven't been considered for deletion really offer no precendence at all - there's no real reason to believe Wookieepedia would survive AfD - things do get through the cracks. WilyD 17:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - PD - Sorry, I didn't pay attention and skipped over the link to googlehigh. You actually wrote a book on how to trick Google to get high ranks, and you're advertising it here! —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not "advertising" it, I'm referencing it as a documentation of the fact that honesty is the best policy when it comes to ranking well in Google. You have missed the point of the "book". There are no "tricks" it has completely to do with good content and placement that makes sense and flows well for readers. Sterlingda 16:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also note a similar debacle going on at List of energy topics. wikipediatrix 15:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as spam and not meeting WP:WEB. Wickethewok 15:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete? No, Nuke it. It fails WP:WEB, WP:RS (were are the independent third party sources?), WP:SPAM (reads like an advert), WP:NOT(take your pick of violations there...soapbox, hosting, etc), WP:POINT (Per the rant above), WP:AUTO/WP:VANITY(Per the rant above) ...and the holy trinity: WP:NPOV (article is far from a neutral pov), WP:OR (No independent sources?), and WP:V (Can't verify any of this information). I haven't seen this many violations on just one article in a long time. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 16:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, violations of WP:NPOV aren't grounds for deletion of articles - but your other criteria are likely enough to support a deletion action anyhow. WilyD 17:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course, you are correct. I was just using it because I used the other two and there is that statement that the three rules should not be applied seperately, or it could be that I only am running on two hours of unrestful sleep. Forgive my ramblings --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 18:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry to step on your toes just for going a little overboard with good pedagogical intent. WilyD 18:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - No worries WilyD. You are one user that I actually concider a friendly face...typeset...whatever :P --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)}
Delete — Fails WP:WEB M a rtinp23 17:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB and others. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 19:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'? abassign (ITALY),No! It goes maintained link, is a much optimal reference for the study of energies alternatives. Is thery userful. It is much profit for the job of scouting on energetic technologies alternatives.
I find PESWiki quite useful. I go to it almost every day. There is much useful information here. Hoss —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.160.184.45 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 15 August 2006.
- The front door of my house is very useful. I use it several times per day. It does not warrant an encyclopaedia article. The criteria for inclusion here are not whether individual editors find the subjects of articles useful. The various Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines have been linked to above. Please provide an argument that is based upon them. Uncle G 01:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:WEB, WP:OR, WP:Verfiability. Even this AfD discussion has been rendered into Spam. Rohirok 01:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Or purge links to it from Wikipedia articles [9] A third option is to combine it with an article covering it, Sterling Allen's other site http://freeenergynews.com, http://zpenergy.com and http://www.keelynet.com/ Hackwrench 06:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- External links are a different matter. I wouldn't link to PESWiki.com from each and every article, but the site certainly is useful as an annotated directory of ~~fringe~~ cutting-edge technology, for those who want to get at that. External websites linked from Wikipedia need not be notable, verifiable or POV-neutral. I'd reserve it for certain specific articles, though, not for every energy tech article in WP. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PESWiki Founder makes some very valid points, which don't appear to have been taken into consideration--Tess Tickle 13:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Such as? —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - - OK, you didn't have to repeat the whole rant. We must assume that everybody who participates in this discussion is paying attention to what has been said. If you have reasons to want the article kept, state them. You'll need to address the reasons of those who want the article deleted, which are based on a wide range of policies. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone tell me the better, more authoritative, less commercial website source for information on research into cutting edge energy technology? If we are to assume that PESWiki is some form of self promoting self referential site, then there must be another that meets Wikipedia's criterion? I find PESWiki to be the definitive, balanced, authoritative wiki on this subject. Shame if Wikipedia deletes it, and this will cast serious doubts upon the vaunted Wikipedian policies! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnww2 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 18 August 2006. — Possible single purpose account: Johnww2 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
- Please read my User:johnww2 page before discounting my contribution to the discussion. Thanks.

Delete per above will381796 06:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Sterlingda has informed I urged him back in May to create a page about his wiki site, and I'm pleased to see he has followed up on my encouragement. As for the issue of whether or not the article meets WP:WEB I find this particular Wikipedia guideline very oblique and prone to POV interpretations. In my view the subject of this article, the PESWiki, is notable enough. __meco 21:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point-for-Point Rebuttal to Pablo's call for deletion

Pablo asks in what way I have responded to his contentions.

Let me be specific, point for point:

Pablo says: "It is a vanity page"

Sterling replies: It is a review of PESWiki.com, which is a news, directory, and open source project service for cutting-edge energy technologies, unparalleled anywhere on the internet, said to be the best by many leaders in the field. [10]

Pablo says: "quite possibly unverifiable"

Sterling replies: Note the number of references to the site in a Google search for peswiki, some of which references have been appended to the article. Google tallies 48,900 references.

Pablo says: "an advertisement (since it prominently links to sites that earn money from ads and from the sale of the "energy-related" articles they promote)."

Sterling replies: A site having revenue income outside of just donations does not constitute grounds for it not being addressed or linked from Wikipedia. Not everyone has to beg, though PES Network would not have survived without generous contributions in the beginning. It is now self-funded. That should be an argument for vitality, not the other way around.

Pablo said: "non-notable"

Sterling replies: I have documented here (which someone removed) that many of PESWiki's energy listings come up higher in Google searches for key terms than Wikipedia for those same terms, often coming within the top five, and even in the first position in some cases, such as "Open Source Energy". We are ahead of CNN, CNET, and even the U.S. Government and all other institutions on the planet for many search terms. If that is not notable, I don't know what is. And it isn't because we trick the search engines. The http://googlehigh.com site I posted documents the opposite -- our high ranking comes from a principle of "honesty really is the best policy.

Pablo says: "forum"

Sterling replies: The volume of back-and-forth commentary taking place on the site is maybe around 2 - 5% (a guess). It is very low. Most pages are objective presentations of their subject matter, and include links to skeptical input. That is as it should be.

Pablo says: "fringe technologies"

Sterling says: Today's truth was yesterday's blasphemy. Indeed, we push the envelope. That is our mission -- something Wikipedia is unwilling to do, hence the void that needed to be filled. Someone needs to be willing to think outside the box and explore new possibilities, or no advancement will be made. Wikipedia specializes in well-established science. PESWiki specializes in cutting-edge science, often bleeding-edge. Few are courageous enough to risk their reputations in such uncharted territory, but for those who are, we provide a venue for their exploration.

Pablo said: "trying to make a point"

Sterling replies: According to WP:POINT, this apparently has to do with a Wikipedia user posting something not for its merits, but to create controversy in order to illustrate an argument through an extreme example. I assure you that I had no such agenda in posting the page. As stated in the memo at the time I posted the page, I was posting the page based on another user suggesting a couple of months earlier that I do so. The page was posted with all sincerity, and is an accurate, if not inadequate synopsis of a very in-depth and substantial site, whose contents has been created through the collaborative efforts of many.

In summary, I have replied to each of Pablo's criticism, showing them to be overwhelmingly groundless. I must say that when he first posted the "delete" suggestion on the page, I was tempted to post a "delete" suggestion on his user page. I didn't know how to do so, or I would have. Perhaps someone else, who is more Wikipedia conversant can do so. Let the Wikipedia community decide if Pablo should continue as a contributor in good standing. I would certainly vote "delete." With people like him making such ridiculous suggestions with absolutely no substantial merit, only personal bias and knee-jerk observations, the caliber and meaningful future of Wikipedia is jeopardized.

As a sampling of PESWiki merit, please review our most recent page: Review:The Corporation. See also the listing of the most recent major page postings at PESWiki to get a feel for the frequency and caliber of new PESWiki content, which has been mostly consistent from the beginning, two years ago, when the site commenced.

Sterlingda 18:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where PESWiki.com Surpasses Wikipedia in Google Searches

This was posted above with an earlier comment I made, but someone deleted it as irrelevant. I deem it highly relevant for documenting how significant a site PESWiki is. I spent a morning preparing this information for this defense. I don't appreciate other users removing it.

Sample topics that come up higher in Google for PESWiki than for Wikipedia:
(as of Aug. 15, 2006)
(search terms are not in quotations to limit them to that word sequence or juxtaposition)

open source energy (137,000,000 entries at Google)
- http://peswiki.com/energy/OS is #7
- other PES Network sites rank #1, 2, 5, 6
- site ranking #3,4 is a former PES Network associate
- cnn is #10
- cnet is #11
- Wikipedia #23

new energy congress (112,000,000 entries at Google)
- http://peswiki.com/energy/Free_Energy_Congress is #1,2
- other PES Network sites rank #3 and #10
- http://energy.senate.gov is #4
- businessweek is #5
- www.house.gov is #8
- cnn.com is #27
- cnet is #30
- whitehouse.gov is #38
- wikipedia is #52

Tesla Motors (2,300,000 entries at Google)
- http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Tesla_Motors,_Inc. comes up #10
- motortrend.com is #4
- wired.com is #6
- CNET is #21
- Wikipedia is #28

Tesla Motors Inc (399,000 entries at Google)
- http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Tesla_Motors,_Inc. comes up #3, immediately after corporate site
- Wikipedia entry is #8.

home generation (668,000,000 entries at Google)
- http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Home_Generation is #1
- cnn.com is #10
- Wikipedia does not rank in top 10

hydrogen from water (44,100,000 entries at Google)
- http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Hydrogen_from_Water is #3
- purdue.edu is #8
- physchem.co.za is #9
- sciam.com is #10
- sciencedaily.com is #12
- physorg.com is #14
- nature.com is #16
- bbc.co.uk is #23
- nrel.gov is #31
- CNET is #34
- greencarcongress.com is #49
- wired.com is #51
- doe.gov is #54
- wikipedia is not in top 100

stirling energy systems (2,260,000 entries at Google)
- http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Stirling_Energy_Systems is #4 after three corporate links
- sandia.gov is #5 (where the company has been hosted, and where President Bush announced his energy policy)
- wired.com is #7
- answers.com #9
- Wikipedia is #18

hydrogen technology applications (23,700,000 entries at Google) and hydrogen technology applications inc (6,030,000 entries at Google)
- http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Hydrogen_Technology_Applications_Inc comes up #3, immediately after corporate site
- wikipedia comes up #10 and #8, respectively
- eere.energy.gov is #9 for Hydrogen Technology Applications

bioperformance (101,000 entries at Google)
- http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:BioPerformance_Fuel is #1, before corporate site (had 40,000+ MLM dealers)
- oag.state.tx.us is #6 (Attorney General's office that temporarily shut down Bioperformance)
- Wikipedia is #22

References:

http://Google.com
http://googlehigh.com - by PES Network, gives reason for its high returns at Google; no gimmick, just consistently good page layout that is rewarded by Google for reasons of honesty.

Sterlingda 18:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo spent 12 mins max before posting AfD

I gave the following response to Pablo who posted a message to my talk page requesting that I remove my comments about him, as well as the Where PESWiki.com Surpasses Wikipedia in Google Searches section.

Hi Pablo. Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say "PESWiki is better than Wikipedia". I pointed out that PESWiki excels for some search terms. I didn't say so explicitly, but those search terms are not inconsequential. The point was to document that your assertion that PESWiki is "not notable" is not true.

Your arguments for deletion were shown by me to be groundless in each particular. Why don't you acknowledge as much? Likewise, I could show that each of the other arguments are without merit. I honed in on you because you were the one who commenced to AfD, and you had the gall to respond to one of the supporters for non-deletion by asking how I had rebuffed your arguments, so I elaborated, point by point. I wouldn't repeat myself if you would make such ridiculous statements as "Such as?" in response to the user comment "PESWiki Founder makes some very valid points, which don't appear to have been taken into consideration".

I stand by my assertion that Wikipedia would be better served without knee-jerk reactionaries such as yourself who make accusations that are groundless. Let me ask you. How much time did you take looking at PESWiki.com before posting the AfD? The answer to that question is found in the history of the page. Twelve minutes max. That is absolutely asinine that you would be able to render any kind good judgment in such a short period of time. Yet you carry yourself in your wording as if you are some big hot shot at Wikipedia. You should lose your privileges at Wikipedia, which is not well-served by the likes of you being free to throw your weight around.

Meets WP:WEB

Several critics above said that the PESWiki article fails for reasons of WP:WEB. The updated External articles and references section documents some relevant mainstream press citations, satisfying the first condition: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."

'Ramifications for Wikipidia

Should laziness on the part of those voting for deletion -- because they do not roll up their sleeves to see if significant citations exist -- constitute grounds for deletion of a page? Except for one reference, I populated this list of links by doing a simple Google search on PESWiki and "New Energy Congress". The list is not comprehensive.

I thought one of the functioning principles of Wikipedia was that one person doesn't have to do all the work, but posts what he/she can, and others clean it up, expand it, post documentation, etc. That was not the case here. Rather, a few users responded in a knee-jerk manner, without doing any research, and assumed a certain thing (the article topic, PESWiki.com, is "not notable" based on WP:WEB), and rendered a decision based on that assumption. That assumption was wrong, they were wrong to vote for deletion. Their conclusion was groundless.

Do they continue in good standing at Wikipedia, and continue propagating such sloppy work? The first response to a new page should not be skepticism and persecution, but should be honest inquiry into the possibilities of legitimacy. I received no such queries in my talk page. Twelve minutes after PESWiki was posted, it was labeled AfD.

Sterlingda 18:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

p.s.

When User:Pablo-flores first came to the PESWiki page, and wondered about notability, rather than assume that non existed, without doing a check (which we can safely assume is what he did given the mere 12 minutes that transpired from the time the page was posted to the time he posted AfD), he should have either 1) done nothing; or 2) he should have done a web search to discover some significant links, and add them to the page for the benefit of subsequent users. Only after doing such a search, and coming up empty-handed, would he then be justified in posting a AfD based in part on the "non-notable" criteria. In this case, he would have found significant references.

Speaking of making a point, it seems that he was trying to be a hero for Wikipedia, keeping unworthy content out, at the expense of actually determining whether or not the content had merit. Again, I say an AfD should be posted on his user page, and he, and others like him, should not be allowed to continue in good standing at Wikipedia.

Sterlingda 19:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any Other Objections?

I think I have addressed all of the major concerns mentioned above. If there is still a concern that is not addressed, which constitutes grounds for page deletion, please bring it to my attention so I can either address it, or agree that the page does not belong at Wikipedia per that reason. Sterlingda 18:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 I miss you, Grampa). DS 04:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Active Nonagenarians

Non-notable neologism, few Google hits and all from one book, Alive and Well:The Emergence of the Active Nonagenarian. Warofdreams talk 01:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. (Also, I can't make head or tail of what exactly is being said there. Help, anyone?) --Planetary 01:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sloppily-spelled article about a non-notable neologism with a garnish of pseudoscience. Opabinia regalis 01:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The mailman stole my socks! --Xrblsnggt 02:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Opabina -- Deville (Talk) 03:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 03:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Delete as above Betacommand 04:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per NEO and stolen socks. A tragedy. SynergeticMaggot 04:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Peta 05:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable term. JIP | Talk 06:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism. 1ne 06:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Neologism M a rtinp23 11:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism. Cynical 14:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 15:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 19:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable neologism, dicdef, the only source is the book which came up with the term. Danny Lilithborne 23:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 no need to waste time and energy on the full process. ~~ N (t/c) 02:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rylt

An article about a nonexistent thing. Delete Green caterpillar 01:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have plenty of articles about nonexistent things, from Roman Empire through perpetual motion machine to Babylon 5. What, per our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines is your reason for wanting this article on a non-existent thing deleted? Uncle G 01:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, no sources, unverified, and no disstinction between fact and fiction. It would be like saying "Zeus is..." or "Zeus soemtimes..." or something to that effect. --Planetary 01:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete total nonsense. No two words in this article seem to have any shared google hits. Opabinia regalis 01:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity. He's only been on this planet once? Kooblog the Noorian has has been here more times than that and there's no article for him or any of his seven manifestations. --Xrblsnggt 02:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cobden Club

Not convinced of notability, and the current article is a whole can of unusually wordy adspam. Opabinia regalis 01:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes the Google test as a current notable London venue. Should be rewritten per List of London's gentlemen's clubs (where it is not listed). --Dhartung | Talk 07:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio removed, stubified. --Dhartung | Talk 07:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Doesn't seem notable enough to warrant a rewrite, even if there's not much to rewrite. --Draicone ^(talk) 09:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Passes google test, but needs a rewrite, M a rtinp23 12:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 19:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. Note: now listed in List of London's gentlemen's clubs. --Daniel Olsen 00:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The place may be more notable than we think. <KF> 01:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nom withdrew. SynergeticMaggot 06:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sofía Álvarez Vignoli de Demichelli

~~She seems non-notable. There are only two mentions of her in the one external link on the article, and I can't really find anything else about her. —Mets501 (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Article has been significantly expanded, now she seems notable enough. I change my vote to Keep. —Mets501 (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expand Seems like a genuine article to me. But unverifiable because of her low profile and the status of Uruguay in those years. --Ageo020 02:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no doubt that it's genuine. I just don't think she's notable, and being unverifiable doesn't help. —Mets501 (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand, I'll go with the expand but I could be convinced otherwise. The linked article mentions that she represented Uruguay in the Interamerican Women's Conference. My guess would be that her status in the women's movement is comparable to some of the lesser-known American sufferage activists, of whom I am sure we have articles aplenty. -- Deville (Talk) 03:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Associations with notable people don't confer notability. wikipediatrix 15:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect — To Alberto Demichelli - all of the info in this article is already in that one. Failing this, it should be expanded hugely. M a rtinp23 20:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep We're seriously considering keeping the cat of a daughter of an ex-president Misty Malarky Ying Yang while proposing deleting the diplomat wife of another? I'll expand it a bit. Dlyons493 Talk 21:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK - it's in better shape now. I might do a little more, but I think there are plenty valid claims to notability. Dlyons493 Talk 23:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - good save, folks. humblefool ® 01:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep nonimator now wants to keep article. --Edgelord 03:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future Rock

Delete Band that fails notability test, and WP:BAND — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnightLago (talk • contribs) 2006-08-15 02:11:48

Do Not Delete Band does not fail notability test, band meets the following criteria: Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...):
- See August 2006 Relix Magazine Page 86;
- See Jambase (published 7/27/06) Jambase Review;
- See The Phoenix (published 7/27/06) Future Rock show preview;
- See Glide Magazine (published 7/10/06) Glide Magazine Review;
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kinkornkhan (talk • contribs) .
Delete — The notability of the subject needs to be asserted in the article. If such an assertation is made in the article itself, then my vote would be keep. M a rtinp23 12:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear evidence of notability. If the information is available, but not in the article, then the logical response is to add the information, not delete the article! Cynical 14:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The text of this article is taken from here, here, here, and the band's site (futurerock.net). If someone can manage to find some other words to describe them, keep. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 19:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cynical and BaseballBaby. --HResearcher 00:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cynical and rewrite. --Daniel Olsen 00:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; not even funny. DS 04:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Whitehorn

Hoax. Search for "James Whitehorn" Bolivia in Google registers nothing outside of Wikipedia, which would certainly not be the case for a capped Bolivian national team player. fuzzy510 02:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure if this is a hoax. Try google search "James Whitehorn"+.football[11]. If anything James Whitehorn isn't notable enough. --HResearcher 00:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, definite hoax -- Deville (Talk) 03:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax, joke etc., googling the name with Footballer gives also nothing to confirm. Good catch fuzzy510. feydey 09:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax/joke. Mr Stephen 11:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete — hoax M a rtinp23 12:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete as hoax Cynical 14:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 19:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --HResearcher 00:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 04:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr crowe's educational services

NN spam. ~~ N (t/c) 02:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam Advertisement --Ageo020 02:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam -- Deville (Talk) 03:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fried spam and eggs. SynergeticMaggot 04:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 06:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very transparent. C56C 08:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per all above M a rtinp23 12:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam Cynical 14:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete spam. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 19:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Spam, unfortunately, is not a criterion for CSD. ~~ N (t/c) 22:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Richardcavell 00:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, the tag is already on the article so there's nothing to do (afd is not a place to vote upon new tasks for admins). - Bobet 09:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin "Ben" Holladay

The nominator did not follow through to AfD 2 and 3, so I am copy and pasting his edit summary: RobJ1981 (Talk | contribs) m (Added AFD: there is already a Ben Holladay page, there doesn't need to be two.) No opinion from me. Srose (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Some of his early and personal life should be merged into the Ben Holladay article. --Ageo020 02:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful;delete as redundant if there's nothing to merge. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 02:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all others -- Deville (Talk) 03:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think that somebody could merge this into Benjamin Holladay. Just like full name. Daniel's page ☎ 03:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — To the common english usage of the name per naming conventions. SynergeticMaggot 04:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — Per all above M a rtinp23 11:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above. Cynical 14:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge' per above makes most sense really Yuckfoo 18:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the useful and relevant material. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 19:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Benjamin Holladay. Its all been said before. RFerreira 22:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. alphaChimp ^laudare 11:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radiant CMS

This article concerning a software program is unsourced, reads like an advertisement, and contains no assertion of notability. The software itself was released less than two months ago, and I could not find any info on the subject from "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." See WP:VERIFY, WP:ADS, and WP:SOFTWARE. --Satori Son 02:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:SOFTWARE as of now. Get back to us when it's a viable Drupal or PHP-Nuke competitor. --Dhartung | Talk 07:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subjects of Wikipedia are assessed on their own merits, not in relation to other more well-known subjects. Cynical 14:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and as per Dhartung. wikipediatrix 15:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per wikipediatrix - also it's version 0.5.2, so surely not ready to be on WP yet. M a rtinp23 17:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Martinp23. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 19:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yomangani ^talk 23:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Sure, this is exciting (as in "wow, an actually working Ruby on Rails-based generic CMS!") and seems to net quite a few google hits (89,900 for "radiant cms"), especially on blogs. Yet, I have a tiny bit of worry that this might not be that widely used or widely discussed yet, and as the nom says, this is a rather new application. Since this is such a short stub right now, I don't see the harm of deleting this now and recreating it when (I'm saying "when" instead of "when or if", because all built-with-even-half-brain Rails-based things seem to get ridiculous amounts of hype =) the thing gets more mature and there's absolutely no question about it's notability. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried it and it's a very solid CMS, and extremely extensible. However, the article is very short because I've asked the author's permission to use some content from the project's webpage on the article and haven't heard from him yet. And:
- It's not a Drupal competitor. It's supposed to be (and it is) a simpler CMS. The use of the Rails framework allows it to be easily extended to your own needs.
- I don't think version-number can ever possibily be an issue regarding deletion. Reason/example? Look at enlightenment.
- 119.000 google hits, not 89.900. :P
- I don't know how the notability policy has been used regarding blogs, but as mentioned before, it's beeing talked about quite a lot. Anyway, I doubt that small OSS aplications will ever match the criteria in WP:SOFTWARE (at least in the way I'm interpreting it).
Jvale 10:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Zucker

Delete article is about an minor actress who is nn, appears to be authored by the actress, fails WP:VAIN, WP:AUTO KnightLago 02:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO, possible vanity. --Ter e nce Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 02:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious vanity by looking at the history of the article. Also being an extra in a sitcom is non notable. --Ageo020 03:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity. Daniel's page ☎ 03:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable actress, vanity article. JIP | Talk 06:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Vanity M a rtinp23 12:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep She has appeared on nine episodes of Scrubs per IMDB; if she plays a recurring regular character rather than a background extra, that would make her notable IMO. Can someone who actually watches the show comment on this? NawlinWiki 13:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I've cleaned up the article and removed most of the vanity stuff. NawlinWiki 14:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. Cynical 14:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One job doesn't make an actor notable. She's not listed in the Season 5 episode guide at either nbc.com or scrubs-tv.com. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 20:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nine episodes as nothing equals nothing. The role of Lisa isn't listed anywhere on Scrubs, and not mentioned in any page of the program's Edispode guide, and a search for "Jordan Zucker" at nbc.com returns 0hits. Ohconfucius 05:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable actress. 1ne 05:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verifably notable actress. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 —Mets501 (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chronical Warfare

Prod tag was removed. Fails WP:BAND. IceCreamAntisocial 02:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I couldnt even find anything for ghits. Fails WP:BAND. SynergeticMaggot 04:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per above M a rtinp23 12:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, so tagged, notability not asserted, "Currently working on their debut EP". NawlinWiki 13:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Morgan (porn star)

No notability asserted and only 1 movie shown here. Delete. TerriersFan 03:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, actually looks like a hoax, but even if everything in the article is accurate this is nowhere near the bar set in WP:PORN BIO -- Deville (Talk) 03:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. (|-- UlTiMuS 09:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — nn M a rtinp23 12:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. IMDB entry doesn't look relevant to porn. This is probably an attack page or joke against an acquaintance, labeling him a gay porn star. Fan-1967 00:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Konman72 09:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above will381796 06:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 06:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Stogner

Delete non-notable amateur wrestler, also fails WP:AUTO, and WP:VAIN, speedy delete was removed without comment by author KnightLago 03:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 1ne 22:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dave Meltzer's Five Star Matches

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

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

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

Wrestlingcruft. Does not establish notability of subject. Article even notes that it's subjective. wikipediatrix 03:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think that the subjective you refer to applies to the article itself, which is wholly objective. -- Koffieyahoo 04:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic listcruft. -- Koffieyahoo 04:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete RobJ1981 05:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Koffie, who does, it should be said, properly observe that the article objectively and verifiably presents the subjective views of an individual but that such views are unencyclopedic. Joe 05:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was precisely my own point - that the article is a list of Meltzer's opinions, rather than facts. wikipediatrix 05:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete — listcruft M a rtinp23 13:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's the problem with this article. For me it's useful and interesting and also helps people to decide which matches worth watching!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.72.69.108 (talk • contribs)
Delete listcruft. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 20:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is cruft of the highest order -- Deville (Talk) 22:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nintendude list. Danny Lilithborne 23:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DONT DELETE. This is a useful article and it just shows the opinion of one man no subjection— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.84.108.24 (talk • contribs)
DONT DELETE! This page is very helpful for me and a lot of other people I know— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.79.92 (talk • contribs)
Delete It's nothing more than the opinion of a very biased person.TJ Spyke 23:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ironically the same can be said about your opinion in this discussion TJ Spyke. I'm also confused as to how such an article wasn't listed at WP:PW as this is a pretty notable article in wrestling and the opinions are broad on the topic of Dave Meltzer. --- Lid 09:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEp- I added a note to the article explaining that the list is picked solely by him and may be subject to biased. Its still a intresting article for many wrestling fans. I believe it makes a good reference point for fans. Warmon 14:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete - This is a VERY good reference site that many people use when looking for great matches. Maybe it should be Merged with the WO main page, but it should not be deleted under any circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.97.6.148 (talk • contribs)
- Meltzer has a bias against WWE(and WCW before it went out of business) and this is nothing more than his opinions. Besides, this would be worse than having a page of movies that got 2 thumbs up from Siskel & Ebert/Ebert & Roper. TJ Spyke 21:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Dave Meltzer's or the WO main article. Not really worth a full page, but reference-worthy. Drjayphd 00:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since both Dave Meltzer and the Wretling Observer Newsletter are considered to be one of the most respected true news sources in pro wrestling I can't see how this is not notable. I would prefer my vote to be Merge but since the choice right now seems to be between Delete and Keep I have to vote for keep. If the choice comes down to Keep or Merge then you can shift my vote to the latter. Sorry I forgot to sign my name Stephen Day 04:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft and just nn. Burgwerworldz 03:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Ebert is just as respected in the movie industry but you don't see a page devoted to movies he's given high ratings(or thumbs-up ratings) to, do you? No, it's because of the same reason why this page shouldn't exist. TJ Spyke 03:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody created such a page my reaction would be the same, it does have its place, but its as a part of the Dave Meltzer (or Roger Ebert in case of the example) page. If its a choice between Delete and Keep however, I'd say Keep in both cases. Stephen Day 04:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more point I thought should be added for clarifacation. Its not really accurate to compare this list to a list of movies Roger Ebert has given thumbs up to. Meltzer so rarely gives five stars to matches that In a great many circles this list is considered to be an equilivent to a list of the greatest pro wrestling matches ever. Keeping that in mind only increases my thought that this information has its place here. Stephen Day 19:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be OK with merging it into the Dave Meltzer article. I prefer to Delete it, but a Merge would be acceptable to me. TJ Spyke 04:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. Either way, don't delete. Meltzer isn't just a respected critic, he is THE respected critic of wrestling. His accolades mean quite a lot to the industry and its fans. BM2 04:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like TJSpyke is very biased against someone he finds so biased. Get over. Any kind of list like this will be subjective, but this is probably one of the most respected lists of the best matches in wrestling history from 1980 to now that covers ALL wrestling, not just mainstream. Pages like this expose people to other promotions, other wrestlers, and matches they'd never watch otherwise. TJ Spyke is just upset because Dave Meltzer didn't go hog wild for Shelton Benjamin and Shawn Michaels. Well, Meltzer doesn't get upset when you don't go hog wild for the matches he lists as *****. Seriously, TJ Spyke just hates Meltzer and his opinion in this subject matter is not valid because of it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.97.6.148 (talk • contribs)
- My personal opinion of Meltzer has nothing to do with this, I would vote for Delete/Merge even if I agreed with him. TJ Spyke 21:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've been moaning about this thing just because it's not in line with your opinion on what's a 5 Star Match. Look at it like this. Wikipedia should have a list of the greatest wrestling matches. THIS IS THE CLOSEST TO THAT AND IT IS THE MOST RESPECTED.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.97.6.148 (talk • contribs)
  - Learn to sign your posts, and maybe register. Why does Wikipedia need a list of what matches 1 person thinks are great? This is just his opinion. TJ Spyke 00:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...because this one person is the most respected critic in the industry. No other man really comes close in terms of influence. When people talk about a match being a 5-Star match, they are usually referring to a match that Meltzer has awarded 5 stars. BM2 00:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While i respect Meltzer, i do not think this deserves it's own page and is just listcruft. 67.137.12.144 00:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandcastle_Publishing

non-notable small business Carax 03:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Small publishing house; their current big product appears to be books on acting for children by a fellow who coaches child actors. Not sufficiently notable. --Brianyoumans 07:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — nn M a rtinp23 18:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable yet. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 20:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable per nom. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 20:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of film roles based on ethnic stereotypes

Listcruft. Vague and indiscriminate collection of stereotypes, with no actual connection to film offered. wikipediatrix 03:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, original research without the research, as far as I can tell. Gazpacho 05:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unusable listcruft, original research, unreferenced. JIP | Talk 06:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article does not cite reliable sources. I'll change my opinion if some are added. WilyD 12:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic, no citations. HighInBC 12:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — yet more listcruft M a rtinp23 13:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR Cynical 14:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mish-mash of archetypes, no criteria, context or explanation.--Nydas 18:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a few weeks ago I merged this article with list of stock film roles based on ethnic stereotypes. What I should have done was put both articles up for AfD. This list is an unmanageable, unverifiable pile of useless OR. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 19:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 20:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete offensive OR. Danny Lilithborne 23:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the reasons listed above.--Derco 02:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Essentially POV. Konman72 09:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 10:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP is not censored. If people are concerned about unverified entries, why not place a {fact} tag next to them instead of nominating it for deletion? The information in the article is, I believe, mostly genuine, it simply needs to be verified. --Tess Tickle 13:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Who said that WP should be censored? "it simply needs to be verified." True, I guess, but the verify tag has been there for a while and no one seems interested in adding sources. AND I brought this issue up on the discussion page, and no one seems interested in adding sources. Adding individual fact tags to every entry would be redundant. And besides, who gets to define what the criteria is for being a stock film role? There's no way this can be defined, really. This list is a breeding ground for original research, and it always will be.--Derco 04:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Ya see, the problem is, that not everyone is one wikipeadia eery spare minute of every day. Some people don't sign in for months at a time. If left alone, the article would, I believe, contain sufficient refererences for it to warrant inclusion in time. --Tess Tickle 01:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Could be a good drinking game to play, to think up any role which could be construed as a racial stereotype, but wiki is not WP:NFT. Ohconfucius 01:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per most of the above. KleenupKrew 04:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep just passed AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Jones (architect). —Mets501 (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Jones (architect)

Subject is not notable. Completed works were carried out by the company in which the subject is a partner, or in collaboration with other practices. As cited in the deletion discussion for Alastair Hall, this does not itslef confer notability. In addition, some information listed on the pages, particularly relating to published sources, is unverifiable. Mugabe 03:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completed Mugabe's nomination. Last nomination was closed on August 4. Gazpacho 05:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject notable, and already passed an AfD a few weeks ago. C56C 08:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability was established according to non-verifiable criteria (inclusion in Wallpaper* magazine not verifiable online); and by reference to awards won, which were not won by the individual but by the practice. To quote from the discussion on the Alastair Hall deletion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alastair_Hall) (as cited by Mugabe) "And as has been demonstrated with the Cue Ball group or other business organizations deleted on grounds of a shaky claim to notability, notability within a notable organization is not a claim to notability". Adam bones 09:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:V does not require sources to be available online, only to be available to some other editors. Gazpacho 18:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Subject notable, see previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Jones (architect)

M a rtinp23 11:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, passed AFD a week and a half ago. BoojiBoy 13:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:DEL:'A process that resulted in article deletion or keeping, should generally be respected and the article not immediately re-nominated for deletion' Cynical 14:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Cynical. Even if the first AfD result was questionable, it is still too soon for a second nomination. --Satori Son 16:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's too soon to put back on AFD. This should have been to deletion review before it went back here. --Edgelord 19:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cynical. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 20:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of iron laws

notability not established: what is an "iron law", and why doesn't it have its own article? This list is almost entirely redlinked anyway, and the existing ones are very sketchy themselves. wikipediatrix 03:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the blue links justify its existence. Gazpacho 04:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without establishing what an "iron law" is supposed to be, one could just as easily make a list of blue-linked articles with the word "the" in them. wikipediatrix 04:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a list of things that have nothing to do with each other except that they have "iron law" in there name. Hence, an indiscriminate collection of information. Hence, delete. -- Koffieyahoo 04:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate collection of unrelated topics. Even a category would probably be too much. Sandstein 04:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Indiscriminate collection M a rtinp23 13:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate list -- Whpq 16:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as iron listcruft. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 20:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one could imagine a dab page at Iron Law -- Deville (Talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yomangani ^talk 23:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most entries are redlinks anyhow. KleenupKrew 04:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banned list

There is no actual "banned list" such as the one postulated in this article, it's entirely an Original Research construct based on a POV assumption. wikipediatrix 04:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, and an article name/term that is unclear as to what it refers to. LinaMishima 04:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per WP:NEO, WP:OR and basic cruft. External links in the article have nothing to do with the topic either. SynergeticMaggot 04:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with comedian without menitioning "banned list" as a concept. It is well-know that comedians avoid certain topics. However, there is no named concept as such. -- Koffieyahoo 04:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, contrary to the text, many comedians have made a point of doing 9-11 jokes of deliberately poor taste (most notably Gilbert Gottfried), and Holocaust jokes are also not uncommon (Even Jon Stewart did one when he hosted the Oscars) . wikipediatrix 05:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR, the author says on the talk page that it's "insider information". Sandstein 04:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR, fails WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unsupported tripe. Travislangley 05:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't think of a single issue where every single comedian on earth has avoided. It's original research. ColourBurst 06:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails WP:OR, if verifiable sources can be found, then merge into Comedian M a rtinp23 11:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V and the author asserts that it fails WP:OR WilyD 12:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ColourBurst. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 20:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mostly POV. Green caterpillar 20:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. per above. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 20:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR -- Deville (Talk) 22:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverified, and likely unverifiable, original research.-- danntm ^T _C 00:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well known term among comedians--Tess Tickle 02:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Come back when you have some reliable sources. RFerreira 21:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors who played Marines in movies

What's next? List of actresses who played prostitutes in movies? Julia Roberts! Sure, Marine is a respectable profession but so is police officer. That list is a joke too. ...And Beyond! 04:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As WP:NOT says, "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." wikipediatrix 04:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep relates information that a catagory cannot, and interestingly informative. Entries appear to check out, so my references rule is met. I can't see any other way to compile this information, hence keep. LinaMishima 04:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it need to be compiled in the first place? "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." wikipediatrix 04:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The best way to compile this information is by category. The other aspect of this "article" contrary to WP:NOT is that it's an indescriminate collection of information and trivia. It also does not support any existing article, nor does there need to be an article on actors who played marines in movies. If this is deleted, the redirect List of actors who played Marines at movies should be deleted as well. Agent 86 04:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment you said The best way to compile this information is by category, however this is a prime example of a list that cannot currently be duplicated as a catagory - as all the actors have references to their film appearances as marines next to them. Also, WP:NOT 'indescriminate collection' does not state anything about collecting information relating people into a format for easier exploration. LinaMishima 04:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perfect example of indiscriminate collection of information. Don't bother categorizing either. Opabinia regalis 04:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. -- Koffieyahoo 04:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment this would not be OR if a catagory was possible, as the appearances are all referenced, as far as I can tell. LinaMishima 04:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment I don't see how this is referenced. No independent sources are cited. -- Koffieyahoo 04:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate collection of information, categorisation would be OK. Sandstein 04:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft. JIP | Talk 06:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what is next, a list of actors who have played waitresses? Street-sweepers? Congressmen? You could generate these sorts of things forever, and each one would be interesting for about 5 people. Out!!! --Brianyoumans 06:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and probably the same five people for them all M a rtinp23 13:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete useless. C56C 08:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly listcruft. feydey 09:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. What's next, "List of non-actors who played cows in films under 30 mins in length"? (|-- UlTiMuS 09:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reason to have a list for everything. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — There's too many pointless lists on wikipedia already - we don't need any more! M a rtinp23 13:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless listcruft. Cynical 14:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and figure out a way to allow every user to generate such entertaining, but definitely nonencyclopedic and useless, lists on demand. --DrTorstenHenning 14:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not verified, originial research that could be considered an indiscriminate collection of information.--Isotope23 15:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 19:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually I'd be looking forward to the List of actresses who played prostitutes in movies. <KF> 02:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list would probably be too long and include too many non-notable roles. The List of actresses who played prostitutes in movies on the other hand would probably be worthwhile. --Richard 07:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 1ne 21:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slave Hack

Just another non-notable online game played in your browser. This particular one was started in June of this year. It's biggest claim to fame is that it was featured on the front page of Digg ... so what? Each day up to two dozen sites are featured on Digg, does that mean we should write articles about all of them? Cyde Weys 04:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This nomination is obviously made in violation of WP:POINT in retaliation against me (the editor who started and basically wrote the article) as I am currently in a dispute with Cyde and I told him about 20 minutes ago that I'm considering reporting his actions at WP:AN/I. syphonbyte _(t|c) 04:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please re-read "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point", as you don't seem to understand it. Filing an AFD for an article on a subject I consider non-notable isn't "disrupting Wikipedia", it's a routine course of business. Do you actually have anything to say about why this article should be kept, or does your defense consist solely of attacking my character and motives? --Cyde Weys 04:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - First, I have not attacked your character, and never have, despite you attacking mine on a number of occassions. (See your closing comment here for an example.) WP:POINT is not precisely what I should've linked to, admittedly, rather my point is that you are listing this article on AfD to antagonize me because I have threatened to report your actions. If this isn't the case, then I'm sorry. At any rate, this is notable irreguardless of your nomination because it recieved over 1,000 diggs in a matter of days, which is exceptional. I'd have listed more detailed information about the extraordinary rate of signups for the game, however that is original research. The article passes WP:WEB, which is a horribly broken guideline anyhow. (See my essay on the subject.) syphonbyte _(t|c) 04:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do you visit Digg that often? Every day more than a dozen different articles receive over one thousand Diggs. Again, Digg.com isn't so inherently notable that anything it touches automatically becomes notable too. --Cyde Weys 02:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication that it meets any of the criteria of WP:SOFTWARE or even WP:WEB; WP:NOT an index of all web games. Sandstein 04:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Digg article establishes notability. WP:WEB is not policy, the same goes for WP:SOFTWARE, the criteria of which eliminates basically all browser-based games from Wikipedia. syphonbyte _(t|c) 04:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: The "Digg article" is not an article but appears to be some sort of blog or forum post. WP:WEB is a guideline and authoritative as such. As with WP:SOFTWARE, it boils down to demanding reliable published sources for any claim of notability, which are not in evidence in this case. Sandstein 05:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you'll read my nomination statement you'll see that I say up to two dozen different links are featured on Digg every day. Merely being featured on Digg doesn't automatically make something so notable that it gets its own article. We're writing an encyclopedia of general knowledge, not an encyclopedia of everything mentioned on a popular internet site. --Cyde Weys 05:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I must agree with these statements about the Digg article, and it was my intent to list this at AfD if I couldn't find any other articles to establish its notability, especially due to the severe decline in the popularity of the game. It appears to have been a one hit wonder, and certainly doesn't merit a place in Wikipedia. However, the nomination was obviously made in bad faith, and being a big fan of process, I'd rather this nomination be discarded so that I can nominate it under my own name. syphonbyte _(t|c) 05:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Everywhere you go you're constantly accusing me of doing everything in bad faith. Don't you think accusing someone of doing everything in bad faith ... is itself in bad faith, and thus a violation of WP:AGF? --Cyde Weys 05:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable. Fails WP:V, WP:SOFTWARE, WP:WEB and WP:NOT.--Peephole 04:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In what way does this violate WP:V? syphonbyte _(t|c) 04:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its only "sources" are the game's website itself and a Digg mention ... Digg mentions, by the way, are very small capsule summaries of no more than 300 characters and are written by Joe Q. Internet. There are no third-party journal or newspaper mentions that discuss this game. Everything in the article comes directly from the game itself, which counts as original research. --Cyde Weys 05:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per Cyde and Sandstein. This article's references fail WP:RS. SynergeticMaggot 04:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment True, I didn't consider that. I had considered nominating this myself for deletion earlier, and I wasn't certain if the Digg article was a good source, however I couldn't find WP:RS. I suggest a Speedy Let Me Relist, because it's rather obvious that User:Cyde still made the nomination in bad faith, and I'd rather kill the article myself. syphonbyte _(t|c) 05:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment:You have to prove its in bad faith, which you havent. This isnt going to be relisted, its going to be deleted per the consensus its achieving. SynergeticMaggot 05:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I thought I'd proven it rather clearly; I'm involved in a dispute with Cyde and told him that I'm going to report his actions (such as blocking me in a manner and for reasons wholly against blocking policy), and not 20 minutes later he listed this article, which I created, for deletion. If that's not a bad faith nomination, I don't know what is. Sure, the article should be deleted, however the inital nomination shouldn't be a bad faith one, in my opinion, as it could easily open the door for a DRV if a rabid Slave Hack player were to find this deletion discussion and notify the entire game community about it. syphonbyte _(t|c) 05:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: I'm uninvolved, and I see no indication of bad faith in this AfD. If Cyde is in a dispute with you, it is reasonable for him to review your contributions, and to nominate for AfD any deletion-worthy article he happens to notice in this course. This is standard operating procedure. Construing it as a personal attack on you would seem to imply that you own the article, which, well, you don't. In any case, this is entirely immaterial to whether this AfD should be relisted, which would serve no purpose at all. I fail to see how even a bad faith, but valid AfD would be a violation of process overturnable via DRV. Sandstein 07:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Well, it doesn't matter that much anyhow; the point is that it ought to be deleted. I'd rather not bring my dispute with Cyde to this AfD. syphonbyte _(t|c) 07:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while there's something entertainingly meta about playing a computer game that simulates hacking people's computers, it's still non-notable webcruft. Opabinia regalis 05:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Peta 06:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Alexa ranking is 25,316 - that's fairly high. Kingdom of Loathing (which I would argue is definitely notable) is Alexa rank 8,667. I think this may not be notable yet, but could need an article if it gets more popular and persists over time.--Brianyoumans 06:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is very high; higher than I'd have expected. I'll save the content of the article, if the game gets popular again and some articles are published on it, I'll do some work to the article and create it.
Keep Because an admin should know better then violate WP:POINT when in a conflict with a user. If another user, unrelated to the admin in conflict proposes it, I will reconsider then. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sandstein and per nom. Even if this nomination was done in bad faith - and I see zero evidence for Syphonbite's assertion that it was - that doesn't change the fact that bringing it to AfD is the right call. wikipediatrix 15:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — nn M a rtinp23 19:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sandstein. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 20:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing more I can add, as everyone has already stated exactly why I would delete this. Bad-Faith or not, *I* would have nominated this article for and AfD even if speedy kept. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 21:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all -- Deville (Talk) 22:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wikipedia SHOULD be the definitive source for information on internet pop phenomena. A Digg user or Slave Hack player would like to know more about the game... Why not provide them with that additional information? --AStanhope 01:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:NOT. What you think Wikipedia should be is irrelevant; Wikipedia is not a source for information on internet pop phenomena. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of general knowledge. Rather than trying to make Wikipedia into something that it isn't, why not go somewhere else that already is what you're looking for. For example, I'm sure there's a Wikia that specializes in "internet pop phenomena" .. hell, you could probably start a Wikia for Internet-based games, and who knows, it might even be very popular (I gather there's a fair number of people playing these games). But Wikipedia just isn't the appropriate place, sorry. --Cyde Weys 02:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Cyde is correct; to put it in a less hostile tone, the scope of Wikipedia is too small to include Slave Hack in it at the moment. A Wiki with a scope that included Slave Hack would be a great place for the article, though. syphonbyte _(t|c) 02:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep info baby, johny 5 needs more info. --Tess Tickle 02:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please come up with something more coherent? This doesn't make sense. --Cyde Weys 02:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree, I can't make heads or tails of that statement. syphonbyte _(t|c) 02:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you two chaps working together? --Tess Tickle 02:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not exactly, in fact we are involved in a bit of a dispute. I actually wrote this article, and Cyde nominated it for AfD. I agree with the reason for the AfD, though, so you could say that we're working together to make the encyclopedia better. syphonbyte _(t|c) 02:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, I see. Well, to answer the question, my statement purports to portray my own viewpoint that an enclopeadia should be, well, encyclopeadiac. By stating that johny 5 needs more info, I'm expressing my belief that the encylopeadia would be better served by including the article, and improving it. Happy to help. --Tess Tickle 02:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, web game obscurata. NTK 04:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, usually I'm deletionist, but... keep. ugen64 21:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you actually have any reasoning besides doing something out of character for yourself? This is a discussion, not a vote, and you haven't added anything to the discussion other than your Wikipedia philosophy, which is irrelevant regarding the notability of this subject. --Cyde Weys 21:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 06:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rory And The Pirates

Non-notable band, does not meet criteria of WP:MUSIC (unsigned band formed two days ago) Stormie 04:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Travislangley 05:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 06:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dj Ady-M

does not meet notability criteria of WP:MUSIC; vanity page (article on Ady Mac created by User:Adymac) Stormie 04:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I first put the speedy deletion tag on it - it's a self-promotional article created for vanity purposes. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 05:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sasquatch! Music Festival (This was done on Aug 18 but the AfD was not closed, so I'm doing it even though I participated in this AfD. The consensus was unanimous, so I'm being bold.) Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 18:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sasquatch Music Festival

not the correct title of the festival. Sasquatch! Music Festival is a better article and should be kept Evan Reyes 04:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge and redirect to Sasquatch! Music Festival. --Metropolitan90 04:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Travislangley 05:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sasquatch! Music Festival feydey 09:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — and redirect M a rtinp23 19:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - thre's nothing to merge since the target article already has the information. -- Whpq 20:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per feydey. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 20:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per feydey. --EndlessVince 05:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can I go ahead and create the redirect page now? Evan Reyes 22:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do it. --EndlessVince 23:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VoicePulse

Reads Like An AD again IMac4ME 04:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mostly ad content, no indication of meeting WP:CORP evident from the article. Sandstein 05:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I am reluctant to move for deletion with this many ghits. (|-- UlTiMuS 09:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article was one big advertisement for the company with at least some of the stuff copied from their web site. I've editted teh article down to a stub with teh remoal of the advertising text, but agree with Ultimus that they look notable. -- Whpq 16:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rewrite and expand without the marketing mixed in. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 20:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite — plenty of ghits, but needs expanding M a rtinp23 20:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Reading like an ad means an article needs a rewrite, not a nuclear bomb. --Daniel Olsen 00:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

California cheeseburger (second nomination)

This term appears to have originated as a joke on the Simpsons reflecting an obscure urban legend. There's no evidence that it is in widespread use or indeed in any use at all outside Wikipedia, so it should be deleted as a non-notable neologism (WP:NEO, WP:WINAD). In the first AfD discussion, the principal argument for keeping it was that it in fact was a verifiable Simpsons joke, but that does not make it encyclopedic in and of itself, in my opinion. Sandstein 04:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a matter of fact, this episode will be coming out on DVD today. Someone might want to check out the commentary track to see if the term was invented by a Simpsons writer or if it actually existed before the Simpsons. Based on what I know, though, I'd say redirect to "The Secret War of Lisa Simpson". All the Google references seem to refer to this episode (or to a literal cheeseburger from California). Zagalejo 05:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment I do think that some original Simpsons jokes are notable, like Can't sleep, clown will eat me or Cheese-eating surrender monkeys. However, this joke hasn't had the same cultural impact as any of those. Zagalejo 06:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — or merge per above. M a rtinp23 12:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Zagalejo GrahameS 15:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I watch the Simpsons and I can't remember this at all. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 20:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of ethnic slurs. Green caterpillar 20:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I do recall the episode, it is not notable. Most California cheeseburgers on google are legit recipes (I didn't check them all, but beef seemed to be a primary ingredient :-) ) --TeaDrinker 20:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per above -- Deville (Talk) 22:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 23:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh-lete! This is a minor joke and has no significance whatsoever. --Thatdog 07:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Forgettable gag; definitely not on the menu at In-N-Out. Dryman 21:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN per above will381796 06:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superflexitag

Basically an ad, though it's a strange product to be advertising to encyclopedia readers. 113 Google hits. Opabinia regalis 05:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. On a side note: What!? aren't Opabinia tagged with superflexitags? ;-) -- Koffieyahoo 06:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, with the five eyes we can see the taggers coming from a mile away. You just think we're extinct. Opabinia regalis 06:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertising. JIP | Talk 06:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — spam M a rtinp23 20:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a double-take because I thought it said "superflexitagalistic" for some reason. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 20:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Superflexitagalisticexpialadosheet, this sounds like a total ad, so kindly please delete. --Sertrel 21:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam -- Deville (Talk) 22:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam and doesn't meet WP:Notability criteria for marine mammal identification tags available with hot foil double deep embossed or laser printed as required. - Yomangani ^talk 00:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SynergeticMaggot 06:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Michael High School

The content sounds like it was copied out of the school newsletter, but the grammar gets a "needs improvement". A large volume of unwikified matter, but it doesn't assert notability, doesn't cite sources, and contains mostly irrelevant unencyclopedic banalities. Opabinia regalis 05:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment possible copyvio, relisted as such. -- Koffieyahoo 05:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Copyvio is gone. What's left is a rather generic high school stub with a few references. All high schools are notable. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Given the current, very minimal content, it doesn't meet my personal criteria for H.S. notability. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — Looks a little better now. — RJH (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the usual reasons, this is a secondary school on Navajo Indian reservation grounds. Feel free to lend me a hand with the rewrite. Silensor 18:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand — per TruthbringerToronto M a rtinp23 20:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per TruthbringerToronto. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 20:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as usual. Gazpacho 20:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - high schools are notable. Wikification is always the better option over deletion. --Daniel Olsen 00:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete directory entry with some random facts. -- Koffieyahoo 02:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps it needs work, but not deletion. Konman72 09:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow time for improvement. Calsicol 17:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow for continued organic growth. Bahn Mi 00:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ok then you just volunteered to clean it up... remember afd is not to be mistaken for cleanup. ALKIVAR™ 06:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Computerjoe 's talk 12:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meadows Frozen Custard

Custard stand. Herostratus 05:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looks like quite a large franchise. ben 06:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - a small franchised chain, fairly localized; if people in Pennsylvania and Maryland feel really strongly about these restaurants, maybe... but otherwise, I don't think we should bother. I just took out a paragraph about franchises being available; it needs a rewrite in general. --Brianyoumans 06:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm from western PA and it's all people talk about here, just wish I had a better way of showing it..I also wanted to add it only because it's becoming incredibly popular and it's spreading quite fast.Sizzlenuts 06:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If "it's all people talk about here", there should be magazine feature articles, major news coverage, books, and reviews that you can cite to demonstrate that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. Please cite sources. Uncle G 11:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it's been open for 56 years I'm having a hard time finding recent articles about it, it hasn't done anything recently(in the past year or so) that required media attention, although I have seen newspaper stories a while back, I havent been able to find any online. Also custard stands don't get "major news coverage"...it's not major news when a business is selling custard so that's why it's been quite hard to find, but I do know that it's a landmark in Duncansville and I'm doing my best to find credible sources.
Weak Delete — Not a huge number of Ghits. Needs sources which assert the notability of the subject M a rtinp23 15:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The chain has been around for over fifty years, so it must be somewhat popular. Zagalejo 19:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per above, opinion may change pending notability-asserting sources. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 20:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ben. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 20:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regional chains are notable. Article does need better sourcing. Rohirok 21:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability not established. wikipediatrix 23:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ben, Sizzlenuts, Zagalejo, and Rohirok. --HResearcher 00:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A good clean article about a chain with at least 12 locations, I'd say that deserves an article. Could use a few more blue links, but this is much better than most 2 day old articles by far. --Daniel Olsen 01:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Daniel Olsen. SliceNYC 02:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Culvert

Book published by PublishAmerica, a vanity press. Article gives no indication of notability. Only 90 hits (36 unique) on Google searching for "the culvert" "clint adams". -Elmer Clark 05:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. An article on an autobio on a nn subject. (|-- UlTiMuS 09:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom -- Whpq 20:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom M a rtinp23 20:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 20:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity press Dlyons493 Talk 21:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elge

Book published by PublishAmerica, a vanity press. Article gives no indication of notability. Only 37 hits (14 unique) on Google searching for elge "M.J. Siciliano". -Elmer Clark 05:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The content here is only about the characters and the plot anyway; not really encyclopaedic. ben 06:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — NN M a rtinp23 12:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom -- Whpq 20:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 20:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity press Dlyons493 Talk 21:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. RFerreira 22:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bleach; The Movie

Possible hoax? No imbd listing, delete. --Peta 05:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete — Not notable from what I can see - possible hoax and fails Google test as many of the Google results are for a Japanese movie called Bleach M a rtinp23 12:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, under suspician of being a hoax. Jefffire 12:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe not a hoax, but certainly a nonnotable student film. NawlinWiki 13:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if you check out the official site listed in the article, you'll find that it doesn't even exist yet. -- Whpq 20:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Comparable to The Blair Witch Project? Not. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 20:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTFILM: Unreleased Films. --Thatdog 07:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blagman

Website of no demonstrated significance, delete --Peta 05:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per "Blagman.co.uk ... is a UK based site which aims to introduce readers to new products and services.". Advertising. (|-- UlTiMuS 09:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could we not argue the same for website pages such as those for IGN.com? Surely if people want information on a site it should be shown on Wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gamerswave (talk • contribs) .
Delete — no assertation of notability. For an article to stay on wikipedia, the notability of the subject must be asserted plainly in the article and must be backed up with verifiable sources. M a rtinp23 11:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom -- Whpq 20:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ultimus took the words out of my mouth. Or fingers. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 20:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no Alexa ranking, reads like an advertisment, no assertion of notability, hasn't been featured in media enough times to make it notable by itself. The user's only contributions are based in that article and in adding external links to articles pointing to that webpage. Sorry, first become notable, then create the article at Wikipedia. -- ReyBrujo 20:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Fear to Flattery

Book published by PublishAmerica, a vanity press. Article gives no indication of notability. Only 111 hits (7 unique) on Google searching for "From Fear to Flattery" "Tony Hughes". -Elmer Clark 05:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see much buzz about this, or any reviews. --Brianyoumans 06:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — No sources, too short, nn M a rtinp23 12:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom -- Whpq 20:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 21:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freeze Tag (Mod)

Game mod, delete per WP:NOT.--Peta 05:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if expanded for significance by way of reference to other games that it's a mod for, and sourced. If it can't be sourced then delete. MLA 10:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — unless sourced M a rtinp23 12:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 15:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment under which WP:NOT point does this fall? And being a game mod has nothing to do with anything, there are are loads of articles about mods out there, we should be debating according to WP:RS, WP:CITE etc. ShaunES 23:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator may have been thinking of WP:NOT's "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" section, which specifically discourages tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, and video game guides, which this article strongly resembles. wikipediatrix 00:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify where in this article "tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, and video game guides" can be noticed. Loukinho 04:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable, unsourced. wikipediatrix 00:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced. Please define: 'non-notable'. Loukinho 04:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources in this article. There's an external links section which COULD be used as sources, but it currently isn't. And as far as the definition of "non-notable" goes, I'm not going to play the word-parsing game with you. If you feel the subject is indeed notable, go ahead and state why. wikipediatrix 05:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the lack of argument, there's no reason to get mad. Let's try to post facts rather than judgement and keep a good user relationship. Please get used to the subject in discussion (Quake 3) before stating the value of an article. (i.e. you don't expect a "poet" to evaluate/write about "engineering", right?). Please read: WP:RS . Please note that id Software is the publisher of Quake3. Please note that the Wikipedia's Quake3 main page reffers to Planetquake and Quake3world as sources of daily information about the game. Remember that Wikipedia is all about COLLABORATION. Please try to help find what you call sources instead of judging a subject that you're not familiar with. I'd like to remember that this article is only 2 or 3 days old. To show the value of the article for those who are not familiar with, I've posted links from the most famous sites about games showing the different games in which this mod is present and played. More than that, this article adds more information about this mod on the Quake3 page since almost all mods have their own page and information and open doors for future modifications. Next time just try to define 'non-notable' or try to vote on topics that you are familiar enough to state what is 'notable' or not. Not to be rude, but I was reading your user talk and noticed that this is not the first time you act this way. BUT if you're really willing to delete this topic, I aknowledge your attitude and will be satisfied with that as stated below. Hope you don't take it personal since I'm just tryind to expose my point of view and also I believe that you're mature enough to move ahead with this. PS: I've also sourced and detailed the sources including references. Hope you all like it. Loukinho 09:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If your position is so obviously solid, you should be able to state it concisely without spending so much time talking about me. I'll ignore the rest of your condescending flame-bait. I am not the nominator of the article, so take your attitude to him, not me. And nowhere in your rant did you explain why, if you've just now sourced the article (and I see that you have), why did you insist that it was sourced before, when it wasn't? wikipediatrix 13:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Wikipediatrix here even though I take a different position on the notability. The onus is on the article and it's editors to show why an article should be included. The false analogy of not expecting a poet to comment on engineering is very unhelpful for the purpose of wikipedia as a closer one would be expecting an encyclopedia contributor to comment on the validity of an encyclopedia article. By all means challenge views but you should do so not by trying to undermine another editor's legitimate perspective through what could easily be construed as personal attacks but to instead show why your own view should be accepted. MLA 13:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, perhaps leave the note about it in the Quake 3 article. humblefool ® 01:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've added sources on this article and I'm still working to improve it. This article is a STUB. I'll agree if you decide to delete this article even though I will keep on feeling that this article is missing on Quake3>Mods section. But no worries about that. Loukinho 04:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you misunderstand - the sources you need to save this from deletion aren't just the ones that prove the mod exists (the links to download pages in the current article), but rather you need reliable sources to prove the mod is notable and not just one of countless other mods out there. For instance, a print magazine review or an established highly reputable website. If that kind of coverage doesn't exist, then the mod should stay as an entry in the Q3 article's Mod section (or the mod sections of the other respective games). --SevereTireDamage 13:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the "sources" meet the standard described in WP:RS, and after looking I can't find any better ones. Also seems pretty non-notable, as are most mods. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was change to a dab page. It used to be one anyway. - Bobet 09:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Binge

Dictionary-type definition only; separate pages on binge eating and binge drinking already exist; I've updated Wiktionary entry to include the slant of this article. ben 05:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Binge drinking and add a Wiktionary link to binge in the latter. -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 09:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. (|-- UlTiMuS 09:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect — As above M a rtinp23 11:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Netsnipe. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 20:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Make disambiguation, with links to Binge eating, binge drinking, wictionary entry, and others. Not all binges are drinking binges. --Daniel Olsen 01:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Make disambiguation. I totally agree with Daniel Olsen. Some binges involve alcohol, others eating, others illicit drugs, and others sex. Redirect binge to binging, and create the disambiguation page there. Rohirok 02:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to DAB, per Daniel Olsen. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Make disambiguation, per Daniel Olsen. --Phoenix Hacker 21:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with disambig solution Mallanox 13:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Ozone and Gurus Network

No evidence of notability provided. Delete--Peta 06:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — No assertation of notability M a rtinp23 12:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

+Delete fails WP:NOTE. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 21:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lovemyseat

Travel website, no evidence of notability provided. --Peta 06:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Reads like an ad, too. 1ne 06:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, uncreative spam. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — spam M a rtinp23 13:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. per nom—dima ^/sb.tk/ 20:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 21:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SynergeticMaggot 00:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page. While the term is not as widely in use as Boomers or Gen X, it turns up plenty of results in a lexis-nexis search. The term to be used to describe the generation born between 1954-1964 is still being debated, but this is one of the more frequently referenced. It has as much of a reason to be on this site as many other entries.

Generation Jones

Not notable; advertising. This guy coins this term, he writes a book, and I don't actually see that it has caught on - about 1850 ghits for "generation jones", 1660 for "Jonathan Pontell". For comparison, 'generation x' gets well over 2 million. --Brianyoumans 06:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Update - Redoing my search, I think my statistics above came from Yahoo search, not Google. "Generation Jones" actually gets about 13000 Google hits, "Jonathan Pontell" about 26000 - so this is a bit more notable than I thought. I still think it is kind of lame - "generation x" gets almost 4 million on Google. --Brianyoumans 09:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've written a fair bit of stuff criticising this kind of generational categorisation, and the term comes up fairly regularly - on a quick search, I found five independent allusions in discussions where I've been involved. JQ 07:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Expand not a hoax. C56C 08:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn't claim that this was a hoax, I said that it didn't seem to be notable. The article seems to be rather inaccurate in that it claims that the term has become popular and is increasing in use, when in fact it seems to be rarely used. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1260568/posts One representative page I saw] (from 2004) was a posting of an article using the term prominently - and a large number of the comments underneath were from people saying, "Generation Jones? I've never heard that term. Where did it come from?" My favorite comment was "More marketing b.s. from a pollster trying to make a name for himself." Brianyoumans 09:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup — passes Google test M a rtinp23 12:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've never heard of it either, but fortunately I'm not the arbiter of verifiability here. :-) Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 21:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Quiggin. --Daniel Olsen 01:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree with any notion of a "Google test", since 99% of the stuff on the web doesn't meet WP:RS. That said, there are a fair number of reliable sources out there for this term: CNN[12], The Cincinnati Enquirer[13], The Columbia Daily Tribune[14], Scoop (news website)[15], Entrepreneur magazine[16], etc. As such, the article needs cleanup, not deletion. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the concept was certainly in the public eye, for a brief period of time in association with the release of the book. All of the examples you give are stories about the book. I'm just not sure whether the term has had much life outside of Pontell's book. But obviously I'm on the losing side here... Brianyoumans 17:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Where else can I go to look up a term I've never heard of before? I'm glad Wikipedia has a definition.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.17.172.5 (talk • contribs)

Keep. I have heard this term discussed in the media and other places outside the context of Pontell's book, and discussed (and criticized) by other generational historians like William Strauss and Neil Howe. "Generation X" originated with a book too. KleenupKrew 04:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bladed weapon

This article is currently a list of bladed weapons, a duplicate of Category:Blade_weapons, and in fact much of the content is the same. The category more than adequately covers this topic, so suggesting delete. ColourBurst 06:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm also not really sure how you would usefully expand the content. The history of weapon development is probably better handled in the articles for individual weapons - this is never going to be anything more than a list, so why not just use the category form? --Brianyoumans 06:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — As we already have so many seperate articles, there really is no need for this one, and this article has nothing more in it than the category and the articles it links to. M a rtinp23 11:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom -- Whpq 20:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of bladed weapons? I have no problem with lists that duplicate categories, since lists can also include redlinks, which encourage expansion. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Awakening of the Dreamer

Book published by AuthorHouse, a vanity press. Article gives no indication of notability. Only 10 hits (9 unique) on Google searching for "The Awakening of the Dreamer" "Derrick J. Johnson" OR "derrick johnson". -Elmer Clark 06:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Amazon.com Sales Rank: #4,311,530. --Brianyoumans 06:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, books have difference criteria for AfD then people and other things. This book should not be considered for deletion because it does not fall into the establish criteria.

"Usually, books with an ISBN-number and/or availability in a couple dozen of libraries and/or a Project Gutenberg type website, and with a notability above that of an average cookbook or programmers manual would qualify [as notable]." Valoem ^talk 14:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom -- Whpq 20:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per nom M a rtinp23 20:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Valoem: I don't see anything saying that this bookis found in even one library, and the fact that it is published by a vanity press pushes this further into doubt. M a rtinp23 20:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity press Dlyons493 Talk 21:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Martinp23: this book has an ISBN: 0759627738 [17] therefore it is a keep. EDIT: Also the precedence has been set mayn times before, breaking precedence is very harmful to Wikipedia in the long run. If you look my quotation you can read that basically any book that can be found in a library AND/OR has an ISBN-number is notable. I did not make this rule up you can find it on Wikipedia:Notability-books.Valoem ^talk 22:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have to disagree here. Anyone can get an ISBN number - what the guideline is saying is that a book must also have a presence in libraries. Dlyons493 Talk 00:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Actually it CLEARLY says AND/OR. The slash "/" means can have both OR have one. Here I will show you the quote. "Usually, books with an ISBN-number and/or availability in a couple dozen of libraries and/or a Project Gutenberg type website".[18] This quote is clearly not left for interpretation. I did not make these rules I am just trying to shows you that precedence are what keeps wikipedia together and this precedence has clearly been set. Valoem ^talk 00:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete Going by the placement of the comma in the full quote (and misplaced commas can be quite important http://legalblogwatch.typepad.com/legal_blog_watch/2006/08/the_tragedy_of_.html) it appears that it needs one of the three things you listed *and* "with a notability above that of an average cookbook or programmers manual." Which, being a vanity publication, it doesn't have. --Jamoche 02:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since it appears to be a vanity publication, no citable published reviews or significant library presence (I couldn't even find a copy in the LOC). The "usually" in the cited sentence makes it a conditional statement, and this kind of book is the exception that was intended when the sentence was written. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, AuthorHouse is indeed a vanity press which will publish anything for a fee, and not a very high fee. One AuthorHouse title which I personally know to have sold less than fifty copies has an Amazon sales rank of 1,417,018, so this book has probably sold far fewer. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC) P. S. Having an ISBN number is scarcely an indication of importance. You can buy them directly from Bowker; they cost $250 for a block of ten. An ISBN number is part of the service from self-publishing outfits; I think Lulu will sell them to you one at a time. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PhpBuns

Software to generate web pages from SQL databases (I think). My concern is notability/importance: Sourceforge shows less than 5000 downloads for all versions and about 400 downloads for the current version. Also, the text is directly copied from the developers web site and nearly every other site in google's first ten, Since the author was user:TheBuns, it's probably an authorized (self) use, but the repetition of the description on so many pages suggests no one at any of these software and developers sites cares enough to write an expanded description. However, esoteric software is beyond my range of experience. Thatcher131 (talk) 06:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to be notable and may well be spam. Jefffire 12:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Spamtastically non notable M a rtinp23 17:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick J. Johnson

Non-notable poet. Only claims of notability listed in article are his book The Awakening of the Dreamer, published by AuthorHouse, a vanity press (and which I've nominated for deletion above), and an appearance in a non-notable 2000 film called "The Perfect Plan" which is not listed on the IMDB (the only movie of that title is a 2006 short). Only 60 Google hits (23 unique) for "Derrick J. Johnson", many of which do not appear to be relevant. -Elmer Clark 06:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. Alternately, if his book is judged to be notable, then merge with that article. Jefffire 12:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per Jefffire M a rtinp23 12:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom -- Whpq 20:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-published, non-notable Dlyons493 Talk 21:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SynergeticMaggot 00:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balloon (Music Group)

Delete non-notable band that does not meet WP:MUSIC. Only 7 Google hits [19]. The prod-tag was removed claiming "album on major record label". --Bruce1ee 06:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Band worked with notable musicians (see article), and have supported Sarah McLachlan on her 1992 US tour. Album released on RCA Records. Catchpole 07:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Catchpole. --HResearcher 11:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Meets crtieria in WP:MUSIC per Catchpole M a rtinp23 11:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The album was actually released by an independent label called Dedicated which, it later transpired, was being funded by RCA. This practice was very common in the UK in the early '90's as being on a major label was automatically deemed "uncool" in parts of the media. Spiritualized, Cranes and Chapterhouse were on the same imprint. Up to you as to whether or not you think that matters. No vote from me.Ac@osr 13:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets criteria of WP:MUSIC PT ^(s-s-s-s) 15:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above --Daniel Olsen 01:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Mayes

Non-notable writer. Only claims of notability listed in article are his book Science, the universe and God, published by AuthorHouse, a vanity press, and a website called Theories with Problems. Only 20 Google hits (9 unique) for "Keith Mayes" "Science, the universe and God", and only 97 Google hits (33 unique) for "Keith Mayes" "Theories with Problems". His website has an Alexa ranking of 759,786. Also nominating Theories with problems, which redirects to his page. -Elmer Clark 06:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom -- Whpq 20:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 21:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keith Mayes was nominated for the 1992 British Academy Television Award - Best Sound (Fiction) [20] also look at his Internet Movie Database entry: [21]. Is this the same Keith Mayes? --HResearcher 01:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a writer who is also a sound man, I think not. But I don't consider him noteworthy on either count. His book scores in the 1.4million range per Amazon, no trace of independent review found. His website has 19 incoming links, of which 9 internal, and 3 from www.lacoctelera.com, 3 open directories, and 2 to Pointoflife.com, which appears to be a personal commercial site of a certain Michael Levy. Delete per nom Ohconfucius 02:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rubies and Rickshaws

Book published by AuthorHouse, a vanity press. Article gives no indication of notability. Only 36 hits (18 unique) on Google searching for "Rubies and Rickshaws" "Vatsala Virdee" -Elmer Clark 06:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, spam.--Peta 06:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --HResearcher 11:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom M a rtinp23 18:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom -- Whpq 20:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 21:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aboriginal and European agricultural practices in Australia

High school student essay on agricultural practices in Australia. Similar ground is covered in a more encyclopedic fashion in Agriculture in Australia, delete per WP:NOT. I should point out for non-Australians that Aboriginal people in Australia did not practice agriculture so this essay is basically comparing the enviromental impact of hunter-gather civilisation to an agricultural one.--Peta 06:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - More or less a poor pov fork of Agriculture in Australia. michael ^talk 07:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge non OR to Agriculture in Australia. --HResearcher 11:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — POV fork, as above M a rtinp23 11:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom -- Whpq 20:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 21:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--A Y Arktos\^talk 01:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We already have an article on Agriculture in Australia. There isn't much in this article that could be merged with that article and it is not a likely search term. Certainly, there was no agriculture as commonly understood before 1788. Capitalistroadster 02:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article appears to be more about sustainable agriculture or land management in Australia and would provide a start for this. Paul foord 09:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—First two paras contain much mythology about Aboriginal people. What is accurate is, I think, already better presented elsewhere. I do think though that it would be good to have an article about Aboriginal land and food management practices (or whatever they should be called—I agree 'agriculture' is not appropriate). Dougg 02:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truth-Driven Thinking

Philosophy apparently based on a book of the same title published by AuthorHouse, a vanity press. Article gives no indication of the presence of this philosophy outside that book. Only 493 hits (132 unique) on Google searching for "Truth-Driven Thinking", and only 58 Google hits (28 unique) if you add the name of the author of the book that coined this term and search for "Truth-Driven Thinking" "Stephen L. Gibson" OR "Stephen Gibson" -Elmer Clark 07:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --HResearcher 11:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there isn't even an article about the author. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom -- Whpq 20:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom M a rtinp23 20:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. per nom. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 20:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 21:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY KEEP. Nomination done by sockpuppet of permabanned user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesTeterenko (talk • contribs)

International Hockey Hall of Fame

Non-notable museum--Up&Down 07:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've yet to see any notability guidelines on museums. RGTraynor 07:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RGTraynor. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 09:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --HResearcher 11:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure what the issue is here. ccwaters 12:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — No reason to delete M a rtinp23 12:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - bad faith nom. BoojiBoy 13:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - nominator has been indef blocked for being a sock of the infamous VaughanWatch. Kirjtc2 14:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a decent article, and the IHHOF may not be as famous as the other one,there are plenty of much less notable museums with articles. -- Scorpion0422 18:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep the nominator is blocked and probably this is bad faith nomination Yuckfoo 18:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frinkles

Two-volume book published by AuthorHouse, a vanity press. Article gives no indication of notability. Only 12 hits (10 unique) on Google searching for frinkles "Eddie Wayne May" OR "Eddie May" -Elmer Clark 07:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Copyvio from listed sources M a rtinp23 12:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above -- Whpq 20:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 21:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falling in the Garden

Book published by iUniverse, a vanity press. Article gives no indication of notability. Only 47 hits (17 unique) on Google searching for "Falling in the Garden" "Walter Klimczak" -Elmer Clark 07:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages, a sequel by the same guy (11 Google hits, 8 unique for "This Place Only" "Walter Klimczak"), and the author's page itself (202 Google hits, 59 unique, and not all relevant for "Walter Klimczak").

Delete — None of them give any assertation of notability, and all are very short M a rtinp23 12:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom -- Whpq 20:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 21:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Louise Lu

Non-notable writer. Only claims of notability listed in article are her books A Little Story-Book Worm (申娜英语童话集) and The Dream-Quest, the former published in Singapore and the latter published by iUniverse, a vanity press. Only 38 Google hits (21 unique) for "Stephanie Louise Lu". Only 24 Google hits (9 unique) for "A Little Story-Book Worm" OR 申娜英语童话集 "Stephanie Louise Lu" OR "Stephanie Lu". Only 32 Google hits (19 unique) for "The Dream-Quest" "Stephanie Louise Lu" OR "Stephanie Lu". -Elmer Clark 07:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Not notable M a rtinp23 20:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom -- Whpq 20:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 21:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. *drew 15:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadows of the Dark

Book published by iUniverse, a vanity press. Article gives no indication of notability. Only 235 hits (82 unique) on Google searching for "Shadows of the Dark" "John Zaffis". I also suspect that the author, John Zaffis, may not pass WP:Notability, but I am not entirely certain. Someone might want to take a look at it and consider listing it if they think likewise. -Elmer Clark 07:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — NN book, by a vanity press M a rtinp23 19:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom -- Whpq 20:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity press Dlyons493 Talk 21:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SynergeticMaggot 00:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Weber

Author claims a fairly large bibliography, but a Google search for "Nancy Weber" "The Playgroup" OR "The Life Swap" OR "Brokenhearted" OR "Seagull: The Musical" OR "Party Math" yields only 171 hits (107 unique). This means that the name Nancy Weber appears with ANY of the titles of her works only 171 times, strongly suggesting that none are particularly notable. The Life Swap, which according to the article is the work she is "primarily known for," was recently republished by vanity press iUniverse, a strong sign of non-notability, particularly when considered with the Googe results. That article seems to claim that the book inspired a reality show of the same name, but the IMDB lists no TV show by that name. Talk:Nancy Weber also indicates that she edited the article herself, strengthening the case for it being a vanity article. I am also nominating the one of her books which has an article:

The Life Swap

-Elmer Clark 07:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm not familiar with her stuff, but in Googling "Nancy Weber" "Life Swap" I get 218 hits, topped with this Observer article. As these things go, it looks legit. - Corporal Tunnel 15:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per User:Corporal Tunnel. --HResearcher 01:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A quick Library of Congress search suggests she had 4 books published - "Life Swap" (published by Dial Press), "Lily, where’s your daddy?" (R. Marek), "The Playgroup" (St. Martin's Press/Marek), and "Brokenhearted" (Dutton). Looks like Life Swap is in a reasonable number of libraries, too. It was first published in 1974, and I expect it probably went out of print well before the Web became popular. - makomk 11:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell, none of those in any way resemble vanity presses, either. - makomk 13:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to The Life Swap, it was reissued by iUniverse, which is a vanity press. However, I now agree the article should be kept. -Elmer Clark 02:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. There are a couple of other writers using the name, but have a middle name. "Nancy weber" scores 12 hits on Amazon. the majority (I would guess 8) appear to be her style of book, which score in the 1.2 - 4.5 million range of popularity. It appears that her book Brokenhearted was reviewed by at least one credible journal (Publishers Journal) per Amazon. Ohconfucius 03:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SynergeticMaggot 00:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Shepard

Non-notable writer. Her three books were published by vanity presses iUniverse and Xlibris, and she has written some stuff that she's posted online. No claim of notability is made about any of her published works, although one of her online stories was called "highly popular," without citation. There are only 1510 Google hits (just 265 of which are unique) for "Chelsea Shepard" "Worthy of a Master" OR "The Freeman's Captive" OR "Once Bitten". This means that her name has only appeared with the name of any one of her published works 1510 times, and in only 265 distinct locations. The story "Association," which is called "highly popular," results in only 924 Google hits (131 unique) when searching for "Chelsea Shepard" Association "Adrian Hunter" (Adrian Hunter is the co-author). -Elmer Clark 07:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Passes WP:BIO M a rtinp23 12:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Martinp23. And delete User:Elmer Clark! (just kidding) --HResearcher 01:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SynergeticMaggot 00:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Casamassina

Article has been in existence for about a year, but there has been no successful expansion despite repeated requests. Instead, the article seems to be a magnet for hoax and unverifiable information [22] [23], some of it even "joke" information from subject's own blog. [24] I am nominating the article for deletion to see if the Wikipedia community thinks that there is enough here to keep the article around or not. --Elonka 07:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:BIO. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 21:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is an okay stub for a (relatively prominent) video game journalist. I know the only reason I've come across this entry is because I've cited his articles on Wikipedia. Guermantes 23:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he is arguably the most famous editor at IGN and a noteworthy person. The article just needs to be improved. TJ Spyke 23:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per BaseballBaby, Guermantes, and TJ Spyke. --HResearcher 01:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Obvious keep. Very noteworthy person. Konman72 09:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep journalist for a very notibale videogame website. I see no reason to delete. --Edgelord 05:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mulcahey's Meatheads

Book published by iUniverse, a vanity press. Article gives no indication of notability. Only 29 hits (18 unique) on Google searching for "Mulcahey's Meatheads" "Vernon Holmberg". -Elmer Clark 08:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 65 hits on just the title, but they all appear to be either press releases or book finder lists - no reviews or other comments. - Corporal Tunnel 15:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails notability tests M a rtinp23 16:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOTE. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 21:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absent some indication of notability. -- Visviva 01:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 1ne 22:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Dracula

Book published by iUniverse, a vanity press. Article gives no indication of notability, except maybe that it was published in the "Editor's Choice Series," which, considering it's a vanity publisher, is not terribly meaningful. Only 369 hits (74 unique) on Google searching for "Maria Dracula" "Denise Roman". -Elmer Clark 08:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm not familiar with her work and get 14,200 Google hits on the title alone, which is not firm evidence of anything but, well, is what it is. This is a Young Adult book, so it's likely to be invisible to adult readers. On the other hand, she has spammed Amazon's reviews, which is a no-no (if not relevant here). - Corporal Tunnel 15:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Corporal Tunnel. --HResearcher 01:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bulk Google results are useless for assessing notability for anything but internet memes, and even then they're questionable. Even worse, the only Denise Roman book in the Library of Congress catalog is Fragmented identities : popular culture, sex, and everyday life in postcommunist Romania. That said, ForeWord (magazine) recognized Maria Dracula as one of their "Book of the Year" winners[25], which might just be the very barest assertion of notability. It also might not; I keep going back and forth on the credibility of the magazine. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY KEEP. The nomination was done by a sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned user. -- JamesTeterenko 18:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous members of Mensa

to much vandalism to this page, to many non-notable, unsourced people listed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Up&Down (talk • contribs)

Weak Keep At present it looks fairly well-sourced to me and none of the names are red-linked. Although I'm not entirely sure it's a notable topic so I'm saying weak keep.--T. Anthony 09:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all unsourced names so I'll just say keep I suppose.--T. Anthony 09:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Weak Keep due to problemattic sourcing.--T. Anthony 09:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well referenced article. WilyD 12:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep — Well sourced but could just be list cruft M a rtinp23 13:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subjective listing of people. What exactly qualifies someone as famous? Would it be Members of Mensa with Wikipedia articles? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- C'mon, the article should just be at "List of members of Mensa" - but then someone would argue "since it's not complete, delete it" or some other specious argument. Improperly named article is not a criterion for deletion, but for moving. WilyD 15:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as this is sourced and has a solid enough inclusion criteria that it is not Original research. Article name and body could use some work (as Zer0faults pointed out "famous" is totally objective and should be dropped from the name), but that is editorial, not a reason to delete.--Isotope23 15:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Vandalism isn't a reason for deletion, or something more notable still like George W. Bush would be gone. Along the same lines, if George W. Bush were unsourced, you wouldn't say to delete it, you'd say add sources. Wikipedia needs to step it up regarding this article. That said, zerofaults brings up a good point: there should be a clearer set of guidelines for inclusion established. Jacqui ^★ 16:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The nominator has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of User:VaughanWatch. BoojiBoy 16:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Mensa is notable, the people listed are notable, and the references make it verifiable. Antandrus (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename. What makes a person famous? rename to List of Mensa Members that have wiki articles--AfterDark 18:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spangenberg Theatre

This is not a highschool, its a theater of a highschool and it is not currently operational. No claim of notibility. Delete Musaabdulrashid 08:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tonywalton | Talk 15:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom. M a rtinp23 20:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. non notable. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 20:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 21:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Site management

Article appears to be a copy of documentation specific to the workplace of the author; original author has posted all content (all other edits are tagging); article lacks context. which is currently adopted to maintain the required / desired productivity at the site. 'The site'? Article is not really encyclopedic. --Draicone ^(talk) 08:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - still can't figure out what site management is actually referring to, and what there is of the article looks like instructional text. -- Whpq 13:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tonywalton | Talk 15:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per nom M a rtinp23 19:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a chapter from a textbook or manual - probably is. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 21:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Site Management is a notable topic. The article just needs major cleanup and wikification. --HResearcher 01:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not to mention a total rewrite. Haven't we got enough articles demanding this sort of attention already? --Draicone ^(talk) 04:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Evangeline Ting

Deprodded. I see things that I'd consider assertions of notability, but the "next top celebrity" line is obviously suspect, and there's no indication she meets WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC.--Kchase T 08:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Almost did this myself when I saw it on new pages. Dekimasu 09:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — No sources, unverified. M a rtinp23 11:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom -- Whpq 13:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, recreate if she ever becomes the next big Ting. NawlinWiki 13:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity, verifiability. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 22:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:VAIN, in no way does subject meet WP:BIO. ALso her webpage is a dead end. Ohconfucius 05:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (Appears to be userified as well) - Mailer Diablo 07:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Career India

A chaotic hodge-podge of advice, directory listing of courses and universities and repeated copyright violations such as [26]. Fails: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not since "Wikipedia is not a directory" and "articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s" There are very few or no other articles that link to this one — mainly because it's an irreversible and confusing mess. -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 09:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Arvind devaraj (talk • contribs) has now moved the article to User:Arvind devaraj/Career India.
Strong Delete — WP:NOT per nom M a rtinp23 12:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 22:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid Delight F.C.

Non-notable amateur five-a-side football (soccer) team; there are thousands of such teams, all of which compete below what is considered serious competition. Established consensus on WikiProject Football is that only teams from levels 1-10 of the English football league system are considered inherently notable and this team falls a long way short. Qwghlm 09:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Qwghlm 09:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. aLii 09:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. NawlinWiki 13:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per nom M a rtinp23 17:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 19:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Alias Flood 20:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. What's next: articles about high school football coaches? —dima ^/sb.tk/ 21:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - someone has evidently put a lot of work in but sadly the team is just not notable. The same argument could also be made for Sparta Padiham FC who seem to play in the same league/organisation ChrisTheDude 07:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. - Pal 17:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uppermill Football Club

Football (soccer) team that competes at level 13 14 of the English football league system. Established consensus on WikiProject Football is that only teams from levels 1-10 are considered inherently notable. Article was previously prodded but original author disputed it on the grounds of it being a grassroots club that was notable on a local scale; it being notable only on a local scale is exactly why it should be deleted from Wikipedia. Qwghlm 09:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Qwghlm 09:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like it is at level 14. feydey 09:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like you're right. [27] Duly corrected. Qwghlm 09:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. aLii 09:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Alias Flood 19:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Alias Flood 20:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per nom M a rtinp23 20:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. - Pal 17:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Qwghlm - That is a selective synopsis of my argument and you lower youself by its use. You are a typical premier league team fan - You have no concept of grassroots football.
Strong Keep The question we have to ask here is whether the information presented in this article is verifiable. It is. The official website for this club is here. Secondly, the subject in question has achieved sufficient external notice to ensure that it can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research as well. I view that this article should remain. Its relative obscurity does not make it unencyclopedic. Moreover, the lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion, because this isn't specifically stated in the deletion policy. If we began to delate this article, i am afraid that this would set a presedence in the way no-league football clubs are being delt with on Wikipedia. On top of this, this article in question is part of WikiProject Non-league football! --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 18:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am intending to offer a compromise. Those clubs which can be verified within the English football league system should be included. That means those clubs which have their own websites should be included here. The reason is clear. All clubs within the English football league system in the lower divisions have the potential to be promoted to step 1 of the National League System.

No, sorry I don't think you're right here. The fact they have a website is neither here nor there, and in fact we should be looking at third-party sources for verifiability, not ones published by the organisation itself. I think the level 10 minimum as a standard of notability is fairly generous myself, wouldn't have argued if the bar had been set a bit higher, and I'm a BIG fan of non-league. Consequently, Delete. As for setting a precedent - Yes. That's what happens when a consensus of notability is taken into account. Clubs who don't, or who haven't in the past, played at Level 10 or higher are going to get votes here to Delete. - fchd 20:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But there must be exceptions to this. For example on the talk page of this article, there is an engaging argument to keep this article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 20:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There has to be a cutoff point, and this is well below it. --kingboyk 20:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alright. Can the cutoff point be at level 11 (or step 7) at the very least? The reason why I propose this is because step 7 (or level 11) clubs are members of the National League System. One must take note that this article is part of WikiProject Non-league football. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 21:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, especially When is a club notable?, may prove helpful for reference purposes and continued debate. Alias Flood 22:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Bobet 09:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of diplomatic missions

I initially prodded a few of these, but when I discovered how many more there were, I decided more community input from AfD would be a good idea. All of the articles are just lists of where the countries' missions are located. I think this violates WP:NOT's section on directories. It's useful information, but it's better placed at wikitravel. If someone knows whether the creator of these articles can relicense them under wikitravel's CC license, please follow-up with him at User talk:Kransky. Thanks!--Kchase T 09:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn below.--Kchase T 16:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue at hand raised by Kchase is whether the diplomatic mission articles are simply lists. I referred to the Wikipedia is not a Directory for further clarification.

The first no-no mentioned is that Wikipedia should not be a list or repository of loosely associated topics. A list of aphorisms or quotes is definitely out, but reference tables and tabular information can be included. If the essence of the prohibition can be explained by is different between the examples, then it would be that what is listed should be reasonably focussed and the list in itself be reasonably integral. You would accept The Ten Commandments or the Periodic Table or Nixon's Enemies List, but not Chinese proverbs, since there is no direct relationship between the parts to one whole (though The Thoughts of Chairman Mao is okay).

I am not just listing a country's embassies, but I am also showing its diplomatic network. That is the whole that merits its inclusion. Where a country chooses to fly its flag gives an indication where a country chooses to rationalise and focus its diplomatic activities. Only by looking at the matricies of who's-represented-where in the form of a list can you discern some interesting choices - Why has Iceland got an embassy in Dar es Salaam? and Senegal has a consulate in Siena? How come Jordan has an embassy in Tel Aviv but Indonesia doesn't? Who has a wider network in Africa - Japan or China? Which countries choose to send an ambassador to Pyongyang ?

None of these articles can be considered to be in violation of the second point - they are neither genealogical or phonebook entries, nor do they violate the third point - they are not resources for conducting business.

I do not consider Wikitravel to be an appropriate solution, as the intention of the lists is to chart the constellation of diplomatic relations of countries around the world today, and not to help tourists who have lost their passports.

I foresee three solutions:

(a) the motion to delete the articles is defeated (b) additional content is added to the entries each article, such per List of locations in Spira which is cited as an example of merged groups of small articles based on a core topic. There is a limit to how much extra information can be given, and we could be just repeating details in other articles. (c) The pages are deleted and the contents are appended to a relevant article, like foreign relations of Japan. This would however make the other articles considerably large and I predict people will end up wondering why aren't they given their own space.

Kransky 12:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC) (author)[reply]

I should have been more specific. I meant subsection three, about directories and yellow pages. I acknowledge that it is weakly covered by that section and, frankly, I don't think these pages ought to be deleted based upon my weak argument to WP:NOT. As I alluded to above, the reason I've nominated them is because I don't think this content is appropriate for an encyclopedia, though I also don't want to see it deleted outright (but taken to wikitravel). To describe foreign policy or a diplomatic network in the way Kransky would like, prose seems more appropriate ("America has poor relations with the Middle East and doesn't even have an embassy in X country... etc."). I am reconsidering this nom, but I would like more input.--Kchase T 22:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The intention of the list is not so much to say "America has poor relations with the Middle East and doesn't even have an embassy in X", but rather to let the readers themselves work out the connections. That is where the value lies. Kransky 12:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think it violates WP:NOT, and I can see some use for the lists. If this list had names, it would definitely violate the directory rule, but as is I think it's alright. --Daniel Olsen 01:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources have been provided for these. Content is little more than lists of embassies. What little useful information provided in these articles could be covered in sections or articles dedicated to each country's foreign relations. Rohirok 02:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easy to solve your first issue - just add an external link to the website where I obtained this information (the foreign affairs ministeries). Otherwise I am happy to reinsert the lists into articles dedicated to each other's foreign relations, but I am not sure if other people would like this. Please go here and see as an example of what it might look like. If people are happy with this example I will migrate the lists over to the respective article Kransky 12:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than giving each country its own heading, try just making a simple list using asterisks (*) at the start of each line. This will conserve a lot of space. And yes, citing a reliable source for this information is imperitive. Rohirok 18:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just reformatted the list Kransky had merged (linked above). It took a while, and still takes up a lot of space. I'm still not sure how useful this information is. I say give Kransky a chance to link the source, consoldiate the information into the relevant articles and without using the cumbersome and unnecessary headings, then delete the list of diplomatic missions articles. Rohirok 18:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please visit Foreign relations of Albania for an example based on Rohirok's suggestions. I think grouping missions by region and then country is the most logical taxonomy, and therefore it makes sense to use headings. Also I think it is still better to list one mission per line, otherwise it will look messy when a country has many consulates in another country. "Multilateral organisations" will be the heading for missions to such. And a link to the source where I picked up the information is included. Tell me if you are happy, let me migrate and modify the lists, and then delete to your hearts content. Just be aware that Wikipedia has similar lists for airline routes (e.g: KLM destinations) - on the basis of this precedence I did not expect something similar for diplomatic networks would violate the not-a-directory rule. Kransky 10:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still think a list without headings is better, as shown here, since it compresses the information and doesn't clutter up the heading directory at the top of the page with links to sections that don't have a lot of information. With a multi-tiered list, the hierarchy is retained, but the space is much better used, and it's "easier on the eyes." Countries with only one embassy really ought to be listed in the same line as the city where the embasssy is hosted, since the great majority of the countries only have one embassy in them. As an exception, countries hosting more than one mission could have another embedded list so that each mission can be listed on its own line. Again, this is a space issue. I still don't see any links to Kransky's source. Rohirok 17:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My example Foreign relations of Albania has a link to the website where it is sourced. Look at the top. I stand by the one-mission-one-line rule because (a) it will be messy to list multiple missions in one country and (b) Rohirok's suggestion means the formatting will become inconsistent and unnecessarily complicated (do I embed if there are two or three or what number consulates? what if the names of the towns are short?). If you are still worried that this is not "easy on the eyes" look at the airline destinations categories where not only a one-destination-one-line format is used, but there are *five* levels of categorisation (continents, regions, countries, cities and individual airports). This format is used for 132 separate articles, and nobody is complaining about the formatting. On the strength of the precedence can we agree that my listing of missions in Foreign relations of Albania be used as a model for other countries. Kransky 09:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm withdrawing the nomination (which doesn't necessarily close the AFD). It looks like consensus is going for merge, with disagreement about the TOC and sectioning. I suspect that the articles will be broken out again anyway, but this will be even more likely if they have individual sectioning for each country, so we may as well keep them where they are now. My first choice is now to keep them, and second choice is to merge them as suggested above.--Kchase T 16:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I will take on board the recommendations for condensing the size of the list, cite the sources, and remove the lists from other articles. Thank you for your patience and suggestions, and I look forward to the removal of these articles from the AFD death list. Kransky 11:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Prophet (Macias)

Book published by AuthorHouse, a vanity press. Article gives no indication of notability. Only 42 hits (35 unique) on Google searching for "Red Prophet" "Pete Macias". -Elmer Clark 05:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, selfpublished book. NawlinWiki 13:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per all above - Not another self published book?!? How many more??? M a rtinp23 17:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SWML - Scrum Whiteboard Markup Language

Nominate - Seems to be put in commercially; title clashes horribly against MoS; if the process is valid outside that single company then it's probably still worth merging into Scrum (development) --Firi e n § 09:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revised nomination Commercial link removed; utterly non-notable; 0 hits, no source, no verification. Possibly up for speedy. --Firien § 10:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Who, Your Mum?

Comment - Not put in commercially, I added this and I know of at least two companies that are using the SWML. Perhaps it's worth expanding on what MoS actually is, generally I'm against the use of abrieviations without providing explanation of them. Suggest MoS is added as a new entry into Wikipedia. Maybe SWML is a UK based phenomenon. I understand that SWML.org is going to be coming soon detailing the language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.166.11.126 (talk • contribs) (Article creator)
- Which two companies? You only linked to one - that's why it looked like a commercial linkin. MoS is the Wikipedia Manual of Style, the guidelines on how the encyclopedia should be structured; I'm used to discussing with other editors who understand standard Wikipedia abbreviations, and perhaps need to reconsider where I use it. If SWML.org comes along detailing the language that'd be useful, especially if it wasn't directly linked to a commercial organisation. --Firien § 23:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps you can help tidy it to conform to the MoS :-)
Comment - Also I note that Microsoft have an entry on Wikipedia, perhaps this has been put in as a commercial entry and therefore should be removed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.166.11.126 (talk • contribs) (Article creator)
- A quick google for "Scrum Whiteboard Markup Language" gets two hits. Both are Wikipedia, so no hits count. SWML returns SignWriting Markup Language as closest (yet still completely different), and refining with the term Scrum included brings it back to the same two hits. This makes the notability of this article very questionable and subject to deletion merely by Wikipedia's notability guidelines - this is not a recognised software development tool. A similar search for the word "Microsoft" returns 1.9 billion hits; even by removing all the hits with microsoft in the url we still end up with 1.3 billion. Microsoft's scale and fame, whether good or bad, is notable and is therefore suitable for a Wikipedia article. Even if it was started commercially there's enough editors here that that commercial tie would soon be shredded; what we end up with is an article that is fairly near to objective, not counting occasional vandalism to the page. If we relax your example to look at other, smaller companies, the general pattern is that it'll only be included if it's notable enough to be well-known on the web; googling is a handy depth tester for that. However I tend to assume good faith and so nominated this for deletion discussion rather than speedy admin deletion. I believe the article was written in good faith; so long as commercial ties can be left out that belief will remain. --Firien § 23:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I find your assertion that Google is the font of all knowledge and that wikipedia should merely be a subset of google results not only incorrect but also rather insulting. If Wikipedia is merely a subset of google results then this surely raised questions on the validity or necessity of wikipedia itself. Further your claim that this is not a recognised development tool is correct. Nothing is developed by the use of SWML, merely SWML enables it easier to understand what people are stating on white boards. I think what you mean is "I don't recognise this as a development tool". If this is the case would it not be possible that you do not know ALL the development tools currently in use, or are you claiming that between google and yourself you can form a full set of development tools. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.166.11.126 (talk • contribs) (Article creator)
    - Don't twist my words. I stated clearly that google is used as a test of notability, not as a fount of knowledge. Wikipedia cannot and will not rely on it, because it is not a source of reliable facts; but it can be used to measure if a topic exists. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia and so strives to keep its information true and verifiable. And your granting that this is not a recognised development tool makes it subject to deletion purely for its lack of notability - Wikipedia is not a place for original ideas, not for "spreading the word". Of course I don't know all the development tools in use; I'm not superhuman. No-one does. Neither did I claim that I can with or without google form a full set of development tools. I'm actually swayed by your arguments to change my vote from Merge to Delete; the information simply doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion. --Firi e n § 10:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again you state that Google can be used to see if a topic exists. I question whether google has all possible topics in existence. Does it know for example about every tribe in the rainforest - probably not. Further google is only testable for notability for the population of the world who can access the internet AND are able to create web pages. It's a poor test or existence, as someone who tests things for a living I suggest that you revise your testing strategy. I have not twisted your words, perhaps they are just ambiguous. Which was my point on Development tools and the term development. It depends on ones definition of the term development. Under your definition then yes it probably is a development tool, under other definitions then possibly not. It's a shame you feel the need to state that wikipedia is not a place for original ideas, quite clearly this is true and it doesn't need to be spelt out. I do however think that it is exactly the place for "spreading the word", why else would one use an encyclopedia if not to find things out and spead knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrummaster (talk • contribs) (Article creator)
      - It is one of Wikipedia's rules that it is NOT a place for that. You told me to understand the topic; I'm telling you to understand the rules. Wikipedia also doesn't have an article about every tribe in the rainforest, but it also doesn't intend to. Same here. If you're also trying to suggest that part of the IT community is unable to access the internet or able to create web pages, then I'll just sit here and laugh. --Firi e n § 12:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I suggest that certain parts of the military are not able to access the internet but are still involved in IT. Perhaps you should consider a few more posibilities. Incidentally I was not suggesting that. Please don't be hypocritcal and twist my words :-)
  - There are no specific commercial ties to this entry. SWML is planned to be released non-commercially as a Beta in the next few months for comment before version 1.0 is released by the end of the year. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.166.11.126 (talk • contribs) (Article creator)
    - Thank you - that helps. --Firi e n § 10:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that this page is a stub for a more complete article about SWML (a language that I know and use) and I think that it should be kept for a while for the original author to have the opportunity to complete it. The language, as far as I know is not commercial nor linked to any particular company. Although it has been developed and mostly used in conjunction with the SCRUM methodology, it can be easily applied elsewhere as it only defines the whiteboard syntax, therefore it should have an article of its own. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.166.11.126 (talk • contribs) (Article creator) 16:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again my point is that in the creation of the article it was linked to a particular company; as seen in this edit, the second edit to the article just after the article was created by the same person. That site doesn't even have a single result when you search it for the word 'markup', but it was tied to the article nonetheless. Perhaps it's just that link that needs removing, per WP:NOT; while there are admittedly a large number of guidelines on Wikipedia I'm sure as an IT professional you'll recognise the acronym RTFM. While anyone can edit, this isn't freeform; it's still an encyclopedia. Having now looked into the notability of SWLM and found it lacking, I personally feel that this article should either be deleted entirely for lack of notability, or merged back into the main scrum article; if it ever matures/develops (as perMartinp23's comment below) into something widely recognised and used in software development methodology then the section will become large enough to split off into a separate article. Your argument about being developed and used in conjunction with Scrum is weak since the title of the article is "Scrum Whiteboard Markup Language". Again if it does ever become used, whether under a name not linked to scrum or not, it should be notable outside Wikipedia before an article is written here. --Firien § 23:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep but agreed - merge~~ amended below; FYI ControlChaos is Ken Schuaber's company for Scrum consulting and cirtification. It was included as an external reference for Scrum and not as part of SWML. As far as I'm aware Ken does not support SWML at this stage, and therefore SWML has no links to ControlChaos. I suggest that you understand the domain about which you are writing before raising further objections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrummaster (talk • contribs) (Article creator)
  - If it's an external reference for Scrum, it should be in the article for Scrum, not in this one. Even there it would be questionable, because it's an external commercial link that doesn't improve the article. There are hundreds of companies that perform similar work, and I fully understand the domain even though I don't and don't need to know every single twist introduced by every single software company and IT consultancy and PM-training house in existence; I suggest both that you note what my objections were (originally "Commercial, possibly non-notable, badly written"; now without the commercial consideration since that's been clarified, but definitely non-notable. It doesn't matter at all whether Ken supports SWML, or who wrote it, or whether I know about it. It matters how many people know about it. Google was used as a test for this; no, it's not exhaustive, but with 0 hits outside wikipedia, unless the only place it's hosted is in some sites with a disallowing robots.txt, the concept remains marginal and unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Can you see this getting into Encyclopedia Brittanica? Perhaps in the future, when it becomes more widespread, but not now. I'll also paraphrase you and suggest that you understand the domain in which you are writing before raising further objections. As mentioned before, Wikipedia is not a freeform source for information. It is not intended to be the sum of all human knowledge, nor to document every single variation that will ever exist. --Firi e n § 10:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy for it to be merged with the main scrum article. You state that because SWML is Scrum Whiteboard Markup Language it is part of a development process. This is dependent on your interpretation of the term development within the software arena. Does it mean cutting code, or does it mean anything to do with the delivery of software products. I draw your attention to the existence of development teams, management teams, testing teams within a software project. Clearly here development mean cutting code. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrummaster (talk • contribs) (Article creator)
  - I draw your attention to the level of the articles around software development currently in Wikipedia. Terms are at the level of Agile, SSADM, Feature Driven Development, DSDM, RUP, PRINCE2, Scrum, Critical Chain, RAD, SEI's CMM, XP. I'm sure that because of your familiarity with the field you'll recognise those; hopefully you'll also recognise their scale. Those are working at the level of lifecycle planning, team structure and management, project management, estimation, requirements specification, testing, collaboration tools, and modelling methods. A new method for clarifying how things are set out on a whiteboard? You think that compares? I understand software development, methodologies, development of those methodologies, best practises. I've read Brookes, Yourdon, Avison, Fitzgerald, Demarco, Lister; they set out software development pretty well. Sure, there's newer stuff; it's IT, everything's obsolete the next day. But until it becomes noteworthy it is not suitable here. That noteworthiness comes from the scale of recognition, or it comes from excelling in its field and being noted at this from a reputable source. It does not stretch to something invented by 4 people that is still in its infancy, however well developed the language itself might be. --Firien § 10:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please state the specific required scale of recognition for wikipedia. Given that you clearly are not knowledgable on SWML I don't think you should make such harsh and unfair derogatory comments about it. Incidentally you state best practices, perhaps you should read further what many in the field deem to be best practice. I follow the school of thought that there are no best practices, merely a set of good ones that one should choose from. Reading and citing a range of authors does not make you the authority of software development. Brookes - which one, who cares how many books you've read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrummaster (talk • contribs) (Article creator)
      - Again, RTFM. Because you don't seem to want to bother going through it, I'll point you at the right place. "A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency". This is not. I'll also point you again at the page which you failed to read when I posted before: WP:NOT. I'll draw out the main points in case you're still too lazy: "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought." Yes, this fits. It's structured - but it's still original. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." What harsh and derogatory comments? You think calling it small and unknown is derogatory? I'm calling it not notable in the context of Wikipedia within Wikipedia. And again, I didn't claim I was the authority of software development. You questioned that I had any knowledge of software development, so I replied. You can't argue that I don't know anything and then moan about it when I show I do. Neither did I claim that I knew anything on SWML; I suggest you read back on my comments and compare them to Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. --Firi e n § 12:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        ~~speedy deletion~~There's not need to be patronising! ~~I am fine with this being deleted,~~ there's no need to get eggy. I am not reading what you're linking to because some of us have propper jobs and don't spend our lives worrying about what is and what is not on a website. Am pleased though that two individuals actually felt it was noteworthy! SWML is actually a term in use, but ~~I'm ok with you deleteing this on that basis that it's not that common.~~ Interestingly a quick google search for Peter Beentje is pretty interesting. You yield 35200 results, maybe you should have an article in wikipedia, after all you're pretty noteworthy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrummaster (talk • contribs) (Article creator)
        That's because you're doing it wrong. "Beentje" is a Dutch word, and will be found in combination with the name 'Peter' a lot. I'm sure that by stalking me you've found out some more about me; while parts of it are impressive to various people in various ways, it's not what would be considered noteworthy of an encyclopedia. There isn't an article about me, there won't be unless or until I do something that's recorded by a reputable source. Does it matter? Nope. --Firi e n § 17:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        To Stalk - To walk with a stiff, haughty, or angry gait: stalked off in a huff or To move threateningly or menacingly. or To track prey or quarry. I hardly think that doing a google search on your nickname and then on a fairly obvious persons name associated denotes stalking. But if it gives you a thrill I guess you can think I am. Good grief, don't you have better things to do, find a job etc.
        
        By the way (BTW) I'm 16! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrummaster (talk • contribs) (Article creator) -- ...so? --Firi e n § 17:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC) -- So... what's it like to bully someone! I was bullied at school as well and it's nice to see that people online are just the same. I bet you'd virtually bog flush me in a geeky online game if you could![reply]

Weak Keep — Give it time to mature/develop M a rtinp23 18:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Scrum Whiteboard Markup Language, and allow for organic expansion. --Daniel Olsen 01:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP If the term Cammel Toe is in here, this must surely stay!!! I've Therefore Changed my mind on this and SWML should definately stay. It's far more Noteworthy than Cammel Toes. If you don't know what one is I suggest you look it up. Although, you probably reviewed that entry already. "A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency". I did a quick straw poll in my office and hardly anyone here has heard of it. Nearly as good a test as a google search!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.166.11.126 (talk • contribs) (Article creator)

Delete no hits on Google. user:wossi 10:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- As previously stated if hits on google is the criteria that you are using to display noteworthiness, then I would question your measurement. You are merely turning Wikipedia into a google subset.
Delete, something someone made up in work one day. Scrum is a real thing, this is a stupid in-joke, and as such original research and patently unverifiable. I really don't think the people voting keep have either looked at the article or tried to verify it in any way. - Bobet 10:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest you provide evidence that it is A. Stupid and B. A Joke
  - I believe it's an in-joke since the first version lists the people by name who supposedly invented it, and there's no indication that it's used anywhere else. And it's stupid since it's not funny (although I've no prejudice about stupid humor in general). - Bobet 11:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bobet. Ifnord 00:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 13:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of basic industrial topics

Redundant copy of Category:Industry. (|-- UlTiMuS 09:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - I've barely gotten started with it. It is intended to be a structured list and part of the "Basic topic lists" collection. It is targetting one of the gaps on Lists of basic topics. But how can I complete it and add structure if it gets nominated for deletion just moments after it is created? It's in the process of being constructed. Please remove this AfD. Thank you. --Nexus Seven 09:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Stuff like that should be prodded first. ~ trialsanderrors 09:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Give it time to mature M a rtinp23 13:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, but I'll make a dab page at this title (Michael Stivic, Meathead (band), etc.).--SB | T 08:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meathead

Was proposed for deletion by 64.231.246.231 (talk • contribs), but moved straight to AFD since it wouldn't have survived there for long thanks to the flood of sockpuppets from last time. Original reason was:

Meathead is not known outside the Nine Inch Nails online fan community. The only reason this page survived deletion last time is that his friends at the Nine Inch Nails fan forum http://www.echoingthesound.org/ posted here to vouch for his continued relevance. Outside that limited sphere of online NIN fans, Meathead is unknown and irrelevant.

I second that nomination citing Wikipedia:Notability (people) issues and lack of references to 3rd party Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 09:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is still my vote from last time, for the reasons above. But I give it 3 more hours before the meatpuppets attack again. Get ready with your {{spa}} and {{unsigned}} tags. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 10:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Michael Stivic. Forgot about that this time... — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 03:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 12:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Mets501 (talk • contribs) protected Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meathead (2nd nomination) (due to anon vandalism in first AFD [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

Delete - it has sources - such as forum posts, and the guy's own website! WilyD 12:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NIИcruft. I've been reading the Meathead Perspective for almost seven years, and it's pretty funny if you're a fan, but as a person he isn't really notable enough for Wikipedia. -/- Warren 12:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article has undergone significant improvement. Non Notable fancruft is deleted because it attracts poorly written articles, and the article is certainly of a higher quality than a lot of articles on more "important" issues. The article has managed to attract serious editors (who are keeping the vandals well under control). We also aren't deleting the articles on other internet personalities just because most of the talk relating to them is (surprisingly) on the internet: Maddox (writer), Tucker Max, etc. Sure, they're more popular, but notability is not the same thing as popularity. GeorgeBills 14:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But both Maddox and Tucker Max have written New York Times bestsellers. What has Meatpuppet done that is notable and verifiable outside of the Nine Inch Nails fan community? -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 15:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Urg, I didn't even know that (the published book thing). I guess the point I'm trying to make is that internet sources aren't automatically non-factual, and given that many of the articles here currently only contain internet sources, only using internet sources shouldn't be an automatic deletion criteria. Wikipedia:Reliable sources also notes that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and I think the inverse should be true: ordinary claims don't need peer reviewed papers for proof. There's nothing in the Meathead article that isn't believed by that articles editors, with reasonable although not indisputable evidence, to be true. There was an April Fools joke in the article previously, but it was removed and I think that shows that the articles editors are happy to remove non-factual material. Also, the main point of the article is that someone calling themself Meathead is writing a popular series of essays (etc). The actual site itself should be good enough for that reference surely? I guess my arguments are:

The article is referenced above the standard of the majority of the articles here, and while those references are internet references, they are reliable for the fairly ordinary claims that they're covering.
The number of fanboys / fangirls spamming the last AfD is regrettable, but the admin who reviewed that AfD discounted their opinion anyway, and popularity is hardly grounds for deletion. The nominations argument that the "only reason this page survived deletion last time is that his friends [...] posted here to vouch for his continued relevance" is thus irrelevant.
The vandalism on the page is also regrettable, but it's being dealt with (the majority of it coming from one persistent IP vandal, on a one week ban last I saw), and frequent vandalism is also not a reason for deletion (or we'd be deleting Falun Dafa, President Bush, Israel, etc).
Some of the arguments for deletion of NN articles clearly don't apply here: that they don't attract editors, that they clutter cats, that the article tends to be overly biased (the article makes no PoV judgements as far as I can see, but I'll go over it again to try and make sure).
Wiki isn't paper, and so as far as I'm concerned, non-verifiability is the main argument for deleting NN pages. The article doesn't reference any scientific journals, but for some subjects, subjects which a reasonably large minority group of people are going to find interesting and informative, that isn't going to happen. GeorgeBills 16:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Third party sources include the NIN official website and the official fan club website, and as traffic statistics will tell you, visitors to his column are NOT limited to the (admittedly over-enthusiastic) denizens of echoingthesound.org. BotleySmith 14:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Botley, remember that those are not concidered reliable sources per WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 14:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Not really notable enough M a rtinp23 15:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Wickethewok 15:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This comes from a NIN fan. I enjoy meathead's work, but he is not notable enough outside of NIN fandom to get a wikipedia entry. Do we really want every kid who satirizes their favorite band and their fans to get a wikipedia entry? Chilla 16:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subject falls well short of WP:BIO criteria. Sources don't meet WP:RS.--Isotope23 16:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: from WP:BIO, cited above: "This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." GeorgeBills 16:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nor does it mean they should automatically be included. They are guidelines yes, but the kicker is this article fails [[WP:V], WP:OR, and possibly WP:NPOV. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 17:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it doesn't mean it automatically needs to be deleted... but there are no verifiable, reliable sources provided (as Bschott mentioned) and nobody asserting this should be kept has advanced a compelling, logical reason why the guidelines should be ignored in this case.--Isotope23 17:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My arguments for the page being referenced well enough for what it covers are above, and I guess the admin that reads this will decide whether they make sense or not... Bschott only said that the article "possibly" fails WP:NPOV, but I would like to know why you think this? I've just changed the word "humorous" to "comedy" (because humorous implies that everyone finds his work funny, and comedy merely implies that the intent of his column is to be funny), but that was a pretty minor change. Is your NPoV complaint something fixable? GeorgeBills 17:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment personally I disagree with your argument about sources above; we don't need peer reviewed scientific articles, but we do need verifiable, reliable, 3rd party information independent of the subject... and that is missing here. I don't see a good reason advanced to ignore WP:BIO in this case. You are right though, an admin will decide which way they want to go with this; it is in their hands now.--Isotope23 18:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Meathead is not just a person but a character, and Wikipedia is one large circlejerk anyways. --Unperfekt 17:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Alright, what do we have here. Lets look at the reasons shall we: "Meathead is not known outside the Nine Inch Nails online fan community. The only reason this page survived deletion last time is that his friends at the Nine Inch Nails fan forum http://www.echoingthesound.org/ posted here to vouch for his continued relevance. Outside that limited sphere of online NIN fans, Meathead is unknown and irrelevant." Alright, here are the facts. Except for Trent Reznor, EVERY other MEMBER of NIN is UNKNOWN and IRRELEVANT outside that limited sphere. Please tell me mr. reporter, do you know ANYONE who is a part of NIN except for Trent Reznor? Oh please, go on. Do you wiki search and reply. Meathead is not only a fan, but a mutual friend of Trent Reznor. No, i dont mean to say that they are dating or some sort, but that Meathead is been an important part of NIN. If you were a fan, you would know that. The first "excuse" you guys had was that there are no links when you search for "Meathead Perspective" in google. We'll... let me show you: http://www.google.ca/search?q=Meathead+Perspective Oh look, what do we have here? More than 1000 pages including www.nin.com itself! Second of all, Trent himself has bookmarked Meathead's page in www.nin.com under the resources section. http://www.nin.com/resources/index.html Hell, i even have a feeling that if you guys keep putting up this article for deletion, Trent himself will comment on his blog and will say "Stop deleting this page!" cause no matter how much fun meathead makes of NIN, it really brings fans closer. NIN has one of the most loyal fans out there, and pages like Meathead's Perspective and theninhotline are bringing fans more closer. It would be a shame to see articles deleted for lame excuses. You know what, why don't you delete the important articles instead of this. Here. Let me help you get started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucks.com or better, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Ouzounian Look at this MotherFragger... he is just another INTERNET person.. why does he has a freaking Wiki? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucker_Max Woah cool... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Carapetis WHO THE HELL IS THIS GUY!!! WHY DOES HE HAS A DAMN WIKI!!!! HE DOESNT EVEN HAS AN ALBUM!! MEATHEAD HAS TWO!! Shagg187 17:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Shawn rv signature per [28][reply]

Reply: The Salon on Maddox, The Chicago Sun-Times on Tucker, and MTV on Carapetis. They all have articles on Wikipedia because there are 3rd party reliable sources that establish their notability. We can compare Meathead against Wikipedia:Notability (music) if you want as well, but so far I've haven't read anything that proves he passes that either. -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 18:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Your civility really makes us want to count your vote more. And if you have so much against all the other articles, feel free to AfD any of them. It's the same process that was undertaken for this article. Feel free to add the two albums you refer to into the main article, it would be best to reference them to something like AllMusic or Amazon or whatever too. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 18:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Regarding Google links, I brought up in the previous conversation that there are zero incoming links on Google, still. Plenty for the server/forum that serves it up. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 03:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The above comment was originally made by User:Shagg187, who edited his sig later on to User:Shawn, who has never edited this page as far as I can see: diff. Shagg187 has been cautioned twice already (in February) for vandalising AfD pages... GeorgeBills 05:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Isotope23 and Brian. Lazybum 18:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, several parsecs away from notability. BoojiBoy 19:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no verifiable sources. Recury 19:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:RS. Whispering^(talk/c) 20:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for verifiability and notability. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 22:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for notability. Possibly redirect to Michael Stivic :) Andrew Levine 23:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Unperfekt, and then redirect to Michael Stivic per Andrew Levine. bikeable (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Tess Tickle 02:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shawn und BotleySmith Raid0422 02:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What here is verified by reliable sources? How is he notable? Captainktainer * Talk 09:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On wikipedia, verifiability by reliable sources is not optional. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a good amount of useful and notable content on the page, the NIN community deserves to have at least this page on wikipedia. --NeoVampTrunks 18:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my argument last time, fact or not, it must be verifiable from reliable sources, and I think this article fails that. Tabanger 21:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yeah, like the Meat, but I don't really feel that strongly either way to be honest. Why not just keep it for those who want it? Dwdmang 16:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Because he's not notable, there aren't any reliable sources for the information in the article, and it doesn't look like either of those problems will be rectified. Bear in mind that WP:V is completely non-negotiable. Captainktainer * Talk 20:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 topic is already covered at Monster in My Pocket. I think a redirect there would be confusing, since it would take some digging to find the reference. If others feel the need to make one, go ahead. Mango juice^talk 14:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charun (fiction)

Way too small in scope, and the article has zero chance of expansion. Therefore, delete. (|-- UlTiMuS 09:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest alternatives then. Charun (mythology) and Charun (fiction) have to be kept seperate. There's just too much potential for confusion between the two and misleading information may result. --Glengordon01 09:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per nom M a rtinp23 12:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — But a sentence could be placed in Charun to reflect the contents of Charun (fiction). M a rtinp23 12:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Charun M a rtinp23 23:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Monster in My Pocket Mallanox 23:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is good. I don't think Charun is a good choice, clog up a poor stub with this trivia. Send it to Monster in My Pocket. Ifnord 00:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SynergeticMaggot 06:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of basic management topics

Redundant and incomplete copy of Category:Management. (|-- UlTiMuS 09:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep same as basic industry topics. Basic =|= comprehensive. ~ trialsanderrors 09:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - I've barely gotten started with it. It is intended to be a structured list and part of the "Basic topic lists" collection. It is targetting one of the gaps on Lists of basic topics. But how can I complete it and give it structure if it gets nominated for deletion just moments after it is created? It's in the process of being constructed. Please remove this AfD. Thank you. --Nexus Seven 09:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - try tagging it with a {{hangon}} tag WilyD 12:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hangon is for speedies. ~ trialsanderrors 19:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Give it time to mature M a rtinp23 13:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think Category:Management does a better job, but give it a chance. If it doesn't develop it can be renominated. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 21:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There might be disagreement about what to include in the list, but the list as a whole is part of an established series at Lists of basic topics. ~ trialsanderrors 22:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Based on the extremely short time the article has been around, allow for organic expansion and relist if nothing ever happens. --Daniel Olsen 02:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, might be a good idea to work out the List of Basic Topics before we start pruning it. As per basic industry topics. Kuru ^talk 03:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Expand this article's introduction quickly so it doesn't get deleted under WP:CSD#A1 for lack of context. Delete if nothing has changed at the end of this AfD's five-day discussion period. Kusma (討論) 13:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of merely suggesting that someone else do it, it would be a fine gesture on your part if you personally jumped in and helped. I'm in the process of working on the overall collection of Lists of basic topics, and have been trying to jumpstart lists to help fill its gaps while concentrating on the development of the key lists (like List of basic technology topics. I'll get to the stubs eventually, but in the meantime it seems ludicrous to get rid of something just because it is incomplete. An incomplete article provides a better starting point than starting over from scratch, which is exactly what you force people to do when you DELETE THE ARTICLE. Deletion of this type is an example of "all or nothing reasoning", and is one of the recognized major cognitive distortions. Wikipedia has enough problems as it is without making straighforward projects like this one an uphill battle. --Nexus Seven 21:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have enough support for speedy keep. Someone please close this discussion. --Nexus Seven 21:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
! Speedy Keep, this isn't bad faith, or in need of such speedy keeping. Although it may qualify for WP:SNOW — xaosflux ^Talk 02:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZING!

nonsense, verifiability, notability, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary, looks like vanity to me, Was previously listed for speedy as nonsense, but history shows that the speedy tag was removed, so taking it here - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 09:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nomination. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 09:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; neologism, and the article would require a comlete rewrite even if it were kept. (|-- UlTiMuS 10:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this is nonsense. Also seems like a touch of WP:VAIN. Garrepi 15:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete — NN neologism and nonsense M a rtinp23 20:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into List of Internet slang. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 22:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BaseballBaby. Zing is a notable neologism. --HResearcher 01:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SynergeticMaggot 00:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fetch (game)

This is pretty much already convered in the Fetch disambig, and there is no room for expansion beyond the current state. (|-- UlTiMuS 09:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tidy up - there must be cultural references and suchlike that can be covered. AlexTiefling 10:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for the weak justification of "cultural references", which usually translates to "grab-bag of trivia from television and movies". There's definitely more than a perpetual stub here without that. It's amazing sometimes what mathematicians will study. Keep. Uncle G 10:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — and expand M a rtinp23 12:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to mathematical interest. It's a similar problem to baseball players catching fly balls... the trick is to keep the ball moving in a straight line in your field of vision. I'll add some more information. Garrepi 19:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — I added more about the math behind it (and corrected some inaccuracies). I'm sure there's more info about non-mathematical properties of the game, though. Garrepi 20:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AlexTiefling, Martinp23, and Garrepi. --HResearcher 01:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This game is ancient, and played the world over. It deserves its own article. Rohirok 02:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was to keep the article. -- Denelson 83 08:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Azerbaijan Controversy

POV title and content. No credible sources provided. Two sources provided as reference [29] [30] both have strong bias and represent Iranian nationalistic views. Grandmaster 10:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At best, merge a sentence or two on the dispute (such as is) to the article on the country. Even then, it's hardly the Great Macedonia Argument, so it mightn't even warrant that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigHaz (talk • contribs)

Delete. The issue was mentioned briefly in the article about Azerbaijan, but apparently User:Khosrow II was not happy with that, so he inserted a paragraph called “Controversy” in a number of articles about Azerbaijan, including Azerbaijan, Arran, Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, as if that is the most important info about Azerbaijan. And now this article. In fact, Iranian government never ever officially protested the name of Azerbaijan, only some Iranian nationalistic figures do. So there’s no reason for existence of such a POV article, especially considering that it lacks credible references. The veiwpoint of some Iranians can be briefly mentioned in the article about the country, but not in every article about Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 11:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stop blowing this out of proportion. only three articles contain a short section about the controversy, that is it, and they all link back here, where the reader can get more information. Why are you trying to hold back information? would you rather prefer that each of those small sections became as big as this? that wouldnt make any sense at all. that is why this has its own article, its too much information to just "summarize". Khosrow II 04:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This whole “controversy” deserves just a brief mention in the article about the country of Azerbaijan, but it does not need a whole section in every Azerbaijan related article, and it definitely does not need such a POV article. As a matter of fact, the country exists under that name since 1918, and it was recognized by Iran back then and now. I see no controversy at all. Grandmaster 04:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one said that the country called Azerbaijan does not exist today or it is not recognized by the whole world including Iran. But what does that have to do with the fact that the name change happened back in 1918? It is a historical fact and should be mentioned and it is detailed enough to require its own section if not its own page. If "controversy" is all you have problem with the call for a title change and not delete.Gol 03:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me "every" article its in. Its only in three articles and those sections are short and summarized, stop blowing this out of proportion in an attempt to mislead the voters. I seriously believe you are purposely trying to mislead the voters here, because you know better than anyone that only three articles have sections on the controversy, and those are: Azerbaijan, Azerbaijani people, and History of Azerbaijan. Stop trying to manipulate the users please. You have no real reason for wanting to delete this article other than trying to block information for the readers of Wikipedia. I dont know what you have been taught in Azerbaijan or what you want to believe, but this is the reality, something that apparently you didnt know about till i created this article. I have come to a compromise with you before regarding the Azerbaijani people article, and now I'm asking you to come to a compromise with me. Everything in this article is factual and necessary. The articles that link to it are linked to it for a reason, because the context is necessary. You have no real solid good reason for wanting to delete this article.Khosrow II 04:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to mention Arran and Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, and I'm sure the list will keep on growing. I'm not trying to block anything, I think we can mention in one of the articles that some Iranian scholars (but not politicians) have problems with the name of independent Azerbaijan, but it should not be blown out of proportion and presented as some international dispute. Grandmaster 04:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my mistake, I left out two, but seriously, do only 5 articles make up all of the articles about Azerbaijan? Honestly, be realistic, 5 articles doesnt even make a dent, and thats as far as the "list" will grow. No other articles need the context. No where in the article does it suggest that this is an international dispute, although it is, and you know as well as I do that there are a lot of problems in the region today because of this name change. The article is in no way blown out of proportion, if you think it is, please provide the lines of text that you believe are "blowing it out of proportion".Khosrow II 04:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But why all those 5 need a special section dedicated to this "controversy" (which exists only in minds of some Iranian nationalists)? I think it is enough to mention the "controversy" in the article about Azerbaijan, that's the way it's been before and I never tried to remove it. If some folks in Iran have problems with the name, let's mention it, but no need to present it as some international confrontation. It should be put in correct perspective. Grandmaster 04:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldnt those 5 need attention? Two of them are about the state of Azerbaijan (the present and the one in 1918 and later), one is concerning the people (the name change affected the name of the people, which causes much confusion about the ethnic origin, because its really two different ethnic groups with the same name now), the other is about one of the names of the region before it was changed to something else, and the last one is about the history of Azerbaijan, and correct me if I'm wrong, but changing the name to Azerbaijan is a big part of AZERBAIJAN's history. Again, you are just repeating yourself, without getting to the actual problem, you just want this article gone, its that simple.Khosrow II 04:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are those 2 different ethnic groups with the same name? If you talk about Azerbaijanis, they are the same people both in Iran and Azerbaijan. Some nationalistic circles in Iran feel very insecure, because they afraid that one day the Azeri minority in Iran may wish to claim independence, following the suit of their ethnic brethren on the other side of Araks. That’s the real reason for the “controversy” that some Iranian nationalists try to present as something indeed real. But somehow you failed to mention this aspect in your article. I see no reason for spamming many articles about Azerbaijan with the same repetitive information. This issue should be merged into the article about Azerbaijan and presented in a neutral fashion. All other articles should be cleaned from the POV “controversy” sections, which consume the space that could be dedicated to indeed useful info. The only other exception could be the History of Azerbaijan article, where we can also mention this "controversy". Grandmaster 05:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are getting too emotional. No, "north" Azari's and "south" Azari's are not the same people. "North" Azari's are most likely a Caucasian people, while "South" Azari's are most likely an Iranic people. Infact, the name of the region, Arran, is a version of the name Albania, and the people were referred to as Arrani's by Iranians and Arabs, this alone shows that Azari's and Arrani's are not the same people. Our discussion here has just shown how controversial this topic really is, so now the title will stay the way it is hopefully.Khosrow II 13:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There’s no reason for existence of a POV article like this. There’s no controversy to begin with. Iran never officially protested the name, neither back in 1918, nor in 1991. Even the case of a real controversy over the name of Macedonia was presented in a section of the article Foreign_relations_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia. In our case, claims of some Iranian nationalists don’t warrant an article with such a POV title and content. Grandmaster 08:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Azerbaijani people, both in Iranian and independent Azerbaijan, they are the same Turkic people (not Iranian, Caucasian or any other). They have mixed ethnic origin, but speak the same language and share the same culture. See Britannica article:

Azerbaijani - any member of a Turkic people living chiefly in the Republic of Azerbaijan and in the region of Azerbaijan in northwestern Iran. [31] Grandmaster 09:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are not of the same ethnic group. Genetic testing has shown this. Genetic testing has put "north Azeri's" with Caucasians, and has put "south Azeri's" with Iranics. They are only linguistically Turkic, not ethnically. And for your information, Canada and the USA share a common language, but that doesn't mean that Canada can change its name to the USA and join America. Also, using the same example, the present-day Azeri langauge is also not that drastically different from Turkish (Turkey), so are you also going to say that Turks and Azeri's are the same people too, because ethnically, Turks from Turkey are descendents of Anatolians people (Greeks, Armenians, Romans, Iranics, other Indo-Europeans). This article is detailed, sourced, and necessary, and it seems as the majority of the consensus is for a keep. You are the one with the POV. And that Britannica article is a direct consequence of the unjustifiable name change of the Caucasus region to Azerbaijan, and currently, me and Ali are thinking about creating another detailed article about the consequences of that name change and the confusion it has caused the scholarly community.Khosrow II 14:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics don’t mean a thing. They only prove origins of people, but they don’t define who they are. Language does. Azeris speak the same language and share the same culture and are the same people. Open any authoritative encyclopedia and you’ll see that. Check the quote from Britannica above, for instance. It is one of the most authoritative sources, and is written by the best specialists. You are just promoting Iranian official propaganda here, which did not change much since the times of Iranian shah regime. In order to suppress ethnic identity of Azeri people in Iran and assimilate them with Persians the official propaganda tries to persuade Iranian Azeris that they are nothing but turkified Persians. Grandmaster 06:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. there are way too many articles about the Azerbaijan apparent controversy. We have not bothered to right many articles about controversies existing in Iranian studies.. why such haste here. This does not serve any scientific or educational value and I argue strongly for deletion. abdulnr 12:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 12:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This issue is very important, and it is the root cause of many of the problems in the region today. The controversy over the name Azerbaijan is historical and reality. This article is necessary, especially to put the Azerbaijan and azerbaijani people articles in context. Everyone has a right to know that the name Azerbaijan in regards to the region north of Iran is historical revisionism started by a Pan Turk party in 1918, and that historically, Azeri's, and Azerbaijan only have to do with Iran, not the Caucasus. This article should not be merged because it provides a lot of information. And to Abdulnr: This is the only article on this controversy, I dont know which other articles you are referring to.Khosrow II 14:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Kaveh Farrokh is one of the leading scholars in Iranian history. Also, these allegations are not new and made up, like Grandmaster is suggesting, but have been going on for over 80 years. This is a controversy, so the title is not POV. Also, I added the controversy to ever section where it was needed, such as Azerbaijani people, Azerbaijan, and History of Azerbaijan, where it is all relevant. This article goes into more detail, that is why I had to create it. The small section before was not accurate. Now I have those sections linking to this main article.Khosrow II 15:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete There is no such controversy, except some wishful thinking after the Greece/Macedonia dispute. --TimBits 16:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This controversy has been going on for 80 years. Any historian or scholar with knowledge on this history of the region will tell you that the name change to Azerbaijan is very controversial and politically motivated. If it suits you guys better, we can change the title to something else. This has nothing to do with the Greece/Macedonia dispute.Khosrow II 16:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Azerbaijan... No good reason for a separate article and I just don't see enough here to really establish there is a "controversy", other than the fact that the whole realm of Azerbaijan topics is a POV breeding ground. I just don't see any valid reason to fork this out.--Isotope23 16:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep People need to know how a territory that was known by a different name until the 20th century all of a sudden became to be known as Azerbaijan on top of the real Azerbaijan. It's better to have a separate main article than having to repeat the same information in various articles.--Eupator 16:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No the reason for deletion is that the article tries to create a vision that the Azerbaijan Republic came to be called as such in an overnight political decision. It is not that way. Almost all the countries in the world cover an area that is different than the original core of the country. Russia or Canada for example. The word Canada originally applied to a settlement in mondern Quebec City. Today, Canada covers almost 10 million sq. km. area. The same thing here. Azerbaijan originally referred to the area that is only the part of todays Iranian Azerbaijan. Eventually, it spread to refer to the whole Azerbaijani speaking areas. The most important thing is that it did not happen overnight in 1918. What happened in 1918 is that the name Azerbaijan was used as a name of a country for the first time. Now, this so-called controversy is a modern attempt, especially by those encouraged by the Macedonia affair. But, unfortunately for them it's not the identical situation here. Here is ethnical, lingustic and cultural uniformity between the Republic and the Iranian Azerbaijan. --TimBits

16:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, your analogy is completely irrelevant to this case. You cannot produce a single primary source that calls the region of Republic of Az.-Azerbaijan prior to 1918. Are you saying that wherever Azerbaijani speakers live, that's where Azerbaijan is? Cultural geography ?--Eupator 17:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it happened in this particular situation. You cannot produce a single primary source that calls the region of Republic of Az.-Azerbaijan prior to 1918. This looks like a challenge, because if met, it will necessitate the reversal of your vote. --TimBits

17:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What was so special about that particular situation? That particular situation is what this article is explaining! This is the whole bloody point. Of course it is a challenge, one which can't be met reasonably.--Eupator 17:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every situation is special and has its unique circumstances. What was so special about that situation is that in this case the area that Azerbaijani speakers live came to be called Azerbaijan. It may or may not be the case in other such situations. And about the challenge, I will meet it reasonably if the definition of reson won't change after that. We'll see how straightforward you are, buddy. :) --TimBits

19:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well pal, that's just borderline gibberish. Once again, the purpose of this article is to explain how as you put it various regions in the Eastern Transcaucasus "came to be called Azerbaijan". Lucky for us the definition of reason is not a variable.--Eupator 21:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TimBits, you are completely mistake. Never did the term Azerbaijan grow to ecompass the regions north of Iran's Caucasus border. You will not be able to find one single map before the 1900's that shows the region called Azerbaijan. The only region ever called Azerbaijan is Iranian Azerbaijan. And yes, the name change did happen overnight. In 1918, the pan-Turkish Musavat Party met in Tiblisi and decided on the name change. It literally was an over night name change.Khosrow II 17:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no ground for coming to an understanding with you in this matter. I have explained the situatin and there is nothing I can do when someone plainly says 'no it's not that way'. If there is any use, then I too will repeat that the name Azerbaijan came to be applied to a larger area gradually. It never heppened overnight. Anyway, my reasoning is to help those who are not familiar with the situation. --TimBits

17:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TimBits, I am a reasonable person, I have come to many compromises and agreements over several articles. Your argument is just baseless and not based on any evidence.

Everyone check the new quotes I added, from a russian scholar, iranian scholar, and the russian encyclopaedia. I have added more sources and actual quotes.[32]Khosrow II 16:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. The area of modern Republic of Azerbaijan was known as Arran. So, the analogy with Canada and Russia is irrelevant.--TigranTheGreat 18:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to obviate the relevancy of the analogy. It is relevant as one can not say that the Pacific areas of Canada can not be called Canada, because it has its own name- British Columbia. --TimBits

19:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge — To Azerbaijan - no reason to be seperate M a rtinp23 17:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to History of the name Azerbaijan. I agree with Eupator that people should know about this, but I also agree that there isn't really a "controversy", so the current title is therefore misleading. —Khoikhoi 17:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is something I can agree with. It sounds reasonable enough, and also, Grandmaster also suggested it, and hes the one who put the article up for deletion, so I think this is a good enough compromise that we can all agree on.

It works for me too, it depends how it will be written. Current article is POV and unacceptable, so it would be more like creating a new article rather than renaming it. --TimBits

17:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What parts of the article seem POV to you? You must first tell us what you have a problem with before we can come to any sort of conclusion.Khosrow II 17:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just one example:

The politically motivated name change created confusion regarding many aspects of the region, including the history and people. The newly created Republic of Azerbaijan, also sometimes called "North Azerbaijan", attempted to integrate itself into the history of Iranian Azerbaijan by implementing a policy of historical revisionism.

The article is ful of unsourced POV phrases like this. Clearly Iranian nationalistic propaganda. Grandmaster 06:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica also says there is one Azerbaijan[33]. There was actually a big controversy in Iran at that time(and now alittle bit less after 90 years), which is documented in Dr. Touraj Atabaki's book. Even Rasulzadeh (the founder of the republic) in the end in one his letter to Taqizadeh (one of the great Iranian Azerbaijani intellectuals) discussed this issue and says it was a mistake and Albania was separate from Azerbaijan. Also Shaykh Mahmud Khiyabani renamed Iranian Azerbaijan to Azadistan to protest this change. So the information is not definitely a POV. But I do agree that we should not have 4-5 articles dealing with the same issue and one article should suffice. Maybe this can be that article or perhas there is already another article? --Ali doostzadeh 17:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no other articles. The articles they are reffering to are the ones that are linked to this.Khosrow II 17:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also see this: [34]. Pg 178 it shows that the Iranian revolutionary Shaikh Mahmud Khiyabani in protest to the name change, renamed Irans Azerbaijan province as Azadistan. --Ali doostzadeh 17:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also see the talk page[35] where I have quoted From Dr. Atabaki's book where he quotes other references. --Ali doostzadeh 17:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And also 1911 EB on Caucasia [36] and Azerbaijan [37]. --Ali doostzadeh 18:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Strongly agree with Ali doostzadeh. Iranian Azerbaijan is a Persian/Arabic variation of Atropatena, which never included Caucasian Albania. In fact, the modern area of the Republic of Azerbaijan was better known as Arran. In fact, that was the name that was being considered to be applied to the Republic of Azerbaijan in 1918--yet for controversial and political reasons, the name Azerbaijan was chosen.--TigranTheGreat 18:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I agree with Eupator. There's only one historic Azarbaijan, and it's definitely not what is today called the "Republic of Azerbaijan." Hakob 20:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BigHaz, Isotope23, and Martinp23. --HResearcher 02:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Just looking at this page you can see there is a controversy. This seems like the right place to have an article on it. --Daniel Olsen 03:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BigHaz, Isotope23, and Martinp23.

--Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 08:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The best evidence for the name change of Arran to Azerbaijan is found in the treaties of Golestan and Turkenchay, in which Persia acknowledged the sovereignty of Russia over what is now the republic of Azerbaijan. Arash the Bowman 09:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but what does this have to do with Albania? It is about Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 09:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KeepThis article is about an important issue and a historical fact. If anyone detects POV or unverified information, then they should try to correct it instead of asking for the whole thing to be deleted. Also, it does not sound reasonable to delete it because there are other articles that PARTIALLY mention this issue. I think it is detailed enough to need its own page. Gol 03:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The content of the article as it is now is POV and even offensive. Some controversy does exist, but it is overinflated here.--Kober 04:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Per Arash the Bowman and Gol and TigranTheGreat. That area of the world is extremely interesting with many fractured groups. It is clear from the above that there is a controvery. Let the article improve over time. Mattisse (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - The whole argument is based on contemporary Iranian (Persian) propaganda. It's laughable that such kind of idiotic (sorry, but have to say it..) things take place in here. We should not allow POV pushing under the guise of such artificial "controversies". The Iranian interpretation and claims should be mentioned in Azerbaijan or rather History of Azerbaijan entry. I second Kober in opinion that the naming and the presentation is not only POV, but also is offending. --Tabib 15:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wish it was POV and propaganda, but its not. We have sourced infromation from pre-1918, and from the 1940's down. HOW DOES THAT MAKE IT CONTEMPORARY IRANIAN PROPAGANDA? Was the Russian Encyclopaedia written by Iranians? Was the 1911 Encyclopaedia written by Iranians? Was Barthold an Iranian? I dont know what you have been taught in your schools that makes you believe this is all propaganda, but this is reality, its the reality that they dont teach in Turkey and the R. of Azerbaijan. We have sourced information from even sourced R. of Azerbaijani news papers of the 1940/50's. Have you even read the article, maybe you should, you'll learn something.

If you think you can disprove any of the information there, please feel free to do so, but I know you wont be able too, because whats in the article is already the truth. Do not call it POV and propaganda unless you can prove that it is POV and propaganda.Khosrow II 16:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article touches upon major issues of Azerbaijani identity and should be kept, if possible expanded. Furthermore, although I cannot claim that it does not contain POV or incaccuracies, many facts stated are perfectly correct. e.g. use of the name of Azerbaijan to denote northern Iran. Some issues, however, such as failure to mention the naming of the territory in the Safavid empire or claims that the people of northern Iran (so called South Azerbaijan) and modern-day Azerbaijan are different ethnicities is clearly POV and should be removed. Thus, the article should be cleaned up a bit and supplied with more citations, but not deleted.mikakasumov 16:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The different ethnicities of the "two" Azerbaijani people are sourced. They are from genetic testing, which show "north Azeri's" clustering more with Caucasian people, and Iranian Azeri's clustering more with other Iranics.Khosrow II 17:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Khosrow, I definitely support the content of the article since it is factual and there is no greater name in the early 20th century when it comes to Turkic studies than Barthold. Historically Caucasian Albania and Atoorpaatekaan were two different entities and the name Azerbaijan and ethnic name Azerbaijani are both recent for the caucasian republic of Azerbaijan. But I think perhaps in order not to insult anyone we can get rid of the word republic and change it to name of Azerbaijan for Azerbaijan republic controversy or Name of Azerbaijani republic controversy. This way maybe others will be satisfied as well. Also other materials related to pan-turkist plagarism must be investigated (both in Turkey) and Azerbaijani republic and history books need to be read to make sure these are state historian policies and not normal revionists which are found in every country. Unfortunately I was disheartened by the following link:[38] and I am wondering if this is the material thought as history in the textbooks of the Azerbaijani republic and what is the use in claiming that Zoroastrianism and Sumerians and Akkadians were Turkish?? BTW check out some more old maps: [39] [40] --Ali doostzadeh 19:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This map is really interesting: [41] It has labled lots of the parts of Iranian Azerbaijan as Acem, which in Turkish means Persian. Proof that the Iranian Azari's were infact Iranics before Turkified? Also Ali, the Azeri embassay website is proof that the Azeri government is committing historical revisionism, and supports it.Khosrow II 20:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Khusraw, I think the overlaps are natural. Actually Acem here is just Araq-e-Ajam province. Also check out this map: [42].. nice Caspian sea.. LOL. --Ali doostzadeh 22:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does the Caspian have to do with anything? I think your trying to say that old maps are not very accurate, and you are right to an extent. Ajam aslo means Persian, in arabic. Anyway, this is getting off topic, LOL.Khosrow II 21:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the topic though, so far every antique Western map I have looked at has called virtually all of the current Azerbaijani republic as either Shervan, Georgia and etc.. --Ali doostzadeh 22:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TimBits said he was going to find one, but so far I guess he can't find one, so I guess he has to change his vote from delete to keep, right? LOL.Khosrow II 22:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well even assuming he does find such a map with blurred boundaries (since old maps have made lots of errors as well) (so far I have not seen any old map not distinguishing Azerbaijan from Caucasia), it doesn't change the fact that virtually the majority of old maps clearly distinguish the historical Azerbaijan from Caucasian Albania.. Caucasian Albania though was often conquered. For example, to view Azerbaijan and Caucasian Albania as historically the same is as absurd as saying that since some of the maps we found show Caucasian Albania as part of Georgia(which you found quite a few and I found some too) or because some ancient historians consider Caucasian Albania as part of greater Armenia, then Caucasian Albania is part of Georgia/Armenia and should have the name Souther Georgia or Eastern Armenia (Ibn Wazih Ya'qubi and Baladhuri have mentioned this as part of Armenia, but this again does not correspond to majority of classical sources). Some sources have called all of caucus as Georgia or Armenia , but most have separated caucasian Albania from these two areas. --Ali doostzadeh 01:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Eupator. --Mardavich 00:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Nickieee 07:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete It doesnt make any sense why this article is called controversy, there are over 20 million Azeris in Iran but no controversy on that? This is nothing but a anti-Azeri article Baku87 21:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously havent read what this is about, or else you would have understood why there is a controversy and the relation between the "two" Azerbaijan's.Khosrow II 21:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and maybe name change - there is no reason why this article should be deleted. However, I think that the name of the article is confusing. Tājik 15:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep, but work on the article for improvement. Add to it. And maybe change the title. Khosravaan khod daanand.--Zereshk 03:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, since no one wants to delete it. Merging or moving can be done by anyone if they feel like it. - Bobet 10:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States Congressional investigation of the Unification Church

Seems like a POV fork for the Unification Church. C56C 10:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Unification Church.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 13:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — as above to revert apparent POV fork M a rtinp23 20:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Unification church. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 21:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. If we created an entry on every congressional subcommittee report... it would be bad. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 22:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Unification Church article is already 44 K long, and this is not the only incident that has been spun off. I suggest that rather than merging it might be better to move this to Government investigations of the Unification Church, covering the Moon US tax case as well as cases in Japan and elsewhere. -- Visviva 00:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keeρ per Visviva. --HResearcher 02:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Visviva. Information ought to be kept, but main article is too big for merging. Moving to a more general article with related information is a good idea. Rohirok 02:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move per Visviva to United States government investigation of the Unification Church --Richard 08:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Unification Church. Konman72 09:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Visviva; perhaps discuss the topic briefly in the Unification church article with a main article link.--Merkurix 07:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SynergeticMaggot 00:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eat a Bowl of Tea

I can't find anything on the Internet to suggest that this film is notable enough for an encyclopaedia article. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 10:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — has an IMDB entry M a rtinp23 12:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above, also Wayne Wang is a notable director. NawlinWiki 13:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - More importantly, it's got Egg Chen in it. Kuru ^talk 03:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Covered by the New York Times: [43], and it has also been used in several courses [44] [45], so it passes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColourBurst (talk • contribs)
Strong Keep per Martinp23, NawlinWiki, and ColourBurst. And.. per Kuru it's got Egg Chen!!!--HResearcher 07:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Substantial early work by an important director. Robertissimo 08:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fairly well known and critically-acclaimed film. --Michig 09:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep notable film from the director of The Joy Luck Club and many others. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SynergeticMaggot 00:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James A Reed

I don't think the guy is notable. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 10:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A search reveals many James A. Reeds, so without sources the article is not easily verifiable. --HResearcher 02:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete No sources are listed. --HResearcher 11:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete — Sources required which directly assert notability. Wikilinks needed M a rtinp23 12:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, we found a reliable source. See Ohconfucious' comment below. --HResearcher 07:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly vanity. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 22:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe I have found him. Up to you to decide whether he's notable or not.... Ohconfucius 06:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reed is one of UK's biggest recruitment companies according to that article. --HResearcher 07:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article needs more sources. Most of what has been written here is not sourced. --HResearcher 07:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on the bove, he seems notable enough, but the article does need more sources. M a rtinp23 08:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely middle of the road businessman--Tess Tickle 13:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the new information but it needs more sources and some explanation of what the company does. The news article is better than the Wikipedia article. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 15:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi - I was the source of original copy and have now entered in some information on the company and also links. Hope this was of interest. Interested in any further comments. Martin Warnes --193.41.34.100 13:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 13:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pub football

A made up term for a made up thing, I reckon. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 10:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a highly addictive and fun game. Please leave this quality game on here as it will allow it to get to a greater audience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afcbournemouth (talk • contribs)
- As a firm follower of pub-ball, (its correct name steve!), i would like to argue the case to keep it on wikipedia, so that it can grow in stature. It being a completely amateur sport means that any and all are welcome to participate if you can reach Asda car park — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afcbournemouth (talk • contribs) Actually it was added by a firm follower of pub football not me so dont jump to conclusions please. I added only the other two comments no need to make crap up guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afcbournemouth (talk • contribs)
- The actually idea and rules of 'Pub Football' have existed for years^{[citation needed]} and have been played by millions of people^{[citation needed]} all over England and no doubt abroad. This is simply the first recorded game which just happened to take place in a car park. Leave this on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afcbournemouth (talk • contribs) (article creator)

Delete per WP:NFT. If it grows in stature, then it'll eventually become notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia; but Wikipedia is NOT the vessel for which to spread the idea. --Firi e n § 11:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT for things invented two days ago in a car park in Totton. NawlinWiki 11:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. --HResearcher 11:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as something made up whilst drunk. -- Whpq 12:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Notnotable, even could be CSD-A1 (patent nonsense) M a rtinp23 17:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete this NN nonsense. Garrepi 20:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article may contain nonsense, but the concept of pub football isn't nonsense. It just isn't notable or the article should be merged into a relevant article. --HResearcher 23:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this should be an example in the WP:NFT page. --Daniel Olsen 03:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Alias Flood 22:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. - Pal 17:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pointless. -- MATTYTHEWHITE yap stalk 16/8/06

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

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

The result was Delete. This might seem to fly in the face of the keep-and-move opinions but there are logical reasons. 1) The article is a sub-stub; acknowledging the existence of an object doesn't make it inherently notable. 2) The website to which the article refers is still under construction, so no adaptation of information from that source can be carried out in order to flesh out the notable status of the college. 3) The author or other interested party/ies have had five days to improve the article to the point of notability and haven't done so. My conclusion to delete doesn't mean that this article shouldn't be recreated, just that a new version should include information that satisfies WP:Notability. (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Svmedicalcollege

This is a webpage, not an encyclopedia entry. I see no way this could ever conceivably be converted to an encyclopedic entry. FunnyYetTasty 11:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What? SVMC stands for Sri Venkateswara Medical College. It is a college, not simply a website. Yes, there is a website for the medical college. The article needs severe copyediting as it only seems to be talking about the alumni and their website yet doesn't say anything about the college itself. What needs to be determined is if this college is notable or not. --HResearcher 11:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'll acknowledge the existence of the medical college, but there this simply nothing in this article that is worth keeping. Wikipedia is not an alumni blog which is what this article is currently -- Whpq 12:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep — or maybe 'delete unless it can be rewritten M a rtinp23 20:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm willing to rewrite it. --HResearcher 23:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have re-written it into a stub, so it should be kept. Today I read from another editor that all high schools are notable, from that I would extrapolate that all colleges are notable. What is the policy on colleges? --HResearcher 02:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't about the college - this is one class of the college trying to use Wikipedia as an online address book. It's not even the full name of the college, so it would have to redir into the correct, full name. Medical school grads should know what Wikipedia is and is not, and it is not their alumni reuntion coordination page. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 22:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is about a college now. --HResearcher 02:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep ~~is it a notable Indian medical college? If it is notable then~~ the article should be moved to Sri Venkateswara Medical College. --HResearcher 23:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stub and move - There obviously is a college by this name, we should leave the stub (better than nothing) and move it to the correct place. A short article that can grow in the right place is infinitely better than no article. --Daniel Olsen 04:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move as per HResearcher and Daniel. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per above. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}18:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Sri Venkateswara Medical College and Delete Svmedicalcollege. utcursch | talk 12:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question : What about adding the place to the title of this article ? I suppose there are more than one SVMCs and SVECs in India ? Tintin (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeltana Saga

None of the books are published yet, article written by the author. I suggested that he make a copy of the article so he can re-submit after publication. --SB_Johnny

Delete - no published work yet. -- Whpq 12:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per Fuhghettaboutit. Kafziel 16:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per above M a rtinp23 20:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 22:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Author has copied the article, and agrees to re-submit later. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 01:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SynergeticMaggot 00:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Le Tigre Clothing

Advert for Tigre brand. Author removed prod with no attempts to prove WP:N, WP:CORP, WP:V, WP:RS. Lots of hits on Google but all shopping, selling, price compare sites. Mattisse (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not actually the author, but I removed the prod. The website shows plenty of non-advert media mentions, I just haven't been able to accurately identify the publications yet. Obviously notable in any regard, and easily sourced with some effort. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup — Needs rewording - really does sound like an advert M a rtinp23 13:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is atrociously written but the subject is notable. wikipediatrix 14:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs cleanup, sure, but that's not what AFD is for. Jacqui ^★ 16:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, it needs cleaning up. It does not read like an ad, it is simply informative.

* Keep. The wording came from the original website before it was updated the other day. One vote per AfD please :) SynergeticMaggot 06:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bad Spellers

Can't see that it meets WP:BAND; also appears to violate WP:VANITY

Delete as nominator. Neier 12:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 12:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with shows in Japan and the U.S., meets touring requirement of WP:MUSIC... also, no proof it violates WP:VANITY (yes, the author's username is the same as a band member, but that could be an homage, and not necessarily the musician himself... couldn't I just as easily call myself User:Bono and start editing the U2 article?) PT ^(s-s-s-s) 15:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Here is their list of shows. While they have played in multiple countries, they haven't gone on an "international tour" in the traditional sense, so it's not clear they meet WP:BAND (the burden of proof is on the article to satisfy the requirements). Fireplace 16:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I have seen the list of shows. If that is all it takes to go on an "international tour", Wikipedia is soon to be flooded with entries by every Seattle/Vancouver band with gas money. Neier 22:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep — I'm satisfied that they are (just about) international enough M a rtinp23 20:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs to be wikified and copyedited. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 22:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Doesn't meet WP:BAND per discussion above. Fireplace 22:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per parsssseltongue, Martinp23, and BaseballBaby. --HResearcher 02:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete misses WP:band; loose definition of international tour. And taking into consideration possible vanity, the record can be re-created if they more fully meet the standards. --Kunzite 01:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above comments. Mallanox 23:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crawley Moped Roundabout Video

A short clip of someone getting hurt is far beneath the suitability for article status on Wikipedia. Surely we are not going to have an article every time a YouTube video gets [insert large number] of views, even if someone in the media reports on it? I support internet meme articles that have stood the test of the time (ie. wasnt forgotten about 2 days later), but this isnt one of them. Remy B 12:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even though I support the growth of the YouTube article, this has one news report (when multiple, independent, reliable, non-trivial, third-party sources are needed), and uses a discussion forum as it's secondary source...which by WP:V and WP:RS is not acceptable. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 13:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom M a rtinp23 14:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Bschott, SB_Johnny, and Martinp23. --HResearcher 02:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have addressed stated concerns above about sources by adding multiple, verifiable third party sources— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.25.116.40 (talk • contribs)
Comment There are not multiple, verifiable, reliable, independent third-party publications on this. For one the BBC report just restates the local article, and you have forgotten that multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage. It still fails the given reasons --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 17:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to above comment I disagree. The BBC story may well be the result of secondary research, however the Surrey Online article is a new development and features interviews with the protagonists after the event. These are therefore different sources that inform parts of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.25.116.40 (talk • contribs) Sign your posts
Comment After an IP search, it seems the IP 193.25.116.40 is also the ip of the person whom posted this to YouTube. We may be dealing with WP:V here. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 14:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to above comment If you do some basic research, for example a whois or a visit to this IP's talk page, you'll see that this is part of a bank of IPs used by hundreds of public libraries in the UK. Are you suggesting that this IP posted the original video to YouTube? I'd like to know how you found the IPs from YouTube's servers. Also, the geographical distance between the location of the incident and this IP would suggest to me that you're wrong. The only violation here is your attempt to bend the rules to get rid of an article you don't personally favour. The article is as valid as many other internet meme articles and should stay - your attempt to use the rules around original research have failed and now you're resorting to other tactics. Exactly the kind of thing the wikipedia community can do without. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.25.116.40 (talk • contribs)

Comment' It isn't that hard to get an ip from a user account on YouTube. Now if you are not the exact person, I appologize, however you are making assumptions on motive which you should not do, and this still fails WP:V and WP:WEB, and possibly the sources/citation part of WP:OR --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 15:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the benefit of hindsight, talk of this in the media seems to have bubbled under somewhat. Mallanox 23:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. *drew 05:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fl owerparty^☀ 16:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar se cae

This is a video of a kid falling in water and a bunch of people then watched it - how can this possibly qualify as an encyclopedic topic? This sort of "internet phenomenon" is going to happen hundreds, if not thousands, of times in the next few years - are we going to make articles for all of those as well? Remy B 12:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't push, I want to cross this bridge. But do delete this article.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 12:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we've already got a separate article for every CD in the world that's sold more than 100 copies... I think we can do without articles about every YouTube clip. (Though maybe someone should start a wiki for them on wikicites). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke it...my strongest form of delete-fu. Seriously though, this fails all three of the main Wikipedia pillar rules. While I am all for expanding the YouTube article, this cruft is not helping matters any. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 14:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom - I've voted on three such AfD's today for videos like this - it seems like something which could become a major WP problem. M a rtinp23 15:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps the standards on these internet phenomenons are too low?—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 15:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My thoughts exacly, Soothing. I'm thinking we may be on the cusp of a video article flood. I AfD'd a video last week, then two more popped up. Now we have these Three, and a YouTube user I also AfD'd (but seems like will be kept because the WP:BIO standards are way too low, and there are no time standards)--Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 15:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --HResearcher 02:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should keep it, if you delete this you might as well delete "star wars kid", "numa numa" and all others internet phenomenoms that are equally stupid a senseless. But the point here is to document it and give access and share stuff with other people, what better way to do that than leaving this article up, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.133.189.117 (talk • contribs)
- Comment. I would think most people agree that even if there is no strict line drawn, the Star Wars Kid is way above it, and this video of a kid crying in water is way below it. Remy B 08:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment.Dear anon, thanks for your contribution. However, I strongly suggest you take a look at WP:NOT. "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising".—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 09:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable (and bad PR for Edgars everywhere). --Ed (Edgar181) 20:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not as notable as Star Wars Kid etc. Also quite a bit more cruel. –Andyluciano 17:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If there are sources of radio and mass media coverage in Mexico as the article states, then this is a definite and obvious keep. Only problem is that, personally, my spanish isn't good enough to do the searching. Sparsefarce 21:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. If it attains the same level of attention that Star Wars kid has received we can bring it back then. RFerreira 22:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Something doesn't have to be at the Star Wars kid level in America to justify inclusion, though. If this is Mexico's Star Wars kid, it should be in here. (keep in mind, i have no idea if the claims made in this article are true) Sparsefarce 22:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't argue with that. If sources can be provided that demonstrate this has a fair claim to notability in Mexico I will withdraw my delete "vote". RFerreira 22:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Star Wars kid's notoriety has crossed national and linguistic barriers. That of other internet phenoms has as well. Edgarcito has not. If he were as notable as Star Wars kid it would have wider knowledge in the Anglophone world. (Star Wars kid actually started in Francophone Canada.) –Andyluciano 02:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, my patience with things like this is wearing thin! Mallanox 23:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thought that there are multiple things like this almost frightens me. What other things are you referring to? RFerreira 21:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy KEEP WP:SNOW we've debated this too often, too recently. -Doc 14:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Beesley

Angela Beesley was nominated for deletion on 2005-04-01. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley.

Angela Beesley was nominated for deletion on 2005-10-19. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (2nd nomination).

Angela Beesley was nominated for deletion on 2006-07-12. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (3rd nomination).

Speedy Delete, Recreate and redirect to Wikia - While she may or may not be notable i cannot find any indiction she is really notable. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 12:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has changed since the prior discussion. For the reasons given twice before, which still stand, keep. Uncle G 13:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination number four. Delete, I say. If Angela was a former boardmember of any other website in the top twenty of Alexa, this article would have been deleted a long time ago. It may also be interesting to note that two out of three previous nominations were made by Angela Beesley herself.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 13:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — nn M a rtinp23 13:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Fourth nomination, short time after the last one closed, and with no new arguments presented for deletion on this nom. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has any article ever been deleted after being kept thrice? WilyD 14:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CowboyNeal (moved to Jonathan Pater)

Why's this page still here after two years? Anyway, this article should be gotten rid of due to the simple fact that this selfproclaimed cowboy does not pass any criteria let out in WP:BIO.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 13:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — CSD A7 (but disputed) M a rtinp23 13:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - based on my ignorance of the term "editor" in Slashdot (confusing it with a wikipedia editor (duh!)), I voted delete earlier. It's pointed out below that I made a mistake, and so I'm changing my vote to reflect that M a rtinp23 14:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DOES NOT MEAT CSD A7!!! just google "cowboyneal", honestly. i kan reed 13:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- An assertation of notability needs to be made, and nowhere in the article in question does it say that Cowboyneal is a cofounder of slashdot, just mentioning him as an editor. I have changed my vote above to reflect your disagreement with it. M a rtinp23 14:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- There are 2, such assertions, however, the article probably needs {{context}} more than deletion. I'll see what I can do in that regards. The two assertions(if weak ones) are that he's an editor of slashdot, which in notability is about the same as being an editor for the new york times(maybe that's slightly overdoing it, but my guess would be about the same readership levels on both things). Then again, I may be overestimating slashdot's importance. I'd still go with strong keep.

Strong keep Partial founder of Slashdot, which more than meets WP:CORP and WP:WEB, additionally, a used as a strong part of the slashdot subculture(for things like "cowboyneal option" and such). Good faith, but poorly informed nomination. i kan reed 13:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the "cowboyneal option" is not really a good assertion of notability (not to merit its own article, at least). However, I could see why being co-founder of Slashdot would be. I'm not withdrawing my nomination though. I've tried to verify this using Google, but it has proven impossible. If someone can do this nonetheless, then I'll be willing to withdraw this afd.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 15:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable, or at least as notable as other kept junk, or merge into Slashdot. Also, it is not a fluke that the article has been around for two years with two dozen editors passing through and none of them tagging it for deletion. Also, note that CSD is specifically for unremarkable people or vanity pages, and the "assertion" requirement is a further restriction beyond that. It is not designed to delete articles about notable people which happen to not make a strong assertion of notability. While the CSD is prone to this error, if there is some indication that the person is in fact notable (and the person tagging or deleting should check), then it does not qualify. —Centrx→talk • 14:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Slashdot is notable, but a convincing case for Cowboyneal's notability has not been made. Editors are not automatically notable, even if they're editing something popular. wikipediatrix 14:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. More notable than the GNAA. Gamaliel 15:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep or Merge per Gamaliel. --HResearcher 02:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the nominator has to ask "Why's this page still here after two years", they should also consider that maybe, just maybe, the answer to that question is "the person in question is notable". Being a cofounder, editor, and notable personality (as in "that guy from the poll options") at Slashdot is notable enough in my book. Spend a while in Slashdot, and you're bound to run into him. (Disclosure: ~WWWWolf, Slashdot user #2428 =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if somebody can provided a citation that he's a co-founder of Slashdot, otherwise delete. Very poor article, but if he's really a co-founder of Slashdot that's all the notability we need. I've renamed and slight-tidied the article to make it look more like a conventional biography than a piece of fancruft. --kingboyk 13:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That could be tricky - most places, including Slashdot's own FAQ, give CmdrTaco as the sole founder. - makomk 13:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, Delete per Wikipediatrix. --kingboyk 13:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep this can probably be moved back to cowboyneal for the same reason eazy-e is not eric lynn wright Yuckfoo 22:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep easily. // Gargaj 22:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. --Myles Long 22:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Duh Keep ALKIVAR™ 00:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. CowboyNeal is an integral and engrained part of Slashdot and its culture. Yamaguchi先生 00:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Squarepeg

Non-notable playground game. No Google results referring to this. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, which this quite literally is. Created by a brand-new user who may not have been aware of Wikipedia's standards for notability. Kafziel 13:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NawlinWiki 13:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article describes a ball game. It cites no sources at all, and I can find no sources describing this game. The problem with this article is nothing to do with notability. WP:NFT is unrelated to notability. It does not mention notability at all. The problem with this article are the problems with this sort of article that WP:NFT discusses, namely that it is unverifiable and, being the never-before-published documentation for a novel game, original research. The place for this is the author's own web site, not Wikipedia. Delete. Uncle G 13:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom -- Whpq 14:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see square which sits under Playground Games for reference to this game. I was unable to cite square as there is direct link to it on Wikipeadia (this is my first time at creating a new entry) -- user:Jamieparkins
- If you wish to demonstrate that this is not original research, please cite sources. Wikipedia is not a source. Please cite a book or an article in an academic journal that describes this purported game. Uncle G 15:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — WP:OR and NN M a rtinp23 20:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 19:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RightsLogic

I added a prod and a {{advertisement}} template. the prod was per WP:CORP both were removed without explanation and at the time of AFDing, the NPOV issues from advertisement had not been dealt with i kan reed 13:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fire, WP:SPAM. Add some Ketchup and you've got a sandwich. WilyD 14:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke/Delete it. Throw that sandwich in this microwave with some cheese and you have a better sandwich ;). Seriously, I thought this article was better suited for an advertisement in a magazine --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 14:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spamvertising. NawlinWiki 14:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Spam is icky, but I think this company is notable in the context of digital rights management, which can also be icky. Sometimes articles that arrive as spam turn out to be dealing with something notable, and I think that's what happened here. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "I think this company is notable" is a subjective judgement, not an application of a notability criterion. Notability is not subjective. Uncle G 01:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom M a rtinp23 18:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to add more informative content to make it less spam like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikwe (talk • contribs) 2006-08-15 18:25:08
- What you should be adding are sources. Please cite sources to show that this company has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works from sources that are independent of the company. See WP:CORP and User:Uncle G/On notability#Tips_for_editors. Uncle G 00:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm deleting the category though since it's clearly just a way to circumvent a deletion discussion and doesn't function as a category (it's just a copy of the list's contents). - Bobet 10:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of engineering science and mechanics topics

This list would be better as a category; easier to maintain and no added value as a list. Also, highly POV as to which topics to be included - creator has already had major change of mind {see here} - arbitrary lists are not encyclopaedic. Delete. BlueValour 14:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Listcruft. --DrTorstenHenning 14:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Lists aren't bad. Wikipedia isn't paper. The list captures potential areas of expansion and thus is useful. I don't see how this particular list is POV (can someone explain that - with a specific topic from this list as an example). I don't see how the user who created the article pruning it has anything to do with the article having a place in wikipedia. Also the list isn't arbitrary it clearly states what it should contain - like hundreds of other "list of X topics" lists - see List of mathematical topics in classical mechanics - even better Category:Mathematics-related lists. Additionally the article was in existance for less than 24 hours before it was prodded - why not give it some time to develop rather than judging it based on the fact it's a new article ? Can anyone give some actual deletion criteria ? Megapixie 15:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the early Prod was a considerative act; much better to Prod early than wait until the creator has wasted extra time. I suspect that the creator may not have been aware of the power and flexibility of categories. All the creator needs to do is to make a category (hey, I'll do that now) and produce stubs for those that are red linked. It is POV because you have an arguement as to what is included; if this list remains I shall be making changes. With categories you have much more flexibility because x-discipline topics can be in multi-categories. The time that lists have a role is when substantial annotations are made; not the case here. BTW thanks for pointing out that Wikipedia isn't paper; I'd missed that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlueValour (talk • contribs) .

Comment WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia - I thought you might have missed it. How is it any more POV than a category ? An article can be in two categories - it can also be in two lists - how does it make any difference ? Why can't you produce an example topic from this article whose inclusion in the category is POV ? I'm still waiting for you to produce a stub for Superfluid hydrodynamics that isn't going to get prodded/speedied (A1) for either being too short or inaccurate in about 10 seconds. Can you address my points:

What is an example from this list of a subject whose inclusion is POV ?
Why is it impossible to include a subject in two list ?
Other than your personal feeling, where is the guideline/policy page that says categories are better suited for this purpose ?
How are stubs written on the subject of Vortex dynamics, Penetration dynamics, Impact mechanics and Functionally graded materials going to last 10 minutes, when they are written by someone who knows nothing about them ?
How are you going to work out what redlink subjects might have been included in the list, if the creator (and other users) had been given time to develop it ?

I put "weak keep" - because I don't feel too strongly that the list is actually worth keeping - I just don't think the criteria you are citing for deletion are valid. Megapixie 22:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category would be much better for this purpose. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 22:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list is is not so different in nature from other lists of engineering topics, e.g., List of engineering topics, List of aerospace engineering topics, List of biomedical engineering topics, List of mechanical engineering topics and so on. If this article is to be deleted then so should those be, which would be ultimately unfortunate. Perhaps, this is an instance of non-experts assuming the mantle of expertise. The nature of engineering topics is that they are interdisciplinary and therefore not prone to absolute classification. Such fuzzy boundaries on lists are not unhelpful if the context in which they are generated is clarified.

I might add that a dismissive "Listcruft" comment is unhelpful, since as a label it does not add any substance to the arguments that have already been presented, pro or con, by others. --esmhead 12:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, lists and categories serve different functions. No article is "owned" by its creator, so if the current selection is POV knowledgeable editors should feel free to fix it. -- Visviva 15:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this list has now been copied across to an identical category making the List redundant. I take the point of Visviva that lists can have different functions but that is not the case here and the category has the benefit of being easier to maintain and more likely to stay up to date. BlueValour 23:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus Mango juice^talk 05:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Megaprojects and risk

probable spam Cate 14:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some users (sockpupets?) spammed a lot of pages on this and other articles, mainly book of the same authors. I don't think we need a review of a book. A reference on relative topic is enought. Cate 14:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant topic is in Megaproject article, but it is copyvio. Cate 14:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have copyedited the article. --HResearcher 03:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Book on serious topic, published by Cambridge University Press. NawlinWiki 14:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the topic is worth an article, it should not have to be a book review (advertisement?). --DrTorstenHenning 14:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the topic comes up often in US media... I'm pretty sure these guys have been interviewed on NPR, etc. Might be good to check for copyvio though, as it reads like a book jacket. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — The article provides no real information on the topic in tis title - just a book review. It should be deleted and replaced withan article about the topic - not an article about a book about the topic. Also, there appear to be some copyvios in the article (just after a quick google search) M a rtinp23 15:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per NawlinWiki and SB_Johnny. --HResearcher 02:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Megaprojects. --HResearcher 03:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is stubby, but the book is worth an entry. I've done a much more comprehensive review which I'll use for an extended article JQ 05:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --james^(talk) 03:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melchior Borg

Not notable Kierenj 14:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep — The fact that he has been a member of bands which are considered notable enough to have articles on wikipedia should make him able to pass WP:MUSIC, but perhaps, judging by the size of the article, it should be merged into Erythuria (if it is created and survives) or Beheaded. M a rtinp23 16:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Melchior Borg is a death metal vocalist and has been in Beheaded, Despised, and Erythuria. Some notability is established, but how notable is he? --HResearcher 03:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, but I can't seem to find what happens next - the AFD page doesn't explain who decides the outcome, who executes the delete, etc... I'd assume its an Adminstrator after 'x' days? Thanks. Kierenj 09:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The notice that you yourself placed on the article links to the Guide to deletion. Please read it. Uncle G 09:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - After 5 days, or when a clear consensus is reached (eg speedy something), and admin will close the discussion. If the consensus doesn't require an admin to be carried out (ie deletion), it is usually permissible for any user to close the discussion (especially if it is a clear "keep"). Alternatively, the nominating user can withdraw his nomination and the AfD will be closed by an admin or user to reflect this. Hope this helps M a rtinp23 10:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Individually his contributions to music may not look like much but he has clearly made an impact to be involved in so many high profile acts. Mallanox 23:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 17:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

15 Westferry Circus

Non-notable office building Wildthing61476 14:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Research the Canary Wharf complex and you'll find It is indeed notable. Admittedly this is a small post but it's going to grow, don't kill a baby before it's born. phillprice 14:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see anything in the article that establishes notability, and I do not have the time and money to go to London and research the Canary Wharf complex. --DrTorstenHenning 14:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tube Lines is Silver Control for the London Underground used in 7/7/2005. Home of the Emergency Response Unit for the London Underground. One of the original members of the Canary Wharf complex. Should we delete everything we don't know about in other countries Torsten? --phillprice 14:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. What is special about Silver Control? If the building in question is the HQ of the Emergency Response Unit, it might be mentioned in an article on said unit. Likewise, if the notability stems from belonging to Canary Wharf, mentioning it in the Canary Wharf article should be sufficient. I am not saying that the info should not be in Wikipedia, I simply doubt that the building is worth an article of its own in an encyclopedia. --DrTorstenHenning 14:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a discussion of Tube Lines, and has no bearing upon the building that it leases. Uncle G 15:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Are there many articles about buildings like this? What are the criteria for notability? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See 969 Hayes Street (AfD discussion). Uncle G 14:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - This was based on original research, which has been fixed. Phillprice 18:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I work in the building and am probably biased. I clicked through to the dead page from another article and thought I'd help build the facility. Should I simply delete the link? Silver Control is the 2nd level of control for LU in the case of major disaster. Gold is in Whitehall Phillprice 14:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe a group of people can decide to delete a building from histroy because of it's notability. Take a look for a photo of Caary Wharf, it's in the skyline from the West angle, part of the original development now overshadowed by other towers whos notability is only height. Phillprice 15:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We aren't deleting the building from history, it's just not notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. Uncle G's example is a perfect example why. Wildthing61476 15:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - So should it just be left as 3 words somewhere in Wikipedia, or is there some sort of funky Stub to use, bearing in mind it would mean a differen tpage linking to seperate buildings, or te redev of an existing page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillprice (talk • contribs) 2006-08-15 15:14:04
- A photograph is irrelevant. For an encyclopaedia article we need sources, sources, sources. The only sources that I can find are things like this and this, which are essentially devoid of any useful content for constructing an encyclopaedia article. It's a building. It was built, sold, and leased to various people. Most buildings are. Wikipedia is not intended to be a directory of every street address in the world. An encyclopaedia article requires published histories or analyses of the building. Rather than asking people to "research Canary Wharf" or "look at a photo", please cite sources. To demonstrate that this building is notable, show that it has been noted. Uncle G 16:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated Notoriety and sources cited Phillprice 17:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not particularly notable. Simply housing a company branch or whatever doesn't really make it notable. Wickethewok 15:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there are a lot of Wikilinks to this page. WilyD 15:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ... many if not most of them generated by the Canary Wharf navigation box ... --DrTorstenHenning 15:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok it's up to you. I'll happily grow the page but I'm not going to until the delete box is removed. Or should I knock th ebuilding down in order to remove it from the navigation box? Phillprice 16:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply not-notable, eps. per UncleG. Eusebeus 16:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that what I wrote was merely an encouragement to the authors to actually present some sources to demonstrate that this is a notable building, as claimed. Since then, sources have been added to the article. Please look at the sources presented. Uncle G 09:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Silver Control is notable. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete falls short of my personal criteria (as there is not accepted criteria) for inclusion of buildings. - IsoTope23
Added 15 Mile marker (ironic!) of London Marathon and sources for the Silver control. Referenced Phillprice 17:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — If it houses a notable org. like Silver Control, it sohuld stay M a rtinp23 20:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Millions of buildings around the world house notable organizations. Heck, every building in a downtown area usually houses a notable business of some sort. Wickethewok 13:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this and the other articles listed in the template at the bottom into one article on the buildings of Canary Wharf. Grutness...wha? 01:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per Grutness's suggestion. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 01:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phillprice, TruthbringerToronto, and Martinp23 or Merge per Grutness and SB_Johnny. --HResearcher 03:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this article is interesting and informative in its own right, its deletion would be a pointless exercise.Timredman 20:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Timredman (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
Keep A worthwhile part of Wikipedia's coverage of Canary Wharf, and it is better to have the details on the individual buildings in separate articles so that the main article can concentrate on the main points. Piccadilly 17:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's a beautiful building and deserves a better picture. For those who claim non-notability, surely a good looking building deserves to go in an encyclopaedia as much as a painting or sculpture? I realise beauty is in the eye of the beholder but it is at least unique. Mallanox 23:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Everard

Is Wikipedia really a directory of everyone remotely connected to sports, such as physiotherapists? What's next? Dentists of Nobel laureates? No, sorry, I consider physiotherapists not notable. --DrTorstenHenning 14:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable NawlinWiki 14:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not covered in any independent sources (only those connected to the team, and only passing mentions). Kafziel 14:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom -- Whpq 15:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont delete a physiotherapist is important to the team, becasue they help the players get over injuries and warrants a non deletion user:Kieran Petty 17:58,15 August 2006
- Can you offer a reason that is in keeping with our guidelines? By the way, when offering an opinion at AfD, it is considered good form to make it clear that you are the author of the article in question. Kafziel 17:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence that subject meets WP:BIO. Insert your own "what's next?" comment here. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Ohconfucius 03:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. the author cannot spell: Please refer to physiotherapy.[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Love story 2050

Not notable; a film yet to be released, and completely unnotable, this is not encyclopaedic content Kierenj 14:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The magic ~~'8'~~ Crystal Ball says, Delete. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 14:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who am I to argue with the magic Crystal Ball? Delete. NawlinWiki 14:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article consists of unsourced statements and rumours about a movie that is not even in production yet. -- Whpq 15:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — WP:NOT Crystal ball M a rtinp23 15:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as film by notable director which per IMDb has been announced, so is not completely crystal ball. Tonywalton | Talk 15:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it is announced, but that is all, and there is no content except speculation, -- Whpq 17:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Never heard of this 'notable' director. Film would have doubtful notability even when released. DJ Clayworth 16:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never heard of him either, but thankfully neither you nor I are classed as verifiable sources. As director of numerous Bollywood films per IMDb he appears notable, and speculation as to whether a film will or will not be notable following its release really is crystal ball. Tonywalton | Talk 16:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, Bschott, NawlinWiki, and Whpq. Anyway, is the director not notable just because DJ Clayworth never heard of him? How notable is the director? If this film is notable, time will tell and then the article can be created if notable. --HResearcher 03:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was to keep as a redirect to Notability. -- Denelson 83 08:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notablity

I recommend this page for Speedy Delete because it is a mispelling of Notability. I already created a redirect from Notability (properly spelled) this page is not necessary Valoem ^talk 14:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - they're cheap -- Whpq 15:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect — A redirect is done - do we really need an AfD? M a rtinp23 16:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was looking for a speedy delete because this is a misspelling. A misspelling should not be a redirect. Redirects are normally for alternate names. Valoem ^talk 19:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment common mispellings are a valid reason to rcreate a redirect as per WP:REDIRECT. One could debate whether this particular error in spelling is common, but I would say that the very fact somebody created an article spelled incorrectly in this way is sufficient. -- Whpq 19:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Whpq. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 22:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should have been nominated for RfD not AfD my apologies. It's not vandalism is if move this to RfD is it? Valoem ^talk 23:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Whpq, Martinp23, and BaseballBaby. --HResearcher 03:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Team Money Forum

Advertisement created by User:Dreamrteammoney; less than 10 Google hits for this "famous" forum [46]. Fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Prodded, prod removed (together with part of the most objectionable content) by anon. Delete --Huon 14:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, spam spam spam. NawlinWiki 14:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete — a tin of spam M a rtinp23 14:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam -- Whpq 15:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Smerdis of Tlön 19:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it is vanispamcruftisement. Ryūlóng 02:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, even though I'm the primary author for this article, but I hope to see any proposal to improve the article instead of shouting for deletion with personal feeling (At least this is my feeling when I see those comments above). DreamTeamMoney 05:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verifiable Notablity can be proven. --HResearcher 03:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, "Article provide good information on the money making world." Investment 09:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam. Korg (talk) 05:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 17:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empire Online

Spamvertising for online casino company; creator originally spammed links to gambling sites to other WP articles; when I removed them, he posted this [47] on my talkpage, proposing that Wikipedia become a "business partner" of his company. NawlinWiki 14:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Response Given User:2005's cleanup of the article, and given that the company seems to meet WP:CORP, I am willing to withdraw the AFD nomination. I did not, however, "create an inappropriate AFD" -- when I created the AFD, the article was the older, spammy version created by the "looney affiliate". There's nothing wrong or uncommon about a result of an AFD being an improved article that no longer needs to be deleted. NawlinWiki 19:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually you did not put the afd on the older/spammy article, which is the reason for the response. You put a prod on the crap article, but that was completely removed and a full, useful article put in its place, which only then had the afd inappropriately added, with the obsolete comment about the nutjob writing in your user talk. I suspect that you added the afd when you saw the prod wasn't there, but didn't read the new article. In any case though, the first one was useless but what is there now is just a normal, referenced article about a major business. 2005 19:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Some more output from the spam factory M a rtinp23 15:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spam -- Whpq 15:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Spamless article about major publicly traded company. Please in the future don't create inappropriate Afd's about versions of articles that no longer exist. 2005 16:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This article is spam, and I would advise people to read the link to Nawlinwiki's talk page where the company asked to become a 'partner' of wikipedia. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 17:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The COMPANY didn't ask to "partner" with the Wikipedia. C'mon now, lets not be ridiculous. Regardless of what some looney affiliate did, an afd is about the article in place, not one that doesn't exist. I strongly suggest you actually read the article instead of some nonsense on a talk page. 2005 18:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The company is notable by virtue of being publicly traded and a major player in the online gaming industry. What the user posted on someone's talk page is irrelevant to whether or not the article in question is spam; this should be a discussion of the merits of the article and whether or not the subject is notable, not whether or not the person who originally drafted the article had bad intentions. (Also, comments like "spam" with no other input aren't really helpful here.) Rray 18:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Rray --Edgelord 19:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I remain unconvinced that the corporation is notable enough to merit an article. Being listed on the London Stock Exchange may not meet WP:CORP, since that exchange also has an "alternative" listing freed from many regulatory requirements, and the policy requires being included on a major index for automatic listing. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The company's public status is not the only reason for its notability. The company is a major player in the online gaming industry as well. The two combined make the article notable enough to keep. Their total net revenue for Q1 of 2006 was $21.1 million according to Sharecast. They're also extensively covered by Casino City, which is a major player in online gaming new coverage. Rray 00:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Being listed on a stock exchange is not a notability criterion. Neither is having a revenue over some arbitrary threshold. The criteria for companies and corporations are laid out in WP:CORP. Uncle G 00:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." Empire Online has been the subject of articles in Financial Times and Card Player. In the context of the business world, Financial Times is non-trivial, and in the context of the gambling industry, Card Player is non-trivial. Rray 02:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Better. But WP:CORP says nothing about the publisher. It is the work that must be non-trivial. A simple offhand one-sentence mention as an aside in Financial Times does not qualify. But a full-length feature article on the company does. Please cite your sources so that other editors can see what articles you are actually talking about. Uncle G 09:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Since the person who originally nominated this article for deletion has withdrawn that nomination for deletion, I think this is unnecessary at this point. (There's considerable support for keeping this article from some of the Wikipedians here who are familiar with the online gaming industry too.) The article itself has multiple citations and footnotes now anyway. Rray 14:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rray and 2005. Essexmutant 20:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per 2005, Rray, Edgelord, and Essexmutant; and the nominator (NawlinWiki) response above. --HResearcher 03:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:CORP, but reads like an ad. Nickieee 07:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SynergeticMaggot 00:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King Kaufman

Subject's sole "claim to fame" is a sports column for Salon.com. This is a minor feature and merits at most a mention on the Salon page, with King Kaufman left as a redirect. The article was {{prod}}-ed and since attracted a lot of edits because Kaufman published a column about the article. NTK 14:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Kaufman's column is not a minor feature—it gets daily billing near the top of the page. NTK makes his bias clear on the talk page: Perhaps I am biased because his column bores me and I rarely even glance at it. Just because he is the sports columnist for Salon doesn't make him some sort of authority, Salon is not a sports magazine and the column seems to be a "cover-the-bases" afterthought. Well, I'm also a Salon Premium subscriber, and Kaufman's column is the biggest single reason that I am. It's ridiculous to say that a major columnist at a major online magazine is non-notable, and the article is in pretty good shape after only a short period of work. --Coneslayer 15:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note also Patrick Smith (columnist), who only has a weekly column. (No, this is not an invitation to afd that, too.) -- Coneslayer 15:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Isoxyl 15:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Salon.com is a highly notable website, putting its significant contributors on the radar. Being the only sports columnist is more significant than if it had a staff of part-timers. For Salon.com subscribers, he is their only Salon.com voice in sports. He may not have any claim to fame outside of this, but this is definitely a claim to fame. "Sports" is definitely NOT a minor feature. - CobaltBlueTony 15:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — and merge relevant content to Salon.com. Maybe Salon.com is notable - maybe Kaufman's column itself is notable, but I feel that he in himself is not notable to merit a whole article. I'm pretty sure that there isn't a page for every sports columnist on every online news site on wikipedia, and there's nothing different here. M a rtinp23 15:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Major columnist on a major website. Seems to meet WP:BIO Wildthing61476 15:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable enough. NawlinWiki 15:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major sports columnist, major website = notable. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 22:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the primary columnists on one of the primary web journals. --Jajasoon 03:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Coneslayer, Isoxyl, CobaltBlueTony, Wildthing61476, NawlinWiki, BaseballBaby, and Jajasoon. --HResearcher 04:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major writer for major news outlet. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Kaufman is fairly well-known and widely read in sports circles. I've seen him referenced dozens of times by other sports writers. --BukkWylde 18:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kafziel 01:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freight & Shipping

I feel that this page looks like an advertisement. Noyghou 14:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Copyvio of advertising from [48]. Kafziel 15:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, copyvio/spamvertising. NawlinWiki 15:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete — Copyvio/spam M a rtinp23 15:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of PCs For Sale with Linux

Promotional, mostly red links, commercial external links, little value. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-15 14:59Z

Neutral it's not inherently listcruft. the abundance of external and red links is against it, but it is verifiable and something that readers might want to know. i kan reed 15:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Sleepyhead 15:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as only a single link on the page is not a red link. Perhaps a list of manufacturers offering PCs with Linux pre-installed would be better. - Thorne N. Melcher 15:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I DID have  a list of OEMs (Hardware+software) for Linux PCs.
I had them listed as external links at the bottom just like other articles with other PCs like Windows and Apple.
I think it is unfair to omit these computer manufacturers.

Other models of computers in other articles are listed such as: 

Apple Computer, Apple II, Apple Lisa, and Apple Macintosh Xerox Star Osborne  Acorn Archimedes  RiscPC Atari ST BeOS BeBox Pegasos NEC PC-9800 NeXT workstations Sun SPARCstation SGI Indigo and SGI Onyx

It is unfair to not list Linux PC models.

cc http://www.thetc.org/ 

cyber_rigger

There's nothing architecturally significant about a PC running Linux. Usually it's just an IBM PC compatible running an x86 Linux distribution. All of the computers you mentioned are in some way notable or architecturally significant. The article under consideration was just a list of computer models and commercial links. Its similar in concept (though not in scale) to creating a List of PC models that run Microsoft Windows. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-08-15 20:35Z

Delete per nom. Has no sources to suggest the list is either correct or complete, and by its nature inherently cannot be maintained. -- Slowmover 20:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources, empty links to manufacturers which are of no help, non-verifiable, and generic Personal computer keeps getting added to this list, which is extremely unhelpful --Brat32 21:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of manufacturers offering Linux-based PCs might be maintainable (though it might still be nonencyclopedic); but trying to maintain a list of individual models seems hopeless. Kickaha Ota 15:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John DeWitt (postmaster) and Hillrey Adams

Delete per WP:BIO. Non-notable local office holder. Gamaliel 15:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Doesn't pass WP:BIO M a rtinp23 15:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is an obvious response to a comment I made on the Ted Kennedy talk page. By the way Gamaliel just to let you know I haven't even read what your response was to my comment. I don't plan to either because I could care less. Now you can go after some more of my articles for all I care! Cheers! Dwain 16:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Almost forgot to mention, postmasters are federally appointed in the United States and are not local office holders. Sorry. Dwain 16:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I noticed this article last night and didn't put it up for afd then because I was afraid that you'd have precisely this reaction. Then this morning I thought that my first instinct was silly and that I was assuming bad faith. After all, no one would have be immature enough to think that putting up an article on some obscure non-notable office holder for deletion was a retaliation for some innocuous talk page comments that weren't even directed at me. Sorry to see that you've proven my first negative instinct correct. Gamaliel 16:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Possible sockpuppet/imposter alert; is User:Pitchka actually User:Dwain, in which case he should choose one account to use and the other should be blocked, or is Pitchka just impersonating Dwain? (check "Dwain's" signature above) Postdlf 17:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - HELLO REALITY ALERT HERE!!! What is with you guys? You have waaay too much time on your hands pal. I'm sure like Gamaliel it was just a coincidence that you went to the User:Dwain talk page right? But nothing is up no sockpuppet use is going on. User:Pitchka links to User:Dwain page. Duh! This was done a long time ago when people were saying that Pitchka was a bad word in some language or another. There was nothing wrong with having two accounts for editing as long as the one was identified and you didn't try defrauding the system by voting multiple times. So before you get all George Bush stole the election on us just cool out and see reason. I still use Pitchka because I created many articles and wanted to be credited for those creations. Has the "rule" suddeny changed or something, or is this just for me again? Dwain 17:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF... and you all need to WP:COOL it. AfD isn't the place for mudslinging and personal disputes.--Isotope23 17:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have been very civil. Dwain 17:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - If that is your opinion, all I will say is that you have a novel concept of what constitutes civil discourse.--Isotope23 17:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Lofty speech. You guys are amazing. (Amazing in a good way mind you, I get a nice warm tingly feeling everytime I turn around) Just from the people on this page I have been accused of vandalism, called immature, threatened, accused of sockpuppetry, trolled, and attacked both personally and by reverting my edits. What kind of behavior is this? My comments are nothing compared with the behavior of several of the people who have voted for this article. In fact, I really don't care that the article is deleted. Since when is Duh a personal attack or not speaking civily? You don't like the way I think or write or talk too bad and I mean that with the greatest civility! Dwain 17:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        You get what you give. You don't want a response like that, don't act like you have been acting. Gamaliel 17:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I've responded on User Talk:Dwain and please everyone take it to the Talk page... this adds nothing of value to the AfD discussion.--Isotope23 18:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: {{db-bio}}. --Lambiam ^Talk 16:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nn. It's simply not a notable position. No one studies local postmasters so there would be no way to expand this. Postdlf 16:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject does not meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 17:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Fails WP:V, WP:OR, WP:BIO --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 17:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V and, to a more debatable extent, WP:BIO. I'm not sure whether he qualifies as a politician (aren't political figures in non-democratic countries still politicians to some extent?) but at any rate I don't find any significant independent sources. Kafziel 19:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've linked Hillrey Adams to this AfD, will the closing admin please include it? Yanksox 21:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, delete that one too; same reason. Postdlf 21:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Neither subject is notable per WP:BIO. Additionally, if I'm correct, I think I read somewhere that there are thousands of post masters in the US. Srose (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Found confirmation. See the article on postmasters - one per every post office, of which there are tens, but more likely hundreds of thousands in the US. Srose (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete both per WP:not a cat in hell's chance. Never would have imagined someone would fight so bitterly to keep two such obviously non-notable entries. The subjects are not the Postmaster General. By extention of Dwain's logic, all federally appointed people in any position would warrant inclusion, which would be patent nonsense, as WP:NOT a directory. Ohconfucius 03:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn/redirected. Further discussion should of course be on the appopriate article talk page. Wickethewok 16:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BLACK BILLIONAIRES

~~Article basically refers to two people, Robert L. Johnson and Oprah Winfrey. Info here is better put in their articles or Billionaire. NawlinWiki 15:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)~~ Withdrawing nom -- Sorry, didn't realize this had already survived AFD as African Americans whose net worth is equivalent to at least $1 billion. Will redirect. NawlinWiki 15:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move, ev. delete. I don't like all upercase title. Anyway I'm neutral, not interesting article, but probably enought encyclopedic. -- Cate 15:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not change the title. The article survived deletion nomination titled "Black Billionaires" and it's about black billionaires worldwide not America only.--Whatdoyou 15:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it secretly isn't about black billionaires worldwide, given the arbitrary choice of USD for "$1 Billion" - a Black Canadian with $979 million USD is a Black Billionaire, but is excluded from the article (I have no idea if such a person exists). WilyD 15:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Management Portal

Original research. Only goal of this article is to promote Wavelet.biz Sleepyhead 15:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom as spam. Wickethewok 15:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ it's a valid topic. Somewhere in here is a thin NPOV article struggling to escape from the O.R. Dlyons493 Talk 22:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per ^talk Dlyons493 Talk 06:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - it's a pure cut and paste of Enterprise Resource Planning with the letters "ERP" replace by "EMP". Oh, and he cut out the external links and replaced it with his own. I'd go for Speedy Delete as there is absolutely no content here that was not lifted from the other article. Kuru ^talk 00:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Kuru. Kickaha Ota 17:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as article is total copy of Enterprise resource planning as Kuru noticed. Shinhan 14:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TzHaar Fight Cave

Article is a game guide for a minigame. Should be transferred to RuneScape mini-games. Also, citations are not listed in this article. See the following pages:

No research has been done on this page AT ALL. Ed^{talk c E} 15:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you merged what you can into RuneScape mini-games? CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 15:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The RuneScape mini-games article is unreliable as it is already. We need sources on that page! Merging the information from TzHaar to minigames would only make matters worse. The main issue with all of the RuneScape articles is verifiability, am I not right?--Ed^{talk c E} 16:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if the non-cruft stuff from TzHaar Fight Cave was merged, then it is redundant, and another reason to delete. At least having completion at RuneScape mini-games is a start. Then it could be merged itself, into one of the other articles, such as Community or Locations. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a location, it's a minigame.=) Also, completing the mini-games section could be really useful. At least a summary of the mini-game would be there. But we still have to cite our sources.=( Trying to improve these articles could take a really long time.--Ed^{talk c E} 16:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but the minigames must have a physical location! :-P Anyhow, do you think there is a sufficient amount of information about the Fight Cave in Minigames? If so, i'll vote delete. (By the way, the Wikibooks link is a dead end.) CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at RuneScape mini-games. Is it not a brief summary of TzHaar Fight Cave? The only difference between the two is that TzHaar contains combat info about each of the different monsters and info only interesting to players! And there's a completely ridiculous mathematical analysis of the monsters in TzHaar Fight Cave#Monstar Data. lol Anyway, I'll be willing to transfer some info to mini-games.--Ed^{talk c E} 16:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose so. I must have been paying attention to the TzTok-Jad (however you spell it) section and wondering why that wasn't in, but I think I merged that into RuneScape monsters a while back. You could have just redirected this page to minigames though, but it might not matter. We can always create a new page as a redirect. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Redundant now that everything in it has been merged into other pages. It also contains a horrific amount of fancruft. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable/game guide. I've been hanging my nose over this article to see if anything could be leeched for the mini-games article, but there's scarcely anything except a list of monsters and a couple of nice images. It's a liability for the RS series. QuagmireDog 02:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd also like to point out that whilst the mini-games article is as of yet uncited, it can't be argued that it has been abandoned. The rough edges will be hammered out and citations will be added in due course. QuagmireDog 02:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little to say about subject, delete. ~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by J.J.Sagnella (talk • contribs)
- sign your comments, please..............--Ed^{talk c E} 13:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, got confused between 2 and 4 tides. J.J.Sagnella 15:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was strong delete, I'm really going to hit that delete button hard. - Bobet 10:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amir esmaili

No recognizable Google hits. Seems to be hoax. DJ Clayworth 15:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. This qualifies for speedy deletion under A7. I believe Amir esmaili is a student producer, as he is roughly 19 years old. Google search yields a film student of portsmouth college at #1. Fopkins | Talk 16:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Absolutely qualifies for A7 speedy deletion. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 19:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 19:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy League business schools

A new discussion is necessary. I still feel that this page represents nothing more than academic boosterism; it would be more useful as a page directing readers to the individual school pages. Nothing really notable links to the page, either. AaronS 16:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Edit: I notified interested parties of this AfD, so they will hopefully have a chance to add to the discussion. --AaronS 18:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sourced, encyclopaedic article - which is actually pretty decent. WilyD 16:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with WilyD. —ExplorerCDT 17:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merging any useful content into Ivy League. There is nothing (no precedent, no citations of common usage, etc.) establishing "Ivy League business schools" as a topic any more coherent than "Chemistry Ph.D. programs at universities founded in the 1870s". Even the most prestige-oriented of the rankings themselves don't break these schools out into a separate category. Wikipedia has a persistent problem with the creation of ill-justified articles on "Ivy League" plus X, where X can apparently be anything at all. Most of these articles -- definitely including this one -- ought to be folded into a paragraph or two in the article on the Ivy League, as that's the most interest I could imagine them having for any reader. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That analogy is, of course, false. Ivy League is a very different concept from Universities founded in the 1870s, and Business schools are not just programmes. A valid analogy might be Religiously affiliated colleges at Canadian Universities - but Schools of the 1870s fails because it's not a cohesive group, whereas Ivy League is. WilyD 18:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My analogy was, of course, a bit hyperbolic. But after looking over the article again, I can't see an article, with a coherent topic, anywhere. I see a lot of ranking-cruft and two short paragraphs under "History" that would fit well into the Ivy League article. Those claiming that this is a coherent self-contained topic might note that two Ivy League universities do not even have business schools. -- Rbellin|Talk 18:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And not every American president has had someone take a shot at them. But it still has a coherent self-contained article. WilyD 18:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- COMMENT: Agree with WilyD, again. Also, this article is far more worthwhile than say the article on sister school relationships between the residential colleges of Oxford and Cambridge. —ExplorerCDT 18:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please per wilyd the article is nice and sourced Yuckfoo 18:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why would this list be more notable than say, Pac-10 business schools which would include Stanford, Berkeley, Southern Cal, UCLA, Washington, and Oregon? Lazybum 19:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that I've heard of the PAC-10, but if France didn't have an article, would the correct action be to delete Germany or to make an article for France? WilyD 19:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - France and Germany are infinitely more important than a loose association of business schools. Lazybum 19:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - France and Germany are only finitely more important than an association of business schoools, but that's neither here nor there. If the absence of article A is sufficient in one case to argue for the deletion of article B, what changes in my hypothetical example? Is it somehow a strawman? As I understand it, it's merely "If an article with validity level X doesn't exist, we should delete all other articles of validity level X" - what nuance have I missed? WilyD 19:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, if their importance is in doubt. If there isn't a list of Big-10 molecular biology programs, then there shouldn't be one of Ivy League molecular biology programs. The only reason that the articles on France and Germany should survive are their sheer importance. And you're overvaluing the concept of Ivy League. You are presuming that "Ivy League is a very different concept from Universities founded in the 1870s". This is not true in case of the business schools. All of them (except Wharton) were founded in the 20th Century. Even the earliest ones are contemporaries of other important schools such as MIT Sloan and NYU Stern. There is nothing historical or operational that distinguishes the Ivy League business schools as a whole from the other good business schools. Lazybum 19:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't understand what you mean by "if their importance is in doubt" - so if someone passes WP:BIO, but is not that important (say, an MLB player with a short career), and another person of similar importance doesn't have an article, we should delete the first? The business schools are not the same as programmes - and they're not divorced from their parent institutions. WilyD 20:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Your example is a non-issue. WP:BIO explicitly states that "Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league" generally deserve their own article. There is no such standard for a group of programs associated with an athletic conference. Actually, anything associated with such a convoluted category would be a likely subject for AfD. And while I agree that no program is divorced from its parent institutions, it generally is divorced from whatever conference or group the institution is associated with. Do the Ivy League business schools have exchange or collaboration programs that are not found between, say, Harvard Business and MIT Sloan, or Columbia Business and NYU? If the Ivy League business schools do coordinate with one another in exclusion of other comparable business schools, then the group is notable and deserves an entry. If not, the group is simply unnotable. Lazybum 21:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        The whole argument you presented (as far as I understood) relied only upon the presence of another article. It didn't address the merits of this article whatsoever. Notability isn't a criterion for deletion anyways, except where people are too polite to say "This is spam" (i.e. WP:CORP, WP:BIO, and WP:MUSIC) and use it as a euphamism instead. As for co-ordinated action, I don't see the argument - lots of uncoordinated activities that form a pattern are worthy of articles, i.e. Imperialism in Asia WilyD 21:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        If you read what I wrote above, you'll see that I did address the merits (or lack thereof) of this article. And I'm sorry, notability IS a criterion for deletion. To quote WP:N, "Articles are deleted daily on grounds of notability, and this has been common practice for over a year now." As for the analogy with Imperialism in Asia — Well, if those Ivy League business schools did fight one another like the Japanese, Russian, American, and British imperial forces did in Asia, then the group does deserve its own article. Lazybum 21:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        If you read WP:N, you'll discover that's neither a policy or a guideline. Articles are never really deleted on grounds of notability, they're deleted because they're spam or vanity, but we're too polite to say (or don't want the arguments). In areas where spam isn't a problem (science, math, arts, history) notability is never used as a criterion for deletion, because they don't get spammed. WilyD 02:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violent crime and suicide at Ivy League universities for a recent example of Ivy League-related "spam," if you want to call it that. -- Rbellin|Talk 02:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The schools are referred to collectively enough to justify exploring them as a group. And while it's not the issue here, "Ivy League business schools" are collectively referred to in various fiction and non-fiction sources, and justify exploration. ""Pac-10 business schools" doesn't seem to get as many hits. This article is sourced and provides good information. I see no reason to delete it. JDoorj a m Talk 20:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should probably be kept, but it needs something like criticism - right now it seems choosy with its information... RN 21:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and especially Rbellin. If this article is allowed to exist, than 50 more articles will sprout up tomorrow on "Ivy League __________". This is not a good thing, as no other groups of schools have these pages, or will be allowed to have these pages. I suggest that an article pointing out top business schools in the country could be created instead of this. Fopkins | Talk 23:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - By the way, the original author and key contributor to this article was GO WHARTON. Sure does seem like a brag post to me. Fopkins | Talk 00:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WilyD. These universities are prestigious and referred to as a group. SliceNYC 02:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 1st nomination result, WilyD, ExplorerCDT, Yuckfoo, JDoorjam, and SliceNYC. --HResearcher 05:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. How many of the article's supporters are not Ivy League students or alumni? --AaronS 14:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - At least one. SliceNYC 15:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Two. I went to Rutgers, and have a deep-set case of Princeton envy. So until Princeton accepts my grad school application (applying in a few months), I'm not an Ivy League student or alumnus. —ExplorerCDT 06:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its sourced. ALKIVAR™ 06:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mostly per JDoorjam and WilyD. No comment to AaronS. ;) RFerreira 21:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A well sourced article on information that could be quite useful to users. This is the exact type of article that could be seen relevant to users. Nlsanand 18:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Diamond Brothers. I hope that those participating in this debate would try, in the future, to make clear recommendations; that's probably why this remained open for so long. Redirecting b/c the info is already at the target.

Nick Simple

For a start, the article is only three lines long. Secondly, only one of the three books has a page as of now, and any storylines could and should be included on their pages if they ever come into existence. There is basically no reason for this page to exist until detailed information on the series is entered into Wikipedia. U-Mos 16:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Public Enemy Number Two. --HResearcher 05:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to merge! All storyline details for Public Enemy Number Two are already on its page. U-Mos 13:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It could be merged with the newly-created Diamond Brothers article, I suppose. U-Mos 10:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Diamond Brothers, if that article is worth keeping, otherwise delete. JPD (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 Guilt

This 9/11 conspiracy video is not notable. Searching the term on Google [49] yields only 338 results. It's also nowhere to be found on IMDB. This compares with other articles, 9-11: The Road to Tyranny, 911 In Plane Site, and Loose Change (video), which are all listed on IMDB and google return thousands of search results. --Aude (talk contribs) 16:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate and delete. --Aude (talk contribs) 16:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as proposed. Gazpacho 17:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom LaszloWalrus 18:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 9/11 truthiness movement cruft. BoojiBoy 19:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom M a rtinp23 20:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 21:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yashmok va tro dentoldi kallaq. --82.9.55.184 02:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is an english speaking Wikipedia. --HResearcher 05:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Coment Dude! If your PC is talking to you, I'd suggest it's maybe time for some sleep. Only kidding, that was me, I must not have been signed in. Apologies for the mess, I think I was messing around with my keymap configuration, and forgot to change it back to UK English after I had finished. I can't even recall what it was I meant to type. I don't think that the video should be viewed in comparison with other 911 videos though. It's a bit like comparing 'Robinson Crusoe' with 'Titanic' (or whatever that horrible film from a few years ago is called). Both have their own following, just because one of them gets a lot of airtime on mainstream media, doesn't make the other one any less relevant. --Tess Tickle 13:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --HResearcher 05:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Konman72 09:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 14:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom. SynergeticMaggot 21:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nowhere near notable enough. If this were big, 10,000 google results would be expected, which (last time I checked) wasn't too hard to achieve. Draicone turns up more than 10,000 yet I've never seen a 'Draicone' other than me. If IMDB doesn't list it, I seriously doubt its notability, and while I haven't yet seen a notability policy for movies in the WP space (please tell me if you know of one) I doubt this would meet the criteria. --Draicone ^(talk) 11:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kill Game

NN web game that does not meet the criteria set in WP:WEB. [50] shows that it only has 171 (as of now) players. BrownCow  (how now?) 16:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notablity. --HResearcher 05:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim of notability and none to be made. Konman72 10:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 speedy redirect. howch e ng {chat} 19:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fenerbahche

NN web site that does not meet criteria set in WP:WEB. It's in Turkish, but it's phpBB so you can see it only has 680-some (as of now) members. BrownCow  (how now?) 16:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not cite any sources. I could find one reference, in a column in the Internet version of Milliyet: [51] (in Turkish), which does not suffice to verify the claims in the article. The lack of on-line references suggests lack of importance. On the Turkish Vikipedi, it is only mentioned as an external link in the article about the sports club. If kept, the article needs to be completely rewritten. --Lambiam ^Talk 17:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fenerbahçe SK. The team is notable, a supporter's club of that team is not. BoojiBoy 19:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the team is certainly notable Dlyons493 Talk 22:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fenerbahçe SK. Alias Flood 22:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Alias Flood 22:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per BoojiBoy, Dlyons493, and Alias Flood. --HResearcher 05:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Per above. - Pal 17:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, a term someone made up. As such it is original research and unverifiable (the sources in the article only talk about nihilism). - Bobet 10:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dualist nihilism

This article is entirely unreferenced, and an apparent hoax -- searches on altavista and google yielded no results for this particular term. John254 16:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references or citations, so either {{hoax}} or original research. (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i created this article perhaps somewhat in haste, i admit to it perhaps being somewhat original research, but i really do believe that it is *possible* to find "reliable" sources to back it up, i just have not had the opportunity to do so yet. I suppose i wouldnt be totally heart-broken if this article was deleted but i guess my main point was to try to represent a certain philosophical point of view which, as i wrote in the article, combines about two or three other points of view which are themselves represented by other articles within wikipedia, presumably those articles are acceptable to you, so i dont see why this hybrid article wouldnt be since essentially it references internal wikipedia articles. I agree it probably should have other sources as well, and this may be possible to do, and maybe i should just try to write this article into those other articles (i.e. moral nihilism, philosophy of mathematics, dualism, physicalism. I appreciate your feedback though, and yeah maybe i was too hasty without getting enough other sources first. Lacking Lack 20:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD process takes five days. If you can't gather sources together and rewrite the article in that time, take a copy on to a user subpage/sandbox and work on it in private until the article is fit for presentation. (aeropagitica) (talk)

Keep if sources are provided as per Lacking Lack's response and User talk:(aeropagitica)'s comment. --HResearcher 05:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- it appears that none of the references currently present in the article actually mention the term "Dualist nihilism". Consequently, I don't believe that the references provided satisfy the prerequisites of the conditional keep. John254 22:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge into Angus Peter Campbell. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 18:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible Islands

prod'd author removed prod, without explanation. Reason for prod was: non-notable book by new publisher —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ikanreed (talk • contribs) .

Delete. It isn't even listed on Amazon. Being on Amazon doesn't certify notability, but NOT being on Amazon does prove non-notability. - Thorne N. Melcher 05:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I could correct Thorne here, this is listed on Amazon.co.uk - it is a British title. It will no doubt migrate to Amazon.com as they update their database. The wider and more important (in my opinion) issue is that this is an established contemporary Scottish writer (who also has an entry on Wikipedia) and who has written his first English title - significant in Scottish literature terms. I recommend keeping this article - but deleting the reference, perhaps, to the publisher - no need for publisher, but rest of article OK imo. Thanks. Ann Shaw, Glasgow 15/08/06

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 16:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for an individual article on every book that an author has written, especially when the article on the author is as lacking as the one on this one is. Discussion of the bibliography of Angus Peter Campbell should be in a "Bibliography" section of that article. Breaking it up over multiple little articles on individual books makes no sense at all. See Wikipedia:Summary style. Merge. Uncle G 17:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of the article on Invisible Islands, and a relatively inexperienced Wikipedia user, I agree with Uncle G. On reflection, perhaps articles on every book concerned is not the most wise thing. Apologies - the book is significant in Scottish literary terms, and indeed I could have expanded on this point (but didn't for fear of being too extravagant). So, to sum up, apologies for causing fuss, and I'll go back to the Wikipedia guide to seek more advice for future articles about individual books. Sorry for causing any hassle to you guys. Points taken, in good spirit. Magg.

above comment was by User:Maggiori. --HResearcher 05:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Angus Peter Campbell per Uncle G and Magg's agreement with him. --HResearcher 05:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. - Bobet 10:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gaia Project

Did research and could not find any indicators that this passes WP:MUSIC; the article is no help, nor are the articles related which are also included in this AfD entry, see below.

I am also nominating sans arc and Brian Evans (musician) for deletion since their notability is nearly completely tied to this label. Crystallina 16:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources, no assertion of notability that meets WP:MUSIC. Captainktainer * Talk 09:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 18:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shmell

This article is entirely unreferenced, and an apparent neologism. John254 16:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Fopkins | Talk 16:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Fopkins. Bucketsofg✐ 17:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 23:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, though consensus backs that clearly on the basis that the previous AfD was so recent. Mango juice^talk 05:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Finnerty

No consensus was reached on the blanket nomination here, so relisting individually. County political offices do not pass WP:BIO, and no assertion of notability beyond council membership had been made. Article has not seen any activity from it's creation in March until it was brought up for AfD, so chances of it's expansion are slim. DarkAudit 17:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - I had stepped away from my computer for lunch only to see that during my brief break, the article had reached a no consensus for an AfD, and that it was being resubmitted for deletion, all within a span of 46 minutes. While I will do my best to assume good faith, it is very hard to accept that this is not just another attempt to undo an AfD that just failed. As with the Sue Schilling AfD, can I politely suggest that as a genuine show of good faith this AfD be withdrawn and that a period of time — say several weeks or a few months — be allowed after the rejected AfD to allow the article sufficient time to be improved to allow the article to better meet the WP:BIO concerns. Alansohn 17:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No consensus was reached, and no effort has really been made to improve the article. The article as it is has been that way since March. That's plenty of time. DarkAudit 20:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - In addition to addressing the other 4,500 articles on my watchlist, and dealing with this and other AfD's, I have not had the opportunity to improve these articles. I had hoped to do so after the AfD was complete, but I was not around in the 38 minute period (check article history) before your new AfD was created. I had attempted to contact the author of the article by leaving a message on his talk page, which went unanswered, there was no email address available and the user's last edit was in March 2006. I will as respectfully as possible ask yet one more time for a simple demonstration of good faith by requesting that this AfD be withdrawn to allow sufficient time to address the concerns you have raised and bring it up to your standards. Alansohn 21:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply Five months is plenty of time. The article sat untouched until the AfD. And then it was still untouched. DarkAudit 23:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, as per comments at Sue Schilling. Catchpole 21:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Kelly (Freeholder), the result of which was keep. Accurizer 21:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is not the article under discussion. I might also add no effort whatsoever was made to expand that article, in spite of the claims of notability 'on Google'. DarkAudit 23:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, Indeed; if the original nomination of this article was bundled with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Kelly (Freeholder) instead of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantic County Board of Chosen Freeholders, it is more than likely that the outcome of the previous discussion for this article would have been "keep" instead of "no consensus". In any event, good editors who are part of a WikiProject intend to expand this article and deserve a reasonable period of time to do so. This renom also does not seem consistent with the spirit of Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Nominating an article for deletion, which states: "In general, although there is no strict policy or consensus for a specific time between nominations, articles that have survived a nomination for deletion should not be immediately renominated." Accurizer 13:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment The 'keep' for Joe Kelly is based on the results of a google search, none of which was brought up in either the AfD or the article in question. I therefore have reason to doubt the verdict of the AfD as entirely valid. The other two were not ruled 'keep', so I take the 'no consensus' as no decision. The articles in question still do not pass WP:BIO. The keep arguments are based on the rapid renomination, and not on the merits of the articles. DarkAudit 16:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, alphaChimp ^laudare 11:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as per Alansohn. TestPilot 00:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Those who qualify as notable per WP:BIO are "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature". The subject is a county official, and as I understand it is not even remotely close to that and would appear not to satisfy the criterion above, notwithstanding articles covering those holding similar positions who have survived AfD. There appear to be few other critera for his inclusion as notable. What is more, it appears that the sbject was not elected but merely appointed to fill a vacancy. Ohconfucius 05:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The additions to the page are still local positions that do not meet WP:BIO. A county officeholder does not meet the standards for political office, and there has still not been any assertions of notability beyond the local offices or 'significant press coverage' that would rise to the standards set forth in WP:BIO. The keep arguments are for the timing of the renomination. The article still fails to meet Wikipedia standards. DarkAudit 19:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Music in Film

The scope of this article is too broad, and will be filled with tons of superfluous trivial details that don't really deserve their own article. -- LGagnon 17:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bucketsofg✐ 17:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pretty narrow scope anyway; seems like only songs from the last few years are listed. WesleyDodds 11:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SynergeticMaggot 00:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Schilling

No consensus was reached on the blanket nomination here, so relisting individually. County political offices do not pass WP:BIO, and no assertion of notability beyond council membership had been made. Article has seen very little activity since it's creation in March. DarkAudit 17:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - I had stepped away from my computer for lunch only to see that during my brief break, the article had reached a no consensus for an AfD, and that it was being resubmitted for deletion, all within a span of 46 minutes. While I will do my best to assume good faith, it is very hard to accept that this is not just another attempt to undo an AfD that just failed. Can I politely suggest that this AfD be withdrawn and that a period of time — say several weeks or a few months — be allowed after the rejected AfD to allow the article sufficient time to be improved to allow the article to better meet the WP:BIO concerns. Alansohn 17:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep 46 minutes is not even close to being long enough to put back on AFD. --Edgelord 19:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No effort was made to improve the article since March, even after it was placed in AfD. This was not a failed AfD, as much as a confused one that was subject to much wikilawyering. Even the one article that was kept is still badly in need of expanding. It wasn't touched during the discussion, either. DarkAudit 20:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In addition to addressing the other 4,500 articles on my watchlist, and dealing with this and other AfD's, I have not had the opportunity to improve these articles. I had hoped to do so after the AfD was complete, but I was not around in the 46 minute period before your new AfD was created. I had attempted to contact the author of the article by leaving a message on his talk page, which went unanswered, there was no email address available and the user's last edit was in March 2006. I will as respectfully as possible ask yet one more time for a simple demonstration of good faith by requesting that this AfD be withdrawn to allow sufficient time to address the concerns you have raised and bring it up to your standards. Alansohn 21:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The standard are Wikipedia's, not mine. It's not as if I nominated the article for speedy deletion. The article has already had more than enough time to be brought up to standards, but it wasn't done. It wasn't done for five months. The purpose of an AfD is to use that time to fix an article, not after. There still has been no claim of notability outside of board membership, which does not meet the standards of WP:BIO. The claim during the previous AfD was that the standards didn't exist. DarkAudit 16:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Allow some time for possible expansion before re-nomination. Catchpole 21:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Kelly (Freeholder), the result of which was keep. Accurizer 21:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is not the article under discussion. DarkAudit 23:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, Indeed; if the original nomination of this article was bundled with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Kelly (Freeholder) instead of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantic County Board of Chosen Freeholders, it is more than likely that the outcome of the previous discussion for this article would have been "keep" instead of "no consensus". In any event, good editors who are part of a WikiProject intend to expand this article and deserve a reasonable period of time to do so. This renom also does not seem consistent with the spirit of Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Nominating an article for deletion, which states: "In general, although there is no strict policy or consensus for a specific time between nominations, articles that have survived a nomination for deletion should not be immediately renominated." Accurizer 13:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Phlegethon

self-published by afd nom below, R.W. Hareland, through lulu.com vanity press, no ghits, Amazon, other reviews or citations Richardjames444 17:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revisit the website for updates. I think this page belongs. The ISBN number and book are valid. The book will be availabe through Amazon on September 20th and in Google books on October 10th. --Robert hareland 18:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having an ISBN is not a criteria for notability. One can get an ISBN by asking for one. Books published through vanity presses are not typically eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. "Reasonably spread or otherwise well known" "available in bookstores" and "access to online or press published reviews" are some criteria listed in the guidelines linked to from WP:N. If the book is indeed available online in a couple of weeks, I change my vote to Weak Keep Richardjames444 18:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As of September 20th, the book will be available through Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and Borders. If I have been premature in listing it on Wikipedia, I'll just wait until then.--Robert hareland 20:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claims as to notability. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self published with Lulu.com Dlyons493 Talk 22:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NN. I have grouped R.W. Hareland for deletion together per WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 06:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page is just mindless self promotion by a self published author trying to advertise his book. 206.251.12.246
Delete as a non-notable vanity-published book. -Elmer Clark 04:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R.W. Hareland

Vanity page for self-published author Richardjames444 17:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self published with Lulu.com Dlyons493 Talk 22:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfD now merged with The Phlegethon above. Ohconfucius

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect would be okay, if someone wants to make one. Mango juice^talk 05:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bric

This guy isn't notable enough for his own article. This information is already in two, possibly three, other articles. JD 17:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this guy made headlines for a week or two across Australia. He engaged in televised sexual harassment/indecent assault. - Richardcavell 01:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why doesn't Ashley Cox have an article of his own then? --_{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 12:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can go write one if you want. All of the housemates have segments of the BB06 article. The two mentioned here - Cox and Bric - had more media coverage than the eventual winner. - Richardcavell 01:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know each housemate has a section, as I've been a contributor to that article. That doesn't mean that every ex-housemate should have their own article. Peter Corbett, winner of Big Brother 2002, doesn't have his own article. I don't see many housemates being worthy of having their own article, and John Bric passes only one of the guidelines that are on WP:BIO:

Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events

Even then, all the news reports blew the story way out of proportion so that networks could increase their ratings. Look at it from a realistic perspective: did he do anything that warrants inclusion in his own article when it's already on the Big Brother Australia article and quite extensively in the Big Brother 2006 article? --_{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 10:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is a thug who showed himself up on national TV as such. Quite right he should be charged, and no, don't have articles on all or any who have engaged in indecent assaults, televised or no per WP:NOT, not even a list. Delete per WP:BIO: Remember that "Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage" Ohconfucius 03:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to delete. Oneshot character who didn't make much happen on a reality show doesn't really seem to pass WP:BIO. I say redirect to appropriate article, include there. Luna Santin 22:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or Delete) to relevant BB Australia series article. Does not deserve an article on his own, and the content is only repeating what should be in the main article. The JPS ^{talk to me} 22:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SYSPRO

Vanity NN CORP Justdoingmyjob 18:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Bad faith nomination by sockpuppets related to Wavelet.biz (see Wavelet.biz's afd history for evidence). Syspro has plenty of non-trivial, non-press release media coverage evidenced here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability included in the article. (I agree it's a bad-faith nomination, but I would be prod'ing it right now, now that it's been brought to my attention by this single-purpose account.) — Saxifrage ✎ 20:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Saxifrage. Yes, it's a bad-faith nomiation but if closed, I would also re-AfD it at this point. It fails WP:V, WP:OR and WP:CORP --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 20:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as per User:Ohnoitsjamie. --Sleepyhead 08:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-needs editing to avoid sounding like an advert, but fits criteria for inclusion on WP--Trnj2000 13:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like advertisement, in any case, NN CORP. 58.71.235.116 14:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 58.71.235.116 (talk · contribs)'s only contributions are to participate in retalitory afds related to Wavelet.biz afd. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I very much dislike the manner in which it was nominated, but it desperately needs sources other than the company's own website to establish notability. Kickaha Ota 17:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nomination still stinks, but I'm now convinced that it should be deleted, since many phrases in the article come verbatim from the company's own corporate profile at [52]. Kickaha Ota 20:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Speedily deleted per WP:CSD A7 - NN gaming clan - Smerdis of Tlön 19:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wookies on crack

Completely NN clan (just created a week ago?) I don't think ANY gaming clan (or very, VERY few) are notable for inclusion. Speedy removed numerous times by author. Wildthing61476 17:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, CSD A7 nn group. I'll try again with the speedy tag, hopefully it'll stick this time. BryanG^(talk) 18:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaotic defense

Not encyclopedic content, see here Simeon87 17:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't cite reliable sources. WilyD 18:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN game created by a group of friends. TJ Spyke 22:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher_Stalford

Reason the page should be deleted

Vanity article in breach of Wikipedia guidelines.

Subject of the article is a minor (local) politician in Northern Ireland. He is not a member of either the elected Northern Ireland Assembly or the UK Parliament but is rather merely a local councillor and a former failed student politician. Pondersomething 14:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local councillors are not notable in themselves. Timrollpickering 14:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Akradecki 15:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The Wikipedia notability guidelines mention statewide/provincewide politicians, without reference to the fact that these words have different meanings in, for example, Ireland - where a county is the equivalent of a state in importance, although not in population or area. As such, I recommend a keep, as Belfast City Council is as important as, for example, Mayo County Council. Supersheep 18:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Supersheep, -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Belfast is a city (admittedly an important one) and not a county. I don't see councillors in it (or even Mayo county council) as having any real importance. Dlyons493 Talk 22:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never said Belfast was a county, merely that its City Council was at least as important as Mayo County Council, and that members of the latter would appear to fit the notability criteria for politicians. Supersheep 13:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Although the sum of the parts means he is more than just a city councillor (as assistant to an assemblyman and MEP), I would contend that his day will come. He's making the right moves but is not notable enough yet. Ohconfucius 03:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One would doubt wikipedia could cope with the sheer volume of enrties if it started having pages on every politician as minor as this.Traditional unionist 18:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Wikipedia is cluttered enough with minor politicians constructing vanity pages for themselves.wibbled 19:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very clearly NN. --Mais oui! 11:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, now the second AfD in the past 2 months, with good arguments on both sides. The nomination, however, is essentially the same as the one kept in the absence of consensus in July 2006, with the arguments essentially being the same this time also. -- Samir धर्म 05:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KROQ Top 106.7 Countdowns

I am listing this article and its subarticles for deletion again because I believe the consensus on the last discussion should have been "delete". Also, after reading this discussion from last month (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binaca Geetmala 1971), I saw that many other users agreed these articles should be deleted.

Once again, I really don't think local radio station year-end countdowns are notable enough to deserve articles, especially not notable enough to deserve an article for every year from 1980 to 2005. This main article and the 26 sub-articles should all be deleted. KROQ may be a popular radio station in L.A., but that does not mean all of its year end countdowns are notable. These countdowns were copied and pasted from this page of KROQ's official site. A link to the countdowns can be added to the main KROQ-FM article. Also, others may use these articles as a reason to create similar articles for their local radio stations. musicpvm 17:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion
Very old VFD discussion
Delete every last one as listcruft and copyvio. BoojiBoy 19:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per every last word of BoojiBoy above. -- Slowmover 20:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per above. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 21:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per all the reasons of the LAST two discussions (this was only up a month ago, I think it's way too soon to put it up for AfD again) PT ^(s-s-s-s) 23:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subs. Arguably there's encyclopedic value in knowing what was popular in a certain place in a certain year... but having 20+ pages of word-for-word duplication of an external site isn't necessary. Keep the main article and turn the subarticles into ~~external links~~ an external link to here. Fireplace 17:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Even though much of the same information can be found elsewhere on the web, I think this is a very valuable and historic resource. This is like a time capsule of alternative rock and new wave music over the years, from the station that pretty much invented the format (now known as alternative rock. I also like the Wikified links to various artists here. I ask myself, is Wikipedia better or worse for having these articles here? I would say 'better'. For historic value, I say keep these pages. This is a lot different than archiving Top 40 lists from some anonymous CHR station in Boise, don't you think? --Fightingirish 03:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subs. ^Blank ^Verse 13:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listcruft and every station basically does this so these lists are not notable. Vegaswikian 04:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep KROQ is one of the most famous rock stations in the world if not the most famous. Thus, their lists have value on wikipedia. Nickieee 07:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Borders on listcruft, but given KROQ's importance in American radio it's notable. Like another voter said, it gives a unique insight into the development of modern rock music. If prose could be worked into the lists, that might alleviate some of the issues here. Although I must say this deserves to be here as much as a list of Festive Fifty songs by John Peel, and none of those are listed on Wikipedia. WesleyDodds 00:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom - or merge. HawkerTyphoon 16:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. There is no place on Wikipedia for the articles that contain just the lists with no commentary on them: those are a form of copyright violation, and I will make a nomination on them shortly. Keeping that in mind, this is just a list of links to those articles, and will serve no purpose. So, delete as a indiscriminate collection of links to copyright violations. Mango juice^talk 05:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 18:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Bowman

Notability for academics requires that they be 'more notable than the average college professor'. I don't believe this person fulfils that. DJ Clayworth 17:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a scholar of Brethren history and culture, Bowman is indeed notable. His book is the ONLY comprehensive study of Church of the Brethren history/culture to be published by a major university press. And his 1985 Brethren Profile Study is the only comprehensive, nationally representative survey of the Brethren conducted during the twentieth century. (this contribution by User:JGFrancis)

Keep, Brethren scholars are notable too. -- Visviva 05:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Beno1983 01:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 decision, it was merged during the debate by ChrisO, but since no one actually wanted to delete, there's no harm done (and deletion after a merger isn't permitted). - Bobet 11:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Green Helmet

Older page Green Helmet already existed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Baruch1677 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 15 August 2006

Merge. Mr. Green Helmet actually makes use of references and has some useful categories, it would be a waste if we were to delete such valuable contributions.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 17:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and close. I've already written Salam Daher to replace both Green Helmet and Mr. Green Helmet, both of which were frankly horribly POV articles. I've now redirected both of the above. -- ChrisO 19:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SynergeticMaggot 00:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Ruin

Not notable per WP:MUSIC ("Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable")

Two albums released on small labels: Tribunal Records (web: [53], MySpace: [54]) , and on Eulogy: [55]. Two EPs and a self-released album.

But 53.000 hits for "Age of Ruin" band, though many could be affiliates of AllMusic (no direct link) -- Steve Hart 01:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT can't understand wht there's so much info on allmusic on what appears to ne a nn band and none elsewhere. If pushed, I'd vote to delete. Ohconfucius 04:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 18:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two indie albums plus a good number of shows makes them notable enough for me. However, it does need substantial cleanup, as some of it is highly confusing. Sample sentence: "On creation and record of a new album year has left, but it costed that, The Tides of Tragedy very brightly shows continuous development and improvement in processing a sound of group Age of Ruin in which each element of fate, mosh and glam is expressed up to a limit." Ohh, well that clears that right up, then. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Starblind.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariadoss (talk • contribs)
Keep. If AMG vouches for them like that, they're OK with me. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. amazon.co.uk see fit not only to list and import the CD from the US, they keep it in stock. This suggests worldwide appeal. Mallanox 13:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mango juice^talk 05:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarho-sindikalisticka inicijativa

Not notable per WP:ORG, but that's only a proposal.

Small Serbian traditionalist or nationalist anarchist group. A couple of thousand hits on Google, mostly statements on activist sites. Website: [56] , photos: [57] . This pretty much sums it up:

Radical liberals, nongovernmental organisation and para-libertarian organizations started their pale, dumb and stupid pacifistic campaign for bourgeoisie peace. Peace, peace, they are screaming like crows. Peace they say, while not understanding that the peace is only achievable by war. Class war, which will destroy those ones who are exploiting, terrorizing and dehumanizing whole world population. [58]

[removed edit] -- Steve Hart 01:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Gazpacho 00:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Un1v4C: ASI is not a nationalist organisation! I don't see a reason for erasing that article.

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 18:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ASI appears to be a small political organisation formed in 2003 which is local in scope. 49,000Ghits, many of which are kontrapunkt.info or other anarchist groups, and appears to fail WP:ORG. Little information is available on this grouping, as sites seem only to acknowledge existence of the org and point to their website. It has 97 incoming links, most of which are either internal, from kontrapunkt.info or other anarchist groups. It has apparently engaged in protests agains the Canadian embassy against the G8 summit, publicised (I suspect) by its own press release. Also unfortunate victim of systematic bias, but the number of Ghits would appear not to confirm its notability. delete Ohconfucius 04:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Destin LeCornu

non-notable musician per WP:BAND

Delete. Destin will release his debut album soon. Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:VANITY, WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kinu. Clearly fails WP:V. --Satori Son 09:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no consensus to merge. - Bobet 11:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lethbridgians

This list is redundant as it serves no purpose not already served by Category:People from Lethbridge, Alberta. Everyone on this list is in the category. Furthermore, the criteria to be on the list aren't as clear as they seem to be at first blush. Agent 86 18:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Why single this one out? Why should this one be deleted and not similar ones, such as those listed at Category:Lists of Canadian people? --Kmsiever 18:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article on Lethbridge is too large to be an appropriate merge target. WilyD 18:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not redundant to category, already contains information the category can't (eg. professions, claim to fame). CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Lethbridge, Alberta; that article is not too long to admit a short list like this. BoojiBoy 19:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BoojiBoy. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 22:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure how this turned into a discussion on a merge. I don't think this article ought to be merged. In my nomination I was pointing out the existence of the category, not the article. The existence of the category is sufficient and the list is redundant. (Note to Kmsiever: as a suggestion, you may wish to add your new comments to the end of the discussion - I see you've added several new comments by adding to your original posting. Your last addition makes it look like it was part of the original discussion when you first made the entry - the signature keeps the same time stamp) Agent 86 01:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll read the list, you'll discover it's not actually a list of people born in Lethbridge, but a list of notable residents and former residents - information that is encyclopaedic enough, and not appropriate for a category. For what it's worth this is a list is not a valid criterion for deletion, as much as some people might want it to be. There are Featured Lists, though I doubt whether any of them would survive an AfD. WilyD 02:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are not insinuating I'd nominate an article for deletion without having read it. I also did not nominate this article because, to quote, "this is a list". I nominated it for the reasons I gave above, none of which are because this is a list qua list. Agent 86 07:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the point (which is directed at more than just you) is that false claims are made here (such as the list being redundant with the category) and that rather than argue about it, we should just look at the list and see that it's true. This article is a little unclear isn't a valid criterion for deletion, but for improvement. WilyD 12:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge into the Lethbridge article; it's already large enough and has several sub articles. (Note to Agent 86, I only added one additional comment; I have since moved it as per your suggestion) --Kmsiever 01:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mango juice^talk 05:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mick McConnell

Questionable Notability. Book is on Amazon, but not notable. Website exists, but again is not notable. No reason for article to exist. Fopkins | Talk 18:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LAX won a national design award at the American Center for Design in 1994. In addition, Print Magazine awarded it in 1994 a top design award as well thus making the book notable.

tomdobbs.com has been featured in discussions on Entertainment Tonight and is watched by Morgan Creek and Universal Studios to track feedback about the film, Man of the Year.

Delete. The article tells us that Mr. McConnell is a designer with an eye on everything and that he is developing his own brand identity. WP:BIO suggests that we want mostly people with somewhat more focused specialties, or who already have a "brand identity." While I'd be open to keeping this if it were rewritten to provide more precise (or at least more formally stated) indicia of notability, it would at minimum to be recast in encyclopedic style. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the description of Mick McConnell to be more encyclopedic.Itsacult 22:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Raymond McConnell[reply]

- Comment - Unfortunately, it is still not notable in my opinion. :) There are also no citations or references in the entire article. Fopkins | Talk 22:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Cited URL tomdobbs.com seems to be a political campaign site still in a countdown to launch (or countdown to something), I don't see anything there about a movie, and there are no links to or from it; 14 unique Google hits for the LAX book (ranked #2,731,838 at Amazon.com); more information found about Mick McConnell the guitarist than McConnell the architect, and I spent 20 minutes looking. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 22:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tomdobbs.com is a grassroots campaign about change in politics and it is supposed to be about the candidate and is an underground, viral method of creating intrigue about a film. The countdown is to the premier. Again, the book is an architecture theory book - these are not printed in large quantities - ever - because the market for these is not huge. Notable architecture books do not have to be bestsellers. I think his book is an excellent example of writing about a period in time where deconstructivist architecture, serious theorists, and unrest in LA came together and looked at a situation. It is still used in schools in architecture today - SCI-Arc for example. The ACD100 award is a prestigious design award in Graphic Design and adds to the idea that the book is notable. As for the guitarist, there are other Mick McConnells, yes. I was just trying to create a listing for a friend and colleague that I have worked with and thought it was time.Itsacult 05:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field (see also Wikipedia:Notability#Don't delete historical persons based on modern tests.Itsacult 05:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't delete historical persons based on modern tests" applies to historical persons who did not live in a time where anything and everything can be found on google. This guideline does not apply to the living. Fopkins | Talk 05:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LAX, the book, is notable because of its award in the American Center for Design's 100 show. Quote from Walker Art Museum, The 100 Show is considered the toughest graphic design competition in the U.S., entered by invitation only. Each year 100 winners are selected in the categories of announcements, brochures, books, annual reports, and programs, and are presented in the 100 Show annual publication.Itsacult 05:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough crowd considering there is no harm in this entry and there are so many bad entries on wikipedia. What is the problem with this, really?Itsacult 05:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The don't delete historical persons comment is not applicable because it was not what I was referring to above. The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. This is the important part. The SEE ALSO comment came from wikipedia.Itsacult 06:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the point we are trying to make here is that you have not proven that Mick McConnell has made a significant contribution in his field. 14 unique links on google and a book with no reviews/sales on amazon are not enough to show a significant contribution to the field. Fopkins | Talk 06:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lecturer, Author, Senior Designer on over 1 billion square feet of construction including the Preussag Arena in Hanover, Germany for the World Expo 2000, the Coliseo de Puerto Rico José Miguel Agrelot in San Juan, Puerto Rico and more.Itsacult 17:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. alphaChimp ^laudare 11:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muds Fest

ATTENTION!

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

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

Nonnotable music "festival" in front of some guy's house; author removed speedy tag. NawlinWiki 18:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not cite reliable sources. WilyD 19:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Aplolgies didn't mean to remove speedy tag. Will be a "notable" music festival in years to come. Plans underway for next year.--Wooda916 19:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An interesting article, I live near burton upon trent and I might check this thing out next year. It is informative and I dont see the point in deleting it. --Vaggerbond 20:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC). — Possible single purpose account: Vaggerbond (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
Delete For an event like this to warrant an article on Wikipedia it must meet certain guidelines. It must be notable right now as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, meaning it has been covered by multiple indepedent outlets like newspapers, magazines or notable websites. DrunkenSmurf 20:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Both keeps forget WP policy. This fails WP:V, and WP:OR. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so we shouldn't keep this because it 'may' become a 'notable' music festival in a few years. Please provide evidence that this is notable nation/worldwide. Are there Multiple, Reliable, Independent, Third-Party sources to cite beyond a local paper? --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 20:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also want to mention that this is a music festival that had ~150 people in attendence? I am from Fargo, ND and just 45 minutes east of here is a little place called the Soo Pass Ranch and Amphitheater. Every year they hold a country music festival called "We-Fest", which this summer had ~45,000 in attendence. [59] If We-Fest isn't notable enough for wiki, what is to say this tiny music festival is? --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 20:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Brian, I think you have made your point, I also think it's entirely possible that the editor who created the article is a newbie and maybe just didn't know exactly what guidelines to follow when creating an article. I think we can assume good faith here and not bite the newbies. DrunkenSmurf 21:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Smurf. Just came from a heated AfD. Didn't think my wording was to biting at the time but I can see now how it could me. Just trying to back up my reasoning and did it in the wrong tone. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 21:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize, I completely understand. I was trying to assume good faith but based on the comments from the anon IP below perhaps your tone was justified after all. DrunkenSmurf 22:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NOT a crystal ball for possible future encyclopedic notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original research and no reliable sources. --Cswrye 21:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nerds, you are the ones that are newbies— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.34.200 (talk • contribs)
KEEP I think this article is well researched, interesting and should be retained. Carr 22:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I respect that, your arguement is weak in the face of the matter that Wikipedia does not keep articles based on if they are interesting or not. Wikipedia's three content policies are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus So if you believe it should be kept, please provide a reason that these pillars of the wiki community should be put asside for this one article. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 22:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete do I really have to give a reason? Danny Lilithborne 23:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Come on people, it's a small local event with about 150 people in attendence, according to the article. If we set a precedent here that every event with 150 people should get an article, that would include nearly every kids' sports game, pep rally, church service, school play... hell, even some house parties and yard sales manage 150 people. No way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article cites no sources, and I can find no sources. It is unverifiable. It is impossible to determine that this music festival even occurred at all. Reading the article, it is apparent that it was written from firsthand knowledge, and is thus original research, a never-before-published primary source account of a music festival. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, nor is it a free wiki hosting service. It is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Please don't come here to write up firsthand accounts of things. The place for this is the author's own web site, not here. Delete. Uncle G 23:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as unverifiable original research. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable original research, no mentions found by Google and not mentioned anywhere on the bands' websites or myspace pages. Also, this is a tiny non-notable event, even if sources did exist, and what may happen in the future doesn't affect its current status. -- AJR | Talk 01:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To those who spend there lives on wikipedia - you all now know about muds fest. It is now a notible event, thank you. Maybe if any of you had ever been to a party or a social event then you would apreciate this article.

--Vaggerbond 01:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SynergeticMaggot 00:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Holleyman

This article should be deleted because it lacks information about an unknown, unless it is expanded by someone who knows a lot about the man this article is dedicated to. Furthermore, any additional information should be backed by credible sources. Voice of Reason 19:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. CEO of a highly notable trade association involved in public controversies (the Business Software Alliance). Wants expansion of course. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that the information provided in this article is explicitly implied in the one concerning the Business Software Alliance. So there's no need to retain this really short article. Voice of Reason 20:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. As it stands, it isn't worth keeping, but the fellow is very notable indeed. He has had quite a legal career before landing at the BSA. I will try and put something up in the next day or two, but will not oppose a deletion until we have enough on an article. The stub is pretty useless. Ohconfucius 10:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Strong keep. Article has now been rewritten. No doubts at all about his notability. Ohconfucius 03:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject looks notable enough to me, anyway. Dugwiki 17:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brixtel

Advertisement, company does not meet the criteria at WP:CORP-- Joanne B 19:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Also vanity article, written in first person. -- Tivedshambo (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORP, WP:VANITY, and the holy trinity WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV. Correction...Nuke this, then stomp on the ashes, collect the ashes in a jar and sink it to the bottom of the pacific --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 20:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity, advertisement. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 22:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Martens- (Artistname:MAURICE)

Autobiography from Adriepaint (talk · contribs). As far as I can tell another not especially notable artist. I've already removed additions and external links added to Naïve art. -- Solipsist 19:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunately, "Martens" is pretty common, like "Smith", and "Jan" is "John". 53,200 Ghits for "Jan Martens". Narrowed down to 1,290 for "Jan Martens" +Maurice, and half of these are results of geneology searches. The remainder are from private sites, and many are in dutch. I agree the page is probably autobiographical, as it is posted by User:Adriepaint, Adrie being the name of the subject's wife. The bio itself is a cut-and-paste of the bio from this page. If not autobiographical, it would be a copyvio. Maurice could be quite notable in his field, but we have no information about where he has exhibited, or which museums have his paintings. I do not find his bio particularly blatant NPOV, but it is unsourced and unverified per WP:V. I also nominate the page for his wife Adrie Martens for deletion as not notable per WP:BIO, and without assertion of notability - it could be speediable under CSD A7. Ohconfucius 09:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaaarrgh, teh Comic Sans! Delete. the wub "?!" 10:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see his wife's article also points to this AFD. I put a speedy tag their, since it's not listed here and doesn't claim any notability. -Steve Sanbeg 16:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Matos

Person is not notable, data is unsubstantiated. Not listed in IMDB in full cast and crew. Another Juan Matos is a famous salsa dancer, but this is not him. Bejnar 19:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find the guy anywhere, and it's been around since February (!) without any changes. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 22:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. Either an uncredited extra or total hoax. Fan-1967 00:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Yank sox 03:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claudine Palmer

Non-notable person; largest claim of notability appears to be being the girlfriend of a soccer player. (eg. fails WP:BIO). Valrith 19:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete. 317Ghits for "Claudine Palmer". The vast majority appear to be in association with Robbie Keane. No notability by association for trophy girlfriend of a notable footballer. 33Ghits for "Claudine Palmer" + VIP. No sign of magazine article described in the page. For info, VIP mag 2005 audited circulation was 32,889. Ohconfucius 09:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - absolutely to be deleted; if we start including every girlfriend/boyfriend of a public figure, we will have a lot more of these nonsensical pages. Since Chelsea Davy (girlfriend to Prince Harry) was justifiably deleted; Ms. Palmer deserves the same treatment.O'Donoghue 19:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is a celebrity in her own right. She has been the subject of independent media coverage in the magazines mentioned in the article. There is considerable public interest in her. And this status is because she's a supermodel rather than because of who she's going out with. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 14:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : the articles now included under the "References" section don't appear to show any kind of notability/celebrity. One mentions she was present at a book launching, the next talks about her specifically as Robbie Keane's girlfriend, and the third is a leftover from 2004... I don't see anything about her being a "supermodel". Valrith 21:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per hosting job and magazine votes. Nickieee 07:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability given, per Ohconfucius. feydey 20:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 44th sexiest footballer's wife is notoriety not notability! Mallanox 23:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted, yet another non-notable web game :-( Cyde Weys 17:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bushtarion

Non notable game, looks like ad. Fails WP:WEB, WP:V and WP:SOFTWARE Peephole 19:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability. --Abu Badali 20:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOTE. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 23:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 27,600 hits on a Google search, there must be some notability. TheTall One 13:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Just because you've never heard of it does not mean it fails the notability test. It certainly exists so it passes the verification test and it is not software product it is an online browser game, many of which have pages on wikipedia such as Urban Dead and Ogame. It has a loyal following numbering in the thousands and deserves to have a wikipedia page. Kripcat 14:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Bushtarion has existed since June 2001. The domain has been owned since mid 2002. It has won numerous awards/first places on the largest of the "directory websites" for online games, including winning 2 years running on (arguably one of the largest/most well known browser based game directories) MPOGD.com "game of the month" and about to win the third (you can only win once every 13 months). Advertising for Bushtarion is currently running on Google AdWords, a full sponsorship of TopWebGames, and a full sponsorship of MPOGD.com. Google returns "Results 1 - 10 of about 26,900 for bushtarion". The phrases "free online multiplayer game" and "free multiplayer game" (not exact phrase - no quotes in search - so harder to achieve by far with Google search technology) currently list Bushtarion on page 2 of Google search (out of about 20,000,000 to 25,000,000 results), page 1 (at rank 1 to 2 for "free multiplayer game" search) of Yahoo, and page 1 of MSN search. An iWebTool "All-in-One Lookup" currently gives the following external link information for Bushtarion.com; Pages linking to entire www.bushtarion.com website 6,148. Listings on Google Search 1,970. Listings on MSN Search 381. Listings on Yahoo Search 206. Over six thousand seperate websites linking to the domain, all of the above information, the age of the game, and the many many tens of thousands of players who have passed through the game certainly do not make the game "Not Notable". As far as browser based games go, Bushtarion is currently very notable in the online world. Azzer007 16:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Azzer007 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. Azzer007, "single purpose account" tags do not have to be signed. Srose (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not being interested in commenting on other topics all the time does not warrant the devaluation of a comment, especially one as well researched as this comment. The user account was created before afd flag went up. Also note that every user account has to have a first comment somewhere, perhaps on a subject matter the user feels warrants his/her time. There are now concerns about a vested interest against the Bushtarion article (or Bushtarion itself?) - somebody seems to be seeking any excuse possible to have this article deleted, and is trying to devalue any valid comments from valid users that are otherwise disproving the accused "lack of notability". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Azzer007 (talk • contribs) .

Keep- Bushtarion has a whole irc and forum community based around this game including bi-annual meetings held around the UK. To the members of the community, it is VERY notable. Steve_God 22:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Steve_God (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

- Comment:I registered my account before the deletion for the website and had registered recently for other reasons not relavent to this discussion. --Steve_God 23:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Bushtarion is noteable as stated above, and I have made edits to help with the NPOV issue and to ensure it appears less as an ad and more of an information source. timster69 12:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a failure of WP:WEB, WP:SOFTWARE and WP:NOTE. Srose (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bushtarion is a browser based game, and so neither WP:WEB nor WP:SOFTWARE are appropriate nor accurate for reasons of deletion. Any claims of WP:NOTE have, in my opinion, been blown entirely out of the water and then duly ignored. Perhaps you could direct your comments as to why it is not notable, to provide weight to your vote? I took the effort to try and prove the notability, could you take the effort to disprove it? I genuinely would value further comments on this discussion, and what editors/wiki users think would make a web game notable, if none of the above reasons or facts do (please don't simply link to WP:WEB WP:SOFTWARE or WP:NOTE, this would be blatant ignorance, I have read through them thoroughly) --Azzer007 20:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - First of all, please do not accuse other editors of being ignorant. It is not going to help your case in the slightest. I have read the article, its history, researched it on google, and looked at your edit history; I don't think I'm ignorant. Second of all, my arguments have been stated before, but I will reiterate them. 26,000 hits is not sufficient in my opinion, especially for something that is computer based. 6,000 pages link to Bushtarion's page - I'd guess at least 5,000 of them are blogs. I will look at this when I finish my comment. If you could direct us to where exactly the awards are located and what other games have won the awards, it would be a tremendous help. Srose (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Well, then, I've gone and looked, and here are the results... all twelve of them. What happened to the other 5,988? I tried with just bushtarion.com, http://bushtarion.com, and http://www.bushtarian.com - all result pages were the same. Srose (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Google limits it's own internal link-results severely (as do Yahoo and MSN), and try to only give a sample. You can use the Google API, SOAP to have many many more results returned to you, though there are still limitations. This is one reason why web developers and publishers rely on third party applications such as the free Back Link Analyzer, which can help provide more (though sometimes still limited, especially with the Google API limited to 1000 results per API key per 24 hours) backlink information. Websites such as iWebTool provide online backlink information, if you wish to test this without downloading any applications. Hope that information answers your question/comment? --Azzer007 20:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Regarding the "awards and other notable games in this category"; MPOGD "game of the months" listing back to December 1999. Bushtarion entries: Two (with third on it's way if you check their main page). Other "notable" games that have also won this title; Planetarion (many times, particularly before the once-per-13-months limitation), Hattrick, Runescape, Ultima Online, Asheron's Call, Ferion, Lunatix Online, et al. --Azzer007 21:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Fixing indent) Just so you know, Planetarion, Ultima Online, and Ferion are up for deletion; Lunatix doesn't have an article, and only Hattrick, Runescape, and Asheron's Call are currently uncontested (although Runescape and its subarticles are put up for deletion somewhat regularly). Just wanted to share that information...but my opinion stands; I've never found google link tests to be that restrictive. Srose (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ultima Online doesn't have the afd flag that I can see. Ferion's doesn't seem to have the "discuss/vote/talk" page, though I don't really know how that works so perhaps that is intentional. Regardless - Hattrick, Runescape, and Asheron's Call are not currently contested (and I see no reason why they should be - they are major games) - and the fact is those games are all incredibly major/notable games that almost anyone who has been online/involved in online games in the past 5 years will have heard of, with the exception of perhaps Lunatix to an extent (and whether or not Peephole wants to flag their articles for deletion or not). You asked me to provide a link to awards, and list other notable games that had won it. I provided you with that information. Do you dispute the link, or do you think none of the other games I listed that had won the award are at all notable in the online games world? I'm sorry, but I feel like every time I provide information, it is being ignored or other "rules" are being applied to try and get around any of my comments, like it's a personal vendetta against online games having a Wiki entry (see above comments for immediate example - Peephole asks for reliable sources of press releases, I provide it, then he comments that he wants printed press releases in newspapers/magazines... etc.) - I really hope this isn't the case, as I always see Wiki as the place for encyclopaedic information on almost any subject you could wish for, I never knew there were editors that went around deleting things like this (I could understand if they were articles about my neighbours dog, sure! But major online games!?). I can see absolutely no reason why anyone could seem so adamant, perhaps even desperate, to delete entirely valid and acceptable entries (as I say - they are hardly about my neighbours dog, they aren't vanity articles, they aren't adverts, there is lots of relevant information and sources online for them, etc.!). Would nothing sway your minds from your original opinions? --Azzer007 21:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Azzer007 07:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After Googling for about 15 seconds I found an independent article on this game. Odd that nobody else found it. It seems notable to me, so Keep. syphonbyte _(t|c) 07:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Syphonbyte, would it be possible to provide a link to this independent article? TheTall One 08:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After reading the independent article posted by Syphonbyte in the main article, I can see sufficient evidence that this article has notability. TheTallOne 08:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentActually that's not an "independent" article but a press release by Azzer. --Peephole 13:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Comment of Azzer007 at 20:24, 20 August 2006 UTC:

"Appropriate media could be seen as gaming websites, I will list some from a recent Press Release for the game, providing links to the actual news article (remember, these sites have independant editors that decide if an article is news-worthy enough to actually publish a press release); MPOGD (alexa 38,720), World Online Games (alexa 52,140), OMGN (alexa 48,582)." --TheTall One 13:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May I also put forward a question asked by Azzer007, which to now still has not been answered.

On 20 August, 2006 at 23:27 UTC, Azzer007 wrote: "...what online web game directory websites do you think are notable? List three news sites/directory sites that feature/specialise in online web games (this article subject's field), so that everybody knows in future what would, in your eyes, make a web based game "Notable" for me (with their Alexa rankings if you wish, though I can check that myself)". --TheTall One 15:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any respectable newspaper or respectable gaming site would be fine. Check WP:RS on what reliable sources are. --Peephole 16:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe the onus is now on you, Peephole, as information and sources have been provided multiple times on request, and dismissed with no effort on your part. You cannot simply dismiss a source, give a reference to a long winded and fairly vague reference that is a catch-all for any form of "reliable source" in the entire media (and even not-so-media) world, and then cover your ears singing la-la-la. You flagged it for deletion, you are trying to dismiss appropriate sources as being not-notable, and so you are now asked to link to appropriate and relevant sources that you think would be, in your personal opinion (as this is, afterall, now all down to personal opinion by the looks of it, rather than any form of fact), notable - given that this is on the subject of online web games (not console games, not store-bought/shelf/video games, or in other words "software", as you cited in your original deletion nomination, and not general world news/world media - as none of those are appropriate or relevant for the fields of online web-games). Once you do this, assuming none of the sites you provide have made mention of Bushtarion before and assuming they are indeed relevant and appropriate, I will seek to gain future notability with them (though this also assumes your dismissal of every other source, fact, and notability is in fact warranted official and fair, and that somebody else wouldn't in future mark the article for deletion again and dismiss those sources you provide as they haven't heard of them or don't believe them to be notable... and round and round we go).--Azzer007 16:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Azzer007 does ask you to name three web browser gaming sites which have an Alexa rating considerably greater than those previously mentionned - i.e. sites with Alexa traffic rankings at least better than 20,000. He wants you to put them on this page, along with the traffic rankings so he can check the credability. Basically, he wants you to find web browser gaming directory sites (which focus on games such as Bushtarion and not ones which involve high intensity graphics) which you deem notable. -- TheTallOne 16:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why doesn't he find them himself?--Peephole 16:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Because I've danced to your tune above and beyond the call of duty enough now in this discussion, while you simply sit there saying "Nah, not notable" "Nah, I don't like it" to anything you can (whilst ignoring any comments & sources you cannot dismiss off-hand) and linking to very vague and non-directed Wiki articles. While I'm sure you're enjoying it, there's only so much dancing another person will do when you whistle. As I stated in my above comment, the onus is most definitely on you now to disprove the notability points provided, and provide evidence that there is, in fact, far more notable appropriate and relevant sites that have not covered Bushtarion at all. I cannot find any myself, but obviously if you've dismissed the ones I have provided as not being notable, then clearly the reason for doing so must be because you know of much more notable ones. So, what are they?--Azzer007 16:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was under the impression that the article I provided was going to settle this debate. The fact that this game also has a very large fansite and a lot of online documentation about it seems to make it notable to me. syphonbyte _(t|c) 17:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funkitron

Non notable company, fails WP:CORP. Peephole 19:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 23:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:CORP. No third-party references, so does not meet WP:V. --Satori Son 18:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guyonnet

According to WP:AUTO this is a non-notable bipography. He seems to be a mid level composer and the google hits for him are really just passing mentions. One for t he history books? Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 10:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he feels non-notable. It'll need a big cleanup (and a rename, unless he's known under his surname only) if kept, though. Not that that's a reason to delete, merely a suggestion of tags which should be added if consensus is to keep. BigHaz 10:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Petros471 20:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only 22 unique Google hits in English and none of those have any biographical info, mention any students, or contain lists of his work. His name is out there but it's like a passing reference, not someone notable. (I just read all of Tmorton166's comment, 'cause I usually look at the article before I read any of the comments - great minds think alike! :-D) If someone could give more info I'd change my comment, but I've looked and I just don't see it. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 23:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Computrols Incorporated

Probable spam/vanity. —Scott5114 ↗ 20:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain in further detail... Mjzapjr 20:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All right. First off, it's got quite a few unbacked claims ("Computrols has established a solid reputation over the past 20 plus years as a leader in building automation systems"), and describes customers as "benefiting from the power, simplicity, and reliability of Computrols," which violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. The article needs some good reliable sources. Also, it needs to include some reason why we should care about this company (that is, why it is notable) and rather than just say "It's a notable company", it needs to prove it and show why exactly this company is important enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. The article as it appears currently reads like an advertisement written by someone at the company. —Scott5114 ↗ 03:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This appears like spam and vanity, but could it be rewritten to not seem like it? :: Colin Keigher 20:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spam spam spam spam - Richardcavell 00:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to meet any of the criteria for listing under WP:CORP. Ohconfucius 08:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common Misconceptions: Chemical Bonds and the Role of Electrons

While the format is pretty unencyclopedic, my main concern is that all of the content seems to have been copied word for word from various educational sources. I'm not entirely sure if the fact that they're universities makes this acceptable, but searches like http://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+term+sharing+electrons+indicates+that+the+valance+electrons+of+the+atoms%22 and http://www.google.com/search?q=%22To+determine+the+shape+of+a+molecule%2C+two+things+are+important%22 all brought up results. GrahameS 20:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete copyvio from several sources all mashed together into one big mess. No serious chemistry instructor would (should) use it and no student would look at it. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 23:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science and medicine-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Visviva 06:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Playboy Playmates with big breasts

Listcruft with a POV inclution critierion. E ivind ^t ^@^c 20:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The POV could be fixed by renaming the article to the standards set in the article - D-cup or larger. However, I do think that this is an example of "porncruft," so delete. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 20:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Well it's not called List of Playboy Playmates with D-cup size breasts, but even if it was it would still be, as you said, cruft. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 20:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)~~removing comment after Mr. Lefty changed his. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 20:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV porncruft. Garrepi 20:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Duplicates the info in the categories "Playboy models" and "Adult models". Also lacks objective standards and so violates WP:OR. -- Slowmover 20:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ~~I'm on the fence about this one.~~ An earlier version of the list included this in it's intro: "These are the playmates who have a D-cup or larger chest." I think if that is thrown back in, the "lacks objective standards" argument goes away. Dismas|^(talk) 22:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Truly an important topic. How many articles and lists are there about chess? Big tits are far more important today and in the way they have affected history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghosts&empties (talk • contribs) 2006-08-15 23:44:40
- Please explain how the fact that you think this to be "important" relates to the concerns expressed above that this is original research and inherently non-neutral, contravening our Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies. Uncle G 00:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For a related discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers. Uncle G 00:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to agree with Ghosts&empties on this one. It's a significant list,and can be an important one. Most of these women represent the bulk of Playboy's most famous models. So historically it can be important. Balin42632003 4:57 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete POV by definition. Also it is unnecessary listcruft. Konman72 10:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per Ghosts&empties. conron_us 6:36 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete: porncruft, duplicative, original research (what does "big" mean?) -- The Anome 11:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per The Anome. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I like breasts as much as the next guy, but this is inherently POV. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Changing to neutral after improvements, still not crazy about the title. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. There are so many playboy playmates out there that sublists are useful in navigating them. This one does have an objective stadard -- D cup. Although there is some inherent subjectivity in selectin the standard (eg maybe C is more appropriate), drawing the right line is the sort of consensus building that wikipedia is great at. Interestingstuffadder 17:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in the list is it explicitly stated that a model must have breasts of a certain size to be included. There's a line about how women must generally have a D-cup or larger to pose, but that's it. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm...see the third sentence. "These models generally have a D-cup or larger chest". Read in context, this refers to the models on this list, not playboy models in general (which would be absurd because many, many (most, in fact) playboy models have less than a D-cup. Interestingstuffadder 19:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: First, the phrasing is ambiguous from context. Second, that "generally" in the graf means that anybody who wants to add a woman with smaller breasts to the list can do so, as long as he or she personally thinks they're big enough to qualify as "big". Hence, the POV thing. You could try making List of Playboy Playmates with cup size greater than C, or changing the inclusion criteria on this list to a verifiable, hard-and-fast wording and purging everyone who doesn't meet it. Otherwise, I have to stick to my opinion. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have met your requests. I have inserted a non ambiguous D-cup standard for inclusion. i have also removed the name of every model whose individual article does not assert breast size. if you read playboy you know that not all profiles include cup size in their measurements (some just provide the number), which explains why some have this and some don't. Although I'm sure some unsubstantiated cup size assertions exist on these articles, this seems like the kind of issue that comes down to content issues in individual articles and doesn't seem like a basis for deleting this entire list. Interestingstuffadder 02:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Along with a D-cup standard, a 39-inch standard may be inserted as well. The reasons are explained in the article's talk page. (Aditya Kabir 13:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Keep Keep Keep. And, once more KEEP. I really wonder how this article was even considered AfD stuff! There's no such notice for List of big-bust models and performers. If we're talking un-encyclopedic phrasing, then it's a simple cleanup job, no AfD voting required. And, what is this cry about porncruft? There is already a Pornstar category sporting enough porncruft. Essentially non-neutral? Wow, from when have started considering a statement on a measurable size "non-neutral"? And, finally where did this question of "orginal research" come from? Doesn't Playboy print bust sizes for its models? To keep the neutral and uncensored nature of WP alive, once again, Keep. (Aditya Kabir 16:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

At the time it was listed, it didn't say anything about specific measurable standards. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 12:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to your specific comments, it has now. Updating position to Strong Keep (as if repeating it five times didn't emphasize enough). (Aditya Kabir 17:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Strong delete as per slowmover. Unencyclopedic. --Jtalledo (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly advise that you check a few of the other lists, before deciding "unencyclopedic". Slowmover's first point is plain strange, as it implies a mixing of lists, which defeats the very idea of making lists (i.e. keeping it simple and accessible). And, Slowmover's second point has long been met since. What's your point? (Aditya Kabir 17:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

My point is, there's no use for this. It would be far better if you had a list of models (maybe broken up into seperate list articles if necessary) and listed their sizes there - since Playboy apparently prints their bust size, issues can be used as a reference. --Jtalledo (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They don't print the cup size with every issue. They print the chest measurement, e.g. 36-24-36. Some also note the cup size but not all. Also, I read a year or so ago, probably in Playboy that the average bra size for U.S. women is a 36C, so D would be the beginning of "Big" since it's the next size past average. Dismas|^(talk) 13:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Two solutions - "unsubstantiated" bust sizes should be removed from the list, and, if necessary, the bottomline may be upgraded to DD or more. Besides, the subjective standard of "big bust" has been replaced with an objective standard of D cup anyways. (Aditya Kabir 16:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

More on the article's talk page. (Aditya Kabir 17:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Keep per Interestingstuffadder. Dismas|^(talk) 13:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calvary Church, Midrivers

It's a church in Missouri. Does not assert notability or provide verifiability. Prod tag was removed. IceCreamAntisocial 20:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NPOV, evangelistic, wants "every person to become a fully devoted follower" of Jesus - does not belong in the encyclopedia, at least not as written. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 23:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons others have already given. Robotforaday 01:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
anything else Might have fixed some of the problem areas, please give feedback. User:Thebigaster
- Delete. Before I say anything else, I'd like to respond to Thebigaster: Please read Wikipedia policies and guidelines, specifically what Wikipedia is not. The article still does not make any claim to notability. What is special about this Church? Did a famous religious leader attend service there? Is it the first church in the state? Is it the location of a notorious crime scene? Does it have famous people in its congregation? While we at Wikipedia respect all faiths and all churches, I just don't know if this one merits its own article (very few do). I guess that's my reasoning for deletion after all, too. Srose (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep: nomination withdrawn. Silensor 01:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carmel River School

~~A non-notable elementary school~~ Withdraw my nomination, notability has been established. --RMHED 23:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~(a merge into the parent community is okay with me if it doesn't expand)~~, seems verifiable and [60] makes it sound like it's an interesting place. JYolkowski // talk 23:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I decided to expand it. Amazing what people forget to add to articles sometimes, but it's there now. JYolkowski // talk 00:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reasonably good school article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All schools deserve an article in my opinion. Konman72 10:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Interesting and notable as documented in article. GBYork 14:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pretty good, as school articles go. Citations and everything. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep per above. Calsicol 17:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yank sox 22:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Argument

Contested prod. Neologism or nonsense, take your pick. Nothing relevant in google search, and cited webpage doesn't exist. Fan-1967 20:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nonsense. Akradecki 20:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an attack page. The web page does exist, but doesn't mention the term. Gazpacho 20:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. For some reason my DNS can't find the domain, but I find it in another directory. Regardless, as you say, it doesn't mention the term. Fan-1967 21:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Argument from ignorance, they are the same thing. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 21:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a {{db-attack}} page; there's nothing to merge in to the above article. (aeropagitica) (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 kept Nomination withdrawn Cat-five - talk 03:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Chennai Police

~~Non notable police group in India, no real claim to notability and just one of a million police areas. Cat-five - talk 20:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn Cat-five - talk 03:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - We do allow other police groups from other countries. :: Colin Keigher 20:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not per nom, but there are no sources listed. Who the hell knows if this is true?--SweetNeo85 21:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone who expends a even little effort in researching will, since even the most cursory of Google Web searches turns up things like this report of the appointment of the Additional Commissioner of Greater Chennai police in The Hindu. An article is only unverifiable if there are no sources cited in the article and you cannot find any sources when you do your best to find some. Uncle G 00:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for no verifiable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaseballBaby (talk • contribs) 2006-08-15 23:25:14
It's relatively easy to verify the existence, leadership of, and activities of this police force. And the newspaper articles from The Hindu (cited above), New Indian Express, The Hindu, and News Today demonstrate notability. I encourage editors to do research when contributing to AFD discussions. Keep. Uncle G 00:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a very large police force with 121 police stations in the city that used to be called Madras, which has a population of about 7.60 million million. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, change my comment to Keep and expand - thanks for providing some sources! Sorry about my unsigned comment up above - my brain is burping or something. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 01:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD A7. Yank sox 21:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Izzy's Ice Cream Cafe

This article is entirely unreferenced, and concerns an apparently non-notable restaurant. John254 20:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed -- Where is it anyway? The United States is a fairly large country. :: Colin Keigher 20:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Colin. Gazpacho 20:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, been tagged for a while but there seems to be a backlog on the speedy page. NawlinWiki 20:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per nom. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 20:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mango juice^talk 05:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masta Wong

Seeing as the prod was removed with no reasoning behind it, I'm listing this article for deletion. The only notability that this Pants-Off Dance-Off contestant has is that he was used in a New York Times and CNN article about the series itself. The show is not as wide spread as American Idol (the author used "Why is William Hung on Wikipedia?" as an excuse for this person's inclusion) or even So You Think You Can Dance?. I believe this article should be deleted because of the esotericness of the show, its audience, and its contestants (the nightly grand prize is US$200, not a recording contract or anything larger). Ryūlóng 20:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As WP:SNOW is neither policy nor guideline and the nominator seems to mention that the article "barely passes WP:BIO", I would suggest this AfD be removed or the nominator revise the reasons behind the nomination hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 00:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Nomination has since been revised hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 01:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unfortunately, New York Times and CNN has written about him, fairly extensively actually, as the primary subject in their articles, and it's not just a passing mention, so he gets by WP:BIO. I'm not sure "esotericness" = "nonnotability" (just as "famous" != "notability"). See the essay User:Uncle_G/On_notability, specifically the section Notability is not fame nor importance. ColourBurst 01:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.My personal impression is that shows are run by the presence of its contestants & just not by the name itself and the guy i mentioned won the show 3 times"...I would like to see,why we only be interested in mentioning the name of the show & not the contestant who has won it??Notability does not only constitute the show's name itself but also the winning contestants who participated in the shows.I agree with the contributor above,Notability is above & beyond the fame ,importance or notriety of an individual....If New York times or CNN claim the show to be "the dumbest on the cable",then again it is adding to the Notability of the show/participants...Besides both these articles mention more about this contestant rather then the show itself. (Trppo 02:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. I've fleshed out the reference section somewhat. The CNN article originated from AP, so many other newspapers carried the identical story. Meets WP:V and WP:BIO. --Satori Son 19:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mango juice^talk 05:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United-SF

As per talk page, not verified, nor notable, and vanity article AndrewRT - Talk 21:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--SweetNeo85 21:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - United-SF was written in order to inform the public and to give an example of a groups and parties that are trying to organize. United-SF is a party I know in particular and its very active in the Somali Community in the Twin Cities here in Minnesota. I don't think it should be deleted, however, I think it should be removed as an example in the Somalia article as an example. I do not know how to verfiy this group actually exisits since they have not decided to create a website or something of that nature.

--Samantar Abdirisaq 05:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete — I'm not convinced the webpage is referring to the same group as the last two external links. They seem to be just one of many armed groups in control of the independent state of Somaliland but I can't find any information on them except that they're small and don't seem to have any significant news mentions - Peripitus (Talk) 11:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply -- I am sure its not part of any Somaliland group. Actually I think the United-SF is part of a variety of new Somali Groups/Parties like Somali Social Union Party which is based over in Europe. I have decided to call one of the members of the United-SF here in Minnesota to contact him about the party. he told me they were still working but were not as active. Perharps we can use the Somali Social Union Party. I forgot to add, The Leader of the group, he told me, was a guy in Somalia named Samantar Jabar Ahmed --Samantar Abdirisaq 05:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Te ke 02:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Weak keep being written by a supporter of the group does not make it vanity, and almost any armed political group is notible. Verifyibility is an issue, but their website is enough for now. --Musaabdulrashid 07:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A Google search of "United Somali Front" brings up several mentions of the organization in a variety of websites, but nothing in the news- probably due to Somalia not being big news in North America though. However, the organization certainly appears to be known around the world. --Wafulz 15:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should be renamed to United Somali Front - who would look for United-SF? Eusebeus 20:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify From what I can tell the United Somali Front is a completely different organisation from the United-SF. The former is an armed group based in Somaliland (which probably does deserve an article), the latter an unarmed group with nothing but a website which doesn't even name the leader! Thanks for doing the research, Samantar, but please remember the Wikipedia:No Original Research policy when it comes to wikipedia content. AndrewRT - Talk 20:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - In that case it should be deleted since the references provided are all to the United Somali Front and this would be in effect unverifiable. Eusebeus 21:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Branded tagging

Neologism coined by article author ten days ago. Original research. --Haakon 21:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not for things "coined by Peter S. Corbett on August, 5th, 2006." —Celithemis 22:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I should write articles on stuff I coined on August 5, too. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 23:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Peter S. Corbett's anally-extracted masterpiece --Xrblsnggt 02:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. I removed my coinage reference. Now leave the article.—Corbett3000
- Does your removal of attribution mean that the term has wider and prior documented use? Or was it still coined by you 11 days ago? Haakon 16:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - How "wide" and how "prior" does a term need to be? Is there a policy on this? Regardless of when the term was coined, it is an actual PRACTICE that is occuring on a second by second basis on the web. It is an important (or at least to advertising people) topic and the inclusion of an article in Wikipedia is part of a broader educational initive that needs to occur. —Corbett3000
    - See Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms#Reliable_sources_for_neologisms for some information on that. Haakon 15:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well played, Sir. Well played.—Corbett3000

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evans City Middle School

Non-notable school Some P. E rson 21:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to notability, and I can't find anything remarkable in a search, other than the fact that it's a common name (there are about two dozen Evans City Elementary schools). It seems to be just another junior high. Srose (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All schools should get an article in my opinion. Wikipedia is not a print encyclopedia. Konman72 10:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's currently very stubby, I suggest merging this into an article on Seneca Valley School District. — RJH (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are pletty of stubs at Wikipedia that are never put up for deletion. Why do you want to merge it into a nonexisting article Seneca Valley School District? GBYork 16:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow to improve. Calsicol 17:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow for organic growth -- the nominator has failed to provide a reason for deletion under policy. Bahn Mi 00:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability isnt policy... verifiability is. ALKIVAR™ 06:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Yank sox 18:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McCain-Lieberman Party

Non notable fictional concept. Certainly a neologism, created August 10th acording to the sourcing. waffle iron ^talk 21:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article is based on pure speculation by a single person with little or not factual information to support such speculation. --Bobblehead 21:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Moderate until such time as the subject exists IRL. Argyriou 22:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I am new to the Wikipedia world, but I was anxious to get started with the McCain-Lieberman Party concept. It is a term used now by many political junkies and political scientists, but in a casual way. I know from conversation and blogging that it is frequently discussed. The exact nature or definition of the subject is often vague to people who are not regular political junkies, that's why I think it's important to not delete this article. I know from the Sitemeter records on my old blog that after Lieberman lost and Brooks wrote this column, many people googled the phrase. However, they were met with countless blog entries that are vague and not neutral.
This isn't a phrase that is simply secluded to David Brooks. After he used it multiple times on television and in speeches, it became part of the political science colloquial conversation. For instance, I had the good fortune of having lunch with Mr. Brooks, Clarence Paige, and a few political scientists at the University of Illinois and during that conversation the phrase was used multiple times.
The article is not meant as a prediction or a "crystal ball." Rather it is simply to define a term that is becoming more frequently used. Simply google it as proof.
This topic would be a very important contribution to Wiki. Please reconsider your nomination for deletion.--Onemanbandbjm 22:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the article is used "simply to define a term," then it does not belong on Wikipedia, which is not a dictionary. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 22:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. Comment to Onemandband: Unfortunately, this term is very new - only verifiably (that is, not used exclusively in blogs) five days old to my knowledge and research. That makes it a neologism, something that Wikipedia does not allow. If the phrase stays around for a while, however, it may become notable and deserve its own article. However, there's no way to tell right now whether this term will even live out the month. The important question to ask is: Will this be remembered in 25, 50, or 100 years? If this phrase is only around for a few months, it certainly won't be remembered, and thus does not merit an article in the encyclopedia. Thank you for your enthusiasm, though, and feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you ever need any assistance. Srose (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Argyriou. Clearly a metaphorical concept at this point. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 22:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Onemanbandbjm, why don't you keep the article as a draft connected to your userpage. As the phrase grows out of it's infancy into more wide spread use, you can then transfer it back into the mainspace. 205.157.110.11 22:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Defense The term has been used by Brooks and others for over a year now. Here is a link to a May 6th, 2005 transcript of NewsHour with Jim Lehrer
Andrew Sullivan also published an article in the UK Times about a "2008 McCain-Lieberman ticket"
Here it is discussed in Washington Monthly
Here it is mentioned in an ABC News story
Here in the Hartford Courant
As I explained in the main article, Brooks finally solidified the term with his column. Perhaps we could make it a current event topic and then you can determine whether it is getting enough hits and reader time to warrant becoming a permanent article. Or some kind of disclaimer would also be acceptable. This is a concept which will become increasingly prevalent as Lieberman runs as an independent and with the chance of McCain losing the presidential primary. I don't think there can be any harm in Wikipedia defining a term that is new, in fact, that is part of its duty. Wikipedia is meant to be flexible and malleable. It is supposed to be better than the other Encyclopedias in that it is on the cutting edge of human knowledge. Neologisms are part of its value. When something is published in the New York Times, the world's largest newspaper, it isn't exactly obscure. It clearly doesn't just define the term, it explains its history and provides outside research from Pew as to its validity.--Onemanbandbjm 22:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there can be any harm in Wikipedia defining a term that is new, in fact, that is part of its duty. — Please read our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Please also read Wikipedia:Five pillars to see what Wikipedia's duty actually is. Uncle G 01:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is clearly original research. Brooks was criticizing the concept as a workable political party - he wasn't "solidifying the term". The Note and the Hartford Courant articles are reporting on the Brooks AYou're jumping the gun here - as others have pointed out, Wikipedia is not a rumor site. An article such as this could lead some people to believe that such a party does in fact exist, when it clearly does not. Please consider the suggestion to keep it as a draft in your own user space, at least for now. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 23:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per above. The idea of keeping it as a draft on the user page until later has merit. Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 23:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Defense People will only think it's a real party if they don't read the first line which specifically uses the word FICTIONAL. It's true that Brooks is critical of the possibility toward the end of his article, and that can certainly be mentioned in the article. But he is hoping for the possibility. If it turns out that the concept dies as a means to describing America's political middle then we can delete the article. But why do it when thousands of people are looking for information on the Internet about this subject? If my article sounds like a rumor or a prediction then that can be changed, I did not intend for it to be that. It is more of a political junky's way of succinctly referring to America's political middle and of identifying its current leaders.
I'm confused here, is Wikipedia running out of server space? I mean, how many neologisms and often irrelevant articles exist on Wikipedia? How many that will only be relevant for a year or less. Perhaps a few million? One way to solidify this concept is precisely by putting it in Wikipedia, it has become that influential in our society.
As examples, Baseball Baby provides many through articles he has written, "Armstrong Gun, FACEP, ACEP, J-pouch, W-pouch, Jesse L. Reno, Mount Vernon Arsenal, Ovingdean, Brian Britt, Pi Alpha Alpha, San Solomon Springs, National Association for Ambulatory Urgent Care, Stork enamine alkylation, Cixiidae, Joe Zewe, Odontogriphus, Order of Daedalians, South Side-Baker Historic District"
Or from Srose, "Gustav Suits, Juhan Liiv, Madis Kõiv, Mart Saar, Mats Traat, Nikolai Baturin, Peeter Sauter, Ene Mihkelson, Elo Viiding, George R. Austin Intermediate School, Wildlife biologists, Isla Iguana Wildlife Refuge, Saddleback clownfish, Juno Februata, Abtu, Fastachee, Ahayuta, Ene Ergma - only possible with the help of Avjoska! :) --Onemanbandbjm 23:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- One way to solidify this concept is precisely by putting it in Wikipedia, it has become that influential in our society. — Being a platform for the promotion of novel concepts is precisely what Wikipedia is not for. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you want to create a solid definition for a novel concept out of thin air, your own web site is the place, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Uncle G 01:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonexistent reality or non-notable fiction. Whichever. Fan-1967 00:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Defense To clarify: This is not proposed as a reality. This is not proposed as a prediction. This is a methaphorical concept used to succinctly describe America's moderate middle. And it more specifically refers to a particular iteration of that middle, namely, the McCain-Lieberman version of it. On the official Wikipedia page, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not nowhere does it say that such a metaphorical concept cannot be published, thus that objection does not stand and that is the only objection that matters since that is the intent of the article. If the editors feel that I misled readers by making predictions or creating reality then I will be happy to edit the original article. Until then I would appreciate an official citation in published Wikipedia rules as to what precisely this type of article violates. This fictional concept is more notable than probably 50% of all fictional concept articles on Wikipedia, so that argument also does not stand. Please show me a precise citation as to what is being objected to. I feel that the original editor made a comment and his posterity have simply fallen in line with his comments: Groupthink. --Onemanbandbjm 01:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"This is a methaphorical concept used to succinctly describe America's moderate middle." However it's not a well-known or widespread concept. It is a column less than a week old, that has not achieved currency. "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought." Also, "Wikpedia is not a soapbox." It is not Wikipedia's purpose to spread or promote new concepts; that's what blogs are for. Fan-1967 02:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defense After Brooks and other have been discussing the idea for over a year it means that my article is no longer a publishing of original thought. I'm not inventing anything here. I'm reporting on the facts of the situation, describing the concept, and providing broader analysis(the Pew data). I'm not using this as a soapbox, if I were the text would read, "Centrism is ostensibly the best political philosophy that anyone can hold." Who's next? --Onemanbandbjm 02:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Brooks comes up with neologisms like this almost everytime he opens his mouth -- they aren't encyclopedic unless and until others (in significant numbers) begin to repeat them (as with Bobo). RadicalSubversiv E 02:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Defense First, that accusation is a complete exaggeration. Second, please again show me where that is listed on Wiki's official page defining what is acceptable and what is not? I will not relent until someone proves to me that this concept goes beyond the bounds of what is accepted practice. What you all think should be accepted practice simply isn't good enough to satisfy me. I operate by the rules.--Onemanbandbjm 03:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms --waffle iron ^talk 03:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a neologism about a nonexistent political alliance. The entire article is essentially a restatement and summary of Brooks' beliefs on partisanship and has little to do with its purported subject. Andrew Levine 14:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maintain on user page. User may re-create article in one year...if the term has caught on, there will be no controversy. (My guess is it will only "stick" if McCain or Lieberman has a significant presence in this year's election. The similarity of their views/politics is more coincidence born of current politics, than substantial alignment of views.)
Delete or redirect to Brooks. & in any case fine to write a couple of paragraphs about this in Brooks' article, but don't blow it out of proportion. - Jmabel | Talk 05:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the page for moderate. Some of what's here can also be moved there. Mr_Beale 4:47. 22 August 2006
Merge and redirect to moderate. —Nightst a llion (?) 12:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep as mistaken nomination. JYolkowski // talk 01:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Q (New York City Subway service)

There is no such thing as the 'Q subway line' this article is a complete hoax, and the sources are fabricated, complete hoax--FownYogbleth 21:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is such a thing as the Q subway service. The New York City Transit web page that describes it is here. The published timetable is here (PDF). Marc Shepherd 21:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, bad faith nomination, the slightest bit of research would have shown there is a Q line. NawlinWiki 21:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 22:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bad faith nomination, completely verifiable. --TheM62Manchester 22:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is beyond bad faith. This is a "alcohol-inspired" nomination. Pacific Coast Highway ^{(blah • I'm a hot toe picker)} 00:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Night Times Magazine

Contested speedy. Insufficient notability. Copy from www.nighttimes.com. — ERcheck (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Petros471 21:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. *Wince* at the text copy-pasted from the original site. I would lean towards voting for wikification, but the lack of any outside sources means it fails WP:V. I would support re-creation but only if these issues are corrected first. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 22:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Randaphobia

Prod tag disputed on talk page; Original research, non-notable neologism, (maybe WP:POINT too), 26 Google hits (on newsgroups and blogs). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I believe this is Original research and thus merits deletion. --TheM62Manchester 21:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Made up at school one day. Though I am amazed that the article didn't find a way to link to Jimmy Wales. 205.157.110.11 22:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 23:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neoblogism. Gazpacho 01:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete because the "dumb" comment and the "made up in school one day" comment above (especially the first, which isn't even clever), may be examples of what this spoof "affliction" seeks to characterize. Adam smith's ghost
Delete. Just some neologism invented by a Wikipedian. -- LGagnon 02:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not a neologism. The term "Randaphobia" goes back at least to 2000, since it shows up with a slightly different spelling in this article: www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38ae7a071e83.htm . Adam smith's ghost
Comment This is also may not be "original research" for the same reason - the 2000 article: www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38ae7a071e83.htm. Adam smith's ghost
- Comment I'm always suspicious when someone creates an account for the sole purpose of adding an article like this. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk
  - Comment I would be also, except that I am not the person who added this article, and don't know who that person is. I agree that the article as originally posted was guilty of all the raps that have been laid against it. Obviously, with the changes made since I no longer think that, even more so as I have become aware of other past uses of the term. Adam smith's ghost

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SynergeticMaggot 06:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Neo-Geo games

Redundant with the category Neo-Geo games, and should be deleted based on the precedent set by the deletion of List of beat 'em ups. Luvcraft 21:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is where we discuss whteher or not we want to keep the article. My vote is Keep because every other game system has a list of games article for them. guitarhero777777 22:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are similar situations with the Nintendo GameCube, PlayStation 2 and Xbox in that they each have a category for their games as well as a list like Neo-Geo does. TJ Spyke 23:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per other console lists. Roadsoap 01:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, lists and categories are not redundant. This list provides context by listing redlinks along with the related bluelinks, and it presents multiple names where necessary, both features that can't (and shouldn't) be implemented in a category. Melchoir 01:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Like sports games for example, yearly updates to a game like Madden don't need their own articles. TJ Spyke 02:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:LIST WilyD 03:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note that in the AfD for List of beat 'em ups, it was said that list did not do anything that the category did not already do. In this case, the list includes non-linked games, including unnotable ones that may never get pages on Wikipedia. I wish the list included more useful information, like years of release and such, but I suppose that's up to the editors. For now it passes being a useful enough list. --SevereTireDamage 11:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per. above. Havok (T/C/c) 13:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 15:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep - Lists aren't redundant with catagories, as lists can include redlinks and additional information. --PresN 15:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thugism

The subject of the article is a "new religious movement" based on the life of Tupac Shakur. Many of the elements of the article are quite famous—the rapper, his thug life philosophy, thug mansion (one of his songs), etc. However, I believe this religious movement falls under not for things made up in school one day; or at least is unverifiable. 25 unique Google hits for "thugism "tupac shakur"" [61], none of which, as far as I can tell, use the word thugism in the manner in which it is defined in this article. Some of the text screams hoax to me as well, but dubious claims are de rigeur for religions. Prod removed.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is all original research that cannot be proven. It is also about a non-existent religion. guitarhero777777 22:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total nonsense: one of the rules is "Imbibe Kool Aid often." and they apparently consider Edwin Perkins, inventer of Kool-Aid to be God. Might make a good redirect to Thuggee after deletion, though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fopkins | Talk 23:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Took me a while to dig up, but here [62] is a thing a guy I knew wrote up about "Thugism". It's a fairly new thing, I guess. If nothing else it's interesting and amusing. ~Nightmare Link (p.s. hopefully I did this right, I'm really new to wikipedia)
Delete "a thing a guy I knew wrote up?" That just screams notable. --Xrblsnggt 02:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense and redirect per Starblind. Gazpacho 05:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "It is all original research that cannot be proven" "Delete total nonsense" I believe that religion doesnt need factual basis, theres nothing to prove, as Its based on faith and beliefs alone. Therefore, Thugism should be kept. ~B0b Jones

Comment We aren't debating whether the tenets of the religion are true, but whether the existence of the religion is true. If the former was the gravaman of the deletion nomination I'd probably be stoned to death.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Bros before hoes"? Hmm. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 03:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Affion Crockett

All it was doing was linking to Wild 'N Out. It serves no purpose at all. CrossBlade 22:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have restored the entry to an earlier version that was more than a link, would you consider withdrawing your nomination? --Groggy Dice 05:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Article about a person not meeting the requirements of WP:BIO - just another TV cast member and no assertion of importance in the article Peripitus (Talk) 11:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sorry; not notable. I don't see how it meets WP:BIO. BlueValour 19:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mango juice^talk 05:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of silent protagonists

Listcruft. —tregoweth (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its a perfectly good list why lose it? CrossBlade 22:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic, unnecessary information. What's the importance of this article? What valuable information does it convey to the reader? What impact has its subject had on society, history, etc.? I can't find a satisfactory answer to any of these questions. I believe the Silent protagonist article is enough. Srose (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Silent protagonist. Green caterpillar 22:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, though it needs considerable trimming (Mario certainly does talk!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and unencyclopedic listcruft. -- Koffieyahoo 02:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft and trivial. KleenupKrew 04:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pointless. Unnecessary information that no-one is likely to seek. BlueValour 19:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Srose phrased it perfectly: this is unencyclopedic. Nandesuka 12:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tigmoo

I'm not sure if this is notable or not. The absence of references concerns me. Green caterpillar 22:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I've added the reference, and there are a few google hits. I think a prod would have been in order here. Mr Stephen 22:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I do not feel this article is notable enough. Not to suggest that a google search is the end all test for notability (although I think some would), but a google search for Tigmoo only yields 11 hits. A search for "This great movement of ours" yields 110 hits. Fopkins | Talk 23:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per IUWACN (International Union of Wikipedians Against Cutesy Neoacronymlogisms). --Xrblsnggt 02:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
THAWFTBICSIH --Xrblsnggt 02:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"List of acronyms and initialisms: T" is a better place for it. Or *Delete per above. In any case, it should all be in capitals, otherwise it's a neologism and deletable under WP:NEO. Ohconfucius 01:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not encyclopaedic. This is a definition that could go in Wiktionary, Lists of acronyms etc but not here. BlueValour 19:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of computer and video fighting games

Redundant with the category fighting games, and should be deleted based on the precedent set by the deletion of List of beat 'em ups. Luvcraft 22:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fopkins | Talk 23:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative: Even though I'm the one who created this AfD, I just had an even better idea: rename the article "computer and video fighting games in need of articles", add it to the fighting games category, and remove all the blue links. That way it is no longer redundant with the category, and also links to items without articles, which is the one major thing that lists do that categories do not. I also propose that this be the preferred treatment for all lists that are redundant with categories. Luvcraft 00:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You'd need to move it into the Wikipedia namespace. Fagstein 05:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I found the perfect place for it: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Requests. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Segregating redlinks and bluelinks to separate daughter pages would remove context from both lists. The two pages would want to link to each other, in violation of the ban on links to Wikipedia: from article space. (And, ironically, the Wikipedia: daughter would be impossible to categorize along with its sister.) The process for adding either new articles or new links would become more labor-intensive and prone to error -- and less transparent in its history. And, need I repeat myself-- there is no redundancy to be fixed, and redlinks are hardly the best reason to keep lists. Melchoir 19:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; lists and categories are not redundant. This simple list already does two things the category cannot: it lists "prominent examples", and it presents both the English and Japanese titles where applicable. Melchoir 01:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The alternate titles are listed in each game's article, and redirects take care of any attempts to search for the article under its alternate name. As for the "prominent examples", there are plenty of games in the list that aren't prominent at all, like Bio F.R.E.A.K.S. and Fighter's Destiny, so it would require a lot of cuts before it could stand as a "list of prominent fighting games" article, which is not its intended purpose in the first place. Luvcraft 02:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - We do not delete things just because they have yet to live up to their potential. If the list needs fixing, then fix it. I mention alternate titles because nowhere else on Wikipedia will you find all this information on one page. Certainly not in a category. Melchoir 19:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - But what is its potential? All we have is an alphabetical list of articles, which is exactly what a category is designed to give you. If someone wants to turn this into more than that, go ahead, but otherwise it's redundant and should be deleted. Fagstein 06:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant with category. Fagstein 05:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. However, this article does need a short description of the games in order to warrant an article.guitarhero777777 18:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. This article could turn into a good "list of notable fighting games and series" by removing the non-notable ones and providing synopses for the rest. Luvcraft 19:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Melchoir. Key being, this list is not necessarily redundant - including information like year and developer would make this much more useful, not to mention that a list can contain both red links and non-link games - games that are in the genre, but won't have articles, and/or games that are already in a series article but have no individual article. For instance, all the Guilty Gear games, but there are also plenty of fighters that don't have or don't need pages that would still warrant a mention here. --SevereTireDamage 18:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Lists and categories are not mutually exclusive, but complimentary. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant: delete it If an article for a franchise was written correctly someone should be able to access all sub articles through an initial disambiguation page. If an article is a red-link, it can be moved to a "request" page as suggested by the nominator. --Kunzite 01:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Havok (T/C/c) 05:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 08:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - categories are easier to maintain, more up to date and do a better job thanthis list. BlueValour 19:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Prominent games are already covered in the genre article and a simple list of titles is redundant with the category. Ace of Sevens 18:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep per above; a maintainable and useful list. — brighterorange (talk) 03:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SynergeticMaggot 00:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: It's been redirected already, for some reason. SynergeticMaggot 01:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've reverted the redirect, instituted by nominator MgHoneyBee (talk · contribs) as the clear consensus was to keep the article. Powers ^T 13:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Hogan

DELETE Nick hasn't done anything except be in his father's show Hogan Knows Best. When he comes out with a CD or something he can have a page but not until then.MgHoneyBee 03:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree. Nick probably will need a page as he is young yet and will probably be doing things with his life that impress. People want to know what Nick is going to be when he grows up if they know what his sister is doing. Anyway, Linda is too old to do anything with herself. I think she plans on being Hogan's wife and that's it for the rest of her days. Just staying home and going a little coocoo about her animals. But Nick is young and has stuff ahead of him. this article stays but Linda's needs to go. Tonetare 23:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one of the central figures of a national TV show, IMDB profile shows a number of TV appaearances on various shows (Larry King, Jimmy Kimmel, Howard Stern) and a couple of minor movie roles. Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I think what Andrew is trying to get across to you, correct me if I'm wrong Andrew, is that he has done things. You might consider them minor, but they are things minor or not minor to YOU. Andrew feels this ISN'T minor. I don't think being in a movie is a minor thing either. Besides, he probably will be in more movies if he has been in this one so we should just keep it up instead of having to recreate these things. They're Hogan's kids. Of course their going to be in the spotlight. Not Linda's old self of course. She's fully cooked. In fact, Linda's burnt and stale. Someone needs to throw her out along with her page. Tonetare 07:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking out duplicate vote. Powers ^T 22:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please try to avoid personal attacks, Tonetare. Powers ^T 22:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Peregrinefisher 22:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 02:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Dawson 15:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Involved with at least one movie, content for expansion. Gimmetrow 09:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karma TV Series

More brilliance from Asad Aleem. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krrish (superhero). Danny Lilithborne 23:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated under this AfD:

List of characters in Karma

Delete probable hoax considering source and no mention of it on Ekta Kapoor's IMDB profile. If this editor repeatedly creates hoax articles, it's probably time for a final warning or a block by now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've marked User:Bret John as a sockpuppet of the creator of this article based on both AfDs. Danny Lilithborne 23:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. FelineAvenger 01:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 03:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. He's multiplying articles where a simple one is sufficient based on importance. Wouldn't the world be a duller place if Asad Aleem wasn't around? ;-) Ohconfucius 04:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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