Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 17 July 19 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. This has gone on long enough. Painting in very broad strokes: on the one hand, we have a vast number of editors who argue persuasively that this article does (and must by its nature) consist of unverifiable claims, original research, and no reliable sources. On the other hand, we have a slightly smaller number of editors who argue that this article should be kept for various reasons: (1) That Wikipedia has a duty to not delete articles about any entity criticizing it, (2) that various editors who favor deletion are acting in bad faith, and (3) since we have other articles that are similar to this one, it's unfair to delete this one. Those three "keep" arguments are all spectacularly unpersuasive, and (for the most part) do not address the objections raised to the article other than to assert their falsity. Added to this we have the spectacle of solicitation and/or spamming for keep votes. I have no opinion on Encyclopedia Dramatica — never having heard of it before tonight — but I am using my discretion and bringing this to a close, so we can hopefully all move on. Nandesuka 05:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Encyclopædia Dramatica

This article has been created under different spellings: The first AfD: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Encyclopedia_Dramatica resulted in delete. Article was recreated under a different spelling. 2nd spelling: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica resulted in keep, 3rd spelling: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Encyclopaedia_Dramatica resulted in no consensus. (This AfD uses the same spelling as the 2nd AfD).

This site does not appear notable (WP:WEB) outside of a rather limited sub-community. Additionally this article falls well foul of WP:V and is likely in conflict with WP:NOR. As well, it is very likely that this article meets the requirements for vanity deletion (see the specific vanity reason on WP's deletion policy) as there are very likely editors who edit on Encyclopædia Dramatica who concurrently edit the Wikipedia article that corresponds to it (in conflict of interest). This site appears to only be geared as an attack site and lately the article has become a bit of an attack page, that in combination with it's lack of notability and vanity problems merits a deletion. ( → Netscott) 01:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Note to closing admin(s): Please refrain from merely counting keep or delete "votes" in determining consensus on whether this article should be kept or not. Please take the time necessary to read the arguments for and against deletion including discussion on the talk page of this AfD and properly evaluate said arguments in deciding the outcome of this AfD. Thanks. ( → Netscott) ( → Netscott) 05:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The_Psychology_Wiki, Jurispedia, Mac_Guide, Open_Source_Reiki, OpenFacts, OrthodoxWiki, PSConclave, PeanutButterWiki, Personal_Telco, ProductWiki, Quicksilver_wiki, Science_Fiction_and_Fantasy_Wiki, Star_Trek_Gaming_Universe, State_Wiki, and Symbolwiki.
Definite keep per all of this. rootology 21:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Point taken about all the other articles. Having said that, we've got some set criteria for notability and I think we should stick with them until these rules are changed by consensus. I'm not saying this out of some slavish devotion to rules; I respect the fact they are formed by a broader consensus and are our best bulwark against a much busier, messier and more subjective deletion process. (In the meantime, maybe we've just been handed a working list of wiki-related articles for PROD tags.) -- A. B. 18:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, perhaps speedy as a blatant WP:POINT violation. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 21:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete and my worst fears are proving true...even SchmuckyTheCat who may or may not be also a SysOp at at encyclopedia dramatica sums up my fears with his comment above "ED is going to be the new GNAA". Wikipedia is not here to promote that website and many editors from there are now going to come here to filibuster this vote. The page is anarchy, the supportors of the wesbite editing it are nothing but trolls for the most part, and the article is a slap in wikipedia's face. I can see no reason at this time for this article to exist...it violates original research, has virtually no reliable sources and is being used as a soapbox for their own promotional agenda, which violates what wikipedia is not. Use a MOAB on this thing and send any remains to Yucca Mountain.-- MONGO 21:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Removing article is unneeded. If there is a problem with some content, then delete that content. Articles referencing WP are a small minority on ED. Most are about Livejournal. Even if the article exists only as a stub it is of no less merit than related stubs I listed in my vote. rootology 22:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. As the purpose of this site appears to be an attack on Wikipedia and/or certain Wikipedians, and consdiering the other reasons cited by MONGO, it needs to go. -- Donald Albury( Talk) 21:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep as per Rootology. Since when has it been against policy to list those that criticize WP? Blatant home field POV.  T.K.   TALK  22:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • We delete attack articles. -- Donald Albury( Talk) 22:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • As we should. This is not an attack article. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 22:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • This editor has admited on his userpage that he is a SysOp at encyclopedia dramatica. Painly put, Badlydrawnjeff's POV here should be obvious. The article may not NOW be an attack article but it certain was just yesterday. I can find little rationale to allow these people to use wikipedia resources to promote their hostile website.-- MONGO 22:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
          • Um, people are not prohibited from having POVs, only articles are. And it's not like you don't have a conflict of interest here either, having been mocked by the site. Karwynn (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
          • It wasn't one yesterday, either, actually. You might actually want to do a tiny bit of research before blowing things out of proportion in the future. Your repeated violations of policy during this charade the last couple days has been noted by more than one person, and your personal investment in this should also be noted. If this is how you treat people who defended you on the talk page, I'd sure hate to be your enemy. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 22:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
          • Please provide a diff link proving the ED Wikipedia article was an attack article. Also, is it against the rules or policies of WP to be an admin at ED as well? Please cite this policy. Also, "Painly put, Badlydrawnjeff's POV here should be obvious." As is yours, as stated (citing you here for clarity/relevance, not a policy violation--DO NOT EDIT MY COMMENT, original link: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Tony_Sidaway&diff=prev&oldid=64453125:

          • I agree...problem it, it has been through two or three attempts to delete it. I may redirect it later on, or make it so insignificant, it won't be a troll magnet as it is now. I'll wait until they remove their nonsense from the mainpage and we then lift the protection. Then the article will be fixed once and for all. They think they will win, but policy is on the side of wikipedia.-- MONGO 12:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

          • I contend this whole vote is done (ultimately) in bad faith... rootology 22:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Define how this is an attack article. It links to a site with SOME pages that attack WP. Wikitruth still exists however, is much more detailed, and links to a site dedicated to trashing Wikipedia completely. I call bias based on the MONGO/ED incident. rootology 22:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • NOT an attack article! Just because a site links to pages that criticize/attack WP does not mean they should lose their listing! The article as it stands is a collection of factual information, with no bias or attack as far as i can tell. Which is what a WP article should be.  T.K.   TALK  22:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • How interesting that you yourself are using the word "attack". ( → Netscott) 22:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Well, the site clearly says it is 'parody/satire' so why would the rest of the site beconsidered parody but the wikipedia parts be considered serious attacks? Can't have it both ways. Either the site is serious, which means we can use the statements on it as fact. Or it's not, which means we cannot trust what it says and therefor it is not attacking, merely parody/satire/etc like uncyclopedia-- Bouquet 22:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete. per nom and Dalbury. -- Aude ( talk contribs) 22:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, no one will take us seriously if we delete our critics. Verifiability is possible for some version of this article, don't take the nuclear option for what should be an editing dispute. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I seriously doubt anyone takes Encyclopædia Dramatica to be a site geared towards "criticism" of Wikipedia... it's all about attacking... is that not obvious? ( → Netscott) 22:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • It's not obvious because it's not correct. It's all about humor! There's plenty of articles in there that aren't attacking, or even sensical at alL! Read the website, you'll see what I mean. Karwynn (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per Rootology.-- Nosmik 22:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. My view on this is that there are some subjects--Daniel Brandt, Encyclopedia Dramatica, and Wikipedia Review being chief amongst them--on which we cannot expect to write dispassionately and neutrally. We're better off concentrating on the production of a high quality encyclopedia that omits those few subjects on which we should clearly disqualify ourselves from commenting as if we were neutral parties. In these cases we are not.-- Tony Sidaway 22:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete-The website does not offer "criticism" of wikipedia, just lowbrow and slanderous attacks (Jimbo is a pedophile, etc). Brandt's Wiki-watch is more constructive then this site. Clearly self published and original research. 205.157.110.11 22:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • keep-The website is notable.
  • Keep This reminds me somewhat of the Coca Cola userbox (or was it the Firefox one? water under the bridge now), where they used a copyrighted image, and the box was deleted rather than removing the image. If there's an issue with the article, try to fix it, rather than rushing to delete it. -- Toffile 23:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I agree that it should be cleaned up, but a few Wikipedia admins are blanking large areas of the article then hiding behind the loosest parts of Wikipedia policy to justify their actions, this whole thing stinks of bad faith. ~ IICATSII 08:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Karwynn. -- Elonka 23:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not only does it fail WP:V, WP:NOR but it also fails WP:WEB. Has the site "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself"? No. Has the site "won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation"? Again no. Finally, has content been "distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster"? This last condition it might have some chance of getting, but if so, someone needs to point it out. I was unable to find any evidnece of it meeting the third condition, and it clearly fails the first two. Therefore delete. JoshuaZ 23:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • As mentioned in my initial vote, this logic of deletion for Wike-related projects means that nearly EVERY such article in Wikipedia must be removed as well. As those articles remain in WP space, so must the ED article. rootology 23:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Absolutely not. The failure for some articles to follow basic issues does not mean that we have to ignore the guidelines here. If you want to go through and AfD a lot of the minor Wikis I won't disagree with you. If you want the guideline applied consistently that's what you should do, not save this one in defiance of the guidelines. JoshuaZ 00:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Perfectly logical argument on the part of JoshuaZ. Well expressed there JoshuaZ. ;-) ( → Netscott) 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Well, if the concensus based on the voting is to keep, or no concensus, does that take precedence over individual admin action/freedom of choice in deleting? I am curious as there is at least one admin "hostile" to this article's existence, and possibly another. rootology 00:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
          • This site is not notable and the others are likely not. As well with editors like User:badlydrawnjeff editing on the article as an admitted sysop on Encyclopædia Dramatica you've got a conflict of interest that corresponds to vanity which is a very valid reason for deletion. ( → Netscott) 00:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
            • The notability of the site is still being debated after the issue was first raised a day or two ago, and this deletion was immediately forced through after editors complained about perceived bias (almost immediately after). Admins do a good job, but this does feel like a retaliatory nomination, especially given the ferocity of people to "get rid of it". This nomination so far is heading based on votes to either a weak to solid keep, or a no concensus. If that happens, the article should remain while it gets worked out further on the page itself. rootology 00:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Low traffic website. Ramseystreet 23:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep bad faith nomination. -- Ozmodiar.x 00:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, Dalbury, Hipocrite et al. Not particularly notable; vanity applies. Apparently virtually impossible to source. Note to those voting "Speedy keep": Since there has already been at least one delete vote, Speedy keep is not possible. Speedy keep is for all Keep votes. KillerChihuahua ?!? 00:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Please read speedy keep part 5, and note that many articles have been speedy kept rightfully due to WP:POINT violations. I'm a monger about these sort of things, as I'm sure you know, and this would likely qualify. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 00:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Where is the foundation of this ridiculous accusation of WP:POINT? ( → Netscott) 00:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Multiple renominations, bad faith at the article, bad faith by various editors, falsehoods being strewnabout, etc. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 00:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
          • None of what you mentioned here describes my involvement surrounding this article (and now nominator for its deletion). Where's the assumption of good faith? ( → Netscott) 00:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
            • THe same place it is with me, if that's what you're thinking. Actually, you have renominated it yet again, even though the first attempts didn't get anywhere, so it does actually descibe your involvement. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 00:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
              • If there's WP:POINT happening here it's that an admitted sysop (yourself) for the site that corresponds to this article is editing on it and arguing for the existence of it. Prior to today I've never once edited on the article nor participated in any discussions surrounding its deletion. My reasoning for the need for the deletion of this article is very valid. ( → Netscott) 00:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
                • And when's the last time I did anything substantial there? Hell, when's the last time I made any sort of substantive edit at the article? My point stands, your labeling of my argument as "ridiculous" is out of line. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 00:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
                  • Your falsely accusing me of WP:POINT is out of line particularly with your established partisanship in this whole affair. ( → Netscott) 00:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
                    • I don't believe it was false, and I don't beleive I have any "partisanship" in this affair. I haven't edited at the site in ages, and I didn't approve of what caused MONGO to act out improperly. You coninue to assume bad faith about MY motives from the very beginning of this thread. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 00:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
                      • Yes, your timely edit went some way to reduce your appearance of partisanship. I see. ( → Netscott) 00:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
                        • It's funny that a massive rehaul of my userpage is considered timely. Is it false, or are you just trying to get me fired up at this point. Do a little research, get a clue as to what I've actually been up to instead of continually assuming bad faith. You should certainly know better. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 00:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
                          • Actually I haven't really assumed bad faith on your part but your participation both on the article and here illustrate masterfully my contention that this article merits deletion on vanity grounds. ( → Netscott) 00:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
                            • Actualy, you have and continue to. You have yet to demonstrate vanity or the exent of my actual participation in the editing process, either here OR there. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 00:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
                              • Hmmm, there is nothing to demonstrate here. You are an admitted sysop at Encyclopædia Dramatica. It doesn't really matter how active you are there now. On your userpage it doesn't say "former admin" does it? Ergo if you are editing on the article about it and arguing for the article's existence, it is safe to assume that you are doing so with some motivation of vanity (as likely a number of other editors are). ( → Netscott) 00:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
                    • Given what appears to be possible partisanship on BOTH sides, I again bring up what I wrote above, and my concerns of bias/retaliation over the whole MONGO 3rd party thing in all this: "The notability of the site is still being debated after the issue was first raised a day or two ago, and this deletion was immediately forced through after editors complained about perceived bias (almost immediately after). Admins do a good job, but this does feel like a retaliatory nomination, especially given the ferocity of people to "get rid of it". This nomination so far is heading based on votes to either a weak to solid keep, or a no concensus. If that happens, the article should remain while it gets worked out further on the page itself." rootology 00:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Guys, can we cool it down a little? Or at least move it to the talkpage. -- Bane s 01:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Reasonable people can disagree about WP:WEB, but I think it's too low a bar as it is. I would support raising the standards for inclusion. Tom Harrison Talk 12:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I disagree with you 100% CBD, Notability has no validity as an argument for deletion... and OR / RS / V are absolutely reason to delete any article that does not meet these well defined policies. WP:WEB is a guideline and as such can be argued either way... but WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS are non-negotiable.-- Isotope23 01:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Yes, those are all policies... about the content of articles. They have nothing whatsoever to do with deletion. All but a very few Wikipedia articles failed the 'verifiability', 'original research', and/or 'reliable sources' policies when they were first created... indeed, the vast majority of articles still fail those policies. Yet no one is arguing for the deletion of several hundred thousand articles... because those have never been and never will be criteria for deletion. The frequent citation of them on this page is an embarrassing example of searching for a pretext to accomplish a goal founded on entirely different motivations. Lack of notability IS a reason for deletion, and ED is within the (very wide) grey area defined by Wikipedians' wildly differing notability standards... but it seems clear that ED is notable enough that it would be unambiguously kept (like many less notable web-sites are currently) if the subject matter were not so controversial. Which is what this really comes down to in the end... an effort to exclude information on ED because the site is annoying/offensive/obnoxious/et cetera. If it weren't then the page probably never would have been nominated for deletion or, if it were, a handful of 'high notability standards' deletionists would be the only ones voting delete. A few people have been up-front about deleting for these reasons and to prevent strife et cetera... which are valid motivations, but I think outweighed by the importance of impartiality in how we review and maintain articles. -- CBD 13:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The argument presented is not that the article fails WP:V (which it does), but that it is fundamentaly unverifiable - that it cannot pass WP:V, ever. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Hipocrite has it exactly right. You may disagree CBD but any article that fails WP:V and WP:NOR can and should be deleted if it cannot be verified. It has nothing to do with personal feelings about Encyclopædia Dramatica (to be honest, I quite like the site).-- Isotope23 18:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
As I said in my original vote... a good deal of the article IS verifiable. The claim that something can't be verified unless it has been printed in a major newspaper is just silly. The current user count of Wikipedia has been included in the Wikipedia article for years... despite not being stated in a 'verifiable third party source' or, since we got big enough that they did start reporting it, despite contradicting outdated figures in such sources. How is this possible? Are we 'breaking the rules'? No... we're using a primary source. The Wikipedia statistics page and/or list of users can be linked to directly as verification. ED exists. It has users. It has articles. Those articles are on various subjects. All of these things are easily verifiable by any user of Wikipedia... indeed, far more verifiable than references to obscure out of print books, which we accept without controversy. If the ED article were to say, 'ED is the funniest site on the internet' that would be POV. If it were to say, 'Josh Bumblemeyer of the New York Times says ED is the funniest site on the internet', that would be a verifiable opinion from a reliable third party source. If it were to say, 'ED claims to be the funniest site on the internet', that would be a verifiable claim made by the primary source (not that I am suggesting the make this claim - just an example). Verifiable means that there is some way for the reader to check that the info in the article is accurate. For most of this article... there is. Ergo, no... the claim that it can never be verified is just false. -- CBD 11:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, as per nom and others. Strong failing of WP:V, with little potential for not. Jefffire 12:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete It's been said above already. Karma fist p 13:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete We have heard their intentions, to which they are welcome, but Wikipedia does not exist to help them achieve those goals. 800 ghits, ZERO google news, ZERO cited reliable sources, and basically it's just an offsite troll-a-rama. Just zis Guy you know? 14:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. I was asked about this, but reluctant to vote. The discussed site seems to exist for no purpose other than abuse and insult of Wikipedia(ns); and the article itself seemed to be pushed mostly as vanity by editors associated with ED. Nonethless, I had tended to feel the website itself did just barely reache notability guidelines, so didn't feel like I could quite vote delete. However, I had separate occasion to reflect on Wikipedia:External links, which seems to suggest several grounds to make this deletable. One is simply that linking to outright libel reflects badly on WP. But also linking to blogs like ED is generally deprecated. LotLE× talk 14:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I must totally agree with CBD's 12:32, 19 July 2006 comment above. Everything in the article is, or can be, phrased in a way which matches all Wikipedia rules for content. As for how notable Encyclopædia Dramatica is, I provide an example myself: I heard it mentioned (in real life!) a few days ago and had no idea what it was. I therefore looked it up on Wikipedia, where I found what appears to be a quite accurate article about its content, as well as the link to this discussion about possible deletion. Kremmen 14:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep AfD ain't for content disputes. JeffBurdges 14:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete does not assert notability per WP:WEB. KWH 14:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Despite the emotional and dramatic pleas from its backers, I don't see how this website is notable in an encyclopdic sense. It's really just a vanity article. Deli nk 14:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and for the http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Lulz lulz. -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:V & WP:WEB. this is obviously an emotional issue for a lot of people on both sides of the debate. The primary problem I see here is that there are no reliable sources given that show how this site meets WP:WEB guidelines. The "references" are a members list, statistics page, Alexa rankings, a Washington Post blog, and a Newsvine article. the stats and Alexa rankings are meaningless for WP:WEB purposes and the media mention is a blog... not a reliable source. The Newsvine article is barely a paragraph. Additionaly, verifiability problems arise from the fact that most of the cites are either links to Wikipedia discussion/AfD pages or Encyclopædia Dramatica pages. All in all, ED falls well below accepted guidelines for this sort of material.-- Isotope23 15:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Like it or not, we must abide by our central policies, WP:V and WP:NOR. We cannot keep articles that do not meet these policies. Most of the "keep" voters seem to be arguing that it should be kept because it is notable -- note that notability is not a criterion for inclusion, whereas V and NOR are criteria for inclusion. It is irrelevant whether the subject is notable or not if it cannot be written about based on existing, reliable, reputable, secondary sources.
    I strongly encourage the closing admin to disregard all comments, both for and against the article, if they are based on the mistaken assumption that either notability or the lack thereof is able to override the core policies on which the whole of Wikipedia is founded. — Haeleth Talk 16:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The solution to a blog review is to move it to external links, or even remove it, but not delete the article. Mongo's conduct has nothing to do with this, and should be addressed at WP:ANI, or for a matter of such detail, by an WP:RfC. Septentrionalis 16:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. It is nn and breaks WP:V. FloNight talk 16:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete on grounds of original research, verifiability, and notability. -- Kuzaar- T- C- 16:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete as not meeting WP:N. In particular, it fails to meet WP:WEB summarized here (with my additions in caps):
The content itself has NOT been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works ... The website or content has NOT won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation ... The content is NOT distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators ...
This one seems cut and dried for all the disputation it's generating here; perhaps all the other reasons pro and con are muddying the waters. The site's criticism of Wikipedia should not be a factor even if harsh. A Dramatica sysop's involvement is irrelevant since we're voting on an article, not an editor; the devil himself can write an article for all I care if it meets the guidelines. Vanity can get cleaned up and should not be a reason to delete if otherwise notable. Two previous failed AfDs are instructive but do not prove notability (as someone else claimed). Original research can potentially get cleaned up, but then that might also fix the notability issue. I started to vote "weak" delete based on 117,00 Google hits, then I noted only 109 were unique. There are no Google news hits from the last 7 weeks. Checking alternate spelling ("æ", "ae") gives similar results. Prove notability (or change WP:WEB) and I will be happy to change my vote. -- A. B. 16:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Google Hit Question have people tried "Encyclopedia Dramatica" or are they just using the ae? Hardvice 16:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Unique Google Hits are completely meaningless. "Microsoft" only gets 460 unique hits. Silensor 16:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • I was unaware of the unique hit issue. I did, however, look at (but not open) all 109 links and none were to traditional media; some might have been to notable blogs but I wouldn't know. As for the spelling, as noted in my previous comment, I tried all 3 possibilities ("e", "ae" or "æ"). -- A. B. 18:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per JoshuaZ. Would Microsoft Encarta or Encylopedia Britannica cover this? Would you go to a library and be able to find information on Encylopaeda Dramatica? Most likely not -- Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • You can find one mention of Wikipedia in Encarta, and only in context of the open-source movement in a discussion regarding encyclopedias, and nothing in Britannica. So I don't see how that's really relevant. There are far less important things with articles here. Tx9 18:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Please note the talk page history of the article as well, related to reasons for deletion. The less important articles (of which there are tens of thousands surely) will not be nominated and pushed for deletion as aggressively as this one. This is a matter of subject matter. Or, using this AfD as basis, if this article is removed, the AfD will surely be clogged with thousands of AfD requests in the next weeks? This is a dangerous precedent being set here. rootology 18:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per AB, with a further plea for reliable sources, - FrancisTyers · 17:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I've heard of it. Homey 17:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Have you heard of WP:NOR and WP:V, too?
  • Keep - can't see a problem with it. quercus robur 18:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Can you see any reliable independent sources for it? If not, you're looking at a problem with it. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete nn Ian¹³ /t 18:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, notable enough for me. That its content is or was bad is obviously no reason to delete. That it is an attack (is this really so?) on Wikipedia, is obviously not a reason to delete. Paul August ☎ 18:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Toffie and Karwynn Will ( message me!) 18:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Abstain. Comment: Someone is sending unsolicited emails [4] from Wikipedia (presumably via the "Email this user" function), alerting recipients about perceived administrator abuses, this AFD, etc. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete At this point my opinion won't make much difference, but consider: it's ranked 24,000. Do we need 25,000 articles on the top 25,000 websites? Just because it exists, just because you heard of it, doesn't make it notable. Less than 4 thousandths of 1% of Internet users visit it on a daily basis. Furthermore, it is almost without citations, mostly because the facts involved may be unverifiable. Ingoolemo  talk 18:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as unverifiable. All cited sources are primary sources, which are not acceptable under WP:RS. -- Carnildo 18:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • delete, unnotable, and apparently far more bother than its worth. dab (ᛏ) 18:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Some US federal government computers, such as mine, are blocked from viewing this site. I suppose that means it has at least a tiny bit of notability. But actually I don't know how these things work. ike9898 19:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Can't quite see the merits of deleting, I'm afraid... - Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 19:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Can you see the merits of citing reliable secondary sources for content in Wikipedia? Are you aware of any of those, for the content about Encyclopedia Dramatica? Is there a good reason to waive our policies about verifiability and original research for this particular article, and others like it? - GTBacchus( talk) 22:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Ridiculously strong extreme speedy keep.  Grue  20:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Do all of those adjectives in front of "keep" somehow obviate the need to contribute a reason to the discussion, or explain why original research is just fine in this case? - GTBacchus( talk) 21:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    What original research? I see one section tagged as original research, which doesn't merit the deletion of the whole article. The adjectives in front of my "vote" demonstrate my utter amazement that this article is even considered for deletion.  Grue  21:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    The only reason the other section does not have similar tags is this unexplained removal of a tag. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Replying to Grue, all of the information about ED's content and tone, and most everything about its history that isn't a link to a deletion discussion here, is cited back to ED itself. That's original research, carried out by reading a lot of ED pages, learning about ED, and then writing on Wikipedia what you know about it. Are there any independent reliable sources that talk about ED from the outside, and comment on it, as a noteworthy phenomenon? Are we locating such sources and reporting on what they say is significant about ED? No, because such sources do not yet exist, as far as I can tell, anyway. Until you're doing that, you're doing original research. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Wikipedia links back to itself and unverifiable Wikipedia/foundation stuff in several places. Double standard. If these are not valid, the count of users/articles and web traffic volume (the chart) on Wikipedia are not valid and should be removed. rootology 21:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    "Double standard" isn't a reason to keep policy violations around. I would suggest that any unverifiable content should be removed from any article, but if it turns out there's a good reason to make an exception for the Wikipedia article (I'm not familiar with that article, and the inevitable OR issues I assume it has), that's certainly no argument to make any other exception. Wikipedia is not AboutUs.org, a new sort of web-directory Wiki where users are encouraged to write about websites based on their experiences with them, and content directly from the site is ideal. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Oh, stop spreading the nonsense. An article about some document (be it a book or a website) can and should use the document itself as a source. In fact, it is the most reliable source available. The whole argument for deletion is based on ignorance and pettiness (because apparently they don't like Wikipedia - oh my).  Grue  07:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Grue, I'd appreciate if you don't speculate about my motivations. I happen to really like ED, have an account there, and think their take on Wikipedia is hilarious. I also agree that, if this article is to exist, it certainly should use ED as a source (obviously we would want to link to examples of what we're talking about), but not as the only one. At that point, it's original research, and there's no difference between using a non-notable website as a source about itself and using some self-published book you wrote yesterday as a source about itself. Independent reliable sources have not yet seen fit to talk about ED and provide us with sourced material yet. I'll be ecstatic when they do; until then, this article doesn't have the kind of sourcing it needs. You can say I'm speaking out of pettiness if you want to drag the conversation to that level, but it won't make it true. I'm speaking out of my belief that WP:NOR and WP:V are sound policies that should be followed more strongly and more enthusiastically than they currently are, because they are what will make Wikipedia more trustworthy and more valuable. Now, if you think my argumets are based on ignorance, perhaps you can lead me to better understanding by teaching me what I currently don't know. I'd be quite happy to have that conversation with you. Can we do it quite civilly, though? - GTBacchus( talk) 07:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Aye, Grue needs to try a little WP:AGF before jumping to ridiculous, unfounded conclusions about why others might opine deletion.-- Isotope23 18:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Simply Keep. Kitia 21:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per nom -- Ragib 21:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • One more simply keep - It could be a conflict of interests but it's just a reality. -- Szvest 21:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™ reply
  • Delete. No reliable sources. - Will Beback 22:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • VERY STRONG SMERGE. I've looked over the history of this article, as well as this discussion, and it seems to be breaking out into a war similar to that which happened to Brian Peppers, which ended very controversially. I don't want to see that happen again. Therefore, I am proposing this compromise to stop stupid debates like this once and for all. To my understanding, much of this information is Original Research, and thus must be removed. However, there is some verifiable information, at least in the opener that can be written without violating WP:NPOV. It is also my understanding that both ED regulars and Wikipedia admins are trolling the page and personally attacking each other. Several people even want this deleted because ED bashes Wikipedia. Censoring Wikipedia bashers violates WP:NPOV last time I checked. One person also sarcastically asked if World Book or Encyclopedia Brittanica (sp?) would have this. Well, they wouldn't have articles on a lot of notable stuff we have here, and WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia. However, WP:NOT a soapbox either, which is what about 4/5 of the article is. Also, the fact that so many Wikipedians, including myself (I'm an Uncyclopedian), hate ED, makes this have notability. I ask everyone, especially the extreme keepers and deletionists, to take this argument very seriously. This is one of those debates that went on for an extremely long time and have become flamewars. These debates need to end with all of us giving up a little of what we want to establish a firm community consensus so that doctrine doesn't get forced down our throats. Find a place for the one or two notable, verifiable sentences, and delete the rest of the article. Let's stop the trolling and settle this properly, okay? Thank you. Have a nice day. Crazyswordsman 22:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    I can get behind this. This would be fine for me as a valid stub that can be expanded in time as press cites grow. rootology 22:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    For the benefit of those who have followed the edits less closely, can someone provide a link to a reasonable version that's limited to what can be properly sourced? Crazyswordsman made one comment I have to reply to: the fact that so many Wikipedians, including myself (I'm an Uncyclopedian), hate ED, makes this have notability. I can't agree with that at all. Notability means notability in the world at large, not among Wikipedians. I love ED, and that doesn't make it notable, either. - GTBacchus( talk) 22:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    [5] Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    This article: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/01/account_hijackings_force_livej.html also cites and links to the ED website. I've just been told as well that www.newsbank.com has some sort of archived Chicago Tribune article that cites it. Waiting for a link. rootology 23:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    That link doesn't point nor does it cite ED. A COMMENT on the blog post does. Unless I'm missing something, if this is the closest to actual coverage you can provide, this is far from evidence of notability, and more evidence of grasping at straws. Why is establishing ED's notability so important to you? Is it truly in the interests of informativeness, or merely vanity? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    I shouldn't have said that, GTBacchus. What I meant was some Wikipedians like to use ED as a dumping ground for non-notable memes. Also, it seems to have widespread (yet unfortunate) popularity within internet communities such as Fark, YTMND, etc. Putting one or two sentences or even a section about ED in the LiveJournal article is something I bet we could all agree upon. Crazyswordsman 23:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Swordswoman (and others), would you say the washingtonpost link I entered just above and this reference to ED: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikizine/2006-04 ...are valid sources of something's notability? rootology 23:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Rootology, as a blog the first link does not constitute a reliable source and the second link is self referential meaning... does not establish notability. ( → Netscott) 23:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Agree with Netscott. No. To me, reliance on those specific pieces of evidence is in fact strong evidence of ED's non-notability to date. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Per Wikizine's site it is seperate from Wikipedia and the foundation, it's just hosted on that URL. Read the page. It appears per that link that ED was notable enough to mail out however in a "news report" to the admins, sysops, and ambassodors of the Wikipedia family. Correct? rootology 00:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    How does a rather non-notable Wikizine establish the notability of non-notable website with a one line reference to that website? ( → Netscott) 00:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Nope. Blogs aren't reliable, sorry. I'm sure there is something out there, but frankly I have better things to do than deal with endless debates such as this. My main purpose is to end the debate, not help decide in the fate of an article that is obviously controversial. Crazyswordsman 02:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete because multiple people have spammed me about this. Yes, that's not an argument. Here's the argument: fails WP:V, no evidence of notability has been presented (Wikitruth is notable because it has been cited in a newspaper story). Ashibaka tock 22:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I think that many here have made good cases for it being WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:WEB. Arguments against deletion seem to be along the lines of "there are worse examples in wikipedia". In that case, fine, let's get that lot into AfD too. David D. (Talk) 22:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Whispering 00:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment this site is as notable as Uncyclopedia. if there's attack content in the article. Take it out. Don't delete an article based on that.-- LBMixPro <Sp e ak|on|it!> 00:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and because of the email spam I received promoting this thing. I detest email spam. Vsmith 00:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Vanity, non-notable. Also people don't like getting spammed. You've probably worked this out now. ed g2s • talk 00:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I'm fairly new to this discussion and have mostly been reading the comments of others, but it seems rather odd to me that we are considering deleting an article on a website which is home to a great deal of negative criticism of Wikipedia. It would not appear very favorable, now would it? I have done some reading of ED's articles on Wikipedia, and I can imagine that the editors of ED would be thrilled to see non-ED'er Wikipedians deleting the article on ED. It would serve to confirm every negative thing they say about Wikipedia. That alone is reason enough to keep, maybe prune it back to a stub, maybe block certain known abusive editors from being involved with it (esp. those cited as ED users above, per WP:vanity), but in general, keep it. Deletion is too draconian a solution. Kasreyn 01:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
And the notability and verifiability questions? ( → Netscott) 01:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I must admit that I don't understand precisely what the notability and verifiability complaints are. If the article isn't that notable, it should be trimmed back; I feel that at least some mention of ED is warranted, so I suppose it would be fair to characterize my opinion as being that ED is at least minimally notable. As for verifiability, is there a concern that ED pages are being changed and thus cannot be cited? Don't they have permanent page history like WP? If so, just link to the specific revision in which a claim was made rather than the article name, and add a caveat explaining that ED is a wiki and its content may change. Kasreyn 07:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
For me, it has more to do with avoiding original research, which is intimately linked with verifiability. I understand our policy to be: first something exists, then people in the world take enough note of it, someone publishes words about it, and then we get to write a Wikipedia article based on those published words. That gives you notability, verifiability, and the certainty that you're not doing original research, all in one. I don't see that happening with this article. Most of the facts in it just came from people who happen to be familiar with the website, which is pretty much the definition of original research. If we insist on using facts that come from independent, reliable published sources, then we aren't doing our own research. - GTBacchus( talk) 09:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - it seems that the desire to delete this article comes from the fact that its subject holds criticism of wikipedia. If wikipedia doesn't tolerate freedom of speech, and criticism of itself, then there's something wrong. - Richardcavell 01:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment about personal attacks on the site to which the article describes: Wikitruth's website has a category called http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Category:Wikipedians and it has far more personal attacks on wikipedia admins than encyclopedia dramatica. It also has links to three of them on its front page. Where Encyclopedia Dramatica calls one on the list a mere name, wikitruth has pictures, real names, etc. I hope you consider this who voted to delete the article. Hardvice 01:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Ummm... what on Earth has any of that to do with this article's WP:V and WP:OR problems, which are the only sane reasons being given for deletion. This discussion will go more smoothly if we can avoid being distracted by the fact that ED has pages attacking Wikipedia and Wikipedians. That's just irrelevant here. - GTBacchus( talk) 07:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I can't believe the utterly obvious double standards over web content notability guidelines that exist on Wikipedia. Having trawled through countless trivial and banal entries for webcomics, I can tell you 100% that any webcomic with an Alexa rank of 24,000 would be speedily kept and the nominator slapped on the wrist for a bad faith nomination. There is, and should be one guideline for web material, WP:WEB, why the page interpretes as very much laxer for webcomics is beyond me. The amount of delete votes here suggest that any web material less notable or popular would be railgunned out of existence forever. This however, is not the case at Wikipedia, as can be seen in this AFD and this AFD and many others. For example, I agree with the keep outcome of this AFD, but note the total lack of delete votes for a website with an Alexa rank of 60,000. I think that an AFD for it's spinoff The Wotch: Cheer! would also result in a keep, something which I would absolutely disagree with. But the reason that I'm voting keep, isn't just out of spite for the double standards at Wikipedia, but because I genuinely think it's popular enough to be notable. - Hahnch e n 01:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Care to address the complete lack of reliable independent sources for the actual content of the article, which is the only sane reason being given for deletion? I agree that our standards for webcomics are stupid, but that's no excuse to do everything else wrong too. - GTBacchus( talk) 07:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Related to this: nearly every project article on Wikipedia from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:MediaWiki_websites has LESS outside references let alone Alexa rank than ED. Why are those not attacked as vehemently for deletion? rootology 07:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Because there hasn't been a catalyzing event yet. Isn't that always why some things haven't happened yet while others have? What's the point in calling motives into question here anyway? That's a red herring, and we'd do well to keep this discussion on topic if we wish to resolve it. - GTBacchus( talk) 09:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:V.-- Ávril ♦ ʃáη 01:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Homestarmy 02:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. The subject appears nn with no actual reliable sources to show notability (despite Washington Post blog, as WP:WEB points out Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores., thus trivial coverage is not relevant). Furthermore many of the keeps seem to be coming from mass spamming campaign, it seems that this is one of the cases where there is a massive backlash at attempts to manipulate Wikipedia.-- Jersey Devil 02:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - notable website. Its notability is due to its importance in LJ community & spreading LJ memes, and also because it is related to Wikipedia. As equally as some people have argued that it could be a vanity page, I think the attempts to remove it are taking "anti-vanity" too far -- just because it is somewhat associated with Wikipedia, doesn't automatically imply its non-notable or vanity. Subjects of articles like Bomis, Nupedia, Larry Sanger, Jimbo Wales, MeatballWiki, Enciclopedia Libre, Uncyclopedia, Wikitruth all derive some of their notability from associations with Wikipedia, but that does not mean that they are non-notable, or vanity. -- SJK 03:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    What about the lack of independent reliable sources for the contents of the article? That's the only sane reason being given for deletion; what's your response to it? - GTBacchus( talk) 07:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    I can interpret "the lack of independent reliable sources for the contents of the article" in one of two ways -- as referring to verifiability, or to notability. In terms of verifiability, most claims made in the article are verfied through primary sources (i.e. if Wikipedia says "ED says X", a link to a page saying X on ED is verification; in fact, its better verification than a link to a secondary source would be.) There are a few [ citation needed, but I don't think that's a major issue. In terms of notability -- when dealing with websites, or Internet memes/phenomena, its not always possible to determine notablity by reference to "mainstream" sources, because this is the kind of stuff mainstream sources tend to ignore. But that doesn't necessarily mean they are unnotable... at the end of the day, notability guidelines (or even "policies") are only guidelines -- they are applied in accordance to consensus. (This AFD is one way of measuring that consensus.) -- SJK 08:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I guess I have this picture of how Wikipedia is supposed to work, and this article and many web-related ones conflict rather badly with that picture. My picture is this: first something exists in the world, then people notice it, and if enough people care enough about it, they start writing about it in published works. After that happens, we get to write an article about it. I got this picture largely from AfD discussions relating to biography articles. It's also reinforced by my conception of an encyclopedia as a tertiary source, which relies on reliable and independent secondary sources. They serve as a filter, both in terms of verifiability and notability. In this discussion, I'm seeing people trying to bypass that filter, which is probably not how they see it at all. I guess we're dealing with conflicting visions of what Wikipedia is. I'm not sure how to resolve that. - GTBacchus( talk) 08:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Of course, "published sources" are inevitably going to exhibit selection biases. And of course, Wikipedia is inevitably going to have selection biases as well. The question is -- what selection bias does Wikipedia want to have? Personally, I think in writing an we need to consider both published sources & the collective experiences of Wikipedians--something can be notable if enough people here agree it is notable, even if published sources have not considered it notable. I think, in part because WP:NOT paper, Wikipedia need not be beholden to published sources. But this is really a question which needs to be answered through Wikipedia's decision making processes (such as this one)... -- SJK 09:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    "If enough people here agree it is notable...". I think that's a bad idea. That's a good way to really hard-wire our systematic biases, for one thing. It's a good way to make Wikipedia more about internet culture and less trusted as a source for general information. It's a good way to make Wikipedia more like Encyclopedia Dramatica. I think it should be a matter of pride for us to have high standards for verifiability in independent reliable sources. If we actually get good about that, Wikipedia will be so much stronger. Articles like this erode at that possibility, and that's why I feel compelled to speak up against it. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Well, I suppose the reality is that Wikipedia is a quasidemocracy. What the majority of people think does count for something -- including about the questions of what kind of content should Wikipedia include -- although its not a pure democracy because its a system in which some people's opinions count for more than others. (For example, Jimbo's views about what Wikipedia count a lot more than yours or mine.) -- SJK 10:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is one of few websites I've actually referred back to Wikipedia to learn about. RFerreira
  • Delete. Non-notable website outside of its users. Google gets me 123,000 hits -- only 14 of which are unique. I'm not seeing the least sign of the alleged notability.-- Calton | Talk 06:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment I get over 150 out of 1000, whats going on? Lapinmies 06:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment: I have posted what I feel is a great good faith compromise to this absurd mess here: proposed compromises (two). Please review and add commentary there. rootology 08:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Move to subpage of Wikipedia:Parodies, which is an appropriate place to keep unencyclopedic information like this. (My earlier recommendation of "delete" above has been striken.) - GTBacchus( talk) 10:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Question: Can this prove notability??? The massive number of people who came here to vote and debate on the site for this AFD, with strong opinions on each side. If it was nonnotable, it would get maybe 10 or 12 votes and that's only it. Hardvice 11:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Absolutely not A high level of interest among Wiki subculture people has nothing to do with what we actually mean by "notability". "Notable" is really a codeword for "people who publish reliable sources have taken note of it, and talked about it in print". A tempest in this teacup means nothing. - GTBacchus( talk) 11:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, the site is not very notable and in borderline nobility cases, I'm willing to entertain factors that I would not otherwise to make the decision. However, "borderline" is a charitable description in this case, as I have higher standards of notability than most editors. First, I received a spam email concerning the article. Second, the site has attack pages on Wikipedia editors. Third, those who edit the site are extremely interested in having a Wikipedia article and have gone to extraordinary lengths to have the article kept. This is a very bad sign. A notable organization would not care whether it has a Wikipedia article and a good non-notable organization would let the decision be made without trying to influence it, especially in an underhanded manner. Finally, unless an evil site, person or organization is so notable that Wikipedia would be incomplete not to have an article on it, like Charles Manson or the Aryan Nations, it should not have an article. When dealing with topics that are not very notable, Wikipedia can sometimes participate in the topic, increasing its notability, rather than just documenting it. In many cases, this is innocuous. In other cases, such as articles whose subjects are evil, it might not be. Wikipedia should never promote evil, not even a little and not even unintentionally. Based upon the attack pages, and the failure of the site to delete them, I believe that Encyclopædia Dramatica is evil. -- Kjkolb 11:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I also got the spam, I think many people did. -- Bane s 12:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment: Actually, even if the main article is deleted, wouldn't a recreation after under parody count as a seperate article? Also, does anyone have any reason under policy that it shouldn't just be moved there NOW to end this nightmare? I now support just moving it RIGHT NOW. I'm tired of this, and if even thinks this won't be a no concensus vote where either a vote to keep or delete won't be met with scorn and appeal all the way up to ArbCom they're not thinking right. Rather than waste EVERYONE's time anymore I say we just move it to the parody section. Some day when (simple law of probability states it will happen... in 5 days, 5 months, 5 years, or 5 decades) when the site gets more notable press it can move back to the main name space. My vote is now to end the AfD, stick it in parody, and be done with it? Even if a truly neutral admin makes it a keep vote someone will just AfD this again and we will indeed have the next GNAA. Who wants to waste the next five years fighting over this? rootology 14:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment: It must be noted that as of 10am PDT on 7/20/06 Admin name: Zanium is abusively editing the protected article as part of possible bias vs. the subject matter. It has been raised as an issue at AN:I but not addressed yet and he has not reverted. This is biased as 1) no editor can challenge his unilateral edits; 2) its a policy violation; 3) further evidence that as the thing that brought this to the fore was the attack on MONGO by the ED site, there is NO way for this to happen fairly. rootology 17:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Comment: We do, when it seems otherwise reasonable, accept people's statements about themselves and their own field. There are fairly tight restrictions on this; see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_dubious_sources_in_articles_about_themselves, but much of this article seems to meet those restrictions. Septentrionalis 18:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply


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

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 09:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Michael Dunahee

This article looks more like a missing person ad than a true Wikipedia bio, and aside from him being missing, I don't get how notable he is. Editor88 16:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Delete. This is a hard one, until you look at the inclusion critera. This case has been in in the media BC and Canada over the years, but I wonder if that is more through the tenacity of the family keeping it in the news. This missing child, as sad as it is, is no more or less notable than any other missing child. Could treat this one under WP is not a memorial page. Agent 86 17:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This case has been in the media over the years and this makes the subject in question notable. Moreover, children going missing in the world today are relatively rare. These kinds of rare events makes the topic notable in itself. Thus, we should keep this article. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 18:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete tragic, yes. But WP is not a forum for finding missing <insert Foo> here. Sorry -- MrDolomite | Talk 18:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. NN. Sad to say, children going missing are not that rare, and this one happened fifteen years ago. Fan-1967 19:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 03:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep rewritten version. - Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 03:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Dancing on the edge of the notability line, but I'll go with the keep given Resolute's improvements. Bearcat 04:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - for reasons above, plus others, the case has had an impact not just on the family but on BC society in general. The rewrite helps, and if Resolute posts it to the Cdn noticeboard, there undoubtably will be more improvements in short order. -- Ckatz 07:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I support keeping this article although my comments may be discounted for the fact that I began it even though I have nothing to do with the participants or any previous involvement in the story. I agree that it was a skimpy start. The improvements that have followed have helped. The noteriety of this disappearance are unique in an area that goes beyond the City where he lived. This case struck a chord across BC and Canada that has sustained its recollection as an event familiar to many even those born after or too young at the time of the disappearance to remember the event. kgw 05:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Cluster Resources, Inc.

Non-notable company, but was told, I cannot speedy away as spam, despite previous deletions as such. So I open the floor in hopes of resolution Antares33712 15:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment, this has been tagged as spam before, but can't get the speedy so hey....down the river it goes Antares33712 16:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, therefore Angela will join Jermaine Dupri here on Wikipedia. Money ain't a Thang! - CrazyRussian talk/ email 17:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Angela Constance

Defeated candidate who holds only local public office, fails WP:N. See Ann Garrett and Ben Abbotts for AfDs on losing candidates in more recent by-election (where Abbotts also came significantly close). Mtiedemann 13:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Do not delete - useful information of a leading Scottish Nationalist Politician. often those who unsuccessfully fight by elections are those who have a high profile (eg Tony Blair was an unsuccessful By election candidate). Suggest that those from Scotland or interested in Scottish politics are more likely to see the importance of this information.-- Sjharte 13:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • While there certainly seems to be some merit to the notion that "often those who unsuccessfully fight by elections are those who have a high profile", I really fail to see any of the alleged "useful information" contained within this stub. If you can expand this article to include said "useful information" (which I can't seem to find in existance), I would be willing to support keeping it. -- Vengeful Cynic 15:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Per nom. -- circuitloss 14:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. If you can cite evidence that she does have a high profile, she can stay, otherwise she goes. -- David Mestel( Talk) 15:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Vengeful Cynic 15:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Surely importance is in the eye of the beholder. All of those advocating deletion do not appear to be from Scotland or exhibit an interest in Scottish politics. Those who are and so will find it useful to have a Wikipedia resource that includes individuals such as Angela Constance. Although I am not a supporter of her party I do know that she is standing for one of their target seats (Livingston) at next year's Scottish Parliament elections. Keeping this entry will, for example, allow ot to be sued as a link when discussing the election process in that constituency.-- Sjharte 15:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Gerry Stephen Freedman

Vanity about failed local authority candidate, who holds public office only at the most local level ( Community Councillor) Mtiedemann 11:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 nomination raises the questions of sources and verification, and these points are never addressed: The article is still wholly unreferenced.

I'd encourage every editor to print out and read at your leisure Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Don't skim them, or just read the lead, take them to bed with you and curl up with a nice cup of tea.

The issue of what is "cruft" is not one we should be debating. That is a personal judgment, and not an editorial one, and editors whom have worked in good faith in producing an article should not be subjected to pejoratives. In almost every case, however, meticulousness regarding sources will solve any perceived problems without resorting to disparagment, or even appeal to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

brenneman {L} 01:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

A deletion review has been opened. - brenneman {L} 02:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

StarCraft units and structures

Wikipedia is not a game strategy guide. This article consists of nothing but game guide information, such as "a Protoss Zealot has higher hit points than a Zergling but the Zergling can attack faster to balance this out" (and that's in the introduction). There's also a great deal of individual units, each with their own article and useful game guide information such, but this is not the AFD for those. Does nothing that the StarCraft category doesn't do. And so, to summarise: Redundant, game guide (fails WP:NOT), and unreferenced (fails WP:V and WP:NOR). Delete. Proto:: type 17:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. There seems to be a craze of AfD debates about computer game-related stuff recently; and I have voted delete to almost all of them. They are not suitable for Wikipedia because of WP:NOT. The onus is on people to say why they should be kept. Batmanand | Talk 18:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply
CommentI looked throuh WP:NOT and didnt see any reference to a game guide at first, I finally found it under instruction manual. So really this page just needs to be modified to fit what it was meant to be, it is currently horribly organized and needs alot of coordinated help from the VG group to Wikify it, but its premise is needed. It consolidates all the units from Starcraft and Starcraft:Broodwar into one place, yes the category can do that as well but it also contains people, places, etc. One thing for sure that needs to be done is to remove the "this unit is better because" references and just have a reproduction of the sheet that came with the games listing units of similar tier with cost and possibly stats. That is all verifiable fact, people can draw their own conclusions from it. Sir hugo 19:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply
While the data from "the sheet that came with the games" is verifiable, it's also copyrighted. Just making this page into a reproduction of that information sheet would be worse than things stand currently, IMO. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The data is not copyrighted, all that data is available in the game for everyone to see. The exact layout with pictures and such might be though. I also beleive the only copyright notice on it was protecting the Blizzard and Starcraft logos and such as trademarks. Sir hugo 21:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Most text is copyrighted by default; if something doesn't have an explicit message disclaiming or modifiying copyright, you have to assume it's 'all rights reserved'. For example, look at the bottom of any Wikipedia page for a copyright notice stating the copyright as GFDL. -- ais523 09:12, 18 July 2006 ( U T C)
Reply - The sampling bias of WP's editors is fascinating in its own right, but each topic should be evaluated by objective evidence on a case-by-case basis. And anyway, judging solely by the vastness of the chess content on WP, its systemic bias would appear to be toward canonized pillars of culture over the new and shiny. As evidence in this case: over 9.5 million copies of Starcraft have been sold so far; [12] at over eight years old now, it typically has around 70,000 Starcraft games currently being played on Battlenet at any moment, which is about three times higher than during its first year; 46% of over 10,000 voters in a World Cyber Games poll this year named Starcraft, out of eight WCG competition games, as the one they'd most like to participate in, [13] a gain over the prevous year; at eight years old, more professional competitions keep forming, and professional earnings and endorsements are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and have continued rising, while it is one of only two computer games with leagues of full-time professional players; [14] the government of Singapore let a pro Starcraft player postpone his obligatory military service to play Starcraft at the World Cyber Games, out of its support for those "who are selected to represent Singapore at prestigious international sports and cultural events"; [15] in South Korea, two cable channels have programs devoted to Starcraft competition, and schools post students' Starcraft rankings along with their academic rankings. [16] While identifiable ancestors of chess have been around for 1000 years, modern chess would be at least "Chess 7" if they had kept track of different versions, and chess in its modern form has been around less than 200 years, only 25 times as long as Starcraft, while evidence indicates Starcraft has only continued to grow more popular over the past eight years, so it shows no sign of dropping into a void anytime soon. A fairer comparison with the greater body of ancestral games under the "chess" aegis should be to the whole Starcraft/Warcraft family, which has sold over 35 million copies over the past twelve years, and with the newest version, World of Warcraft, accumulating about one million new paying monthly subscribers every three months, since its release around a year and a half ago (the most paying subscribers of any computer game ever, by a vast margin). In sum, there is substantial evidence that Starcraft and/or its descendants will still be of comparable popularity and encyclopedic notability to chess in ten years. If not, I'll AfD this article again in 2016. - Reaverdrop ( talk/ nl/ w:s) 23:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, verifiable and not a how-to, and I tend to agree with most of Reaverdrop's comment. JYolkowski // talk 21:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Users wanting this level of detail should buy the manual. The attempt to compare StarCraft with chess is intellectually interesting but fails to convince me. Chess traces its roots back to the 6th century, is played and has been played by far more people, has been the subject of literally thousands of books and the subject of academic studies and publications is a wide range of disciplines, has a highly formal tournament process with recognized Grandmasters, etc. If, in 10 years, StarCraft is of comparable notability to chess, create this level of detailed article then. Rossami (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment The debate is not whether this level of detail is needed it is whether this type of information constitutes "Strategy" guide. If I were to say "When playing as the Zerg you need to build alot of Zerglings really fast and try to overwhelm your closest opponent." that would be a strategy guide, where as saying "Zerglings cost 50 minerals for a set of two and produce in the same time as a Zealot which costs 100 minerals making each Zergling more economical" that is no longer a strategy guide. If I had more time to actually edit this article instead of just skimming and fixing small things then I would try and rewrite it. When I first came looking for Starcraft on Wikipedia it was for this particular page, I wanted a page with a link to each units page as well as a place for basic information about each unit compared to other similar units. Sir hugo 12:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
"Zerglings cost 50 minerals for a set of two and produce in the same time as a Zealot which costs 100 minerals making each Zergling more economical" is strategy guide information. Just because it avoids using 'you', doesn't make it any less game guidey. Proto:: type 14:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
How is that strategy guide information? It is straight out comparison, a strategy guide explains step by step how to accomplish something. Saying this unit attacks faster, or costs less is just stating verifiable fact. Stating that one unit is more economical then another may be straying too close to original research though. I see this as no different then an article listing military aircraft comparing the F-22 to the F-16 and stating that the F-16 costs less and is faster to produce but less capable then the F-22. Sir hugo 14:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment - Compare with this passage from Queen (chess):

The queen can be moved in a straight line vertically, horizontally, or diagonally, any number of unoccupied squares as shown on the diagram at the left, thus combining the moves of the rook and bishop. The distance it can move is known as the Chebyshev distance. As with other captures except en passant, the queen captures by occupying the square on which an enemy piece sits. Ordinarily the queen is slightly more powerful than a rook and a bishop together, while slightly less powerful than two rooks. Because the queen is more valuable than any other piece, it is almost always disadvantageous to exchange the queen for a piece other than the enemy's queen, unless doing so leads to a position where the king can be checkmated.

I don't think either article is any less encyclopedic. Dividing between providing objective content on specific game mechanics, and actually suggesting or recommending strategy, is the appropriate dividing line between encyclopedic and WP:NOT. Otherwise, where is there a principled dividing line between eliminating specific game mechanics, and eliminating any rules of a game, and eliminating any content at all related to a game or sport? If forms of recreation are encyclopedic at all, providing specific descriptions of their rules or mechanics should be limited only by the same criteria as for anything else, i.e. notability, references, etc. - Reaverdrop ( talk/ nl/ w:s) 19:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Saying that "Users wanting this level of detail should buy the manual" seems a personal opinion having nothing to do with wikipedia policies. One could say that if you want to learn the chess rules you should buy a chess manual. The argumet about the number of people playing chess or playing starcraft or about the age of the games has no relevance with the WP policies. The real difference (not explicitily expressed so far) between chess and starctaft here is that starcraft is a trademark. This could make you think that if we go in the details of the aspect of starcraft we are behaving unfairly with respect to the owners of the trademark. This would not happen with chess. If this is the problem please say it explicitly.-- Pokipsy76 14:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Reply to chilling effect of conceptions of trademark - It pains me to see conceptions about intellectual property having this chilling influence on speech. Trademarks and copyrights do not exclude sharing information or opinion. Please do not censor your own communications out of fear of intellectual property. Looking at "behaving fairly" from the other side, would you think it was fair if a company sued someone for telling her friend how many minerals are required to make a Zealot? - Reaverdrop ( talk/ nl/ w:s) 19:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC) (Disclaimer: although the writer is an intellectual property attorney, this is written as personal opinion and not provided as legal advice. If you require legal advice, retain an attorney admitted to practice in your jurisdiction.) reply
Comment - Do we "need" chess or go "gamecruft" intstead?-- Pokipsy76 17:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment *sigh* there is no way you can compare Chess to Starcraft besides you can always AfD those articles as well if you want. Whispering 20:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment - I know they are "different", I just cannot figure out what * policy* are you supposing to apply to accept chess "gamecruft" while not accepting the same for starctaft?-- Pokipsy76 20:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - You may be interested in a similar AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Units in Advance Wars. - Hahnch e n 17:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This (with the sub-articles - on its own, it's pretty much a useless lump of ugly tables) is a detailed guide on how to play Starcraft, and doesn't offer the historical context or copious sourcability of a chess article. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 09:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - there are no policies about the need of "historical context" or "copious sourcability". Moreover an article like Rules of chess has no historical context and is a "guide on how to play chess" but I saw nobody asking for its deletion.-- Pokipsy76 10:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • There is, however, policy about game guides being inappropriate for Wikipedia: WP:NOT. I'm not wild about Rules of chess, either, frankly. If you think it's unencyclopedic, put it up for deletion. The existance of other inappropriate or borderline articles doesn't justify keeping this awful article. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 10:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • I don't think that Rules of chess is unencyclopedic and this is coherent with my position that describing details about other games like starctaft is encyclopedic too. The incoherent position is yours if you think that the former is encyclopedic but not the latter. I saw nobody saying that rules of chess is inappropriate or borderline. Last: The fact that you find an article "awful" is not relevant at all.-- Pokipsy76 11:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
          • This is awful because it's a poorly-written game guide. That's pretty relevant. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 01:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
            • Your opinion about its being "poorly written" is not relevant with the initial motivation you gave for the deletion and is not related to the policies (we are supposed to improve poorly written article, not to delete them).-- Pokipsy76 08:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
              • It's poorly-written. It's a game guide. It's garbage. It needs to be deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 08:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
                • When people have valid points they generally are able to express them by rational means rather than by emotional slogans.-- Pokipsy76 08:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
                  • Game guides are called out in WP:NOT. Additionally, this is poorly-written, so there's little to salvage with a merge. Are you done asking me to repeat myself, or need I do it again? - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 08:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
                    • I was just trying to make a rational discussion until you started repeating the same things about alleged "awfulness" and "game guide" without taking in any consideration the objections already done.-- Pokipsy76 09:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
                      • I've read the above objections. You're harping on the chess and go articles, but I'm unmoved; I don't think they're particularly encyclopedic either. I really think they should be merged into a more-encyclopedic article, which I think is quite possible given the centuries-long history of chess. Not so with Starcraft, which, while exceedingly popular, doesn't have the history or breadth to justify more than a single article about the gameplay itself. Additionally, this article is so poorly-written that it is unlikely to form a useful basis for that single article, nor will it be a useful merge into that single gameplay article. On top of all this, this article is wholly unsourced and unlikely to become sourced.
                        Basically, this is hopeless junk. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 09:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 05:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • On the fence Keep, maybe with some merging I believe that Starcraft units are notable enough to be covered, but this does read like a game guide and one article per unit seems excessive. Perhaps merge all the units to the page for their respective race and have brief information about them there. It's often a fine line between encyclopedic coverage of gameplay and game design and game guide, but I think in current form, these articles are on the wrong side. Transwiki to Encyclopedia Gamia, though. Ace of Sevens 09:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as redundant Changing suggestion. I stil believe this is encyclopedic and worth covering, however, this page seems to contain no information which isn't on the main StarCraft page or the pages about the individual races, so it's unecessary. Ace of Sevens 08:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a clearer consensus, see talk. - brenneman {L} 23:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Gamecruft. Artw 00:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep it was really big game in its time and I can see there being interest in this into the future. Is it as big as chess? No. but I think the comparision is largely apt. -- Pboyd04 00:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. As sympathetic I am to people who work hard on articles like this that might be of some interest to some people, Wikipedia rules are rules. WP:NOT clearly states no game guides. The argument over [[chess] doesn't fly with me, because you don't have articles for each chess piece in Wikipedia describing their moves and role in the game. If you really want to make the Starcraft article consistent with the chess article, provide a brief description of Starcraft units and the differences between available races in the article, or perhaps in one split-off article. Describing them in such detail, however, is without question a game guide. Aplomado talk 00:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Well, I guess I got owned. I still think these articles are excessive, though. Isn't there a gamewiki for this kind of stuff? It just all seems oddly out of place on Wikipedia. Aplomado talk 01:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Dragoons are created from Zealots who have been crippled or mortally injured in combat and are thus unable to continue fighting in their preferred manner - with a pair of psionic blades. They continue to volunteer their services, however; their crippled or mortally injured bodies are placed within large exoskeletons which contain any life-support equipment required by the individual Protoss. Living within a cold and dark environment, Dragoons are very somber compared to their Zealot counterparts. Seeing themselves as fallen warriors they show many signs of lost pride. Based on their quotes within the game; "I have returned", "For vengence", "I am needed", and "Make use of me" it becomes clear that Dragoons feel a sense of worthlessness among the protoss. For this reason Dragoons make a large effort to contribute to Protoss society. Although considered second class citizens compared to Zealots, Dragoons are undeniably valuable. Having both a ground/air attack and a ranged attack they are the all purpose Protoss unit(similar to the Zerg Hydralisk or the Terran Marine). When combined with Zealots they create a simple yet deadly force of long and close range attacks.
God help us all if this is what Wikipedia is becoming. Aplomado talk 01:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is a game strategy guide -- and no amount of wikilawyering and false comparisons changes that. Where else is it of use except as guide for the game? -- Calton | Talk 02:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment You're defining game guide so broadly as to be meaningless. Any sort of information could be called a guide. This isn't a guide to playing a game, more an overview of its design characteristics. What sort of nformation about games do you think isn't a guide? Ace of Sevens 02:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Was there an actual response or any actual information buried anywhere in that bit of handwaving? "Any sort of information could be called a guide"? True, but utterly a non sequitor, since I'm talking about THIS piece of information.
  • What sort of nformation about games do you think isn't a guide? Type of game (board, FPS, turn-based strategy?), point of game (gathering treasure, surviving to the end, outscoring your opponent?), type of opponents (computer, partner, online?), distinctive qualities (customizable, nearly infinite combinations, biggest seller for a platform), etc. You know, facts (or, to use a meaningless phrase someone keeps introducing to these discussions, "true facts"). -- Calton | Talk 04:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • If I were to write a single article on Draw Poker (actual example is kind of moot, since it's been sub-divided into so many articles on all the variants), pertinent information would include that you use a deck of 52 cards with numerical values of 2-10 and 4 face cards. Then I would have to describe the hierarchy of hands, as well as the betting system. I wouldn't describe the proper ways to bluff or other subjective tactics, as that would be a strategy guide. With Starcraft, the units and structures are equally worth mentioning and pertinent to the game's design, as they are base elements of this very complex game with its rules. The fact that it is a computer game and the subject requires a lot of material to adequately cover doesn't mean it should be dismissed as unimportant, and I believe that it can and should be covered without veering into how-to/guide territory. -- SevereTireDamage 05:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • the subject requires a lot of material to adequately cover No, it doesn't. The principles are easy enough to set forth. Going into the mechanics in detail makes it -- wait for it -- a game guide. -- Calton | Talk 07:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete gamecruft. Transwiki is potentially a good idea, especially if the article is cleaned up considerably. Dbratton 04:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Regarding the nom: First of all, the quote at the top is misleading, because while it sounds crufty, it actually immediately follows the sentence: Unlike Blizzard Entertainment’s first two forays into RTS with WarCraft, StarCraft went against the typical symmetrical match ups. Instead, each race is given its own unique properties, their own advantages and disadvantages. As such, each unit does not quite match up easily with another race’s. which is then followed by several examples. This seems like a valid encyclopedic description of StarCraft's unit system. Which leads to me to another point: This page, StarCraft units and structures is the one up for deletion, not the sub-pages, which should each get their own AfD and be measured by their own merits, if people feel it's necessary. Remember, we are talking about this single page.

    This article is not cruft and it is not a game guide or instruction manual. It is an overview of the races, units and structure in a notable video game, a key part of the explanation of a complex gameplay system. It does not instruct the players - in that regard is it is pretty useless. It is also not original research, since this straight-ahead comparison of units can be cited from a secondary source such as an actual strategy guide, or just using the game itself as a primary source. I am further swayed by Reaverdrop's arguments. -- SevereTireDamage 04:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • If that's what peopel think is a game guide, it's no wonder we've been getting these votes. Explanation of design and gameplay issue is not the same things as guide, which is directions, not an explanation. Ace of Sevens 04:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I already explained this. Guide is a broad term. Any sort of information could be called a guide. However, the game guide rule is a corollary of wikipedia is not a how-to-guide, which this isn't. Saying you can't cover game design in video game articles, only the publisher, release date, etc is like sayign you can't discuss literary technique in an article a book or cinematic technique in an article about a movie. In most cases, it's whatmakes a game notable. Stating the publisger and story of a game doesn't really you anything about it. Ace of Sevens 08:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Just fyi, all the article quotes that SevereTireDamage has listed are all original research or at least information thats not from a reliable source. Determining that "each unit does not quite match up easily with another race’s", for example, is original research as it is an unsourced interpretation of the gameplay of Starcraft. Wickethewok 04:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Everything is original research at some point. All information must originate somewhere. WP:NOR only applies to Wikipedia itself, not cited sources. Ace of Sevens 04:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • How is it original research? The statistics of each units are facts - the units of different races do not have the same stats and abilities. (This is also a deliberate change in the from earlier Warcraft games, where for the most part, the units on both sides were equal in strength, movement, etc. That is probably why it is noted in the first place.) Those are factual observations, not interpretations - speed, attack, other things are hard numerical values in the game that can compared directly. It is not some kind of subjective value judgment, as you seem to imply. Everything in that opening paragraph is of the same nature. -- SevereTireDamage 04:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
It is short on references, but that doesn't mean it's original research. Basically any review of Starcraft would work for this point, such as this one. [17] Ace of Sevens 05:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete productcruft, fans of this game should start their own wiki, something like Memory Alpha for Star Trek. Phr ( talk) 05:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note - individual units are up for deletion here. Note that there is a StarCraft wiki here: wikia:starcraft. Wickethewok 05:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete. I vote delete, but with several major reservations that I feel have to be taken into account. I agree with this particular deletion, but only because the section can be done better justice on the strategy wiki. Wikipedia itself can provide an external link. However, after reading this page, I have to post these reminders since some people obviously don't remember:
  • Reminder 1: There is no official fancruft policy so don't pretend there is. If you voted Delete because you believe there is such an official, binding policy, change your vote because that's not the case. It's a guideline at best, and heavily disputed. Not all Wikipedians have to agree with it.
  • Reminder 2: Starcraft is not just a game, it is a cultural phenomenon. See the compilation of information provided by reaverdrop.
  • Reminder 3: Not knowing something doesn't make it original research. Aka, your ignorance on Starcraft is not an opinion. Sorry, no offense to those who actually know StarCraft material, but anyone who mentioned original research either doesn't know StarCraft or doesn't know original research. A quick google search verifies most of the information. Note that Blizzard, the company that produced StarCraft, has endorsed much of the strategy on this page. Is that official enough for you? See http://www.battle.net/scc/terran/ufire.shtml for example.
Last but not least, this is no reminder but a minor editorial from yours truly. In my humble opinion, the "how-to/advice" and "fancruft" mottos that have become common as "reasons" for deletion are (1) too vague and (2) too dogmatically applied when personal bias would concur with the result. It is impossible to provide encyclopedia information on a serious, potentially competitive or practical topic (chess, Starcraft, football, programming, etc) without delving into "how-to" at some level. Therefore, moderate use of "how-to" information in relevant articles is not be a problem. -- Solberg 06:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg reply
Blizzard... has endorsed much of the strategy on this page. I wish you guys would make up your mind on whether or not this is a strategy guide or not. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I did not say whether the page is or is not a strategy guide. Who are "you guys?" Do not associate the opinions of others with mine in order to undermine my own argument. Such an action is referred to as a strawman fallacy. -- Solberg 23:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg reply
  • Comment The chess analogy is hilarious. It's like saying we need articles on every episode of Spongebob because we have articles on every play by Shakespeare. Too, too funny. -- GWO
Reply - If this is the point stop using the "gamecruft" argument (that applies to chess (that is a game)) and just say that there is "not enought notability". Actually nobody did.-- Pokipsy76 08:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Reply - That's because "not enough notability" would be a lie as reaverdrop has amply demonstrated. Only valid reason for deletion is transwiki. Everything else is just a lie. -- Solberg 09:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg reply
Second reply. The amount of space/number of articles a given game deserves should be proportionate to its historical and cultural importance, and its intellectual depth. This is why Chess is like Shakespeare, and Starcraft is like Spongebob. One is a cultural touchstone for hundreds of years, the other will be basically forgotten within 50 years. -- GWO
Reply You're right that the articles a game deserves should be proportionate, which is precisely why StarCraft deserves more pages. As already demonstrated by reaverdrop, Starcraft is historically and culturally notable. It's undeniably the most popular RTS and like several other major games, it has transcended its medium and become notable outside of gaming circles. Prove that StarCraft isn't notable culturally or historically or that it lacks intellectual depth. I'm a tournament chess player so don't try to fool me with poorly stamped comparisons. If you have any concrete comparisons to make with chess, make them now. If you have any evidence that contradicts reaverdrop's, show it now. Otherwise don't bother with the notability argument, it's worthless without any evidence backing it up. -- Solberg 21:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg reply
Reply - Why should starctaft be compared to Spongebob and not, for example, to Harry Potter or Lost which do have much more space dedicated to them than the Shakespeare's operas even without sharing the same historical value?-- Pokipsy76 23:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Clear delete per consistency. Punkmorten 08:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Deleting units and structures is the equivalent of deleting any mention of cards from poker or chess pieces from chess. Articles like Rook (chess) are less encyclopedic then this collection of information about each individual unit. I would argue the chess articles are even worse since they actually dedicate an entire article to each piece describing how it moves etc. which is equivalent to this condensed article describing the facts of the "game pieces" which happen to be bits and bytes. I think people are just failing to grasp how large Starcraft is and how much of cultural phenom it is. Terms have arose from this game, not fully directly, but popularized because of it, such as "to zerg". While there is a word, the term gained its popularity through the pieces in this game, much like people using the term "checkmate" when they out do an opponent. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I've no interest in this computer game, and find some of the comments about it laughable. Having said that, the comparison between it and chess are appropriate, & it is clearly a notable game. On the other hand, chess is not 'owned' by anyone, unlike star craft, and it requires simple equipment to play without buying a license from a 3rd party. Markb 12:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOT a game guide. Starcraft is an interesting cultural phenomenon, but there is no good reason for structure and unit lists for any game unless it has a very profound and lasting impact (ala Chess).-- Isotope23 14:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The fact that we have another bad/crufty/minutely detailed article on a different topic has NEVER been a good reason to keep in AfD. If you don't like the Chess sub-articles, nominate them and see what happens. Right now there's a lot of momentum toward consolidation/trimming of extraneous detail on AFD, so you might succeed. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- As bad as this article is, I don't see any procedural or policy reason why it should be deleted. Look at the class descriptions at World of Warcraft for example. A similar situation, just better written and edited. This article just needs a major rewrite, and maybe an excorcism. -- circuitloss 14:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep why? because my interpretation of why strategy guides are NOT encyclopedic is related to original research(i.e. my personal strategy) and NPOV restrictions as well as the non-factual basis of such things. I would submit, that many things that are common knowledge(FACTS known by a reasonably large group of people) are worth keeping for those who don't know. A similar thing would be a zerg rush, which, while an element of strategy, is seperately important because it has a massive cultural understanding as to what it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ikanreed ( talk • contribs) 09:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    Errr, the "massive cultural impact" of zerg rush (which redirects to the arguably broader topic of rushing) is blunted by the fact that very few people who don't play the game have any idea what you're talking about. Lots of things LOOK important from the inside, but are actually minute details when viewed from a broader perspective. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • trans to gamewiki This article must go other place where it suppose to be. -- Wnmnkh 18:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep per Reaverdrop, SevereTireDrop, Solberg, and IkanReed. This is not game guide material in the least bit. Game guides is under the instruction manuals subheading in WP:NOT. This article has no instruction manual material whatsoever, I think this claim is totally false. It is a table of units in StarCraft, nothing even hints at strategy. Wikipedia will fail in its mission to be the sum of all human knowledge if people try to delete everything that they perceive to be unimportant. Cruft does not harm the encyclopedia in the least bit. The article is not harming those who are uninterested by existing; they are free to choose whether to look at it or not. However, it is still there for those who are interested in it. -- Varco 19:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete.
    Answering Varco: this is not knowledge, so we lose nothing if we delete it. Let me explain. The basic details -- such as the fact that different races have different units with different attributes, and require different strategies -- are knowledge, encyclopedic, and belong in Wikipedia, and can usefully be illustrated with representative examples. But full lists of every single unit are facts, not knowledge; they are to StarCraft what a phone directory is to Telephone. One does not need such information to understand the nature of the game, nor its cultural importance; one only needs such information if one is actually engaged in playing the game, in which case there are plenty of better places to get it. So it should not be here. We are in the business of producing a first-rate encyclopedia, not second-rate game guides. — Haeleth Talk 19:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- belongs on gamewiki.org, if it ever comes online, or even gamewiki.net. The main article StarCraft is encyclopedic; the tree of articles it has spawned are not. While I realize WP has more capacity than World Book, let's face it, their editors would have laughed this article out of the room. -- MrDolomite | Talk 19:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Additionally, Chess's articles are acceptable because chess has had immense cultural impacts. Maybe if this game becomes important in society or lasts for an additional twenty to thirty years, this article can be re-created. As of right now, the game is not notable enough to require an extensive list of units and structures. Srose (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide; article is gamecruft hoopydink Conas tá tú? 20:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Emphatic Delete In all of these debates the keep argument keeps getting less and less convincing. This is clearly only useful in the context of playing this particular video game. In my mind that makes it a game guide. I'm a big fan of this particular game but this is completely unencylopedic and is exactly what you would find in a book on the subject.-- Nick Y. 22:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • My vote is still delete per all the excellent reasons above. Whispering 00:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Transwiki The chess argument is a fantastic one. -- JD79 00:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Are you all really that convinced that because we have an article on chess, that means we should have an article that covers in excruciating detail each and every fictional unit in the myriads of computer games in existance? I think anyone who votes "keep" on those grounds is reeeeeaalllly reaching. Aplomado talk 00:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Are you really that convinced that this is the argument at all? No one suggested covering every fictional unit in the "myriads of computer games in existence" anymore than it has been suggested we cover every book in existence simply because Shakespeare is good. See strawman fallacy and false analogy. -- Solberg 00:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg reply
OK. So I must be hallucinating when everyone brings up chess when an article like this is nominated for deletion. Aplomado talk 00:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Um, no one has suggested covering every book in existence. See AfD Thalir. Sometimes they make the cut, sometimes they don't. But, based on the AfD discussions and, as an example, the contents of ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Real-time strategy computer games, one can say that many computer game articles with extreme amounts of detail have been added. I'm not going to wikilawyer and pull quotes from Jimbo or previous discussions. As to the chess argument listed above, any game invented more than a century ago, which can be played by two people who don't even speak the same language, using very simple objects (think rocks and sand), which has world championship going back to c.1520, definitely falls into the notable category. Is there a grey area between chess and SC? Definitely. Can I understand that editors are excited about things that are top of mind in pop culture and use WP as an outlet, knowing there are others that share an interest? You bet. Another sanity check; would your grandma know about chess, or SC, or both, or neither? This level of treatment of fictional objects in a video game, albeit a currently popular one, is not appropriate for an encyclopedic resource, printed or otherwise. -- MrDolomite | Talk 01:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Here's my question. What on earth is a game guide if this isn't? If I posted the StarCraft manual on Wikipedia, what would it have that isn't covered in these articles other than installation instructions? Aplomado talk 01:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. User's other edits are only vandalisms. -- Golbez 00:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Colt angels

Speedy tag removed. No ghits. Nothing on Allmusic. Reads like something made up in school one day. -- DarkAudit 00:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC) why is this being deleted? Pie182 00:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply


Hyes we are a band looking to storm the music industry. We deserve an article. Poo you, DarkAudit. Don't you have anything better to do than deleting worthy articles. Mmm. Thought not. Ta. Beyatch91 00:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium. bd2412 T 21:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

MM Support Network

Simply a website run by the Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium for patients with multiple myeloma or their caregivers. Fails WP:WEB, can be merged/redirected with the MMRC page or simply deleted (my preference). JFW |  T@lk 00:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 09:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Erik Rhodes (porn star)

Rhodes appears to fail the proposed WP:PORN BIO notability guidelines. He is exclusively signed with Falcon Studios, has dated another porn star who is redlinked, and has a relatively short filmography (less than a dozen films). Searches on IAFD and IMDb both result in zero relevant matches. As usual, comments are welcomed on my talk page if anyone feels I have made a mistake somewhere along the line with this nomination. RFerreira 00:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

There's no need to attack the guy's looks in AFD, Gareth. -- nae'blis (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
concur that there should be concern over this type of spam about which there has been discussion. When someone goes to this length to bias a discussion by contacting others with whom there has not been prior contact just based on their edits, that is spam. Doc 23:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Because AfD's are shortlived, it is wholly appropriate for someone to give notice to possibly interested editors. I thought WP was about inclusion; if someone's "spam" causes an editor to put in his/her $0.02 or it's British equivalent, so freaking what. You can contact whoever you feel to give input, too, it's a free country (free world). And your suggestion that my comment and position should be discounted or devalued because I was alerted to this by another editor is frankly kinda scary. Carlossuarez46 00:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Alerting other editors with whom you have dialogued is one thing, it is quite another to alert other editors with whom you have had no contact based on their edits alone. That's spam, pure and simple. Doc 01:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
If people complain about spam, then someone may address it; to try to push your POV by discounting my (and anyone else who has been contacted) opinion has no basis in WP policy. Often alerts are posted on message boards for various wikiprojects about ongoing AfD's, do we stop the counting then? No. Why? because WP should want to hear everyone's opinion. If they are new or a sockpuppet they get discounted anyway. We don't care whether they are "regulars" or "lurkers". Carlossuarez46 03:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Response: If I have violated a policy or a guideline, please let me know where I can find it, becuase I do my best to behave according to the rules here. I have looked, and have not been able to find a Wikipedia policy against alerting other editors to an AfD. I did not try to persuade editors other than on this page to vote against the AfD. If there is no policy, then I don't know how I can be expected to conform to behaviour that certain editors think is appropriate. Zeromacnoo 04:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Response: In defense of Zeromacnoo's alerts, I personally appreciated this as it was a topic I was interested in, and I wouldn't have known about the discussion otherwise. Daydream believer2 04:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Zeromacnoo and others: I could have explained that better. There's an objection to "spamming" about discussion of deletion/policy/candidacy here at Wikipedia, because most of our processes work on the basis of consensus/rough consensus, the idea that most editors will come to some reasonable conclusion that is obvious, given the chance. Letting a certain subclass of editors know about a particular discussion skews those results and makes the final decision by the closing admin harder to determine if it's true or false consensus. Note that I didn't say "thse editors should be ignored", because a) that'd be assuming bad faith on Zero's part, and theirs, and b) I didn't look up what the reason was he contacted them (presumably, edit history with this or related gay porn articles). I just noticed that suddenly this discussion jumped from three commenters to six or seven, and wondered why. Does that help explain my message? -- nae'blis (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Response: In additional defense of Zermacnoo's alerts, I have been editing other gay pornographic pages. The decision of this AfD will set precedence for other gay porn star articles. I did not view his contact as spam, but relating to articles I have recently edited. PsYoP78 18:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Completely. I'm sorry if I sounded negative, I don't think spamming is necessarily right. I guess I'm just thankful to be informed about discussions I'd like to weigh in on. Daydream believer2 14:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I also should have mentioned that the reason notices on WikiProject pages, for example, are not considered under the same bad light is that they are " opt-in" and available to anyone on any side of the discussion (for instance, I could watchlist WikiProject Porn stars and hear about any relevant discussions that people wanted to post there, whatever my personal interest/POV was about their notability. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Zeromacnoo's contact with other editors is no reason to close discussion. As for the topic at hand: The reason why Erik Rhodes seems to have appeared in Falcon Studios videos only is that he has an exclusive contract with Falcon. Falcon Studio (+ Jock and Mustang divisions) produces a limited number of films per year. While I may disagree with Falcon's business model of concentrating mostly on white males, the "Falcon Exclusive" is a status that Falcon grants to a very select few gay porn actors. Rhodes has such a contract and most wannabe gay porn actor would kill for such a contract. As for notability, go to the falcon website [20]. See that guy on the left? That's Erik Rhodes. Falcon, one of the world's leading gay porn studios, promotes its website by putting Rhodes on its homepage. BTW, Rhodes (before signing on with Falcon) did appear in a video produced by Studio 2000, Flesh, in 2004. And yes, Studio 2000 is one of Falcon's main competitor for top talent. As for the counting bean criterion for notability: it's quite off. Ryan Idol, one of the biggest gay (for pay) porn stars ever, appeared in around ten (10) non-compilation videos from 1990 to 1996. The reason he did so few was that he thought doing so many would make him more of a has-been a lot sooner. He was right. Idol is not alone. See Rex Chandler and Jeff Stryker. Mtparnas 23:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Cloachland 23:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • IAFD and IMDB are not appropriate resources by which to measure notability for gay adult film performers. Case in point: Al Parker was one of the most prolific gay adult film performers of his time.
  • A search on IAFD [21] for Al Parker returns a no match. The same search on IMDB [22] lists Parker as an actor in 12 films, a director of three, a producer of one, and one appearance as himself. Hardly representative of his actual work.
  • The video retailer tlavideo [23] lists Al Parker as a performer in 32 gay adult films (some of which are compilations of scenes of other films), a director of 22, and a producer for 2. He is also listed as a model in two books, as the subject of another, and as appearing in a deck of playing cards of gay adult film performers. Al Parker’s career spanned 13 years; tlavideo's listing does not include all his work.
  • Erik Rhodes, having begun his work with one film in 2004, is listed in tlavideo as being in nine films. Five of them he made for Falcon Studios, three for Jocks Studios (a division of Falcon), and one for Studio 2000. Zeromacnoo and Mtparnas have addressed the concern regarding Erik's short filmography; which, given the average output of a gay adult film performer, is pretty impressive for roughly 2 years in the industry.
  • Being exclusively signed with Falcon Studios is an excellent indicator of notability in terms of gay adult film performers, as Falcon is one of the largest studios (if not the largest studio) currently producing gay adult films. Falcon is also one of the oldest surviving studios to do so and is a highly-recognized brand.
  • Dating someone who isn’t notable (i.e., redlined) doesn’t lessen an individual’s notability.
  • As for the comments, I appreciate that Zeromacnoo noticed my fledgling editing efforts and thought to inform me of this discussion - it's a topic in which I have a great deal of interest. I would hope that being new to a forum doesn't automatically discount one's contributions to it. Chidom 08:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mostly Rainy 02:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Counter-Strike Spray

Pure gamecruft. Additionaly sprays are not even an original feature of Counterstrike but of Half-Life, the game Counter-Strike was derived from - are we to have an article for every game that allows sprays? Artw 00:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete (A6/A7/G4). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anry Nemo for an earlier discussion of this subject. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Anry

Speedy as attack tag removed by author, so it's here. -- DarkAudit 00:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. — Jul. 18, '06 [21:29] < freak| talk>

Juan Camilo Montoya

Cannot verify notability per WP:MUSIC. Nicely written article but no sources that can verify notability are cited. Nv8200p talk 00:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

NBA International

Looks like original research. I don't think this has much encyclopedic value. It also has no sources for any of it. Metros232 00:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - Metros232 most have missed the source I gave under "Sources". The 06 season is clearly from the NBA website. I created this page as a way to talk about the international effect of the NBA. Both the effects of the league and the effects around the world, as the league is making the sport more popular. But, I guess nobody went with it and exand it. Chaldean 03:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • No, I see that link at the bottom. And I see that it leads to the 2001-2002 rosters. But if you went through and counted each one of those and tallied where each player was from, it's original research. And it's not "clearly" from the NBA site since you didn't cite it. Metros232 03:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • keep and expand please this is a important topic we should cover Yuckfoo 20:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, I would say merge into NBA, but it already has a long paragraph discussing this topic. Recury 00:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep although it needs clean-up and expansion. Unpublished data is original research, but tabulation of published data is not (unless it advances a position). -- NORTH talk 20:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Sea Warriors

There is nothing in this article that isn't covered in the Hawaii Pacific University entry's Athletics section, or is so notable as to deserve its own article. Only two pages, a user page and a project page, link to it. -- EazieCheeze 00:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G4 - repost of merged article. Pumpkinfest reverted into redir to Waterford, Ontario. Kimchi.sg 03:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Pumpkinfest (Waterford, Ontario)

This seems to be an end-run around the AfD on Pumpkinfest that closed on July 8, 2006. The result of that AfD was to merge the article into Waterford, Ontario. As you will see, the former Pumpkinfest info that was merged into the Waterford article now forms the basis of the new article now nominated for deletion. Normally, I'd say this qualifies for Speedy Deletion as a recreation of an article deleted after an AfD; however, this might fall into a loophole. If I'm wrong on the qualification for Speedy, then I "re-nominate" this article for the additional reason that this is an event of only local importance which otherwise lacks any notability or importance. That the article itself has to include an argument for notability is a sign that there is none. It would not be surprising if many small towns had such an event, but we don't need an article on each and every one of them. Not sufficiently encyclopedic. Agent 86 01:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy Delete - there's no "seems to be" about it. This is blatant. Rklawton 01:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and also delete the pumpkinfest disamb page. Phr ( talk) 02:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete lest we get every town's fest. I live in the area of this article and can think of a dozen "fests" around it. Roby0215 02:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the disamib page was created by the closing admin (Tyrenius), this page is not a speedy since according to CSD G4, "A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted as a result of a discussion in Articles for deletion or another XfD process (may be deleted.)" The page was not deleted but merged. However, this article can be deleted for creating a sepearte page for something that is notable within the scope of a city, but not notable enough for it's own article. Yank sox 02:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • OK, maybe I've had too much sun today, but I don't exactly understand these points. It's not that I disagree, I just don't understand them. Could you explain each of these points again in simple English? Rklawton 02:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • I've had about 10 hours in the sun and no sleep so I could be out of mind right now. What exactly is confusing? Yank sox 02:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • I just listned to an online tech presentation, so I think I'm back up to speed again: we can't speedy it 'cause it wasn't XfD'd, just merged. It was then recreated by a user with a history of creating articles that get deleted. OK, so delete and frag makes sense. Question: is there a disambig page that needs removal, too?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Unauthorized Rolling Stones

vanity/spam article, marginal notability

This is a self-promotional article by persistent Wikipedia spammer Rudy Colombini; see

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rudy Colombini

for more info. It was originally entered from an IP address resolving to a hotel owned by Colombini and as such is almost certainly a vanity article. The band in question is a part time Rolling Stones cover band that plays in the San Francisco area. It has no records released AFAIK (anyone who wants to listen to Rolling Stones records buys real ones). It does have a few local press articles cited but that's pretty marginal for a global encyclopedia. The "Best of the Bay" award is not impressive since it's not really a competitive award; the newspaper just makes up categories to give out awards in, as a way of promoting local businesses and products, nothing like the "major awards" listed at WP:MUSIC. The article gives no evidence of the band's notability per any of the other WP:MUSIC guidelines except the above.

The tone of the article is relentlessly self-promotional and many of the details are unverifiable, and the author has a history of making disputed self-promotional claims (see the AFD linked above). The article also tries to promote the nonexistent "SF Rock and Roll Hall of Fame" and "Music City SF", two more vanity articles now deleted (author wrote about those venues as if they were separate and notable entities, when in fact both are at the same street address and are still apparently under construction. See Talk:Rudy Colombini for some details.

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

MBADiversity.org

Weak case for notability. Looking over their corporate website, their activities are heavy on the fundraising and promotion and light on actually helping minorities earn MBAs. I think this qualifies as advertising. -- Xrblsnggt 01:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Steve Schuh

Notability/importance in question. ghits: [24] -- NMChico24 01:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 20:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Brain Teaser

This article does not meet wikipedia's notablity requirements. If this were a full size roller coaster than sure, but it is just your run of the mill little kiddie coaster. see a picture here [25] Although I understand the need for articles on the big rides at parks like this, small generic rides should not be granted their own articles... thanks for reading T-rex 01:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Merge any relevant info to Six Flags Darien Lake to expand the short blurb that already exists on that page. At least the other rollercoasters listed there (except for the The Viper) are located in several parks and are not kiddie rides. Fabricationary 01:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - I'm a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Roller Coasters, whose goal is "to make Wikipedia into a BETTER roller coaster reference than the Roller Coaster Database". To do that, we need articles on all coasters, big and small. This one just needs some time and expansion. Note that it's also linked from the SFDL template -- also part of Project roller coasters -- if the article is deleted, it will leave a hole in this template. -- Rehcsif 05:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    No, if this is deleted it will be removed from the template... the biggest drop on this thing is only like 2 feet... -- T-rex 13:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
RCDB thinks it's worthwhile: [26]. -- Rehcsif 14:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
This is Wikipedia, not RCDB. Our standards are different. Not higher, not lower, just different. And less directly oriented towards the inclusion of rollercoasters. — Haeleth Talk 19:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep. If the intent of Wikipedia is to be better than RCDB, then this coaster should have its own page. That is the goal of the Roller coaster WikiProject--to make Wikipedia better than RCDB. -- myselfalso 20:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Well wikipedia's goal is to be an encyclopedia, not a directory -- T-rex 03:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as Fabricationary. Too minor/generic for its own article. -- GWO
  • Merge. Sorry to the rollercoaster project, but I'm afraid your goals are secondary to the goals of the Wikipedia project as a whole -- that is, you can only create a better rollercoaster reference to the extent that that is compatible with our goal of creating an encyclopedia. I don't think that this particular ride really merits its own article in the context of an encyclopedia. — Haeleth Talk 19:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep. This article isn't much as it is, but all it needs is for a Wikipedian who lives near the park to go there and do a little first-hand research and maybe take a picture or two. Also, if this article is deleted and its entry is removed from the park's template, the template will be rendered meaningless as it wouldn't list ALL the coasters at the park. We'd have to call it "Selected roller coasters at Six Flags Darien Lake" or something to that extent. If this is deleted or merged, it will set a bad precedent for other similar coaster articles. Also, as much as I hate to refer to WP:PTEST, it pretty much applies here. Dusso Janladde 19:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Please look at this page ( sixflags.com), the park itself doesn't even think this ride is important enough to put on their ride list. The first two are their big new rides, followed by the 5 (yes only five) real rollercoasters and then selected other rides, no mention of this non-notable want-to-be coaster -- T-rex 03:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - I am also a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Roller Coasters, and I agree with Rehcsif - FTIII 20:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - Basically all of Dusso Janladde's reasons -- Phantom784 21:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep & expand For the reasons stated above. RCDB simply lists statistics whereas Wikipedia has the potential to include a detailed history for all roller coasters. However, articles like this need expanding by someone with knowledge of the ride in question for the Roller Coaster Project to be taken seriously. -- Fozi999 22:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Even with no previous knowledge of this coaster I've done some research and added a little more to the article. However, it still needs attention from someone who has more knowledge of the ride. For example, there's no information on where the coaster is actually situated within the park. -- Fozi999 11:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - The creation of Wikiprojects attest to the overall notability of the subject matter and deserves the Wikipedia's community's support. The size of the size of the drop is irrelevant. Each coaster (big or small) is an architectural structure that incoporates the applicable laws of physics. If we are compiling a worthwhile and informative data base on coasters then there is need and notability in the inclusion of all types of coasters--even teh small ones. 205.157.110.11 22:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as per Fabricationary and Haeleth. This is an Encyclopedia, not a database. T. Moitie 23:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Also, you can keep it as comprehensive as you already have it when it is in the main article. There is no warrent for an article for every single rollercoaster big or small. And there is no reason why having the article inside a larger article would ruin the project. - T. Moitie 23:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge & Redirect, there's no reason that there cannot be a half-dozen paragraphs in one article about the coasters at that park, rather than six separate articles that are only a few lines each. Merging would actually make it more useful. -- JD79 00:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: But this is not a finished article, so saying "a few lines" is not a fair statement. Please check out Kingda Ka, The Demon, or El Toro for an example of a coaster article with some maturity. -- Rehcsif 03:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: This article has been nomiated for deletion, and I oppose that idea. Certainly it is not a major article, and certainly will never rise above stub level, but there is little reason to delete it based upon how much work has been done by members of the Roller Coaster Project on tracking every roller coaster possible. (Note: The preceeding comment was placed on Talk:Brain Teaser by User:Zotdragon)
  • Keep: This article may not be the most important ever, but I think its vital to Wikipedia:WikiProject Roller Coasters. - Bagel7 04:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Six Flags Darien Lake. Kiddie roller coasters are non-notable, they just are. Claims that its deletion will destroy a template or go against a WikiProjects guidelines are irrelevant. It is not the intent of Wikipedia to be better than RCDB. It is the intent of Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia. -- NORTH talk 05:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 22:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Sharma Method

Article is a hoax, or at the very least non-notable. No references of it can be found through googling. Whpq 01:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. — Jul. 18, '06 [21:27] < freak| talk>

No Mercy Video

Not notable video company. The article itself states that "they didnt [sic] sell more than 100". The website doesn't offer the video release for sale anymore, and it's hard to find any meaningful references to the company or its products by searching the web. So we're failing WP:CORP, and if we apply WP:MUSIC to a video release, it fails too. Only substantial contbributor is User:No mercy video, same name as the article title, so WP:VANITY.-- Mikeblas 01:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Conflict Style Inventory

this article had an aborted nomination on July 2nd that never got posted here and was removed from the article. I'm bringing it here because I think it needs a broader viewpoint; as it stands it is written largely by one user whose name is suspiciously similar to "Kraybill" itself. -- nae'blis (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete or Clean-up at least. Totally incoherent. If made any sense I'd have a stronger opinion. A physical tool? Psychological tool? Testing procedure? WTF? -- GWO
  • Delete as nn topic, 671 Ghits and all of those appear to be product/catalog listings. No major third-party articles by uninvolved writers, and the listed authorship here makes impartiality questionable. The article apparently has been steadily massaged by some attentive writers. It has however no context, evidently was written by someone who knows the topic, and makes assumptions that a layman would not. The talk page contains a claim the writer is selling books by making manifold links to the page; I can't know the writers' intent. WP:VAIN is also a guideline, not policy, and I'm not quite seeing relentless self-promotion in the text despite the original contributor's username Kraybilr. The name is admittedly close to the Ron Kraybill Conflict Style Inventory, which in turn lends itself to the question of impartiality. Bottom line: No notability stated or implied. Tychocat 09:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless radically cleaned up and notability asserted. This reads like an advertisement. — Haeleth Talk 19:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The word "Inventory" in this context implies a method of rating or measuring behavior, and thus the article must show evidence the mesurement instrument is reliable and valid. Published scientific evidence from verifiable and reliable source, I may add. KarenAnn 23:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above Massmato 16:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G1. Kimchi.sg 03:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Glistening

Delete as nonsense. Speedy tag removed by author. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 02:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Trick or Treat Bang Bang

Not at all notable. "Trick or treat, bang bang" is a phrase that appeared in one episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm. The article provides no assertion that this phrase has somehow entered popular culture, been referenced outside the series, or even is considered remarkable by anyone but the individual editors.

I successfully nominated this article to be speedied a while ago under A7, no assertion of notability. I'm not a sysop, so I don't know if this is a carbon-copy recreation of the same material, but it might be, meaning that this article could be eligible to be speedied under A7 and G4. However, the {{prod}} tag I added yesterday was removed by User:82.40.35.24 with an edit summary of "its a very funny line. many of larry davids phrases end up in popular culture." Not very compelling, but I felt I would be being a dick for taking this to be speedied after the {{prod}} was removed, so I'm bringing it here. Dylan 02:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Hannon Hill

Is this company note-worthy? If it is, someone should cook up some content for the article. Otherwise it's just cruft and should be deleted. goofyheadedpunk 17:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Delete, I'd be stronger about it if I knew whether or not this "Cascade Server" product is of any note. If not, the article has had over a month and a half to prove its subject's notability, and so far that hasn't happened. Willing to change my vote if someone more knowledgeable about this field can share what they know or don't know about the company and/or the product. -- H·G ( words/ works) 23:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I did an extensive notability check before creating this article after its suggestion at articles for creation. As far as I remember, it was borderline, but did pass to my standards. However, I know nothing about this company, and apparently the IP hasn't returned to edit it. So I'm neutral. It looked notable, but if nobody cared to edit it, then it must not be. Cheers! -- Keitei ( talk) 06:47, 15 July 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, - CrazyRussian talk/ email 02:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 back to Scouting in Louisiana and redirect. Mailer Diablo 20:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Chilantakoba Lodge 397 (Order of the Arrow)

I prodded this but it was just deprodded, so I'll just use my original prod reason: Non-notable chapter/lodge of a larger organization. About 25 unique Google hits none of which seems to be an independent sources. Metros232 21:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC) reply

relisting to generate a clearer consensus. - brenneman {L} 02:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 fresh copyvio. Kimchi.sg 03:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

H-o-m-e-r

The article looks like copied and pasted information, and I don't think it's notable. JD don't talk| email] 02:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete If it is copied, it's ok to speedy as it has no other edits, but I couldn't find an exact duplicate online. (someone did, and marked it for speedy. Though it looks more like an advertising of the site than a copyvio, probably) Even so, doesn't read like an article, and is all in an OR tone. Delete. - Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 02:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 00000011111111111bbzbzbzbz I mean OMG gone! - CrazyRussian talk/ email 02:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Special Characters

A 130-kb text dump of HTML special characters: that's it. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this is about as indiscriminate as you can get. Was Prod'ed, but tag removed without comment. Calton | Talk 02:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Scott Millett

This not overly intelligent young man was not the "primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of [him]". As such, I say we electrocute this article to reduce light pollution.- CrazyRussian talk/ email 02:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. I created this article after being referred from the Brandon Vedas article, and the subject is noteworthy for being one of the first internet deaths by misadventure. He was subject to a fair amount of news coverage at the time due to the internet angle. BoojiBoy 03:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete in agreement on Calton's Darwin Awards comment. Michael 07:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination and Calton's comments. I don't think this incident really stands comparison to Brandon Vedas -- Millett just went out, did something dumb and got himself killed, whereas Vedas pretty much died on screen and became a symbol for the stupid bravado ("i told u i was hardcore") and the cowardly group mentality and evasion of responsibility ("damn this is hard call[.] yall make it[.] good night[.] [exits]") that directly contributed to his death. They pretty much watched him die. That element is what made the Vedas incident famous and an ongoing part of internet lore, and that element is precisely what's missing in the Millett incident. (Obviously, they should've talked him out of it, but they honestly didn't realize that a) he was really going to do it and b) it really was a very dangerous thing to do.) Sure, the two incidents have parallels, but in the end, one of them is a very notable event, the other one isn't. -- Captain Disdain 08:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a list of people who killed themselves doing stupid things. -- GWO
  • Delete as those above. Nuttah68 10:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Captain Disdain. Not really "Internet related", if that makes a difference; else every suicide, criminal, or accident victim who records their plans on MySpace or LiveJournal is encyclopedia material. Smerdis of Tlön 14:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment The point was that he was the first such idiot, and was newsworthy at the time. However I will obviously accept the judgement of the community if consensus is reached. BoojiBoy 14:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Subject fails WP:BIO. A chat log is not a Reliable Source. If he was the subject of "multiple non-trivial published works" then please cite those sources. Note, WP:BIO states, "Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage." Subject is trivial. Scorpiondollprincess 14:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 20:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom -- KarenAnn 23:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete not-notable, vanity, trolling article. -- Werto 13:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep purely because of the insensitivity shown by the nom to a human being who has died. -- Tim1988 talk 11:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete per WP:BIO. Clipped the wires on a light pole??? Such a minor crime likely wouldn't even make the local paper, much less an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Ehud Olmert and Iran

First let me start with some history. Because of all of the attention and debate caused by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statements regarding Israel and The Holocaust, the section of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dealing with his comments about Israel became too large for the article on him, so it was split off into Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel. Ehud Olmert and Iran was clearly created as a POV response to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel. This article was created with the intention of showing that the Israeli Prime Minister makes parallel comments about Iran that Ahmadinejad makes about Israel. However, whereas Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel actually talks about an ongoing controversy that is frequently in the news, this article is intended to create a controversy. If you read the article you will see that it is entirely POV and OR, and the grammar ain't much to write home about. Further, the subject is bogus, anything here that's relevant already exists at Ehud Olmert or could be merged there, and nothing that Olmert is quoted as saying here is particularly notable or hasn't been said by other world leaders. GabrielF 02:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

If you think about it, the reason why there exist an article called Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel is simply the echo of his statements in western media. Non of his statements were new and many of former Iranian and non Iranian muslim officials have had very similar remarks. Olmert's statements had also very similar echo in Iran and muslim countries. In this respect wikipedia is very much POV as it mainly covers what is in western media (as most of the media of Iran and muslim coutries use a language other than English). -- Mitso Bel 14:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Where is advocating genocide in the article? Khorshid 05:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment There already appears to be an article on Iran-Israel_relations. -- Xrblsnggt 01:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Have you tried to merge the relevant and sourced information into Ehud Olmert? -- JWSchmidt 17:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Actually, he's now trying to insert the exact same information into 4 different articles, including Ehud Olmert. Jayjg (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Warren Woods Tower High School

High school article with minimal content and no assertion of notability about the school. — C.Fred ( talk) 02:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Not by researching it on Google, but by giving knowledge acquired through actual experience with the school. That's how most information on small towns, colleges, etc gets added anyway. AdamBiswanger1 23:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the well reason arguments documented at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. This and all other secondary schools are notable enough for an encyclopedia aiming to provide the complete sum of human knowledge. Not that notability is a requirement for inclusion. Silensor 09:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • enough for an encyclopedia aiming to provide the complete sum of human knowledge.
If you find such an encyclopedia, add this article to it. If you think this is such an encyclopedia, you have greatly misunderstood the stated aims of Wikipedia. -- GWO
You're the one with the misunderstanding problem, as these are always kept, and the founder of Wikipedia is in favor of them being kept. Golfcam 23:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
No. They're not always kept. That's an outright fabrication. A policy insisting they're always kept was rejected by the community, and the community outranks Jimbo. -- GWO
.... and as such has a major influence on those students' lives. Keep as per standard approach to schools. If you ain't interested, don't read the article. Markb 12:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I was interested until I read the article. GassyGuy 16:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep or else merge — Yes there's no commonly accepted criteria for H.S. notability, but this page survives my personal criteria. Thanks. :-) — RJH ( talk)
  • Delete. Parents have an influence on childrens lives, but being a parent doesn't make you notable. Just another unnotable high school. -- GWO
  • Merge to district article. -- Liface 15:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per every other high school article being kept. You aint telling me you're gonna waste your time and ours by trying to delete every school thats ever been "kept" are you!? If I need more reason, its a high school and if we have to have articles about every damn pokemon that (n)ever existed, then a school is a no brainer! Jcuk 18:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • If you believe that the Pokemon coverage should be amended (and I'm sure you're not alone) then perhaps it'd be more productive to attempt to change the way those rulings are administered than to pick a new topic to fill with unnecessary entries. GassyGuy 19:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • keep please this secondary school is important we should document it Yuckfoo 19:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, just another school like any other. The existence, nature, history, and development of schools are all very important topics that deserve extensive discussion. Individual schools that do not stand out from the crowd in any way are not important; their existence is a random fact, not a part of human knowledge. We have articles on cherry trees in general, but not on the rather fine example outside my window, even though its existence is easy to verify; we have articles on prominent people, but not on me, even though I can find plenty of independent sources that discuss me; we have articles on the telephone, but we do not include lists of phone numbers.
    Summary: schools in general == knowledge, specific schools == not knowledge except in exceptional cases, this school == not exceptional == not knowledge. — Haeleth Talk 19:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete -- disclaimer #1) ok, I grew up going to school near WWTHS and the Titans are not even notable in the immediate area, let alone on WP. disclaimer #2) My POV is that school articles can all go, unless they have notable alumni or an event. -- MrDolomite | Talk 19:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep per my notion that all secondary schools carry inherent notability hoopydink Conas tá tú? 20:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and improve. High schools are notable. -- Baron Larf 22:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep High Schools and Colleges have an intrinsic notability, this article must be kept. -- Librarianofages 22:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and allow for organic growth per Jimbo Wales. [27] Bahn Mi 22:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Secondary schools are important I don't care what the out come of WP:SCHOOL was. -- Pboyd04 23:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The secondary school notability debate needs to end. To recap key points, secondary schools often have many more students than a small college or university, often have famous alumni, and are the location of many important events in the lives of thousands of young adults. Intrinsically notable. AdamBiswanger1 23:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand to match the many other school articles. Cloachland 23:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Schools are important. Ramseystreet 00:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Secondary level educational institutions and above are inherently notable. Yamaguchi先生 00:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per precedent. My opinion is that all public schools are notable. hateless 00:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • delete - I believe that most schools can be notable, but content is what establishes this notablility. Very little content. Note I am here due to an email sent to me asking me to vote here. Please wieght my arguement accordingly. HighInBC 00:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment. HighInBC has been active on Wikipedia for about five months with a somewhat sizable edit history. —nom. — C.Fred ( talk) 00:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

DELETE. This school is not discernably notable, no real encyclopedia would ever accept this trash. GameSet 01:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. All enduring institutions are verifiable and should be documented in any encyclopedia whose purpose is to comprise the sum of all knowledge. -- Centauri 01:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • If the purpose is to comprise the sum of all knowledge, then I don't think any article would be deleted that contained facts, including the ones about nn people, nn bands... 'cause, like, you can verify their existence. And yet we do delete those articles, because the sum of all knowledge is not quite what we're collecting. GassyGuy 01:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

100 best movies of the cinema of Mexico

This article, like several others that have been deleted recently, is simply a restatement of some single source's "best of" list. In this case, we don't even have an article on the magazine yet, which makes it all the more spurious to have this article recreate their arguably copyrighted content. -- nae'blis (talk) 02:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g4, it's pretty much the same. - Bobet 10:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Z Games (2nd nomination)

This article has been deleted three times. The main contributor is a user called " Z Games" and the company still fails WP:Corp. Half of the links are to sitesled.com and the other half are to awardspace.com. Please see the last Afd ~a ( user • talk • contribs) 02:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Sean-Michael Smith

Inclusion of an individual at IMDB does not imply notability. While IMDB notes a few minor acting and directorial credits, these do not meet WP:BIO standards. (Plus, all the article asserts for notability is that he is a union member.) — C.Fred ( talk) 02:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Djnet

Fails WP:WEB: no media coverage, no awards, no distribution by non-related avenues. — C.Fred ( talk) 02:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was bury the treasure, and salt the Earth. Mailer Diablo 09:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

TreasureTrooper

As we have decided this should not be speedied, this has five days to run, so we need to wait until July 23 to determine the consensus. -- Avi 01:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
It is only semi-protected. -- Avi 03:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Plus you (141.151.94.113) were making the article look like a referral or an advertisent for the website. Koolgiy 14:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • How? All I initially wrote was that it was a survey site that pissed others off for spamming! I then just REFINED a very LONG and ONE SIDED, but INFORMATIVE addition that another user had added. I transformed it to be neutral, and cleaner! All I wanted was to learn more than its user's spamming.-- 151.197.119.208 21:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • So why am I the original author who did not write it as an advert blocked from editing? How is this semi-protected?-- 151.197.119.208 21:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Section from History on TT article
This is what you (151.197.119.208) added. Tell me if it sounds advertismentish
There is also an opportunity to complete daily surveys in the Cash Surveys section. If you qualify and successfully complete the daily survey, TreasureTrooper will pay you .75 cents. If you qualify for and successfully complete every daily survey, you could potentially earn up to $22.50 each month by doing the daily surveys alone.
TreasureTrooper.com also allows you may also participate in contests, earn items gold coins, pearls and virtual gems, which are used to purhase items at an online trading post called Mabutu's Trading Hut. The purchases made at Mabutu's Trading Hut can be used to earn extra referrals, participate in online contests, and help you in your search for the fabled Lost Statue from the Mambiku Tribe, worth $100.00 in prize money! There are several contests offered to help you increase the amount of money you make on Treasure Trooper.'-- Koolgiy 04:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Reply What You Think
  • I did NOT write that! Look over ALL the history if you want to reference to it. I refined that over many re-edits. If you look through history longer you'll notice that text's original addition was added by another user, while it's dramatic change was made by me. Remember me saying here, "I then just REFINED a very LONG and ONE SIDED, but INFORMATIVE addition that another user had added."? YOUR QUOTE was what I was talking about! ALSO, did you not notice my criticizing that in the discussion section?-- 141.151.78.22 04:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • HAHAHAHA eheh hahaha... My randomly bieng logged off for a period would explain why I, Dagibit and 141.151.78.22, couldn't sign edits as Dagibit, and was not able to edit the article or to argue. I did admit to sucking at this kind of stuff in the discussion section, but either way, I'm sorry for the large amount of spam this caused here and for sort of flaming you, koolgiy. Now back to buisness, The article really is improved from the state that you shared, so why can't it stay?-- Dagibit 15:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (As a side note, plenty of old pages fall through the cracks here. Also, if I can AfD a page that's four years old, no article is sacred based on the amount of time it has been here.) Grand master ka 20:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Star Wars Epics Forums

Non-notable forum. Alexa rank around 5 million at the time of nomination. Delete as original research as well. Wickethewok 02:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • What? Its the number 5 result when you type the name of the website into Google. Is that what you mean? If this was a measure of notability, we would have had a featured article on Clifford's Cat Hats already (it has a Google ranking of 1 according your measures, which I assume means it is 5 times as popular as your site). Also, this is my favorite reason for keeping an article about a forum ever. Wickethewok 15:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I'm glad I could amuse you. That's not what I meant. The google pagerank is 5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.0.196.74 ( talk • contribs)
  • Yet another reason to keep it, everyone who saw it for 3 months apparently felt it was worthy. But I won't contest further. Thera2400/— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.0.196.74 ( talk • contribs) 15:43, 20 July 2006 (EST)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Haylee Oakes

Fifteen-year-old national karate champ with 0 GHits. NN or hoax, take your pick. Oh, she also works part-time at Tim Hortons. Fan-1967 03:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. --- Charles 03:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. If you look up a Simcoe Composite School yearbook for either this year (2005-2006) or last year (2004-2005), you will see her name and photo. Her name (which might have been unintentionally misspelt as "Haylee Oates") and photo can also be found on the Simcoe Reformer. GVnayR 03:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Having a yearbook entry does not make her notable. This is not the Norfolk County Wikipedia. Bearcat 04:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • This editor is responsible for a lot of articles nominated for AfD. I'd appreciate it if an admin with a bit of extra time would review this user's "contributions" and assess whether or not this editor should still maintain an account here. Rklawton 00:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
His contribution history, from what I can tell, is more crufty than invalid per se (although admittedly there's no excuse for Kelly Lloyd-Jennings on any level whatsoever.) Bearcat 04:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Jul. 18, '06 [21:24] < freak| talk>

Dork (band)

The article admits this is an unsigned band, lucky enough to get on a regional tour by virtue of playing roadies/doing manual labor. I don't see this as passing WP:MUSIC. Delete. Xoloz 03:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. If you wish to propose a merge, discuss it on the article talk page, not here. Grand master ka 20:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Vashi Bridge

non notable bridge. possible merge and redirect to either Mankhurd or Mumbai. - SynergeticMaggot 03:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

If Train A is traveling toward Vashi at a speed of 100km/h, and Train B is traveling toward Mankhurd at a speed of... oh never mind ;) -- Rehcsif 14:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems "notable" enough to have an article. To the nominator: if you wish to merge, simply do so - you don't need a VFD. -- SPUI ( T - C) 19:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep needs to be sourced and expanded, but a quick look at the bridge categories identified by Shenme shows lots of U.S. bridges of lesser notability so keeping verifyable Indian bridges fights systemic bias. Eluchil404 19:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Gran Turismo 4 Car List

Previously nominated and deleted a year ago. Nothing has changed since the last nomination. It is still unecyclopedic, gamecruft and just a FAQ. I would possibly suggest a transwiki to Wikibooks, but I don't think they take FAQs (if this could even be called one) so that suggestion is out. There are also a number of these lists around the Internet and could always be linked to from Gran Turismo 4 if people feel that this resource is really all that valuable. PS2pcGAMER ( talk) 03:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After four hours, absolutely no reason at all even vaguely hinted at by the nominator as to why the article should be deleted. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Lassie (2005 movie)

Delete and redirect to Lassie. SynergeticMaggot 04:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 09:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

New Jersey Brewers

Very WP:NN. This was a soccer team, never having been to a playoff, nor the U.S. Open Cup. Delete. SynergeticMaggot 04:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as db-author since blanked by author. -- JLaTondre 02:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Jeremy Preston Johnson

Can't quite speedy this as "patent nonsense" but I'm not sure what it is. Maybe original fiction? The name googles, but nothing that looks relevant to this. Danisvjold Makijivic does not google at all. Whatever it is, definitely not encyclopedic. Fan-1967 04:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 San Andreas (Grand Theft Auto). bd2412 T 21:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Brown Streak Railroad

Cruft about a company from a game that isn't mentioned anywhere except on trains. Also original research. 1ne 04:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment My suggested target is the "state" in which the game takes place and which the railroad serves, not the game itself. youngamerican ( ahoy-hoy) 13:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 09:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Daniela Hamaui

Delete per possible WP:VAIN and fails WP:BIO. SynergeticMaggot 04:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was De'Lete. Mailer Diablo 09:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

D'Leons

Non-notable local resturant chain with only 3 locations. Delete Jaranda wat's sup 04:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete with the possibility of transwiki. The prevailing wind here is that these articles are more than we need, and any possible merge targets already contain ample information on the subjects. As I don't think the StarCraft wiki is really a sister project of ours, I'm not going to mess with trying to transwiki this whole thing (also, it is possible/likely that their articles are better than what was here!). If someone would like the deleted content to do the transwiki work themselves, drop me a line. ( ESkog)( Talk) 07:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Specific StarCraft units

Original research, game cruft, game guide, whatever you like to call it, these articles' content features mainly strategy advice, unit statistics, and other content that is quite unencyclopedic. Regardless of goings-on on other AFDs, this content should certainly be deleted.

Nominating:

Note that I am not including heroes/NPCs/characters in this nomination, only generic units. Judging by a similar previous AFD ( here), most editors believe this content does not belong in a general encyclopedia and should instead be in a separate Wiki.

Wickethewok 04:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Side note: Someone posted on Digg to influence the AfD
  • Delete, gameguide stuff. Recury 13:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Don't Delete!, If this is removed from Wiki then obviously we have to go even further than that. Anything pertaining to Star Wars or Star Trek in complete details involving planets and race's have to be marked for deletion as well. If you remove one set of fictional articles, you remove them all. Personally, I don't think this is a path that should be traversed. -- Wil2197 14:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Eh? If you remove one set of fictional articles, you remove them all. Why would one have to do that? If one includes Romeo and Juliet, must we include every play ever written? Not all fiction is created equally, or has equally cultural notability. Furthermore, its not POV to point that out. -- GWO
      • Eh? I too am in favor of transwiki-ing, and you are right to point of the slippery slope fallacy. However! Starcraft is one of the most culturally notable videogames ever. Especially in .kr, but even in the English-speaking world, the starcraft is legendary. En taro adun, eigenlambda 19:10, 18 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Zergling, delete the rest Ironically, the title of this AfD is the one that should be kept, and seeing it on the afd list piqued my interest to come here and say so. Do we need an article on every SC unit? No way. But the Zergling has become extremely notable in popular culture - the term has come to be a word on its own, and is also more symbolic of the game as a whole than any other unit. However, it should be made into more of an article explaining these points than the strategy-guide reading they get having one for each unit. - Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 19:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Additional comment to my above - While I originally said keep zergling, delete rest, I'd like to clarify I have nothing against a transwiki, as seems to be the growing consensus. The thing is, while I don't know the SC wiki, I would assume they probably already have info on all these units, and probably more about them than we do. But if not, then sure, trans away. Also, there have been a few suggestions to merge to a list. I would say that this is probably the best way of keeping any info here, as a list of units with minor single-line-ish info. - Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 03:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Transwiki and merge down to a single 'list' style article, after generous cutting. -- InShaneee 19:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Transwiki all per first few comments. Maybe I might as well go ahead with this. --Slgr @ndson ( page - messages - contribs) 19:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, transwiki, smerge, any would be an appropriate solution to this problem. Goldom may be right that zergling should be kept, but I think it's really the concept of the "zerg rush" that's the culturally notable thing (I know what "zerg rush" means, I didn't know that it involved zerglings), and that is quite adequately covered in Rush (computer and video games). — Haeleth Talk 19:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all, transwiki, merge Deletion based on Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a game guide hoopydink Conas tá tú? 20:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/Transwiki It appears Wikipedia is on an AfD rampage, but this one actually might be justified... however total deletion is still stupid and pointless, and the slippery sloper argument is becoming increasingly valid. Merge them into Starcraft Units, etc. or transwiki them to where they fit better. But don't delete outright. The game guide stuff should not survive any such change however, but it seems that rather than fix articles, Wikipedia is just deleting them altogether. I'm not sure that's a good idea. David Fuchs 22:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete All game guide. Someone could take all of this material slap "StarCraft Game Guide" on the cover and make some good money selling this at Barnes and Nobel. As to the slippery slope there is a difference between video games and movies or books. There is no issues of "succeeding" or "doing well" at movies or books. ALthough this should not mean that video games or individual components of videogames are inherently game guide material. For example Mario is highly notable and the article about him has no useful information in the execution of any of the vast number of games in which he has appeared. It is the collection of small bits of information that is useful in playing the game and fail any notablilty outside of the game that is the issue.-- Nick Y. 23:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to their races per above. -- Pboyd04 23:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The thing is, there's already sections on the units in the articles for the races, as I described earlier. Merging wouldn't accomplish anything because the information is already there. E946 02:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all. Love the game, but this is a crystal clear violation of WP:NOT. If this isn't a video game guide, nothing is. Aplomado talk 01:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Transwiki I didn't know there was a SC wiki. Prolly be nice if it were listed on the Interwiki map. Great info, I play the game, but let's keep it where it belongs. -- MrDolomite | Talk 02:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Transwiki per StacyD. The game guide material needs to be on game wikis Stacyd
  • Transwiki per above. These articles are non-encyclopedic, and most of the usable information is already well covered in other articles, as said. -- SevereTireDamage 07:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, tag for cleanup if necessary. I'm sure the Starcraft wiki doesn't need our contribution. If the articles have too much advice in them, they need editing, not deleting. I see no reason why we can't have articles on individual Starcraft units when we have articles on individual Pokemon. Mango juice talk 14:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep All - These articles provide objective information on one of the most popular computer games of all time. [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] There are basically three rationales to this mass-AfD: original research, notability, and "game guide", and they have to be address on two levels: what content could ideally make good articles but is not currently of high quality, and what content is inherently non-encyclopedic. As for the quality issues, these should be resolved by IMPROVING rather than deleting articles. From what I've seen, most of what has been called original research is actually insufficiency of references; these issues can be addressed by deleting true OR and improving the articles with more and better references for the objective information. As for notability, there is little question, as the references a few lines up indicate, that Starcraft is one of the most popular video games in the world and has remained so for the over eight years since its release, with indicators such as media coverage and endorsement contracts for professional Starcraft players (!) continuing to go up. As for the fuzzy, poorly defined "game guide" objection to encyclopedic worthiness, the proper dividing line is an active area of discussion, but I think should be between providing recommandations on strategy (not encyclopedic), and providing objective information on details of how the game works, as we do for detailed explanations of the rules for any notable game or sport (encyclopedic). Otherwise, where is there a principled dividing line between eliminating specific game mechanics, and eliminating any rules of a game, and eliminating any content at all related to a game or sport? If forms of recreation are encyclopedic at all, providing specific descriptions of their rules or mechanics should be limited only by the same criteria as for anything else, i.e. notability, references, etc. An apt comparison here might be made to chess, which has dozens of categories, with up to 137 articles per category; these are all properly encyclopedic as well, and must have been found so by the untold number of WP editors it must have taken to write them and who must have read them without a problem. I for one find them relevant, informative and fascinating and wouldn't want to see them deleted, just as with these Starcraft-related articles. They are filled with the sort of detailed game mechanics that populates the content of these Starcraft articles, such as this passage from Queen (chess): "The queen can be moved in a straight line vertically, horizontally, or diagonally, any number of unoccupied squares as shown on the diagram at the left, thus combining the moves of the rook and bishop. The distance it can move is known as the Chebyshev distance. As with other captures except en passant, the queen captures by occupying the square on which an enemy piece sits. Ordinarily the queen is slightly more powerful than a rook and a bishop together, while slightly less powerful than two rooks. Because the queen is more valuable than any other piece, it is almost always disadvantageous to exchange the queen for a piece other than the enemy's queen, unless doing so leads to a position where the king can be checkmated." An even more apt comparison might be made to Final_Fantasy_X, which is today's featured article on the WP front page (as of this writing). Final Fantasy X passed the gauntlet to featured status in part because it is well-referenced, obviously a notable subject, and provides objective information on detailed specifics of how the game works - see, for example, Final_Fantasy_X#Battle_system. The editors who agreed that this deserved featured status did not seem to apply an absolute rule against "game cruft" as opposed to detailed, objective information on a notable recreational subject. This is the same in principle as each one of these articles would do in their ideal state, after being appropriately improved, rather than deleted. - Reaverdrop ( talk/ nl/ w:s) 00:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC) (repeating some comments made previously elsewhere) reply
  • 'There are basically three rationales to this mass-AfD: original research, notability, and "game guide"' In my case, this is incorrect. I want them deleted because the articles on the three Starcraft races already have sections for all of their units and structures which describe them well enough. The fact is, there's not much to say about most units, and what there is to say has already been said in the unit sections of the race articles. E946 02:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for ALL subjects! I want to know the statistics for the Protoss Arbiter (besides the fact that I wrote the article on the Arbiter). Where do I find them? Wikipedia? Yes. Unless this AfD comes through. And, like E946 said above, AfDs have 3 reasons: original research (definitely not), notability ( StarCraft is VERY popular), and game guide. I fail to agree with his reasons, though. StarCraft units fit none of those! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RelentlessRouge ( talk • contribs)
    • Starcraft is notable. That's why it has an article. A Protoss Arbiter is not notable. Therefore, at best, it should be included in the game's article. And then it should still not be about how to use it in the game, or that's a guide. If you want to look up stats on units, there's tons of sites with that info, including the official one, so it's not like you're gonna be out of luck if these pages are deleted. - Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 18:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not a game guide. And we aren't discussing whether or not Starcraft is notable which it is very much. However Wikipedia isn't a game guide and these articles are and that is why they need to be deleted. Whispering 17:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete what with WP:NOT being a game guide. There is a starcraft wiki where this might be welcome. If so, transwiki, but delete whether transwikied or not. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Ugh, Delete all. The only articles that I considered keeping might be the ones for specific units which are extremely well-known, such as the Zergling. However, the current edit of the Zergling article is - like most of these articles - primarily focused on the unit's statistics in-game. While this information may be of interest to some, it is not the sort of material that belongs in an encyclopedia. Blizzard already has a page with this information and more.
A reasonable standard that I've been mulling over in my mind for topics such as this is the following: "Fictional topics should only receive articles if they are featured to a significant extent (i.e. not a cameo appearance) in works which are significantly separated from the ones in which they originally appeared." For example, Bulbasaur (to use a popular example) gets an article, as it has appeared in a bunch of Pokemon media -the collectible card game, various video games, the TV series, etc. However, aside from a brief cameo appearance in Warcraft 3, the Zergling has never (to my knowledge) featured prominently in anything besides Starcraft. Neither have any of the other units listed here, so none of them should have articles. The same goes for Charles Foster Kane (of Citizen Kane); I may eventually propose that that article be merged to Citizen Kane. Zetawoof( ζ) 01:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • That's certainly a...unique opinion. The Bulbasaur example makes no sense under your criteria, since all of those other works are all Pokemon works and not any more "significantly separated" than the Starcraft books. Also, I think it's fair to say that Holden Caufield deserves an article, even if J.D. Salinger refuses to license any of his works for treatment in other media formats. 129.61.46.16 19:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Josh reply
  • Ooh, the existence of Starcraft books actually throws a real wrench into this particular issue. The difference as I see it is that the various Pokemon works are not as directly connected to each other as the Starcraft books are to the game: as far as I know, the Starcraft books serve as minor expansions and "riffs" on the story told within the game, while the Pokemon card game (again, as far as I know) shares very little with the TV show or the video game. Holden would, incidentally, actually be safe under my policy, though, as he appears in (or, at least, is strongly connected to) several other works of Salinger's. Zetawoof( ζ) 00:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep all. These articles have been worked on for YEARS now (look at the history on some of these), and contain a lot of valuable information. If they read too much like a game guide, there's no reason they can't be modified (after all, this IS Wikipedia). Those that have little information left after removing strategies could simply be redirected to the main StarCraft article. I think the biggest issue here is that if these are removed, there's really no telling where to stop. I mean, what about this? There are articles for just about every character in the Mario series. In fact, "Goomba" was once the featured article of the day, which is why I bring up this point. Also, what about the countless articles on Wikipedia dedicated to schools and songs and episodes? Are these somehow more notable than StarCraft units? I strongly urge you to re-think your votes. This sort of careless deletion immediately throws about 90% of other Wikipedia articles into question. Czj 06:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Goombas have been in many different games and pieces of media. No StarCraft unit can claim such for themselves. The argument that there are articles worse/less notable than these are not a defense. If you have issues with those articles, bring it up there. Though, right now the Goomba article is large uncited and parts of it could very well be original research. Wickethewok 12:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep all. Why shouldn't Wikipedia have this information? Wikipedia is supposed to have information about all subjects. If you don't like the pages, don't look at them. Some of the Star Trek related pages are better here than on Memory Alpha. Some of these pages need cleaning up, that's all. Rondmc170 07:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Have you read the nomination or the discussion here? It has been amply explained why Wikipedia shouldn't keep them. I think you are mischaracterising Wikipedia; it is not supposed to be a compendium of "information about all subjects", as you put it. Rather, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. For an encyclopedia a mere mention or a short sentence or two of description of the minor units of this game is sufficient and the interested reader can be pointed to other more comprehensive sources. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 12:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Popular This game is extremely popular in Asia, so popular in fact it is a live "sport" on television. I believe this dictates keeping the page. Founder 02:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Keep! 24.146.24.61 03:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ( ESkog)( Talk) 04:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Steve Wisdom

The person is not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.241.185 ( talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. -- CharlotteWebb 18:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Loki (Band)

Completing AFD. Tagged by anon IP. No vote. Fan-1967 05:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment, you should be able to create another one, no? Antares33712 15:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - brenneman {L} 01:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Gitanshu Buch

Not notable person, no press coverage 62.189.241.185 05:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply


  • Keep This article should not be deleted, he is a hedge fund manager, who keeps quite a low profile. He is responsible for the returns of the top performing Hedge Fund in the USA, Manchester Trading, which won a MAR Hedge award in 2006, for its last three years of performance, which Buch was responsable with along with Victor Niederhoffer. He has recently started his own firm, and it is likley that he will have more press coverage going forward.

The article also makes sense as a link from the Niederhoffer page as a prominent ex trader at that firm.

On top of all of this he developed a widely used market indicator the heatmap which can be found on almost all finance websites. ~ Daviegold 13:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Meridian larp

Event that hasn't happened yet, 500-1000 possible participants may not be notable, article sounds more like an advertisement. Tapir Terrific 05:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete until after it's happened, at which point numbers/coverage etc will be available to make it notable if it turns out to be. BigHaz 05:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I believe this falls under WP:NOT a crystal ball.
  • Delete. not sure about the crystal balling, but this article definitely has an advertising tone. Also, it's 18 Google hits (most of which are either broken or completely unrelated) seem to suggest the event isn't notable enough for wikipedia. tmopkisn tlka 06:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Well, for a larp, I think 500-1000 participants is kinda notable, actually. You have to take a certain degree of relativity into account here; a thousand larp geeks is a significant gathering, whereas a thousand NASCAR geeks is not. That's just the dynamics of scale. However, that's neither here nro there, because this is way too crystal ballish -- I could see this becoming an article if they're successful (and particularly if it does become a yearly event), but that's going to happen after the event, not before it. We don't even know if there are going to be fifty people there, never mind a thousand. Delete. -- Captain Disdain 06:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per nomination. Graham 07:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per Crystal Ball. "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Notability depends on the event taking place as planned. It doesn't seem certain and won't be notable until after it has succeeded. I agree with Captain Disdain's comments: if the event actually takes place and sees 500-1000 participants, it may become notable. Scorpiondollprincess 16:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 salt the Earth. Mailer Diablo 09:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Raceconflicts

Keeps being deleted and re-created Dakart 05:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Speedy close, obvious redirect, no need to bring to AfD.. -- Hetar 06:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

U.S.S. Prometheus (NX-59650)

Redundant to USS Prometheus (NX-59650). Only link to this page is from a user's to-do list. -- EEMeltonIV 05:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Atlantis of the Sands

Article is a copy and paste of information that makes no sense at all. I have lots of experience in copy-editing and there is nothing I can do for this page. JenLouise 06:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy close - RFD is two doors to the left. Kimchi.sg 10:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Cornish toe

Neologism Pete.Hurd 06:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Sugest delete. Google returns zero hits for the term, term unknown to medical science, see related debate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celtic toe. Pete.Hurd 06:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Kershaw Knives

No evidence that this company meets the criteria set in WP:CORP. howch e ng { chat} 06:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • neutral company is a well known knifemaker and probably meets the guidelines, but I'm generally against this type of article and I think the guidelines are too loose. Phr ( talk) 06:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fails WP:CORP. tmopkisn tlka 07:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • For related discussions, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginsu and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roselli Knives. Uncle G 10:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment if you think an article fails WP:XYZ could you please consider telling us WHY it fails? Otherwise we're peeing in the wind a little if we dont know much about the subject.... TYVM :-) Jcuk 18:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails WP:CORP. But I'm beginning to see that it is impossible to have any knife company deleted. KarenAnn 23:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Most notability guidelines WP:XYZ are of the form "to be noteworthy, an XYZ must be A or B or C or (D excluding D1 or D2) or E... So a statement that it fails is primarily a statement that the person does not see how it meets any of A, B, ... E.... If you disagree and want it kept, explain how it meets any of A, B, C... preferrably with evidence from independent reliable sources. The nomination was "no evidence that this company meets". This is a subsidiary of another company, so presumably private. The only WP:CORP criteria it has a chance at then is the first. The article has only external links to the company's own website, and no references. That is certainly no evidence of being the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial published coverage. GRBerry 03:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I think such coverage probably does actually exist, at least in the specialty press. This is a well-known knifemaker and there are many knife enthusiast publications (they're similar to gun mags) likely to have published reviews of the company's knives and so forth. Otherwise, yeah, it's just spam. I'd rather see a biographical article about Ken Onion. Phr ( talk) 11:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Massmato 16:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Alyssa Miller

Article about a model who has appeared on the covers of a few magazines, but I don't think Wikipedia is a Who's Who of the modeling world. howch e ng { chat} 06:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. "Alyssa Miller" gets about 9700 Google hits, "Alyssa Miller" and "model" gets about 400. (Compared to, say, Google has its weak points, but when it comes to gauging models' notability, I figure it does okay. (As a point of comparison, really big names like Tyra Banks or Heidi Klum get over a million and a half hits with the word "model" thrown in for good measure, whereas notable-but-not-mega-big models like Daniella Sarahyba get 40+K hits. Compared to numbers like that, Ms. Miller doesn't seem to be readily distinguishable from any other professional in her field; sure, her name gets mentioned, but apparently only in credits, not so much in articles or news stories. -- Captain Disdain 06:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - doesn't seem to match any criteria outlined in WP:BIO. Fabricationary 06:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep Comment. Has an entry on IMdB and receives Substantial Google hits. tmopkisn tlka 07:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Uh... I just checked, and I actually get more Google hits than she does. (Though not with the "model" qualifier thrown in. She wins flat out on that front.) In fact, I get way more, because most of the "alyssa miller" hits aren't about her -- there's a 14-year old kid with diabetes, for example. My hits are pretty much all about me, thanks to my crazy Finnish name. In any case, I certainly don't think ~10K hits is all that substantial. As for that IMDB entry, uh, well, you might want to take another look at it: the parts she was playing in 2004 were "Baby Forrester", "Baby in Nursery" and the like. I'll hazard a wild guess that we're not talking about the same person here. =) -- Captain Disdain 07:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Michael 07:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- GWO
  • Delete generic model. Just zis Guy you know? 12:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. It should be noted that it was I that requested that this article be undeleted as it had not gone through an AfD. I presumed that more content than is clearly present was in the article. Per WP:HEY, should a presumption of notability be established by editors adding content to the article, my vote would change to a Keep. She appears surprisingly close to meeting "Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers" from WP:N due to her presence on the cover of Vogue and several other such magazines. Google tests regularly fail to adequately represent models that are big in the industry but have failed to acheive pinup status on the internet due to the type of work they participate in. This is particularly true for high-end fashion models. I will endeavor to do a little lexisnexis digging later today for further clarity. Kershner 14:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I would have to say that just being on the cover of Vogue isn't the same thing as having multiple features in Vogue. (The former being "just" a picture, the latter being an actual discussion of the person in question -- more or less, anyway.) Of course, if you're a model, chances are that you're more likely to be shown than discussed, but then that's the nature of the job -- I guess that's not unlike the difference between starring in a single blockbuster movie and being "Man #2" or equivalent in numerous movies; the latter doesn't really meet our criteria, while the former obviously does. That said, I'm entirely willing to change my stance here if it appears that she's considerably more notable than I thought she was -- I just don't think that fashion models are inherently qualified for inclusion, even though their jobs are inherently more high-profile than those of, say, plumbers or city council members. -- Captain Disdain 15:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete according with WP:BIO guidelines. Scorpiondollprincess 14:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per above. KarenAnn 23:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:BIO - CrazyRussian talk/ email 03:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Massmato 16:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep on notability. Ten thousand google hits far exceeds the bar. Wjhonson 23:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • It's too bad the original author didn't do more work. I've added five more links to her page. She was on the cover of Vogue for heavens' sake :) That's pretty darn notable to me! I've never made it on the cover of any magazine (but I'm still young so there's hope). Wjhonson 00:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Architectural Building Materials

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this article just lists basic constructions materials and gives a dictionary definition of said materials. I can see this being an actual encyclopedic page in the future, but not in its current context. tmopkisn tlka 06:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

AsiaXpress

Fails WP:WEB. There's really only 6 links independent of AsiaXpress that link to the website (none of which are of interest) and its overall google presence is minimal. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Robots in Ancient Greece

Non-notable webcomic. No reliable sources or any sign of significant and independent syndication. -- Hetar 06:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete both. Mailer Diablo 09:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Internet session (and Remote_session)

Neologism article on conducting music recording sessions over the Internet. All articles cited so far were originally published by Prism Business Media Inc. The whole concept doesn't seem notable enough yet to warrant an encyclopedia article. Just about anything can be colloborated on via the Internet these days. --  Netsnipe   (Talk)  06:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

House Sudoku

Violates WP:SPAM; this is a nonnotable entertainment Web site. -- Graham 06:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. — Jul. 18, '06 [21:21] < freak| talk>

Www.freewebs.com/jammiet

Self promotional article for a Non-notable website. --  Netsnipe   (Talk)  06:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - non-notable group). Tangot a ngo 08:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Delayed promise

Fails WP:MUSIC - has had a notability tag since January, but no attempts have been made to assert notability DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 07:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Nathan Paul

Non-notable player playing nine levels below the Premiership. Only potential claim to notability is that he is a sportsman who was the victim of a knife attack, but even that didn't turn up any Google hits that I could find.... ChrisTheDude 07:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Rick Meyerowitz

I did try to research and edit this, but had to give up because (after removing all of the unencyclopaedic language) it turns out that he is just a commercial illustrator with no assertion of notability - Fails WP:BIO DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 07:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. Well, "recent collaborations with the artist Maira Kalman have produced New Yorkistan, a hugely popular cover for the New Yorker magazine" sounds like an assertion of notability to me. Also, the New Yorker is often considered to be pretty much the pinnacle of American cartooning, as far as prestige goes. But I can't seem to pin down whether he's done anything else for them (or how significant the rest of his work is), so I'm not gonna vote here. -- Captain Disdain 08:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Oh, boy, whether someone or something has a Wikipedia article is a terrible gauge of notability! (I know you threw in that "maybe" so I'm not pouncing on you here, but it's a point worth addressing.) I agree that if a topic has an article, that's a fairly good indication that it's notable, but the reverse should not be assumed to be true! (If nothing else, if that was the case, that would obviously mean that there would be absolutely no need to create new articles on anything except new topics!) It's a particularly bad gauge of notability in this instance, because female cartoonists (particularly female editorial cartoonists) are not the kind of people who're most likely to get articles written on them. There's been a lot of talk about the problem of systemic bias on Wikipedia, and while I think there's a lot of unreasonable alarmism about when it comes to that, the underlying concern there is entirely founded. -- Captain Disdain 14:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

George Smith (John Lennon)

Non-notable uncle of John Lennon. Being the uncle of John Lennon does not make him notable, and I don't think that there is anything else that could possibly make him notable. DarthVad e r 07:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep (see below for striketrough reason and new vote), the article explains that John Lennon was raised by this uncle (rather than being a random uncle) and had a significant impact on Lennons life. Given the fact that also Lennons mother has an article ( Julia Lennon), which is probably true for more famous people, I would not delete this article. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, and integral but oftern overlooked key in The Beatles (and especially Lennon's) mythology (if that's the right word). George features prominantly in any other work on or about Lennon. Vital information that cannot reasonably be included in the Lennon article. The main problem is the unfortunate article title, other than that it is a desirable article for anyone wishing to learn about John Lennon.-- Crestville 11:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Notability doesn't rub off on relatives - My favourite example : David Beckham = notable footballer Victoria Beckham = notable singer Brooklyn Beckham = non-notable baby DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 13:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - If he's notable, it's only in his connection to John Lennon, so just beef up the already in place comments about him in the John Lennon article. -- PresN 14:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand per Crestville and Reinoutr. Smerdis of Tlön 14:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per Crestville and REinoutr. Scorpiondollprincess 14:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete - Notability is not genetic (otherwise pretty much everyone would be notable!), though does anyone else find "Menlove Avenue" funny? Wickethewok 14:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Definite keep This man has been sadly neglected by history, and one of his few epitaphs is this small page. What a travesty. He bought Lennon his first harmonica, and encouraged him musically, unlike Mimi, who nearly destroyed the fledgling Beatles with her negativity. Don´t forget that Lennon played harmonica on Love me do. His presence is as important in musical history as McCartney´s mother, father, Lennon´s Mimi, Julia and Fred. Are the tourists that visit Menlove Avenue not told about him? Definitely keep, and hopefully expand with a photo. andreasegde 19:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as subject does not meet WP:BIO on his own. Mention is already made at John Lennon and could be expanded there. If kept (and it appears there is a reasonably good chance this will happen based on consensus here), the article should be moved to a more standard namespace: George Toogood Smith.-- Isotope23 19:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If everybody keeps merging things into the main articles, they will only be readable if you have a few hours to spare, and will be almost incomprehensible. If The Beatles´ tape engineers have their own articles, then why not George? andreasegde 19:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Please spare us the slippery slope fallacy. We have a perfectly good system for splitting up articles when they become too long to be manageable. John Lennon does not currently suffer from this problem. — Haeleth Talk 20:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: While the subject of the article is the uncle of a Beatles member, it just doesn't do anything to prove how notable he is per WP:BIO. Less famous, by the way, and only a mere footnote in the history of the Fab Four. --Slgr @ndson ( page - messages - contribs) 19:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and Merge with John Lennon article. I agree that George Smith does not rate a seperate article, but he is an important and largely forgotten influence on Lennon. He might be usefully added as a footnote section in the Lennon article. LessHeard vanU 20:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Have you read the Lennon article? George Smith is already covered in it, and as more than a footnote, too. — Haeleth Talk 20:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Read it? I've rewritten bits of it!(grin)I mean; rather than have Uncle George as part of Lennons pre Beatles history, have a "sub article" toward the end of the Lennon article relating to George Smith. Just a thought... LessHeard vanU 12:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, or merge if any of the handful of additional details here are felt to be relevant to John Lennon; George Smith is not notable in his own right, and does not need an article of his own. No redirect is needed (unless a merge is performed), since the page title is disambiguated and thus not a likely search term. — Haeleth Talk 20:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As LessHeard vanU points out, a very important influence on Lennon. In a different league from the Beckham/Beckham example. Vera, Chuck & Dave 22:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and provide sources for existing content. Yamaguchi先生 02:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • George Smith was important to Lennon, but not nearly so much so as his widow. As such, a merge with the article on Mimi Smith might be a reasonable solution. Grutness... wha? 03:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete I read the article three times to make sure I hadn't missed anything but I still couldn't find any notability whatsoever. This is one of the least notable relatives I've ever come across on AfD. Less notable than Beckham or Pitt/Jolie kids, less notable than relatives of early Islamic figures. Those relatives get deleted routinely and I can't see anything here at all notable. MLA 08:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment, I suppose this really depends on how well-known you are with a given person or subject. Personally, I find someone who apparently was a big influence on one of the worlds best known artist much more notable than the kids of random famous people, of which it is still unknown whether they will ever do anything significant or influence anyone else who does something significant. If it is not kept, a merge and redirect to Mimi Smith would be the best solution I suppose (per Grutness). Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment Hi, this is why I ensured that I included the mention of the Islamic relatives. There are some editors who believe that parents of Islamic figures are more notable than someone who apparently had an influence on a musician - this is not recentism on my behalf. At present, the article does not contain a single assertion of notability. Even if there was some influence on Lennon, that does not mean that the person themselves is notable. The article states that he was the uncle of Lennon, and that Lennon lived with George Smith for most of his childhood. It then asserts that Smith lived a non-notable life before dying when Lennon was 15. None of that is even a claim of notability hence my statement that this is the least notable relative I have ever seen at AfD. MLA 09:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete. No claim for notability in his own right is made. Any useful information should be in John Lennon. David | Talk 10:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment About this he was a great influence on John ... my dad once bought me a harmonica - didn't get me anywhere!!! John Lennon already had the music in him ... it was he who met Paul &co at school/college. I think if he lived with my uncle the Beatles and John Lennon would still have existed exactly as they did. In a nutshell ... John was talented and self motivated (obviously POV this!!!) DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 11:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge George and Mimi into one article. This is a perfectly valid content branch from the John Lennon article, which is already too long as it is. No sources given but that shouldn't be a problem. I see no reason to keep them separate though. ~ trialsanderrors 10:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • (Meaning no sources given is a problem, but it shouldn't be too hard to source the article. Get to work, Beatles fans!) ~ trialsanderrors 10:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment I will sort that in time. I have some books about him.-- Crestville 11:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • I'm sure they pop up in about a hundred Beatles biographies, but you should still list them. The article also needs de-cheesifying. (George delivered milk by pony and trap in the Woolton area. The milk was held in a large churn which was ladled out to customers into their own bottles and receptacles is not of particular encyclopedic interest.) If people have problems about them getting top billing in an ecyclopedia, rename the article John Lennon's Youth and add his parents to it. ~ trialsanderrors 17:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
          • This is a good suggestion, a merged article with all members of his family, with a link from the John Lennon article, "pre The Beatles" section. ps. It wasn't cheesy, it was likely to have been freshly pasteurised! LessHeard vanU 21:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the fact that he needs (John Lennon) to disambiguate him stronly suggests that he lacks independent notablity and thus should be covered in John Lennon. Eluchil404 19:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment. There are 37 other George Smiths' listed in Wiki's disambiguantion page, 17 of whom have blue links. In this instance (but perhaps not others) the individuals notability is not dependent on how he is disambiguated. LessHeard vanU 22:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I wish those people associated with The Beatles Project would declare an interest when voting on these matters. No matter how important the Beatles are, this is not WikiBeatles! As suggested above, George could easily be moved into an article about John Lennon's youth. Who is actually going to look for this George Smith because he was once associated with John Lennon? Nobody - anybody who wants that kind of depth of information will buy the books. At this rate somebody will want to write an article on me - and that would never do! So a firm delete -- Richhoncho 12:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
As a member of The Beatles Project my interest is the same as everyone else on this page; improving Wikipedia. My votes and comments have not been a straight "keep" either, more a weak keep - and merge into a more suitable article. LessHeard vanU 21:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment that's pretty speculative. Who's to say someonne wanting to know about him would immediately turn to books? With that sort of thing my first turn is always wikipedia so as to save meself a tenner nad a trip to waterstones. BTW, LessHeard vanU declared his intentions way up near the top.-- Crestville 12:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Further comment. You're right, Crestville, to want to look up George Smith (John Lennon) you would have already read some Beatle books, which is the only reason he could be considered notable in the first place. -- Richhoncho 13:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Yet Further Comment I disagree. Anyway, what about the people who just come to browse? Why should they have to read all the Lennon page, when they could look in the Lennon category and find a link?-- Crestville 20:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

MyFavoriteGames

Article on a non-notable Dragon Ball Z website. Fails WP:WEB almost as awfully as it is written. Voice of Treason 08:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Howard R. Johnson

Likely self-promotion (see contributions of author). Main claim to fame is being chairman of Atlantic Group Holdings, Ltd.. If I recall right, the article for the company was deleted and it has 8 Google hits anyway. The other is being one of the many co-founders of the Bahamas Democratic Movement, (The party's founders included: Cassius Stuart, Howard R. Johnson and a number of then-students of the College of The Bahamas.) This is a very minor party, which got 0.32% in the 2002 Election, and Johnson left it within a year of its founding. In other words his impact on politics in the Bahamas has been miniscule. Finally, note the 215 Ghits for Howard R. Johnson. Punkmorten 08:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Moseley dance centre

prod2 deprodded by anon. Probably NN and doesn't make a whole lot of sense. -- ais523 08:46, 18 July 2006 ( U T C)

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

The result was I'm being bold here and will say Merge and redirect to Kuching, there wasn't much content only said the school name and the city, if you want to recreate the article with more content, feel free to. Jaranda wat's sup 22:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Green Road Secondary School, Kuching

Just a list of staff at a non-notable school - I see no reason to keep it. Ladybirdintheuk 09:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. – Avi 01:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Exocortex

I created the article when I first joined Wikipedia, it is unsourced vanity and original research with only little notability (i.e. used by a single science fiction writer.) I find the page a personal embarressment and I am surprised that it lasted this long without an AfD.

  • Delete - as original article creator and AfD nominator. -- Ben Houston 14:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I speculate there to be a good number of aspiring transhumanists who would want this article to stay. I suppose you may however remove all references to yourself if you so desire. -- Amit 15:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Xe is making the very point that if all references to xyrself were removed, there would be no article left, since xe created the concept, and the only traction that it has gained in the real world outside of xyrself is use by a single science-fiction writer. Uncle G 15:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Bhouston, are you and the science fiction writer the only people who have ever written anything about exocortices? If so, you could challenge this article for being original research, the promotion of a novel concept that has yet to have gone through a peer review process and gained acceptance by the world at large. Uncle G 15:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - I created the article when individuals started giving the science fiction writer credit for coining the term (in his Summer 2005 book) when it was clear I had coined the term in that sense in 1998. The term has been used by fans of the science fiction author. It is not a scientific term but rather a fringe specualtive term. Maybe it should stay? But the article needs to be majorly cleaned up with regards to original research and vanity by someone other than myself. -- Ben Houston 15:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • The question still stands, because such cleanup bears upon it: Is there anything written about exocortices that doesn't have you as its source? That exocortices are speculation is not important. It is whether people independent of you have written about them that is important. Is this a concept that is limited to one, possibly two, people? Or has the world at large accepted the concept (even if such acceptance is merely to argue against it)? Uncle G 18:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • I actually tried to track the mentions of the term "exocortex" that were distinct from references to my minor website. The list is on del.icio.us here: [38]. There are only a couple dozen -- and I checked the whole web via a number of search engines. Via google there are 20K+ hits for Exocortex but almost all are references to my website or my various projects. Thus I would say that it doesn't have the notability as a separate concept from my website to warrent its own Wikipedia article -- again I wrote it to fend off this science fiction author from claiming that he coined the word -- I was concerned common usage within sci fi circles was going to take off, but it didn't. That said, if there is going to be an article in Wikipedia on "exocortex" I would like to remain noted as the one who coined the term and not the science fiction author Charles Stross. -- Ben Houston 19:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC) reply
          • It seems to me that it may take some more time before the term catches on, and I do think it will. If the article is deleted now, at least some of the info in it could be lost. -- Amit 04:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 09:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:NEO - it starts "An exocortex (speculative) ... ". If the creator acknowledges it's speculative then WP:NOT (a crystal ball) applies. Just zis Guy you know? 12:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - as above, it's crystal ball atm. I agree that, unless another term comes along, it will most likely be a popular enough term for wikipedia in the future, as I can't think of a better term for this concept than exocortex, but, as for now... Do make sure that if it ever comes around again you get credit for creating it though. -- PresN 14:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep if almost (but not all) references are to the author's website. Article needs cleanup, but if more than one reliable source can be listed I think it should stay. I agree with Amit's comments. If the article is deleted, some valuable info would be lost. Scorpiondollprincess 14:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - If the author claims it to be original research, have it deleted. No prejudice against recreation in the future with entirely different content though. Wickethewok 14:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Author & Nom. 205.157.110.11 22:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Huh, what is embarassing about it? It is quite well written and has links. Yes, it might lack some strong sources. Ok, for encyclopaedic purists, it might well be deleted. But then, we could delete half of Wikipedia as well. If Amit wants to keep it, then keep it. I see no harm in doing so. -- Ligulem 07:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - If the author claims it to be original research, it should be deleted. -- Loremaster 14:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, and I'll rename it forthwith! Proto:: type 15:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Peter NEYROUD, Chief Executive Officer of the National Policing Improvement Agency - Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police

Local British police officer. Claim to notability is that he won the Queen's Police Medal, which isn't a big deal as far as I can tell. Creator of article appears to be same as subject. Grace 10:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Question, are there specific criteria involved for police? Peter Neyroud is slightly more than a local police officer. He heads one of the larger police forces in the UK, covering a number of counties. Thames Valley Police. Nuttah68 10:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There are only 56 Chief Constables in the UK each with a responsibility to serve around 1,000,000 people and overseeing 5000 staff. This should make him notable enough, but blimey has anyone ever seen a serious article name this long??? Rename it!!! DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 13:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral I don't see anything that meets WP:BIO (and from the username & article tone, one could speculate that this is a probable WP:AUTO violation). There are no specific guidelines for Police, but I assume this is similar to the U.S. post of Chief of Police or Police Commissioner. That being said, I suspect there are external media sources out there that would qualify Mr. Neyroud under WP:BIO, I just didn't see them. The probable violation of WP:AUTO makes me refrain from opining keep though. If this is kept however, a move to Peter Neyroud is imperative, as is a rewrite so it doesn't read like a resume, and a rewrite for content as it appears there are some truthfulness issues with this article as well (or maybe just misleading wording). It would appear from this link that he is no longer the "Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police"; their is an acting chief since he took up the "Chief Executive Officer of the National Policing Improvement Agency" in January 2006.-- Isotope23 13:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment — Suggest at least a page rename to Peter Neyroud — RJH ( talk) 14:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • No vote yet; do Chief Constables frequently appear in public fora to comment on arrests, investigations, or administrative issues? If so, a holder of the post may be notable enough; not sure that having a staff of 5,000 is enough in itself. Agree with Isotope23 that moving to a standard title is required if this is kept. Smerdis of Tlön 14:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Answer, yes Chief Constables are public figures, they rarely deal with individual cases but are responsible for developing methods to enforce law in their areas and allocating resources as needed. Chief Constable is (London excepted) the highest rank in UK policing. Nuttah68 14:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:AUTO, WP:VAIN and WP:V. If this individual truely is notable, someone will create a properly titled article about him. Also I believe the title alone belongs in BJAODN. Resolute 02:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and rename. His claim to fame is not that he won the medal but that he's the chief constable of one of the largest police forces in the UK. Thames Valley Police covers an area with a population larger than 15 U.S. states. Next year he is going to be promoted further to a newly created national position which will make him one of the top two police officers in the UK alongside the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. He's also a published author and an adviser to the Prime Minister. There are 9,130 google hits for "Peter Neyroud". Basically if this is deleted its pretty much a ban on articles about British police officers. Now do we have a ban on articles about American police officers? Of course not! This sort of nomination shows up Wikipedia as being focused on covering what is important to adolescents rather than what is important in the adult world. Chicheley 02:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Chicheley and move to Peter Neyroud. Piccadilly 17:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a directory for every single high-ranking civil servant of every government Bwithh 06:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Since it is a directory of a lot of material about transitory pop culture it certainly should include people of this importance, or it will never be regarded as much more than a children's hobby site. Landolitan 17:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ( ESkog)( Talk) 07:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Statement syntax (MySQL)

This was previously nominated in March, 2005. The article had two robot edits since then and no other improvements. The article is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a programming manual. The content of this article will never be more insightful or more current than the documentation pages (available for free, online) at mysql.com. Mikeblas 10:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. An eyesore as well. -- Brad101 13:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete abortive attempt at creating a programming-manual article. Lukas (T.| @) 14:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, albeit MAJOR REWRITE or transwiki (is that right?) to the WikiBooks section of this website 216.141.226.190 12:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. Note that the outline as it stands in the article isn't correct (SELECT isn't DML, for example; it's DQL). It also isn't complete; I'd estimate that the outline includes about 5% of the keywords that the language recognizes, not to mention the other background information (data types, execution model, and so on) that needs to be covered in order to establish adequate context for such an article. A "MAJOR REWRITE" would take two people about six months, and they'd finish with something that isn't as accurate or as up-to-date as what the MySQL project makes available at their own website. -- Mikeblas 13:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and above. -- NORTH talk 20:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Charles Fulton (minister)

Nonnotable minister, for virtually same reasons as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan W. Hansen. NawlinWiki 18:10, 11 July 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, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Celoxis

A privately held company, solely the workd of Celoxis ( talk · contribs). Advertorial in tone, may be a response to deletion of redlinks from numerous list articles. No evidence of meeting WP:CORP. May have the potential to be fixed (please feel free) but the current content fails to establish importance and reads like an advert; better to have nothing than this I think. Just zis Guy you know? 10:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply


Hello i have fixed this article, can we close this discussion ?

  • Comment If Celoxis is notable enough for an article, then I imagine this could be NPOV'ed. However, I feel unqualified to decide if it is. If the writer or anyone else could provide a bit of documentation about Celoxis from a reliable source, it would be a bit easier to decide. GassyGuy 11:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I got 31500 hits for it on Google, which doesn't seem like a lot for a software product. I couldn't find any real discussion of it online. One site I saw listed various similar packages and gave the number of pageviews for each entry; Celoxis had a pretty low number of page views. Even if the article was improved - it has NPOV issues - the package seems to be Not Notable. -- Brianyoumans 21:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 23:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

ATC Professional

Very short article about a piece of project management software. A Google for "ATC Professional" yields mainly links to a professional development programme. Excluding these gives few hits, and this article does not establish significance of the software per WP:SOFTWARE. The software is a niche product for refinery and chemical plant use, which may well explain its very low Google presence (<150 unique). Just zis Guy you know? 10:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. – Avi 02:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Daniele Capelloni

Young player who has never appeared in Inter Milan's first team. Definitely not notable. Angelo 10:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all about Primavera (youth team, usually Under-19 or Under-20) players too:

  • Delete for much the same reason as the above rationale to keep them - if all we're engaged in here is guessing that one day those players will play for a first team, then we're looking through the Crystal Ball. What if they all end up pursuing careers in unrelated fields or playing their club football for a third-tier team in Outer Mongolia? Unless and until they play for the first team (we can argue the notability of Outer Mongolia FC later) somewhere, they're not notable. BigHaz 11:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Week Keep Inter youth team players are likely to end up being notable within a couple of years. Keeping these articles is not crystal-balling, the same as in, say, 2014 FIFA World Cup, which we know is likely to come into existence in a couple of years (when bidding officially begins). A more sensible approach would be to keep them for the time being, then re-submit them for deletion in a few years' time once it's known they would no longer be notable by virtue of being a professional football player. And it would be easily to verify -- if the article says a player's an Inter youth team player, and by, say, August 2008, he no longer appears on the Inter official web page nor plays in any other notable football team, then it would be safe to remove such a player as being non-notable. -- Pkchan 11:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • It's not a likelihood matter. There's nothing to say about them as of today. If one day they'll deserve an article on Wikipedia, we'll make it. By the way, I'm not so convinced they will play all in Serie A in the future. -- Angelo 11:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete without prejudice. They do not meet our guidelines yet. Punkmorten 11:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Week Keep. I could live with them being deleted, but I've learnt some info from those stubs. I now know where they all come from, the teams they are at, their positions and ages. If they are deleted the chances are they'll just get made again, e.g. Paolo Tornaghi. They are notable for being players at (mostly) major professional football clubs — it's not like they're someone's mate who plays for the local pub team. aLii 12:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I have a feeling Abdoulaye Diarra has been capped for the Ivory Coast, so strong keep him. Esteffect 12:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Crystal ball. Reinstate when they make the first team. -- GWO
  • Delete all per GWO's reasoning. It is sheer unfounded speculation to say any of these players will definitely play first team. No predjudice against recreation when they actually do make the team.-- Isotope23 14:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Professional athletes really aren't notable until they make the majors in their respective sport. No prejudice to recreation if they win some notable player of the year award or play for a "first team", "major league team", or whatever they're called in Italian football/soccer. Wickethewok 15:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Crystal ball-- Andymarczak 09:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or possibly merge into one article ( Internationale Under 20, say). -- Daduzi talk 10:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as crystalballism. Many of them will become notabl but they aren't notable yet. Eluchil404 19:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all - fail WP:BIO. BTW Angelo, you an AC Milan fan? :-) BlueValour 02:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

TaskJuggler

MOre software form the lists where redlinks are nuked. 118 unique ghits, zero from Google News. No evidence of non-trivial external coverage, market share, user base, significance, innovation etc. per WP:SOFTWARE. Just zis Guy you know? 10:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Tattertools

Creator's contribution history suggest spamming. Input from those who are more acquainted with the subject of blogging software is requested. Until I see evidence otherwise, however, delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 10:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Bite Records

Hoax. As far as I can tell, no record company by this name exists, certainly not one that is part of UMG. Created to support a series of articles surrounding Lee Kaay ( AfD). All non-Wikipedia Google hits for "universal music group" "bite records" and similar searches refer to Shark Bite Records, a real label. Delete. Sam Blanning (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

88SLIDE: The Daily One Minute Trivia Challenge

Advertising and non-notable per WP:WEB - Bogsat 13:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • With 854'000 Google hits, I wouldn't exactly call this non-notable. Google hits can be artifically inflated, but not that high. I vote weak keep but move to 88Slide and cleanup. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 15:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom; are you sure about that Google total? I got over 400,000 hits, but only 92 unique hits, which is damned soft [40]. Going through those hits, I'm seeing a lot of blogs and redirects. Ravenswing 16:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I vote to Keep, as it provides useful info for people, such as the full names of those involved with the project, but I do believe it should be moved to "88SLIDE", as Che said above. Eric 00:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. For things like this, I like to ask myself, "Will anyone care in a year?" In this case, I like to answer myself, "No." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguerriero ( talk • contribs) 22:16, 12 July 2006
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Incorrect spelling of name and incorrect format of name. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Gil White, Francisco

Incorrect spelling of name, improper formatting of name (i.e. comma), and there is already a page with the correct spelling that is short, actually lists relevant information (such as published works) and does not contain obvious POV regarding some kind of internet squabble. Ryan4 Talk 11:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to Francisco Gil-White or, if this is too unlikely a search term (and it may be), delete as being the lesser of two articles on the same topic. May want to check to make sure there's nothing decent here that needs to be in the other first, though. GassyGuy 11:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - FrancisTyers · 11:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Stop and Chat

Not notable, unverifiable, and possibly the recreation of deleted material (see link, it's been speedied twice). Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trick or Treat Bang Bang from the same author for the same objections. Dylan 11:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, or include in the article on the show from which this came. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article appears to be defining what a "Stop and Chat" is through means of its origins. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this phrase mentioned in one episode of one show isn't notable. -- Porqin 12:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete CYE cruft. -- GWO
  • Keep How on earth was a phrase used in the UK by the entire population possibly coined by someone in the last year?, that's from the discussion page for the article, by an anonymous user. It may not have been invented by Larry David, or even popularized by him, but does seem notable. A Google search gives 92 200 hits, and most of the first hundred hits is in this context (and a majority doesn't even mention Curb nor David). qwm 16:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment The first google hit mentions Larry David as the founder (or popularizer) of the term. That being said, this is a term and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We don't make an encyclopedic entry for every set of actions one can do, ie. walk and chat, stop and talk, etc. This isn't notable to make an encylopedia entry about. -- Porqin 17:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment The first result I get is from UrbanDictionary.com, which does attribute it to Larry David, but which is far from a reliable source (as it is user-controlled). For all we know, the same person wrote both the Wikipedia article and the Urban Dictionary entry. 63.76.142.114 19:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless common currency (per Qwm) can be demonstrated and included in the article Alcuin 14:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Some such articles are useless - I agree that Trick or Treat Bang Bang can go. But Stop and Chat is actually more popular, and there are plenty of google results as pointed out above. It's not used well-enough to warrant a huge article, but it's certainly notable and worth having a bit of background on, I think. I don't see any reason at all to delete it. It's nice to have, in my opinion. -- midkay 10:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Article rewritten a bit to make it clearer that the origin is unknown but that it was used in Curb your Enthusiasm, which gave it popularity. -- midkay 00:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Thanks for your efforts, but I still note that (1) there's no indication that the phrase is even popular at all, and (2) no indication that it was Larry David who popularised it. Dylan 01:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Well, I don't think there are any statistics anywhere which can "prove" that it's a popular phrase - although you said "indication that it's popular" (I'd assume you meant to ask for proof), and it is indicated in the article. Nor is there definitive proof of how it became popular. Most of the Google results use the phrase in the same context that Larry David did, so it's a good guess that his TV show gave it some popularity (e.g. "I didn't want to stop and chat", "I hate the stop and chat"...). Again, Google has plenty of results for this; I did in fact come here looking for a Stop and Chat page before deciding to write one ("I wonder what Wikipedia has on 'Stop and Chat'" versus "Hm, I feel like writing a Stop and Chat article); it's fair enough to imagine that people have done the same before, isn't it? The article's also been updated again with more background; more to come, probably. -- midkay 02:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment While I agree with your assessment on a factual level, the article still doesn't meet the requirements for Wikipedia in terms of verifiability. All material has to already have been published by a reliable, outside source. What source has defined the stop-and-chat in the same way that it is presented in the article? What source has stated that this is a popular phrase? What source has stated that Larry David popularised it? And why haven't these sources been cited in the article? Dylan 05:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: Those are fine for the Hispanic customs that are discussed in the article, but again, not for the original definition or the mention of Larry David. Further, I feel like their might be a slight confusion here, between the Larry David use (the stop-and-chat: a specific, defined social encounter) and the common phrasing of "stop and chat," the coincidental use of those particular words to describe a social encounter not thought of as ritualistic or a specifically-defined encounter.
I hope that made sense. For example, see Facts of Life. That's a common euphemism for knowledge about human sexual/reproductive activity. However, there are instances in which that phrase could be used, but not in reference to the idea of the euphemism: for example, someone could say, "The idea that sometimes you have to do unpleasant things is just one of the facts of life."
This is the kind of distinction that I feel may be a problem with the stop-and-chat: while many people may have chosen to use the particular words "stop and chat," I still fail to see anything other than Larry David that defines it as a codified, specific social encounter rather than a particular way to describe a common practice. And if it's the latter, we would be seeing articles entitled shoot the breeze, make small talk, bump-into, and the like. Dylan 05:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Commment - Well, I'm not really sure what to say. I personally feel like the article's nice to have, as I'm sure some people have looked for it before, but I can't prove that nor can I prove that it's "popular" or "widely used" in this context. My vote is keep, but I don't think anyone else is convinced. :( -- midkay 06:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Hob Knobb

fails WP:CORP Nuttah68 11:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. - Yomangani 12:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Chemical soup

unsalvagable OR Nuttah68 11:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete- per nom (and WP:NEO) - Yomangani 12:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - poorly written opinion. Better written similar info at Sick building syndrome -- Whpq 12:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete this; but I'd suggest making the page a disambiguation between sick building syndrome, on the one hand; and origin of life and Miller-Urey experiment on the other; these were the first things that came to mind when I saw the title. Smerdis of Tlön 14:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 11:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Linda Gorn

Losing election candidate, has came in third or fourth in a number of elections. Punkmorten 11:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Please do not delete. Gorn was a candidate in a prominent By election to the Scottish parfliament and improved her party's share of the vote. For those interested in the Scottish political scene it is useful to have information on those who have played a part in By elections. I appreciate that this may seem less important to those from countries other than Scotland.-- Sjharte 12:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom - see Ann Garrett and Ben Abbotts for AfDs on losing candidates in more recent by-election (where Abbotts also came significantly close). Mtiedemann 13:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Failed regional nominee, doesn't pass my standards for politicians. Wickethewok 15:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Just being a candidate in a prominent election is not enough to make one notable. Perhaps some of this info could be salvaged and merged with an article on an election itself? Scorpiondollprincess 15:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Surely importance is in the eye of the beholder. All of those advocating deletion do not appear to be from Scotland or exhibit an interest in Scottish politics. Those who are and so will find it useful to have a Wikipedia resource that includes such individuals.-- Sjharte 15:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Comment Perhaps all those with such an in-depth interest should come forward and present their views alongside you. But nevertheless WP needs to have one standard for failed candidates and local office-holders worldwide and, like it or not, they usually get deleted unless they can show a greater level of notability. Mtiedemann 15:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • It will be a shame if those who have this deletion preoccupation succeed. The only otehr comprehensive online Scottish politics resource ( http://www.alba.org.uk) is brazzenly partisan. It would be sad to have to rely on this and lose the even handedness of wikipedia.-- Sjharte 16:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • It is definitely unfortunate that better resources for Scottish politics aren't online. That said, Wikipedia really isn't the place for such things--it's standard practice here to removed pages on losing candidates (regardless of country) who are of no other notability than having run. The good news is that there's a new site called Campaigns Wikia that might be appropriate for this article. I don't know the site's limitations, but look into it and see about opening an article on this subject. -- H·G ( words/ works) 18:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- H·G ( words/ works) 18:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- she may have failed in her bid for election to the Scottish Parliament, but is nevertheless the elected representative on Moray Council. The policy on notability does not suggest that such articles should be deleted-- George Burgess 21:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete 19 unique hits on the Scotsman is not a lot, 15 on the BBC is better, but given the storm in a teacup, not really enough to make her notable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Sandy Keith

Election candidate who came in fourth. Punkmorten 11:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Heralderixia

Contested prod. Claims to be an eating disorder, but returns zero Google hits. Probable hoax. GassyGuy 12:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

1-800-GOT-JUNK?

This article is very useless and has no WP:CITE. -- Shane ( talk/ contrib) 05:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - I note the original writer is an anonymous IP, whose only contributions are here and to Scudamore's puff-piece resume. I am not filled with hope that anything constructive is coming out of my leisurely suggestion. Tychocat 11:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment I've never been deferred to nifty. Whispering 23:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I dont know why putting luncheon meat up you butt makes this a deletable article. FancyPants 20:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Bootball

  • No Google hits for any page containing both the "major teams" mentioned.
  • One official site, bootball.org, seems to be about football. Nothing mentioned about a new sport.

Probably a hoax - or at least, if not a hoax, entirely non-notable. EuroSong talk 18:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Don't Delete - I know WP is not for things made up in one school day, and it's been a long time since any of the members of the Bootball community have been in school. Merely because you haven't played the game doesn't mean those that do don't take it very seriously. It seems rather elitist to call it a hoax or absurd.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cdelaland ( talk • contribs) .
  • Delete, unverifiable; please feel free to add cites or add some other reasons why you feel this is a notable or encyclopedic entry. Kuru talk 03:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, likely WP:NFT, due to the lack of WP:V and WP:RS. -- Kinu t/ c 03:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Hoax sport. Hardee67 04:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Don't Delete - most definitely not a hoax! i guarantee that every one of you have played a variation of bootball at one point of your life. google hits are not the end all and be all of empirical facts, so lets not get hasty with the finger pointing. just because you cant find info on your trusty interweb, doesnt mean its not real. read the article again, and turn down the conspiracy radar for a minute. -- Radioactiveflesh 03:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: Congratulations on your first edit. Since you're new here, I'd suggest reading WP:V and WP:RS, which might shed some light on the apparent conspiracy here. -- Kinu t/ c 05:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Agree with Kinu. Yes Radioactiveflesh (are you the contributor to the article with the IP address?) - we're not saying that it definitely is a hoax; just that it looks like one.. and the reason it looks like one is because when we try to find independently verifiable information about it, that information can not be found. Google is not an absolute measure of notability, it must be said - but if the sport really was notable as mentioned in the article, then SOME sort of references would be found on Google. Take, for example, the statement '"Page 99" and "Axe Wound" are the two teams credited with rejuvenating interest in Bootball.' If they are "credited" with this, then why can no information be found on the teams - let alone the fact that people attribute credit to them? An article needs to be verifiable. Even if someone submits an article here which is 100% true, it may still be deleted if it's impossible to show that it's true. I hope you understand now :) EuroSong talk 12:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 13:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Delphic of Gamma Sigma Tau Fraternity

Unreferenced and unverifiable article on a fraternity that may not meet WP:ORG or other notability criteria. Stifle ( talk) 21:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Kelly_Lloyd-Jennings

Poorly written submission of a personality that has nothing more than a local impact. Roby0215 03:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 articles. Mailer Diablo 13:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Maths A

Unnecessary subject description supposedly part of the Australian secondary mathematics curriculum. The external link (praising Jacaranda Online for their "award-winning textbooks") makes me suspect this is linkspam. Also doubt some of its veracity: curricula can change quickly, and I'm pretty sure this is only used in Queensland.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

-- Canley 03:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 13:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Okopipi (software tool)

I nominated this article for deletion, I do not feel that this article improves the encyclopaedia. The article I nominated does not hold any references, or citations as to its importance. Apologies if I upset anybody. Cєlαя∂σяє Talk 23:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per citations to establish notability, as follows: CNet article VNUNet, Extensive writeup at techtarget.com. I am adding some or all of these to the article, though I don't think I'll be destubbing it (I have other things I'd like to get done today). If I may offer helpful advice, in the future it may be helpful to run a Google check first and see if you can improve an article before nominating for deletion; this saves time and effort compared to the cross-site editing that has to be done to complete an AfD nomination. Captainktainer * Talk 19:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Only a spammer or those in league with spammers

would want this article deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.197.236 ( talk • contribs)

  • Keep, per additions by Captainktainer. There would appear to be many other articles and references available that would satisfy WP:SOFTWARE - the ones he has listed are just the cream of the crop. Kuru talk 03:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - this shouldn't be considered a promotional page since it is just an open-source project. Also it is directly relevant to the article. If the project fails, then this article can be deleted. Eliot1785 talk 14:10, 19 July 2006 (EST)

By the way, I'm not a spammer nor in league with spammers... I just feel that this is an article for something that doesn't exist. Sure, we have articles that express ideas - I just feel this doesn't qualify. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea but there's not actually anything other than an idea going on. Cєlαя∂σяє Talk 21:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. HA sums it up well at the bottom - there is nothing to merge here. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

United States citizenship test

Have we become a crib sheet? -- Shane ( talk/ contrib) 10:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

( talk/ contrib) 16:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • 'COMMENT - as mentioned by several others, it used to be a feasible stub, not the series of questions - I've reverted it back, but left the AFD tag on it. All delete votes should be assumed to have been talking about the anonymous editor's rewrite, not the current/old copy which seems to have no complaints Sherurcij ( Speaker for the Dead) 13:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as stub or alternately merge. Viable topic but questions themselves are unencyclopedic. Eluchil404 20:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I've reviewed the reversion and reconsidered my "vote"; however, I still come to the same conclusion. The test is already mentioned in United States nationality law, leaving the opening sentences unnecessary. That just leaves the questions, which probably shouldn't be here anyway. Unless there's some history behind the test that is not already provided here, I'm sticking with my redirect "vote." -- H·G ( words/ works) 20:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ( ESkog)( Talk) 07:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

VIP Team To Do List

Another piece of project management software fomr the list where redlinks are expunged. 224 unique ghits, no evidence presented of innovation, market share, significance, multiple non-trivial coverage, per WP:SOFTWARE Just zis Guy you know? 12:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, non-notable, advertising. Bjones 12:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per above. Wickethewok 15:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, spam. -- CharlotteWebb 18:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Wait a minute!, I feel like being in a court among jury crying: guilty, guilty, guilty. You know, I agree there is no "evidence presented of innovation, market share, significance", but how many of programs listed provide this information? I haven't noticed any. Just start telling such things and there will be more chances to be accused in advertising and spamming. There were some text I took from the site that sound advertising, like 'Intuitive interface'. Ok. Got rid of them. Have other claims, do tell. Don't want to discuss it? Great. Delete it. You were quick enough to consider it non-significant and non-notable. Not equal to MS Project? Probably. Ok. Delete it from the list of PM software, but why delete the article itself?. -- Serge Toper 10:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake. Fl owerparty☀ 09:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Zanzibar Land

Gamecruft and duplicate content. The bulk of this article is plot summary of Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake, which already has a lengthy plot summary. Another chunk is an unencyclopedic set of statistics for a fictional country (which are only ever mentioned in the manual of the Japanese version of the first release of the game), and the last chunk is yet another list of the bosses (which I think is present in at least three articles at this point). - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 12:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ifnord 14:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Rafael Peralta

Propaganda Pro-US Army.-- K4zem 22:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - this is a joke. Please take your politics back to the Spanish wiki. Also, for the record, he is in the Marines, not the Army.-- Looper5920 23:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep. Very notable in US Military history. There has only been one member of the US military to be awarded the Medal of Honor during this Iraq conflict. So, Peralta's nomination is quite notable. — ERcheck ( talk) 00:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
(updated my vote to speedy keep ... Peralta is notable, the information is verifiable, and the article is written in keeping with WP:NPOV. — ERcheck ( talk) 02:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your highlighting of what a good source is. No one here would have been able to know what one is unless you spelled it out for us. Your condescension is greatly appreciated. -- Looper5920 13:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep as a bad faith nomination. There is certainly room to have an open, civil, good-faith discussion upon the merits of inclusion of articles about nominees for the highest military honor in a given country, but the nom does not address that topic. youngamerican ( ahoy-hoy) 14:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as copyright violation of a copyrighted web page ("Copyright © 2005 Cardiffair Natural Home Cooling Fans"). The text was submitted by Cardiffair.au ( talk · contribs). Although it is possible that that is someone at the company whose product this is, it is not certain. There is no indication that there is any intent by the company to license the text of its web site under the GFDL. In any case, the text is clearly a promotional blurb not an encyclopaedia article. An article about the product would need to be written from scratch, and wouldn't be at this title anyway. Therefore I am applying speedy Copyright Judo. Uncle G 15:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Natural Cooling: Low Energy Air Movement - An Alternative to Air Conditioning

OR, reads like an advert Nuttah68 12:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

David Smalling

Was prodded but that was removed by anonymous. Appears to be a non-notable biography. It also appears to have some WP:AUTO issues. The author is User:Small774 who says on his talk page that "David Smalling is aHigh School Student from Kingston Jamaica". I can't find any more coverage of him aside from the two links given in the artcle. Delete as non-notable biography. Metros232 13:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as the article falls short of notability. Nuttah68 13:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as nn bio. Ifnord 14:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but rewrite. It appears he is some young hotshot that is notable because of his age and accomplishments based on that. The article needs a complete rewrite however Antares33712 15:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Doesn't quite make it. Bright student with a couple really nice projects, and he was asked to give a paper at a conference. Impressive for an undergraduate, but not groundbreaking. Fan-1967 02:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete. The inclusion of his theses give him the barest of assertions of notability, or I'd say to speedy delete it. He's clearly non-notable and fails WP:BIO. — C.Fred ( talk) 03:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The two references given do not provide enough material to base an article on. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 05:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep because, as a student at Yale, he's already suffered enough.Strong delete Neither, per Cfred, do any of undertakings presently enumerated in the article appear to confer notability (such that notability really isn't asserted), nor, per Fan and a simple Google search (which, AFAICT, returns only three relevant results), do there appear to be any other achievements in view of which notability would entail (or, in any event, other verifiable notable achievements for which sources exist). As Fan notes, the subject may surely become notable in the future, but he simply isn't now. Joe 04:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Ranky Panky

Non notable term. (Google pulled up a few links, but most were irrelevant to this context, or to pages which no longer exist.) Ladybirdintheuk 13:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was A-B-C, Delete. Mailer Diablo 13:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

A-B-C-D Analysis

Appears to be uncredited rip off of Rational Emotive Therapy originated by Albert Ellis, a famous psychologist. [46] There are endless cognitive intervention methods. Notability of intervention comes from scientifc studies on effectiveness of method plus notability of originator of particular cognitive intervention through published work. KarenAnn 13:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Olympia farmers market

Not seeing the importance here. Also, it appears the original author may have wanted to {{db-author}} the article but didn't know how. re: [47] Brad101 13:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Jane Fellowes, Baroness Fellowes

I can find no precedent on titles and notability. IMO merely being in possesion of a title through birth does not make a person notable. Other than the title, the only other claim appears to be Jane Fellowes relationship to Diana, Princess of Wales. Nuttah68 13:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. "Who are Princess Di's siblings?" would be a legitimate encyclopedia question." It would be, and the obvious place to look, and for the answer to be, would be on the Diana, Princess of Wales article. The reasonably common standard elsewhere is 'being related to someone notable is not enough in itself'. None of the arguments have satisfied why that should be excepted here, apart from 'other unwarranted articles exist so why not this one'. Nuttah68 16:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and Redirect to Diana, Princess of Wales. People looking for thisinformation can find it there. Eluchil404 20:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Comment: If we agree that people who are interested in Diana would want to look up information about her sisters, then I think that the idea of directing them to the article about Diana for such information is unsatisfactory, because we would either have to cut out some of the information or bloat the Diana article with off-topic stuff, which would make it less professional. It would be quite appropriate to put in Diana's article that her two elder sisters were . . . (names and dates of birth), but to give the names of Lady Jane's three children in Diana's article would be a little bizarre, and would stick out. I still think that Lady Jane and Lady Sarah (whom Nuttah68 also tagged with {{ db-bio}}, although another editor changed it to {{ bio-notability}} are at least as notable as Lady Amelia Windsor, Grace Ingalls, etc. AnnH ♫ 09:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Comment, the fact that she is married with three children is not encyclopaedic, Wikipedia is not a genealogy resource. As of now we are still in the position that there has been no claim of notability and the main argument for keep still appears to be 'other unwarranted articles exist so why not this one'. Nuttah68 10:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete Royal vanity, disgusting. Matthew Fenton ( contribs) 08:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Koadic's Endless Intellect

Wikipedia is not a game guide. Article has been deleted twice before (approximately once a year). I can't Speedy it under G4 because I don't know if the content is the same or not (besides which, it's been almost a year and deserves another AfD instead of being speedied). First nomination: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Koadic's Endless Intellect. Second nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koadic's Endless Intellect 2. Note that the related article Spells of Everquest, which was once created as an attempt to salvage the KEI content, was just deleted via AfD here. Powers 13:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Congaplex

WP:OR - author's experience plus broken link to producer of Congaplex KarenAnn 13:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Electronic Load

This article contains barely no information about the topic except a link to a company's website. Same for the Chinese version, and it was listed to vote for deletion as well. -- Tomchiukc 17:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Neutral. Dicdef at the moment, and no real potential for expansion, other than along the lines of "Electronic loads are also made by Agilent, Sorensen, Kikusui, etc etc etc...". Tevildo 19:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep I think the article could possibly be expanded (discussion of how loads are precisely simulated, etc.) It'll never be a front page candidate, but there's room for something here. - Richfife 20:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Is this a special topic that requires certain expertise knowledge, or somebody who came across to related webpages can amend the contents to a reasonable amount to keep the article? -- Tomchiukc 10:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Well, the topic itself doesn't require more than a basic knowledge of electronics to explain - [48] is a good introductory article. I'd offer to do it myself, but it will need diagrams that I'm not, at the moment, in a position to draw... Tevildo 11:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete. Meets speedy criteria as empty. Vegaswikian 08:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I removed the spammy link to a single compay -- there should either be links to several companies or none at all. It's apparantly a real electronic device and a real non-neologism or company-specific term. I got 237,000 Goggle hits for the string "Electronic load", granted that the hits probably cover a plethora of usages (but Electronic load as described in the article leads, with the first few results at least). It's very short, but not empty, and certainly expandable. I think the removal of the linkspam makes it OK. Herostratus 21:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Centrx→ talk • 13:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was sent to Requested moves. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Waldorf Education

Delete. It has been proposed that the page "Waldorf Education" should be moved to the proper "Waldorf education" (note capitalization). This is only possible through an intermediate step due to the system not being able to distinguish between the two names for moves. The intermediate step was to rename the article to "Waldorf-education." Now the redirect page should be deleted, so that the article can finally be moved to "Waldorf education." Aquirata 14:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Mailer Diablo 18:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

SQL-Station

Software spamvertising (even includes a link to a "free trial" page). NawlinWiki 14:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

NawlinWiki 14:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Slob

Obviously a definition of a word, already has an entry in Wiktionary. Contains no usable information Mackan 14:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Scott Atkins

nn unverifiable. ccwaters 14:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I was one of the youngest owners in sports when I owned my teams and was a pioneer in the online sportsbook industry. I believe that is notable bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.118.160 ( talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Dreamberry

Not noteworthy, unclear distinction between fiction and reality and despite for being tagged for a while no clean-up Mackan 14:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Brooke Sealy

NN? Does being the ex-wife of someone notable justify a WP entry? In fact the article itself states that Brooke is most notable because she was married to Jeff Gordon Thanatosil 14:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Croft Funds Corp *****

advertisement Travelbird 14:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Joseph A. Maturo, Jr.

Article was PROD'd with the reason "A7 bio -- mayor of a town of 28,000, no references". I thought it might be controversial to delete an article on a sitting mayor, so I'm AfD-ing. I have no preference regarding deletion. RJH ( talk) 14:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - I popped in to check on the article and saw the change and the notability comment about the repeat terms. Still a little bio-ish and lengthy, but getting better and headed in the right direction. -- MrDolomite | Talk 21:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. "Maturo was only the second East Haven mayor — and the first Republican — to win a fifth term." I'd like sources to support this, but I'll take this as de facto evidence that he's gotten press coverage, and that would get him over the hurdle of WP:BIO for local politicians. — C.Fred ( talk) 01:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I will look at re-writing the article to shorten it. Added reference to his re-election. I also never liked the divorce thing, so I removed the references to family. And finally isn't a encyclopedia intended to convey general knowledge of many subjects? Printed encyclopedia have limited space, but the online version should have the ability to have info on a town mayor with only 30,000 people. After all there is an article regarding a mayor of Carrboro, NC with only 16K -- dep369 18:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Dep369 reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

George Ferguson (Irish dancer)

The article at George Ferguson used to be this one but I chose to move it here as no dancing-related pages linked to the article, which is about a professional athlete. I've re-created the dancer page as above and am listing it for deletion because, well, he's a NN Irish dancing instructor on Merseyside. If consensus to delete is reached then it will be possible to stop the reverting at George Ferguson. BoojiBoy 14:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Willowbrook Mall (Wayne, New Jersey)

Minor mall, non-notable, fails WP:CORP PresN 15:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Fer crying out loud, this isn't even an attempt at an encyclopedic article. Tychocat 18:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Yeah, the article isn't that great, but it is a notable mall. Of course, I say this while living in northern New Jersey. But with that said, it's easily one of the most popular malls in NJ, and it's considerably larger than many NJ malls with articles (including my local mall, the Livingston Mall. In fact, even though I live 45 minutes from it (as opposed to less than 15 from Livingston and a few other malls, including The Mall at Short Hills), it's pretty much the only mall that anyone who isn't wealthy goes to. And, as stated in the article, it contains the majority of stores anyone in the Northeast could possibly expect to see in a mall. -- Kicking222 19:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Ah, close to home... :) Merge to General Growth Properties, obviously... - CrazyRussian talk/ email 20:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge as above. JYolkowski // talk 22:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as there is no evidence of meeting WP:CORP. GRBerry 03:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep at 1.5 million sq. ft. of selling area, it's the second largest mall in the state (not minor) and one of the earliest fully-enclosed large scale malls (notable). Article meets WP:CORP, without any explanation of what criteria are not being met. Alansohn 22:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment For notability standards like WP:CORP, an assertion of not meeting the standard is an assertion of not meeting all of the criteria. Notability criteria are usually written in the form (A or B or C or D), sometimes, as in WP:CORP, in the form ((A not including A1 and not including A2) or B or C). If you wish to say that it meets the standard, it is most helpful to show (with evidence) which criteria it does meet. I've yet to encounter a private company that met the second, and it can't meet the third, so really the independent published works standard is the one at hand for a mall. GRBerry 02:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • keep please it meets corp guideline and is a notable mall Yuckfoo 19:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Burlington, Ontario. I've done this. Proto:: type 10:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Mapleview mall

Minor mall, non-notable, fails WP:CORP -- PresN 15:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Computer Nerd Central

Delete. MySpace page that is not notable per WP:WEB. Only 24 unique Ghits. ... discospinster talk 15:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as patent nonsense. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 18:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

David davidson award

Articel about a non-existent award. Google turns up 0 hits. Speedy delete as a hoax. Prod also removed twice by author. If it walks like a hoax, quacks like a hoax and smells like a hoax... Wildthing61476 15:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete - obvious hoax -- Whpq 15:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy Antares33712 15:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article was substantially rewritten. - FrancisTyers · 11:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Anthropologie

Advert for upscale chain of women's clothing stores. Does not meet WP:CORP KarenAnn 15:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Anthropologie is one of the most talked about brands in marketing (It spends no money on advertising). I'll take the time to rewrite the page. Anthropologie is significant upscale apparel retailer. If you haven't heard of it, I am sorry, but that just means you aren't cognizant of middle class - upper middle class retail. Anthropologie is more recognizable and classier than Urban Outfitters and should not be merged either-- Shrek05 21:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Academic Challenger. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 08:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Ian Phipps

Non-notable artist, fails WP:MUSIC. Was originally speedy deleted, but editor recreated with different content (so probably not speedyable under that criteria). Delete tag removed by creator. ~ Matticus78 16:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Philosophy of God

Was originally an essay-style article that seemed to be entirely POV and original research. I prodded the article and drew the problems to the attention of the creator. He has since rewritten the article, but it seems to be for an organisation that was created very recently (yesterday, it would appear: the first post on the blog is dated 17th July), and is therefore neither notable nor verifiable. ~ Matticus78 16:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Japanese American Evacuation of 1942

Deprod by anon. The article's talk page indicates that this is a POV fork (of Japanese American internment); I have no knowledge of the subject and no opinion on what the NPOV on the subject is, but WP:POVFORK explains why such forks are harmful. -- ais523 16:21, 18 July 2006 ( U T C)

No references? What are you talking about? The POV reparations activists lock out opposing views from the original article and when our views are provided here you attempt to have them deleted. What are you so afraid of? — Preceding unsigned comment added by History Student ( talk • contribs)

In cases like this you need to cite every 'fact' and note when they are disputed. Citation makes a strong argument against somebody with an opposing POV, having a POV fork doesn't. Basically this article needs deleting and you need to play nicely in the original. Yomangani 17:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
To be fair, more citation is required for the article in its current (protected) revision. That is, many of the "pro-fork" editors have raised reasonable questions about the legitimacy of claims in the current revision. Whatever anyone thinks about the content of the fork, more citation is required in the entire article, not just with the revisions proposed by the fork advocates. -- ishu 18:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Care to provide us with some examples Yomangani? My additions included sources and I challenge you dispute any additions that is not historically correct. Of course you can't. That's why you and you ilk have locked the original article and want to delete this one. You don't care about historical accuracy you care about furthering an agenda - but that's what happens when political activists play historian.

I'm not going to note what you dispute because there is no basis for your dispute other then it's not what you want to believe or want others to believe. What a loade of crap. You delete this article i'll just put up another and another and another... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.79.202 ( talk • contribs)

I meant 'you' (plural), as in you and everybody else who edits the original. As far as I can see the whole of this new article is your work, in which case most of it is uncited. If it isn't all your own work (and is in fact a copy of the original) then you (singular) have argued yourself back into only having one article. For the record, I don't agree with locking the article on one point of view (once it gets to that stage I'd prefer to have it taken down pending resolution of the dispute)...and by the way one of the rules of WP is 'assume good faith'. Yomangani 18:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Show me my additions that are uncited. You can't and that is a non issue. The original article is so full of uncited pro-reparations POV it's a joke. Your clear bias is showing but I have faith the original article will be unlocked and "tom" will have his administrative priviledges suspended.

With respect, this discussion isn't about content, it's about whether a POVfork should be deleted and if so, why, so this is exactly where it does belong (but I've said my piece). Yomangani 20:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
It's roundabout, but it certainly seems to me the discussion above is about content. It doesn't really address whether the article should be deleted, but rather attempts to hash out the debate as to which of the two articles should be at Japanese American Internment. That's content debate. WilyD 21:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Keep it. It's better written than the original. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.79.202 ( talk • contribs)

This discussion is entirely about content and locking an article full of reparations pov to the detriment of contrary, citeable historically accurate additions made by me and others.

So what. This history deserves a closer look than the repartions pov activists who hijacked the article are providing.

Considering the pro-reparations pov propaganda is now locked in the article, I'd say the services aren't working.

Can someone suggest a service that would resolve the protection status of Japanese American internment? That could focus this AfD discussion on the issue at hand. -- ishu 19:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:RFM Yomangani 20:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Have you tried the less formal WP:RFC? ~ Maybe you're beyond that point, I have no idea - either way, these pages will also have links to other steps/resources. WilyD 20:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

This whole "fork" talk is a non-issue. My additions are citeable, relevent and historically accurate. The original artice was not - the only citations were Michi Weglyn, Peter Irons and Personal Justice Denied. Your telling me that's not POV? Even the little addition of "disputed history" has a weasel words disclaimer. What a joke.

You folks are censoring this history. The Japanese American Reparations Movement dug themselves in a whole at so many levels regarding this history. It's obvious their lackeys are infecting this article.

  • Comment No, the whole "fork" talk is the heart of the issue. If your additions are "citeable, relevent and historically accurate" then they should be added to the exisiting Japanese American internment article and if there truly is a group advancing an alternate POV at said article, there are a myriad of arbitration methods you could pursue (ask at my talk and I will tell you what they are). Creating an alternate POV article is not a valid option here.-- Isotope23 23:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Not perfect? That's an understatement. It sure as heck isn't a neutral point of view is it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.207.79.202 ( talk • contribs) 22:42, July 18, 2006 (UTC)


  • Comment - are we at the point where we can get a speedy delete per WP:SNOW? It's pretty clear that this particular article is a POV-fork, and that the real dispute lies with the content in Japanese American internment. Ending this AfD discussion would facilitate the improvement of that article, which is the outcome everyone's looking for. -- H·G ( words/ works) 00:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Well if we can't get the "internment" article resolved then this is the next best thing. Not of my added information is POV so cut the excuses. Facts are facts. Give the reader the facts and let the reader decide.— Preceding unsigned comment added by History Student ( talk • contribs)
  • Comment - forgive the understatement here, but it is an extremely bad idea to have two articles on the same subject. The place that the facts of a topic should be debated is on the Talk page for the original article, not in a new one. A separate page on the same topic isn't "the next best thing"--it's not even a valid option. As for WP:POVFORK: "POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first. This is generally considered unacceptable." That describes this situation exactly. -- H·G ( words/ works) 07:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply


If one page has been hi-jacked by an activist pov group of editors then it is entirely appropraite. I challenge any editor to point out my additions as historically incorrect. First you critize the style, then say sources aren't cited then say it's pov - all of which is untrue. You are looking for any reason to delete an opposing point of view while providing one explanation after another as to why the pro-reparations pov article should remain. Not only that but you attempt to ban IPs. What a load of crap!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.168.93.35 ( talk • contribs)

Almost every contributor has noted the colossal failure of WP:POVFORK as the cause for deletion, and repeated noted that the correct action to take is to work this out at Japanese American Internment, with many services such as WP:RFM available if needed (which it sounds like they are). WilyD 16:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

That's great but the "Japanese American Internment" article has been locked by pov repatations activists. The current article is full of factual errors and the writing is just plain bad history. In the meantime this article needs to stay. While it could use a rewrite to be more concise and correct grammar the substantial history is a heck of a lot better.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.131.114.43 ( talk • contribs)

Anyone following the discussion at the Japanese "Internment" article can see that the it has degenerated into making explanations supporting one's pov. The original article is still up and locked with incorrect history and bad history and history that needs clarification. That is reason enough why this article needs to remain to provide balance as the original has been totally hi-jacked by pro-reparations pov activists.

-- History Student 16:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (keep). Proto:: type 14:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Pål Johan Karlsen

Definitely an autobiography going by the user name of the page creator. This is of dubious notability. He has two books, one of which shows up on Amazon.com, but it shows up as unavailable. 90% of google hits (about 500) are in Norwegian, and the remainder are his personal website. Seems to be a post-doc, which doesn't meet the criteria for academics. Irongargoyle 16:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I didn't mean to suggest that Norwegian Google hits were a negative, just that I couldn't verify them. Irongargoyle 16:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable autobiography. Fireplace 16:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This probably fails WP:BIO, but I'd feel more comfortable if someone able to read/translate the Norwegian Ghits made that call. Scorpiondollprincess 16:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Hi, I am the author of the autobiography and understand your objections. However, I made a serious effort on meeting the three cardinal principles. I thought it would be important for people interested in gay fiction to know about the work published in Norwegian in 2002. Regarding my notability: I am a biographee in Marquis Who´s Who in the World 2006, Who´s Who in America 2007, Who is Who in Science and Engineering 2007, as well as in the 33rd edition of Dictionary of International Biography. I was approached by these publishers and since I am a frequent user of Wikipedia myself, I thought it would be useful for people who don´t have access to these dictionaries to find some of the information at Wikipedia. The books have been the cause of numerous reviews, interviews and articles in Norwegian press (100+ items in radio, television, newspapers, magazines). A pdf file containing many of these can be forwarded to interested parties. The publisher, Aschehoug, is the second largest in Norway and publishes writers like Salman Rushdie and Paul Auster. Regarding the contributions to cognitive psychology, these are published in multiple peer-reviewed journals with a high international impact factor.

Here is a further link, in English, to the Norwegian publisher: http://www2.aschehoug.no/lf/aschehougagency/innhold.php?textID=687

You may also want to talk with the guy administrating the Norwegian version of wikipedia: http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruker:Beagle84

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Natgoo 21:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

L.A. Tool & Die

Non-notable porn film. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (films) Fireplace 16:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Considered one of the ten most "most innovative, influential, and hottest" gay adult films of all time, according to The AVN Guide to the 500 Greatest Adult Films of All Time. [52] Noted in nearly any history of male erotica. Director's 2001 induction into Hall of Fame is based largely on the influence of this trilogy. Jokestress 17:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep following Jokestress's improvements. Notability is established now. -- H·G ( words/ works) 17:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was rename to U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement and keep. I think this satisfies some of the merge votes as well. Mango juice talk 17:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Agreement under Article VI of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States of America, Regarding Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in Japan

Page is only the title followed by "is a 1960 law". Page is in SERIOUS need of wikifying, or deletion. Wildthing61476 16:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I corrected my AfD is not VdD gaff. I still feel a need to request it. -- Kunzite 04:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Fair enough. I'm sure that the closing admin will take it into account! Ziggurat 04:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment, no reason to discount any prior opinions, particularly in light of H·G's comments below. Even after the rewrite I reiterate my deletion opinion.-- Isotope23 13:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

OASC

The subject MIGHT be notable (most of the Google hits for OASC don't relate to this and when searching for what the full name is, it's only 84 Google hits), but this article doesn't express notability for it or provide sources of its use. Instead, it is a diary or step-by-step guide of what to expect. I prodded it as Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, but it was removed by the article's creator saying it wasn't. Metros232 16:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

LifeTime Gamer

Non-notable web site Shadow1 17:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete - keeping this article in limbo for a merge is only viable if there is anything to merge. PresN (despite arguing for merge) asserts that there is nothing to merge, Mangojuice argues that merging is unnecessary on this basis, and no-one is really taking issue with that (despite this AfD hanging around a very long time). Anyone can create a redirect if they want. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

New Tribal Revolution

Neologism, recently invented in one guy's book. Cheese Sandwich 16:46, 5 July 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 19:40, 11 July 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, Ian Manka Talk to me! 18:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

PUMBA

I cleaned up this article as best I could, but I wonder if it's worth having an article on. It's an acronym for the business school of University of Pune. The department doesn't have its own article, so I don't think an acronym article should occur before that. And I also don't think that this department is notable enough to stand alone as an article like this. Metros232 19:52, 11 July 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, Ian Manka Talk to me! 18:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Luk

Advert for company that fails WP:CORP KarenAnn 18:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge and delete. Mango juice talk 16:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Winners of the Vukcevich Super Cup

A pointless list of winners of a chess tournament. It should be merged to the Vukcevich Super Cup page, or deleted. 11kowrom 18:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Cram, Pass and Dump

NN, no Ghits except exact copies, questionable dicdef at best Thanatosil 18:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

VEKASY'S

advertisement Travelbird 18:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (user has already done this 4 times) — Quarl ( talk) 2006-07-19 04:34Z

KFYT FM

Radio station does not seem to exist. I have attempted to discuss this with the user who created the page and continually edits the List of urban-format radio stations in the United States page (often many times in a day), but have gotten no response. The website listed for the radio station is a spam/placeholder page for a webhost/search company. I have no reason to believe KFYT exists (particularly as long as the author claims) and their shifty IP/login behavior and edits leads me to consider this a hoax/vandalism. ju66l3r 18:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was renamed already. Mango juice talk 16:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

15th century in United States history

There was no United States before 1776, and naturally, nothing in history that would directly relate to the United States. I think renaming it 15th Century in North American history would be the way to go, but I wonder how much value such an article would have. Guess it depends on what the article's creator has in mind, but there needs to be a standard on the importance of events that go there, lest it become an indiscriminate list of information. Delete or Rename Ytny 19:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - As per nom, if there is no U.S. prior to 1776 then there is no U.S. history prior to 1776. QED. The best that could happen to the current article is to rename it as "15th century in North American history" if it's not deleted. ju66l3r 19:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Rename article as "15th century in North American history." Likewise for 14th century and any others that apply. Scorpiondollprincess 19:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per ju6613r and Scorpiondollprincess. My understanding is that various territories and peoples have similar articles as part of history timelines. Smerdis of Tlön 21:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Rename. The article is far from quality but the information there can be used to as a pad towards something worthwhile. 205.157.110.11 21:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Agent 86 21:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. There's hardly any information in there; accurate, useful, or otherwise. DJCartwright 23:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per the above. Ziggurat 23:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note. There are also articles 14th century in United States history (also nominated for deletion) and 16th century in United States history, and the three articles should be dealt with in a consistent way. -- Lambiam Talk 08:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. As the author of the article proposed for deletion, I desire to defend it. I intend this article (and its predecessors and successors) as a time line of events that occurred within the present political boundaries of the United States of America or that profoundly influenced their later development. I chose to use the "in United States history" title even before the Declaration of Independence in the same sense that American history textbooks typically include chapters on Native Americans and colonists. This article titles continue backward into prehistory to provide continuity in both nomenclature and geographical coverage. North America typically includes the Aztec Empire and Mesoamerican civilizations but excludes Hawaii. I have added some extra events to the time line segment. Dufekin 03:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. Defining events in time based on geopolitical boundaries of the location's future seems artificial. For example, is it relevant to determine whether Viking exploration reached the current coast of Maine (or any particular of the numerous different boundaries between Canada and Maine as it shifted through time) to define whether it would be relevant to this article or is the exploration of Newfoundland and other parts of Canada sufficient to remark on the development of the region? How far back do you go and still call it relevant to the history of the United States as opposed to someone/something else's history? I'm not certain that Native American events prior to arrival of Europeans would necessarily constitute some portion of "United States" history. Native American descendants may even find it insultory to deem the events as part of "what was to come" (which includes the systemic removal of these people from their lands). If in 10 years time, we were to aggressively annex the coastline between Alaska and Washington state, do we suddenly go all the way back in time to the first human history of that region of Canada and annex the history to go with the land? Just some thoughts on your approach to United States history. ju66l3r 18:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per above. Czj 05:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and rename. Eluchil404 20:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep and rename. The issue seems to be the name. Very useful content; it serves as a central point to aggregate and display historical trends among the disparate inhabitants of the continent. Going to the articles for each tribe to glean this information takes time. Concur should be treated consistently with the 14th century article also nominated for deletion.-- A. B. 22:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Those arguing for deletion seem to do nothing but assert the non-notability of this subject, while those arguing to keep actually explain its notability. Those arguments are never countered. Mango juice talk 16:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Smosh

  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!


Previously listed as possibly not notable on 09:55, July 6, 2006. No significant changes to article's notability since then. Unclear if this could have been speedy deleted for {{ db-bio}} or {{ db-club}}. Listed for AfD and discussion. -- MrDolomite | Talk 18:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Though smosh is popular and likeable, they are using wikipedia for a personal reason. My suggestion is they can create a page in smosh instead carrying the same information -- User:non-user 10Ģ:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.156.6.54 ( talk • contribs) 08:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I suggest that we keep this article because smosh is a part of the internet as well pop culture. It has been written about in the New York Times, Teen People as aired as part of a news segment on ABC. (Sorry, I don't know how to place the links on here, but I have edited and checked the wikipedia page of smosh for a while now.) Sure, the writing might be a little on the lacking side but there was help offered by Zeketheo at 13:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC) saying that he'll do it in a day or two. I'm not putting blame on anyone but normally when someone offers help like that, it should have been follow through.
One of the reasons I'm ticked off by this whole deletion situation is that the smosh wikipedia page keeps being marked as "advertisment" and does not meet the Neutural Point of View. No one has explained to us how the page got these status nor gave any suggestions how to improve on it to overcome this tag. Overall I suggest that we keep this page, but work on it so that it meets these standards and not to have just people tag it without a clear explaination. Thank you. Rockmusic389 07:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Also, I have been doing some reading into the Wikipedia pages and keeping with a unbias stance, I don't see anything wrong with the page except with the quality of writing. I kept addmening and adding to the page it address a current pop fashion or fad becuase of the poplular "pokemon video" from thier site which was also broadcasted onto youtube. smosh is more than the website but it's becoming more poplular as more people are finding out about them through their videos. Also, according to WP:WEB (see link in the comment below this), this site was created a user of the forum other than the 2 smosh guys and it is not a promotion of this site, just an informative piece about the site, thus it is not going against any of the neutrality guidelines. amended by Rockmusic389 07:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment Smosh can be considered as an internet phenomenon and is notable on the internet. Although not mentioned in the article, their site is always linked to when videos are released and is notable as well. -- Gigano | Talk 05:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Creating a new user just to contribute to an AfD does not lend a sense of credibility to the discussion. Especially when the user has the same name as the article. And when the comment includes "...our videos..." -- MrDolomite | Talk 01:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC) -- amended by MrDolomite | Talk 20:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment I've had this account for some time now ( October 2005) and I check this page every once in a while to see if the updates are accurate. I did not make it simply to make a response here. -- smosh 01:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment My apologies to User:Smosh about being a new user created for this AfD. I did not check the creation logs -- MrDolomite | Talk 20:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It gives people a place to find information on Smosh. Thus elimating them spamming the forums with questions the wikipedia article answers. -- Ashuku
Comment Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site. Sorry about their forums. -- MrDolomite | Talk 01:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC) -- amended to remove possible negative connotation of "blog" reference, which is part of the linked article's subsection's heading. -- MrDolomite | Talk 20:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Who said we were using it as a blog? -- Ashuku
Comment The pronoun in the preceding sentence strikes me as interesting if not necessarily incriminating in/of itself. Icewolf34 19:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not-notable. -- GWO
  • Delete, at the time this article fails WP:WEB standards of notability. A Google search for the term yields 146 unique Google hits, and I couldn't find any articles (from independent sources meeting WP:V) where Smosh was the subject of the article. -- H·G ( words/ works) 08:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I did my own Google Search for "Smosh" and came up with 1,490,000 sites discussing Smosh itself, the Smosh videos, and a wide range of the Smosh community (across sites like Flickr, etc.) I dunno what defines "Unique Google Hits", and I see zero options to filter by that criteria in advanced search preferences, either. And this is just Google hits - it's also ignoring mentions they've gotten, as mentioned earlier, in prestigious newspapers like the New York Times. BlazeHedgehog 18:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Confirm well over 1,400,000 Google hits. Might not be evidence of notability by itself, but I'm not sure where/how HG got his stats. (Government censorship of Smosh sites?) Icewolf34 19:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Google's number of reported hits is not always reliable. "Original hits" refers to the number of pages before Google cuts off the list of result due to the remainder being "very similar". For example:
  • Keep. A youtube search [54] clearly indicates six of their videos have a view count more than 1 million; ten of their videos has achieved 28.8 million views together. But, certainly, the article needs some rewriting (don't look at me :)) Frigo 23:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Many of those saying "keep" here approve of the idea of this being covered only in Quackwatch.. it already is. Mango juice talk 18:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply


Quackpotwatch

Non-notable attack site. Site's author has long-running feud with notable site Quackwatch. Not even in top one million sites per Alexa. [55] No mentions of site in the press-- fails WP:WEB. Jokestress 18:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. Plenty of Ghits, but they seem to mostly be attacking (or praising) the subject. I couldn't find any independent "non-trivial published works," signs that it "has won a well known and independent award," or any indication that content is "distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators." Not-notable. Also, I'm suspicious of how all but one of the sources cited come from the same place. And all but one of the external links in this article come from the same two people. This seems to be a non-notable feud of narrow scope. Not encyclopedic. Scorpiondollprincess 19:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment. I suspect this account to be a sock puppet. I don't know of who, but the users brief edit history clearly shows someone who is not a newbie or unexperienced at Wikipedia rules and regs. -- Stbalbach 00:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Your immediate accusation of the nominator as a sockpuppet simply because they're new smacks of WP:ABF :( Please be civil. Zetawoof( ζ) 01:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I didn't say the nominator is a sock puppet. -- Stbalbach 05:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Mea culpa. The same applies to Scorpiondollprincess ( talk · contribs), though. Zetawoof( ζ) 07:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I didn't say "just because they are new". -- Stbalbach 12:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. However, should Quackpotwatch be deleted, some of it will be copied over to Quackwatch under a criticism section, which is where it was originally. Either way there is a place for Quackpotwatch on Wikipedia. -- Stbalbach 01:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Notable enough to be mentioned on Quackwatch. There are also lots of articles out there about this organization as it is usually mention in the breath following QuackWatch as the watch dog to the watch dogs. Levine2112 03:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Being mentioned on Barrett's website does not qualify Quackpotwatch as notable. If Quackpotwatch has been featured in a major national publication, please provide the references. See WP:RS and WP:WEB for what qualify as reliable sources and notable websites. Jokestress 06:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • WP:RS and WP:WEB are guidelines, not policy. When it comes to deleting an article there needs to a heavy burden of proof on those who want to delete it. This article has been in existence a long time without complaint, there have been a substantial number of editors who have worked on it (I've personally invested many hours so has at least one other person), the website is well known (I could post google hit stats), and most importantly, the content of this website is *controversial* and there is always the concern of bias from those who wish to delete it. All these specific issues, in my mind, should be weighed in with the generic guidelines cited. -- Stbalbach 00:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. If you need an official policy, see WP:BLP. This page contains defamatory statements about Barrett's credentials, among other things. None of these are properly sourced per Wikipedia policy. Jokestress 10:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • You miss the point of the nomination. The entire site has failed to establish notability. It does not appear to qualify as a reliable source or merit an article, per guidelines and policies. Jokestress 17:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • People know about Quackpotwatch, it's been around a long time and has tons of google hits. It's a well-known site. Guidelines are guidelines for a reason, not every case can be easily fit into generic rules and guidelines are sometimes controversial.-- Stbalbach 05:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I also run several websites on consumer issues, and I am a proud affiliate of Quackwatch.
Actually quackwatch seems to be a consortium of professionals, mostly MD's. There is a founding member (as you mention, the same guy), but the Quackwatch article is not primarily about him. Quackwatch (the web site) seems to have had a lot of press from NYTimes as well as an article in Time magazine. The same guy is also mentioned in those articles, which makes sense, since he founded the web site. It appears that quackpotwatch is not close to that level of notability. This should not be about the same guy but about whether the web site is notable or not. At present, quackpotwatch is not notable, even if it does focus on a notable guy. David D. (Talk) 20:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Maybe my interpretation of WP:WEB is incorrect, but to me the first criterion for Web notability is stated as;
  • The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
To me, it means the information within the site. Thus I interpret; both sites are dealing with the same information from different POVs. Am I wrong? -- Dematt 14:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't interpret it that way, otherwise there could be wiki articles on any personal web site about Barrett. Besides the Quackwatch article is not about Barrett, it is about an organisation that comments on a wide variety of 'quack' related practices. The difference is that Quackwatch is a recognised critic of an idustry whereas quack pot watch is not a recognised web site and it only critiques a web site. More to the point it focuses its critiques only one individual, despite the fact that quackwatch appears to be more than one individual. In time quackpotwatch may establish its self as a reliable source of information regarding the 'quack' industry. At present it does not seem much more than a personal web site that is not recognised by any reliable source. David D. (Talk) 15:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Very relevant principles from Jimbo Wales

"We have how many new articles a day? If people had the good sense to nuke 100 articles a day, just on the grounds of being BAD in the sense we are discussing (having unsourced claims about living people which would be libel if false), our growth rate would hardly suffer at all.

"We are a massively powerful text generation engine. People have to drop the idea that every little tidbit is precious. Crap is crap. Yank it." - Jimmy Wales, May 19, 2006 [56] Emphasis added - Fyslee -- Fyslee 21:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The Wikipedia article Quackpotwatch makes no "unsourced claims about living people which would be libel if false" .. indeed you wrote most the article yourself! Jimbo is referring to Wikipedia articles, not other web sites. As for the actual site making unsourced claims, the same could be said for Quackwatch - they are magazine articles (at best), not sourced journal articles. Anyway, this whole section is inappropriate in a vote page and probably violates some rule. -- Stbalbach 05:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
AfD is a debate, not a vote. The above is appropriate enough, just not obviously relevant. Just zis Guy you know? 19:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Fair enough (although comments are suggested to be in bulleted format and not separate section headers). The majority of AfD's are done on the grounds of "notability", which is not a policy -- see this interesting post (which I found as recommended reading on the Wikipedia: Articles for deletion page), for some thoughts on notability as a cause for deletion. -- Stbalbach 22:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ( ESkog)( Talk) 08:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

SnagBiz

Advertisement for company that fails WP:CORP. No Alexa ranking. — Caesura (t) 19:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. — Jul. 18, '06 [21:18] < freak| talk>

HRmarketer

Article was prodded for spam, deleted by author. Article is advertising/spam. Wildthing61476 19:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. — Jul. 18, '06 [21:17] < freak| talk>

Marketing PR

As listed above, prod was removed by author. Article is blatant advertising/spam. Wildthing61476 19:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

List of product placements

Listcruft and original research. Only a few instances in this list have footnotes, and yet only one footnote exists at the bottom. It's hard to say what is an actual product placement and what is an incidental or accidental placement in a film, show, or book without sources, and very few sources indeed are referenced or can be in such instances. Additionally, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- H·G ( words/ works) 19:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. — Jul. 18, '06 [21:16] < freak| talk>

Howdy radio

Wow a MySpace radio show! How extraordinary (NOT) notable Wildthing61476 19:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Websmartz

Spamvertising for nonnotable software, 218 unique Ghits. NawlinWiki 19:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Bettinna

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Looks like a well done vanity article - Nv8200p talk 19:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per above. NawlinWiki 20:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, the edit history says it all--User:Bettinna creates this page; User:Royboycrashfan userfies Bettinna to User:Bettinna; User:Bettinna un-userfies herself to Bettinna, shuffles it around a bit, then leaves it here. Indisputably a vanity article. Subject fails WP:MUSIC--no album out yet, and only a 3-song disc to come; 261 unique Ghits, most of which are unrelated (a few in German); no major awards; no international tours; it goes on and on. If she blows up, she'll deserve a page here, but not until then. -- H·G ( words/ works) 08:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, vanity exacerbated by the presence of dozens of interlanguage language links and links to Wikiquote and Commons, all to nonexistant pages. (I've removed them all now.) User:Angr 12:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - the article says "Now, why a 3 song CD? Well, Bettinna wanted to keep it small for now." I think we should keep her place im WP small also. BlueValour 04:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Friday with deletion summary " Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Crowd". BryanG (talk) 05:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Young Crowd

Speedy and prod removed by author. In addition this page was deleted via AfD not too long ago. Requesting deletion and possible protection from recreation Wildthing61476 19:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

If author is removing the tags, bringing it here is the right thing, as an admin can catch it even if the tags keep getting removed. Fan-1967 19:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Eric Wilson (author)

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

The result was merge into the Clone Manga article. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Daniel Kim (artist)

The notability of the person detailed in this article is suspect. I've done some digging and have found that he does not have a single published work (outside of Lulu.com), interview with a notable source or even a trivial mention of him in any sort of press. In addition, his website where he hosts comics ( Clone Manga) does not appear to be notable - Google turns up no non-trivial mentions of it, or yet again even trivial mentions of it, in anything outside of his own site, and the webcomic community. As he has made no other notable accomplishments besides his (quite possibly non-notable) site and comics, this page has no place in an encyclopedia and should be deleted.

Also, the majority of the lead section appears to be copied and pasted from here, quite possibly leading to copyright infringement. JimmyBlackwing 19:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC) This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. JimmyBlackwing 20:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Agreed. He is only really known in certain subculture circles with a penchant for the morbid. He might produce a notable work eventually, but at this time there is no reason to have an encyclopedia entry about him. -- 82.50.29.220 22:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment: As per that same Verifiability article, "Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves". It then gives a short list of conditions, but I believe that this article meets them all - information not available in the appendices of the [self-] published work Paper Eleven: The Complete Collection is evident one way or another from the subject's website. I suppose this makes the presumption that the artist and the art are considerable as the same entity, but I believe that to be a reasonable assumption in this case. These are not good sources, I'll happily conceed, but they are sources and meet those conditions - and the phrase "outlandish claims beg strong sources" in the verifiability article suggests by implication that mundane claims [only] require weak sources. The website (which does contain all of this information in itself) is already mentioned in the article. Would a link to the book's Lulu page help? I would have thought that would too easily be construed as advertising...
This all said, I do believe that this makes it all the more pertinent to merge this article into a hypothetical 'Clone Army' article. Sar 09:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/Keep I suggest that the subject does in fact meet the Notability guidelines, even if 'only just', and that there is no reason to delete the article. However, I wholly agree that all of his works do not warrant separate articles, and an all-inclusive 'Clone-Army' article would suit those, if not the article about the artist as well. Reasoning in comments indented, 'cause there's a lot of it. Sorry for the verbosity... Sar 03:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Comment Firstly, the guidelines on Notability are very clear to state that they are just that - guidelines - and not policy. From this perspective, it is presumptious to assume that failing to satisfy the explicitly stated examples is sufficient grounds for deletion; in fact, the Notability article itself specifically states the reverse. Not that to my mind it matters - it is easily arguable that Dan Kim has made, to quote Wikipedia:Notability_(people), "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in [the field of webcomics]". The fact that - say - Paper Eleven is not published by a 'mainstream' publisher does not make a hardcopy any less enduring (which is all the historical record we can really cite for webcomics, assuming the Internet disappears and all information contained within is lost), and the work in question has been recognised, as previously noted in this discussion, by several luminaries of the field of webcomics. Not to mention that to any degree which it is quantifiable I suspect Kim passes the 'Professor Test' suggested in Notability, and a quick resort to Google shows me that he passes that alternative suggestion as well. The main Wikipedia Notability article notes that obscure content - which one could argue the field of webcomicry as a whole should be classed as - isn't harmful and shouldn't be deleted on the grounds of obscurity alone; recognition within 'the webcomic community', as the original complaint so puts it, should be sufficient recognition for the article to remain. Sar 03:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Comment The 'digging' the original complaint has done is patently cursory and incomplete. Aside from the single volume published via Lulu, Kim also has work in the City Limits anthology published by Blue Day Media, leaving aside a previous edition of Paper Eleven that was sold through a now-defunct independent publisher. The assertion that the Connecticon text linked could possibly be the original source for the body text of the article is absurd - the article history shows that the text in question was originally written in September of 2005. Private conversation with Kim reveals that he copied and pasted the Wikipedia article and gave that text to the Connecticon staff around the 6th of June, but that's obviously unverifiable information... however, while I suppose it is possible that Connecticon could have booked Dan Kim ten months in advance and written and published an announcement early enough for this article to be a copy of that text, would they really bother for someone who is apparently not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article? Realistically, cons don't typically publish such information until far closer to the event. Sar 03:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Comment According to the Wikipedia:Importance article - which is admittedly tagged as a work-in-progress and not a final policy/guideline - the criteria for whether an article is 'important' enough to warrant a wikipedia article include "There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be simultaneously interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community)". A Google search for "Clone Manga" produces at time of writing 'about 12,000' hits; I counted 3 in the first five pages which were not directly related to Dan Kim. These are, as noted by the original complaint, primarily from within 'the webcomics community', but I could not find anything in Wikipedia's policies that specifically excluded the webcomic community - or any other subset of the population - from consideration. Searching for the artist's name alone produces far less consistent results, but it is a very common name and thus this is to be expected. This suggests that at the very least the proposed 'Clone Manga' aggregation article is warranted, and I would argue that this infers importance on Dan Kim also, since he is the sole creator of the Clone Manga 'brand'. Sar 03:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Comment Lastly, and by far least relevantly... I don't want this to come across as a personal attack, User:JimmyBlackwing, but I am curious as to your reasoning if you don't mind me asking: You mention on your user page that you edit the AppleGeeks article, which links to the article on Hawk; it's thus reasonable to expect that you have read that article. The only way I can see that the article on Hawk substantially differs from Dan Kim's in terms of notability is that Hawk also contributed work to Penny Arcade's CCG. His article also makes the grandiose claim that "Haque is an accomplished artist, designer, and programmer. He is primarily a digital artist, and at the young age of 23, he already has a considerable body of work under his belt", but since an {{ AFD}} and not a {{ db-bio}} was applied that shouldn't be the problem. The article is no substantially about the PA CCG work, it is mentioned more as an also-ran - should Hawk's article also be deleted? I don't mean to assert that "X should stay because Y is already here" so much as to point out in an exemplary way that webcomics artists are necessarily not so notable as the kind of figures - politicians, athletes, TV personalities and so on - that the Notability guidelines really seek to specifically include, and this doesn't mean that they should necessarily be excluded. In the name of disclosure I am - as could probably have been guessed - a friend of Dan Kim, but am trying to work by objective metrics I would apply to anyone. Sar 03:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: If WP:BIO is not enough, then I must direct your attention to Dragonfiend's above comment. The article is not verified through reliable sources, and most likely cannot be. If reliable sources exist, then please add them to the article.
I might also add that WP:BIO specifies "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." I do not believe the author in question has received such reviews, though I have done some fairly deep digging on the subject. I am not sure if self-published work is notable, but even if that is the case, these reviews do not exist - making it a moot point.
In closing, I must note, in reference to your argument of 'about 12,000 hits for Clone-Manga', that an article for a webcomic with 16,000 hits was recently deleted. Okashina Okashi, the webcomic in question, is also only one comic - compared to Clone-Manga, which houses seven as of this writing. And in regards to your comment on my possible status of bias, I only stumbled upon the non-notability of these articles while using Alexa's traffic rankings feature. Whether or not Haque and/or Panagariya are notable is not something I have seriously considered until now, and I will look into it - nominating the articles for deletion if necessary. JimmyBlackwing 07:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: The WP:BIO article specifies many independent criteria for notability, it is unreasonable to pick one and cite hwo the subject does not fulfil that one criteria if it is already demonstrated that he fulfils another. Should be remove the Philip K Dick article because PKD was never a "Political [figure] holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or [a member] of a national, state or provincial legislature"?
I am broadly an inclusionist at heart, if a picky one, and my position on the Haque and Panagariya articles remains the same as this one - they are people who have achieved notable things within their field, therefore they are notable enough to warrant Wikipedia articles. There is every chance people will come to Wikipedia looking for information on those individuals, and it is more important that any information given is not false than that the subjects are 'famous' enough. Sar 09:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: Even so, the problem itself is the inability to prove that the information given is not false, due to the complete lack of reliable sources to take said information from. WP:V is an official policy of Wikipedia - not just a contested guideline. And unless there is some hidden reliable source on this with which one could verify the factuality of this article's contents, it is not going to last much longer. JimmyBlackwing 10:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: As I noted above in response to Dragonfiend, the Verifiability article also states "Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves". Is there a reason I'm missing that the PXI book and/or the Clone-manga.org website don't meet any of the criteria given for this, or that this doesn't apply? Again, I'm in favour of a merge, where such arguments would be more directly relevant, but I don't see why this shouldn't be sufficient in this case. To ignore them would be to suggest that Wikipedia doesn't trust Dan Kim as to who Dan Kim is, which is surely just as much a problem whether he's telling this information to us directly via his own site or in an interview with the Wall Street Journal? (Addendum: 'Proof' is not the point of Wikipedia's Verifiability clause - it is about passing the buck, deferring the blame. Or, more politely, allowing the reader to determine for themselves how much they trust and believe the source in question. The motto is 'Verifiability, Not Truth', not 'Verifiability In Search Of Truth'.) Sar 21:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: However, reading deeper reveals WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper). "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material." The subject of this article does not meet these requirements. JimmyBlackwing 23:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: The section headed "Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves", from which the passage I quoted was sourced, features after the section you mention and I believe that it is obvious that it is intended as a special case separate from the previous section on self-published works. To give an example, the self-published works section intends that Crank Scientist Joe cannot write a book on cold fusion in a teacup, have it published on Lulu and then cite that in a Wikipedia article about how cold fusion is perfectly possible in a teacup. The section on self-published works in articles about themselves allows that Crank Scientist Joe's biography of himself that is carried in the appendix to his teacup book should still be a valid source when writing the Wikipedia biography of this obviously-notable luminary of crank science... facts such as where he was born and where he lives, what his middle name and his birthday are are not contentious facts, and he should himself be in a position to reliably impart them. I believe this intent to be obvious because if it isn't the intent of the '...in articles about themselves' section, I cannot see what the purpose of that section possibly is, since it would be entirely excluded in all cases by the previous section that you cite and it would be entirely pointless to include it in an important and considered Wikipedia policy article. Sar 00:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment: While this may be true, allow me point out this section in WP:RS, which happens to be the extended version of what I noted before:

"Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym."

In addition, here we have a bit of information not noted in the WP:V article, but taken from the WP:RS section of the text you originally quoted:

"However, we should avoid relying on self-published material, such as a vanity-press book or a personal website, as a sole source. That is particularly true when the subject is controversial, and the self-publisher has no professional or academic standing."

The personal website and a self-published work are the sole sources for this information, to the extent of my knowledge. JimmyBlackwing 01:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment: Oh, indeed. However, again, Reliable Sources is a guideline, not a policy, and the text specifically uses language such as "we should avoid ... is particularly true", which suggests that while it is frowned upon, it is not specifically wrong, just preferrable to avoid. And as it goes, I quoted the Verifiability policy, not the RS guideline, which contains a couple of sections of similar text. Assuming for the sake of the argument we cannot easily avoid such a weak source in this case, it is the best source we have and there is no Wikipedia policy which says that it is invalid - indeed, policy specifically allows it. We are not talking about controversial claims, here, we are talking about basic biographical and descriptive information. I'm in total agreement that it's not a great source, and I'd prefer more 'reliable' information. I guess this is a difference of philosophy; it seems to me that the question is between preferring a lot of reasonably informative articles on a wide array of subjects that have only a few sources, or a tiny number of articles with references in triplicate. Personally, I think it is reasonable to believe that the contents are true (and unreasonable to doubt them, largely), and Wikipedia's policy - while preferring articles of a higher quality - allows it as it stands. Going out of our way to find guidelines and suggestions that tell us it is imperfect - which we already know - strikes me as a waste of time that could be better spent removing actual inaccuracies and lies. I firmly believe that the intent of these guidelines and suggestions you are picking up on is to ward off intentional fraud and force a leery stand against 'common knowledge', not to filter out factually true articles which happen to only have poor-quality sources available. Sar 12:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: Regardless of your personal attack, Wikipedia guidelines exist for a reason, and are not to be ignored without very good reason. As the very template at the top of guideline pages states, they are considered standards which all users should follow. Although it notes that they are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception, I have yet to see any reason why an exception should be made for this article. The subject of this article has not made a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in [his] field" any more than Greg Dean of Real Life Comics (his article was deleted) or Scott Kurtz of the extremely popular PvP (he has no article of his own, and never has). And the reason I cite these facts is not because I am relying on the "if that doesn't have an article, this shouldn't" argument - it is because even people more notable or on the same level of notability as this article's subject are still not notable enough to include on Wikipedia, by its very guidelines on notability. I might also mention that the professor test, which you cited earlier, is a proposed guideline, as seen on the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) page - not an actual guideline.
And one final thing I think I should mention: a person's creation being notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia does not automatically suggest that said person is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. For example: Max Goldberg, the creator of the incredibly popular site YTMND (a subject notable enough for inclusion), does not have an article of his own. This stems from a few key factors - namely, Goldberg has not made any other accomplishments which would be deemed noteworthy enough for an article of his own in Wikipedia, and YTMND is not notable enough to in turn make him notable by itself. An example of a modern work so notable that it pushed its creator into notability would be Counter-Strike - Minh Le is notable because of this work, and only because of this work. Daniel Kim is in a similar position to Goldberg's - his work, while notable, does not push him into a position of notability on its own. With that said, I do believe now that at least some parts of this article should be merged into Clone Manga as opposed to outright deletion. He is notable enough to be detailed to some extent past a mere mention in the article on his creation, if not in an article on his own. JimmyBlackwing 14:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: The relevant part of this comment is just a note of my agreement that the article should be heavily edited before a potential merging into Clone Manga; the more I look at it the less satisfied I am with the quality, particularly in terms of structure. By inference, I'm also kind of ashamed that it's sat in my watch list for this long and I haven't done this on my own initiative at any point. The rest of this comment is just unimportant philosophical rambling, really...
As guidelines go - well, I am perfectly happy to conform to policy where is exists and I am aware of it, and I am content that the onus is on me to go in search of policy in order to self-regulate my activity on Wikipedia. Policy is the hard-and-fast rules, and it follows that guideline - by virtue of not being policy - is not. As best as I can see - and this stands for the Reliable Sources guideline in question - the main reason guidelines are not policy is that that they tend to cover the areas where there is a black and white answer for the extremes - "A guy I know met Dan Kim on the stairs and he told me..." is not reliable (or even verifiable!), an entry in the Britannica is - but the middle ground is often indistinct and filled with qualifiers, conditions, and possibilities too great to enumerate entirely. Thus, when not talking about an obvious case, it is in my opinion wiser to consider the intent of the guideline when considering words such as 'should'. The intent of RS is not to exclude perfectly good information, it is to ensure that articles are not written based on information that is not reliable. I see no reason to consider Dan Kim an unreliable source on the subject of Dan Kim, and thus my position. Apologies if it was not clear, but there was no personal attack intended - I was merely attempting to summarise what I saw as my position and your position in order to more efficiently work out which parts it is pointless trying to convince you on and vice versa.
As notability goes, I would - had I had those articles mentioned in my watch list at any such time their merit or lack thereof was being discussed - have made much the same argument in their defence as in defence of this article: their existence does not harm the encyclopaedia in any way, so long as they meet policy's minimum standard, and more information is better than less information, so long as there are people willing to edit that information as and when it needs editing. In this case, both those criteria that I consider important are met, and I suspect that they would be in Greg Dean or Scott Kurtz' case. (Kurtz, from what I know of him, probably deserves an article to himself more than either Dean or Kim; I find the idea that there has never been one kind of puzzling.) The concept of notability which you keep returning to in order to justify the removal of [admittedly badly-] sourced, valid information is not policy or guideline for the moment for the simple reason - as noted on the Notability essay page itself - that is is a controversial razor to use when deciding what should and shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The examples you cite, for instance, make little sense to me. What is particularly special about Counter-Strike that makes Minh Le notable that isn't special about Real Life Comics or YTMND? Why does Counter-Strike make its creator notable where Team Fortress apparently doesn't? Assuming some particular quality of or level of awareness, where does that line fall? These are rhetorical questions, of course, the point is that it's fairly arbitrary where one draws that line, and I (and many others) will be wary of an argument that is entirely based on border cases in such a non-consensual ideal. That said, we're going around in circles now, and we both seem to be agreed that butchering editing and merging is the way forward. Sar 03:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was categorize, will be done soon. Mango juice talk 14:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

List of straight edge groups

Not really listcruft per se, but items such as these work better as categories. My vote is categorize and delete. -- H·G ( words/ works) 19:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • I don't think I follow. If the band is notable within a genre listed on Wikipedia, how could it not be notable enough for Wikipedia? Conversely, if a band is not considered notable enough for Wikipedia, how would it be considered notable within a genre listed on Wikipedia? -- H·G ( words/ works) 20:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • because all that means is that no one has taken the time to create a wiki entry for them. wiki is not a be all end all of information. which is why lists like this one have value when you're talking about a specific subject, like straight edge bands which is a very specific genre. Ondcp 01:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep although some of the bands are not notable, the subject is worthy of being noted. 24.57.5.161
  • I think the article is very well written, and thus it should stay. Also, the list of SxE groups/bands could be a little more thorough, but it's better than nothing.-- 70.58.50.136 02:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Whitney reply
  • Comment, deleting this list wouldn't delete reference to the subject; there's a great page on Straight edge already, and it certainly deserves a good article. My nomination for deleting this list was simply because I think this list would work better as a category. I'm not sure how a list article can be "well-written" if it's just a list, though I agree that there are reasons to argue for keeping it (see Ondcp's post above). -- H·G ( words/ works) 20:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Nina & Mike McDonnell

Not-notable per WP:MUSIC that I can verify - Nv8200p talk 19:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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


  • Hi. Its me again. Well this article has been here for a while since the AfD decision. The Category: Pop punk groups is pretty reflective, but not competely reflective of this list. Of course the Category doesnt assist in dividing the bands by dates or provide a list of independent pop punk bands. But, as it seems, this list will be deleted at some point. One thing that is going to be a problem though, is when people start vandalizing the pop punk article with more band names. Thats the good thing about this list. It receives the vandalism and the pop punk article is spared a bit. I do now understand the importance and utility of Categories, but in the meantime, I would rather have this list than more vandalism on the pop punk article. The list might seem to be arbitrary, but its acting as a buffer and it also can be a reminder that wikipedia needs to figure out new ways to sort and represent information. Xsxex 15:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply



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

The result was categorize; will be done soon. Mango juice talk 14:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

List of pop punk bands

Same as my nomination for List of straight edge groups above. These types of things really work better as categories. If there isn't already a sufficient category, I'd vote categorize; otherwise just delete. -- H·G ( words/ works) 19:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Secret recipes

Cruddy list = very yes Soup Blazer 19:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Cleveland steamer

This is exactly the kind of article that Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms cautions against. After a lot of good effort to improve and source the article, we are left with a bare dictionary definition, plus a rather short list of cultural references to the term (some of which don't refer to the term, but to the act only). The article includes references, but all the references are examples of use of the term, rather than about the term (as is specifically required for reliable sources about neologisms in WP:NEO. See my vote for specific criticism of the FCC document, which is the best source). The article was nominated for deletion before, three times, however, each of those nominations had a problem. The first was based on an ill-advised attempt to censor WP. The second (no consensus) was perhaps the best, but several of the keep votes are based on the idea that the article could be expanded and sourced properly, and it's now 3 months later but this hasn't happened; the keeping of the article in the previous round was also a factor. The third AfD was largely decided because of the outcome of the previous two, plus allegations of a bad faith nomination that led to a user conduct RFC. The most recent nomination is now two months ago, so I feel it's time the community can give the issue a fresh look. Mango juice talk 19:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as nominator. Let me point out that the FCC source is not a reliable one. In it, a "cleveland steamer" is defined by a radio jockey in a transcript that the FCC includes in a document. The FCC document is not about cleveland steamers, but rather, includes the transcript to demonstrate the portion of the show the FCC objected to in fining the radio station for broadcasting it. The article uses this source to back up the definition of a Cleveland steamer.. however, the definition in this source is just given off-the-cuff by a DJ (with apparently very little certainty). Mango juice talk 19:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Although it is gross, and dubious in ever having actually occured, it is a widely known and used term. If references are needed ... oh God, I don't want to have to look any up ... eww. Nonetheless, it passes WP:NFT with flying colours, and any other standard I could require it to uphold. If you don't buy the citations, that's one thing, but I'm sure it'll be easy enough to dig up ones everyone can agree on. WilyD 20:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment why does this article keep coming up on AfD?? Stop stuffing beans up my nose! :) :) - CrazyRussian talk/ email 20:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment; whilst I do not wish to vote either way on the issue at present, this is the fourth AfD in just over 7 months. The last was two months ago, and was for "keep". Have things changed significantly since then? If not, I don't believe this AfD is justified. This is verging on abuse of process. Fourohfour 22:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Yes, things have changed, namely, we've done the best we can to find sources and we still haven't. Also, two of those nominations were badly tainted debates. Please see my nomination; I explained all this. Mango juice talk 13:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator (or transwiki to Wiktionary). From WP:NEO: "To support [an article about] a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. ... Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." It appears that cleveland steamer is exactly such a term: there is demonstrable use of the term, but it has not yet been the subject of any writing that Wikipedia can actually use as a source. Therefore, the subject is necessarily original research and can't have an article written that conforms to policy yet. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The appropriate merge target is probably coprophilia. Mango juice talk 00:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Good call - would this be an acceptable compromise? When you strip away the unverified information there's really not enough for a full article on this subject. Ziggurat 00:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Been there, tried that. There was no consensus for a merge. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 00:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
If there's no consensus that just means we have to try harder to find one :) If I may ask, what was the reasoning against it last time it was suggested? Ziggurat 00:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Because the subject is notable enough as is, and deserving of an article. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 00:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Perhaps a Merge may be in the best interest. Nom has a some really good points. Maybe the act can be merged with a Dirty Sanchez and others, into some sort of master list of similar acts. Pete Peters 14:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP Instead of deleting the article, why don't you just expand it.-- Glaze 04:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP Why delete I rather get the definition here than some other stupid site, 19 July 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.248.13 ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. You want urbandictionary. Down the hall, third door marked "WC". -- GWO
    • Comment Cleveland Steamer is not really slang. I checked my desktop dictionary and it doesn't contain blowjob but that's not really slang either. The current entry may be small in its encyclopaedic content (i.e. just appearences in pop culture) but it's not a straight dicdef. Plus, Urban dictionary is basically just for things that are made up, not for real, ordinary, widely used terms like Cleveland Steamer. WilyD 12:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Um, forgive me, but that's not a very good comparison. Cleveland steamer is a very new, fringe-use term. Check out a googlefight. But even if you buy this comparison, I'd like to note we don't have an article on blowjob, we have a redirect to oral sex. Mango juice talk 13:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Cleveland Steamer is neither new, nor fringe. Of course it loses a google fight to blowjob - the porn content of the internet combined with the mainstream vs icky gives that an obvious edge. If you wanted to offer an appropriate merge target for this article, that might be worth considering, but deletion is an extremely poor idea. I doublecheck and see a merge target is already offered. I'll consider that issue. WilyD 13:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and merge with coprophilia. Attempts to expand significantly seem to have been unsuccessful. Perhaps, if further references are found and it can sustain as its own article, we can create a seperate article for it again in the future. -- backburner001 14:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I've never heard of it and I'm the biggest pervert around. 64.26.148.240 14:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Turpentine (band)

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC - Nv8200p talk 19:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Small band that doesn't meet WP:MUSIC requirements to be notable. -- Porqin 20:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Despite the fact that the article creator, JuanSacco, removed the AfD notice (which I have since restored), I feel the article is on a noteworthy subject. They've been reviewed in the Argentinian edition of Rolling Stone, as well as in less significant publications. They are an indie pop band from Argentina, so I feel that fits that whole notable style/prominent rep in area part of the Wikipedia policy. We might not know this band because they're not from our area, but now that we do, we shouldn't ignore it. PT ( s-s-s-s) 17:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - This band meets the following requeriments stated by the WP:MUSIC:
  • Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre.
  • Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre.
  • Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture.

and can be proven by checking the external links bit of the article. JuanSacco 20 July 2006 19:06 local time

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 attack article. -- Nlu ( talk) 20:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Bluetooth envy

This is a pointless article assuming people are evnious of people/products with bluetooth capability, there are no sources cites nor does this even resemble an encyclopedia entry Aspensti 20:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. There is nothing to merge. Proto:: type 11:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Battle Field 2

Dispute on talk page as to whether the page should be merged in Battlefield 2 or just deleted. The article is badly written, contains virtually no information already included in Battlefield 2 and should be deleted and redirected, judging by the poor quality of its contents and the lack of useful info. Martinp23 20:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Merge this page should be merged it has valuable contrabutions and a vandal delted the icon for it to be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunter91 ( talk • contribs)
    • Comment I removed the merge template replacing it with an AfD, as with an afd the decision can be merge. As I wrote in my nom, there was a lack of consensus on the talk page which is why I took the steps which I have done. Martinp23 15:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • this page should be merged as it has been the victim of vandals determined to muck up anything i contribute to because for some reason they have a personal vendetta against me.-- Hunter91 17:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Change the page name to 'A political history of Islam' then we will have a far more constructive artical. -- Mr blobby 19:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply


    • Comment - What on earth is going on here - do NOT delete votes - if you feel a user is a sockpuppet, then you should comment on it, not remove the vote made by the editor. -- Charlesknight 22:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete "battle field 2", everything mentioned in original is alot better--General Oumrov 14:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC) - This was deleted by another editor and I am trying to ensure this vote is counted -- Charlesknight 22:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete What is the fuss about this. Delete it! There is nothing really need to merge. Perhaps hunter91 or another conributor can copy a couple of lines. Apart from that it really isn't neccessary. Hunter91, should also watch out how he is treating other users. U do not delete other peoples opinion. They can voice their own opinion. If u do suspect them of vandalism or a sock puppet, take it up with an administrator. It makes u look like a vandaliser yourself otherwise!-- Chombawomba 12:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Comment litraly all these votes are by the same people but have created other sock puppet acounts i suggest the votting should be disgarded and admin should decide becasue this is simpley ridiculous i have recived about 10 e-mails from the vandals who openly admit to me and have to other users such as David Comley to being sock puppet acounts many admin also recognise these acounts as sock puppets and are trying to get them banned.

-- Hunter91 13:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete' I can see nothing worth keeping, alternatly you could change the page name to 'A political history of Islam' as i recomended, as it would probably reduce the probability of anybody accidentally stumbling upon the page.-- Mr blobby 14:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment charles knight it was discussed on my talk page and you have voted twice please remove the second vote this is exactly what i am talking about you are a vandal with sock puppet acounts trying to influece the voting and now you have voted twice! -- Hunter91 17:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment I would respectfully request that a) you refrain from calling people Sockpuppets and b) you carefully check the page before making such remarks I have voted ONCE. -- Charlesknight 17:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I do not know Charlesknight, but having worked with him on other articles, he seems an upright and honest user and if he does have sockpuppets, he would not use them here. Dev920


      • Comment How dare you accuse me of being a sock puppet! I'm now reporting you to an admin. I am fed up with this. Seriphyn 19:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Comment Seriphyn is not a sock puppet of anyone. His editing style does not match any other user involved in this dispute; I can also vouch for him, as a disinterested user(check my contributions, by all means), as I know him offline and he does not have any sockpuppets. Dev920 20:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge if any non-duplicated content can be found, otherwise Redirect. According to WP:REDIRECT: Redirects are used to "aid searches on certain terms" and to "make the creation of duplicate articles less likely...by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term". Removing the content of the page isn't the same as deleting it. If you are voting to delete because you deel that Battlefield 2 is more appropriate, please consider the possibility of redirecting if you haven't already. Redirects are cheap and creating one at this title wouldn't be harmful per WP:REDIRECT. This is a possible search term so it should be kept per User:Pboyd04.— WAvegetarian• (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Point; a redirect is suitable as 'Battle Field 2' is a possible search term, as said. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seriphyn ( talk • contribs) .
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

April Grace

No claim of notability; apparently a very minor seldom-working actress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valrith ( talk • contribs) 20:36, July 18, 2006

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

A Student's Guide to Liberal Learning

Contested prod. Non-notable "booklet." Some relevant discussion at Talk:A Student's Guide to Liberal Learning. delete. Mango juice talk 20:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mango juice talk 16:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Scum punk

Dubious whether this can really be classified as a subgenre of punk rock. It more or less seems to sum up the practices of G.G. Allin but I can't find any valid sources for this "genre". Punkmorten 20:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • DELETE Stupid article -- Aspensti 20:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral - Granted, only 270 unique Ghits; not huge, but this isn't incredibly small for unique hits on subgenres. It appears to be familiar enough to its purveyors and fans to be a legit subgenre, but not too well-known outside of that group. The only reason other WP pages point to it is because it's included in the {{punk}} template. I'll admit I've heard the term before, so I came here expecting to be this article's defender, but I've switched positions on this a few times while writing this comment out, so I'm staying neutral for now. -- H·G ( words/ works) 01:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect (vote change) into Punk subculture. That article mentions it briefly, but that subsection could use more elaboration. It'd be the only subgenre there not to have its own page, but I really don't think it's notable enough to merit its own article. (Some of the other subgenres on that page aren't, either; maybe they should come down as well.) -- H·G ( words/ works) 18:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment The punk subculture article is running the risk of being way too long. Having all the information related to scum punk in the punk subculture article would put way too much emphasis on this very minor style. I would rather the information on scum punk there be put into the scum punk article, and only a couple of sentences about it and a link in the punk subculture article, in order to balance due emphasis and maintain reasonable size. That is, if we decide to keep any scum punk information at all, of course. Ecto 18:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. WesleyDodds 10:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I've seen it mentioned before in zines and such not to mention I've heard others mention it before ever knowing of this article. Real subgenre, though just not known well because of it's small and underground following. Gold Stur 00:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Do you think you could please dig up some sources? I am not at all framiliar with scum punk, so I do not think I could find any off hand. Ecto 18:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Undecided. Ecto 18:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Jul. 18, '06 [21:31] < freak| talk>

Jackpike

Delete NN band. Award is either too minor or not real, per article talk - CrazyRussian talk/ email 20:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mango juice talk 16:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Ismael Camacho

The first version of this article was massive, including half a novel! It has now been chopped down to a sensible size. But it is still a personal memorial with no assertion of notability. Author did not even manage to link to her own website. -- RHaworth 20:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Hi Mr. RHaworth
    I have edited my article. I hope that you like it now. You can find a reference to my father's novel at [59]. It's a bibliography of the Colombian novel. Please go to page 45
    Maria 19- 07- 2006
    • It's difficult to find the articles he wrote for the Colombian newspapers in 1970. There wasn't any internet at that time, so I won't find anything on line. His play was famous in Colombia in 1969. I'm trying to find anything about it in the Colombian newspapers. The archieves on line don't go back to the sixties. It would be easier if it had been in England. Perhaps I can get a time machine. I give you again the link where you'll find a reference to his novel (Go to page 45) [60]

      I have to find archives of the Colombian newspapers on the internet. An impossible task! I think it's easier to build the time machine.
      Maria 19- 07- 2006
      • Mr RHaworth and friends.
        I have been thinking about this. You only want in your Wikipedia people who are very, very, very, very famous. My father only had some fame in Colombia as a writer in the sixties. I have been trying to find the articles in the Colombian papers about him but it has been impossible. So I don't mind whatever conclussion you reach. I have translated his book into English. If it is published again, perhaps he could be in your wikipedia.
        Thank you
        Maria
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Jean-Claude La Marre

Vanity Sanbeg 23:42, 13 July 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, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:08, 18 July 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, Will ( message me!) 09:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment OK, to not let the poor guy get stuck in AfD limbo, I looked up his movie and found 3 1/2 articles. Sources are posted on the talk page. The article should still be deleted as-is, but if someone wants to adopt this they can contact me and I can forward the text of the sources. ~ trialsanderrors 09:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD G4. This article was just deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy But Dead. This particular version appears to be a copy and paste from Comixpedia (c.f. Comixpedia:Happy But Dead), which I'd moved over there from here last month. – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 22:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Happy but dead

non-notable webcomic Crossmr 21:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Gander Academy

I sooooo didn't want to do this, but I'm fool enough to do it anyway. Originally listed as speedy per A1 (empty). The article at that time was simply an infobox. The speedy tag was removed and two sentences were added which, succinctly, tell the reader that this is an elementary school. With apologies and no intent to impute endorsement by Dpbsmith, I've applied the WP:BEEFSTEW test. The answer to every question is "no". Add to that the fact that elementary schools are not inherently notable, WP:SCHOOLS did not pass and is not binding one way or another, and precedent is not supposed to apply, I'd say that this article must go. Agent 86 21:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The New Defenders of Earth

Contested Prod. It's "an upcoming book" with no named author or publisher. Totally fails google. Someone's unpublished work that they hope to expose here? Clearly not notable or verifiable. Fan-1967 22:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - created by a sockpuppet, Dundee Cake, of General Tojo. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The symptoms of Parkinson's Disease and Biochemistry of Parkinson's Disease

POV forks of Parkinson's disease created while the main article is protected. More details on the nature of the articles is available at Talk:Parkinson's disease#Possible forks created. -- Allen3  talk 22:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This series is still months away, the article is pure unreferenced speculation. AfD is not a vote, and the keep reasons are much weaker than the delete reasons. — Fire Fox 21:49, 23 July '06

Big Brother (UK series 8)

The article is based on total speculation, and includes no information that isn't already in other Big Brother UK articles. JD don't talk| email] 22:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

It's still full of speculation, even if it is going to return. -- Lorian T C 13:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now, create it later once it has been officially confirmed -- Alex9891 (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Alex9891. godgoddingham333 17:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Save it has been confirmed by both Davina and Dermot on numerous occassions - Jezabelda 08:55, 22 July 2006
  • Save Dermot Confirmed it and then it was later confirmed by Davina. PB22 08:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Save Davina and Dermot have both confirmed BB8
  • Save if it has been confirmed. I will delete The show's format is expected to be unchanged from previous years....There has been no runner up prize in previous years. (aka. the second paragraph) as we have NOT been told that the format will remain the same - they could well try someting different. Anon Dude 17:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Even if Big Brother does happen next year, do we really need an article that has absolutely no information in it, nearly 10 months before it's even going to be broadcasted? The article can be re-made nearer the time, and when there's actually information worth going in it. -- JD don't talk| email] 17:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Daniel Sosa

Joke or vanity page. Google does not support the assertions. Mr Stephen 22:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Viktor Kozlov (politician)

NN-bio, his major achievements are the deputy chairman of a dacha co-operative Moscow writer. Was speedied twice but the author insists on AfD abakharev 23:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Harold Donald Hopkins

Doesn;t appear to meet the notability requirements for academics. Artw 23:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Harlequin Theatre Guild

Non-notable theater group. Artw 23:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, this appears to be a vanity page ("We are the SALT (Student-Artist-Leader-Teacher) of De la Salle University") at best, and maybe copyvio at worst. Either way, notability is not established--"Harlequin Theatre Guild" gets 22 unique Ghits, and the article provides no other assertion of notability. -- H·G ( words/ works) 07:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - not referenced and they say "The Harlequin Theatre Guild is the resident theatre group of the De la Salle University-Manila. It is a venue for student artists to hone their talents in theater arts" - sorry but WP is not a place for this group to showcase their talents. Student theatre without a convincing notability case. BlueValour 04:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Ben Barton

The only real claim to notability is The Red Book which is from a vanity press Plane Tree (UK) .

A vanity press charges thousands of pounds to print ANY book, regardless of quality, and will not expect to sell any copies other than those to the author themselves. Plane Tree is a POD printer who specialise in new small-press books and reprints of out-of-print books. You are fudging the terminology! Vanity press = exploited writer, out of pocket and devalued. POD printer = writer in control. The difference is clear. (N.B 'The Red Book' is still number one on Amazon's Hot Books chart - has sold over 1000 copies in two months - very large number for a poetry book!) Poetics uk 23:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Fair enough, although today's bestselling book under Gay & Lesbian > Literature > Poetry > Gay isn't really the same as "number one on Amazon's Hot Books chart." (Congratulations on doing as well as you are, though.) However, at this point I still don't see how WP:BIO is met. Probably the easiest criteria for the subject to meet would be "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." Thus, if citations can be provided in the article of several independent reviews or awards from sources meeting WP:V and WP:RS, I'd be willing to change my vote. -- H·G ( words/ works) 20:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • 'The Red Book' IS on the 'Hot Books' chart - has now been in the top 5 for six weeks. Hot Books Poetry OK - feel like it's we're fighting a losing battle here, but regards sources, I will only say that 'The Red Book' / Video Nation aren’t the only reasons Ben Barton is noted as a poet! These were just noted to make the biography succinct.

For over ten years his poems have appeared in many of Britain's foremost literary magazines, these include: Acorn, Carillon, Decanto, Harlequin, Masque, New Horizon, Parameter, Roadworks, Scriptor, Secret Attic, Sentinel, Time Haiku, The Ugly Tree and X Magazine. Regards your “independent reviews and awards”, there are many sources, which because they are not online, don't seem to be valid to wiki people:

  • Reviews of 'The Red Book':
    Writers' Forum, August 2006, Writing Magazine September 2006, Terrible Work, The Frogmore Papers Summer 2006, iota 75, Poetry in a Cup, Poetry Kit.
    Ben also won the Folkestone Faber/Ottakars Poetry Competition for National Poetry Day two years consecutively (1997-1998).
    Reviews of his poetry/career:
    e-poets.com, Writers’ News October 2004/January 2000.
    His links with Derek Jarman:
    Pyramid Magazine Fall 2006.
    Also his Derek Jarman project with photographer Jennifer Harris has just been commissioned by the Kent Council to go on a countywide tour of art galleries. He is also a full-time writer for Britain’s biggest selling subscription magazine, Saga – some of his articles can be read here: ONE TWO THREE This information is not exhaustive. I think people have concentrated too much on the POD printing of a particular book and ignored the full scope of the writer and his publishing acheivements. Poetics uk 22:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Sources that are not online are perfectly valid , it's just harder for us to check them. The above does lend some weight to notability as a poet. Some points in connection with it
a) There are very many little literary magazines that flower and die. Which of the above are major, longstanding ones that I can find in a good reference library? What issues should I be checking?
b) "In 1997 aged fifteen he won first prize in the Ottakars/Faber & Faber poetry competition for National Poetry Day in his home county of Kent. The following year his poem The Re-Birth Remembered repeated this success by winning the competition again. The poem was also a winner in the National competition and was published in the accompanying anthology. Reviews at the time labelled him ‘Britain’s youngest, most published poet’." That seems to be a regional rather than a national win and in a Children's section.
c) Links with Derek Jarman - what are they? Notability is not contagious.
d) The Saga magazine links are short travel articles - INMHO they add nothing to a claim of notability. Thousands of articles of this genre are written (they also seem to be unattributed but I'm not disputing authorship).
----
"unattributed" ? On my screen articles clearly state 'Ben Barton' in the intro.
----
Ok - I see the name now. However, my point is that it's a travel article. Dlyons493 Talk 11:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply


e) In general, I'd personally expect to see much more published and by mainstream publishers before a Wiki article was warranted. Dlyons493 Talk 00:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - repost. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Laser Perfect Inc.

This page is a re-create of the recently approved for delete page Laser Perfect. The original article and this one are spam. Rob (Talk) 23:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment Since this is a repost of Laser Perfect, I am taging this page for speedy deletion. I had moved the page to Laser Perfect Inc. without realizing that it had been deleted before. Travelbird 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Mark David

Article effectively fails existence with 0 google hits; subsequently failing WP:BIO. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I picked Official PlayStation Magazine, because it already covered the topic. If anyone wants to add info on this to Game demo be my guest. Mango juice talk 16:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

PlayStation Demo Discs

I just don't see why this article is here. Why not an article on Xbox demo discs? If not deleted, at least merge or redirect into Game demo. Thunderbrand 00:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Rowell Fair Society Band

Article does not establish notability. As well, it appears to violate WP:V. Stanfordandson 00:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_18&oldid=1081095760"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 17 July 19 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. This has gone on long enough. Painting in very broad strokes: on the one hand, we have a vast number of editors who argue persuasively that this article does (and must by its nature) consist of unverifiable claims, original research, and no reliable sources. On the other hand, we have a slightly smaller number of editors who argue that this article should be kept for various reasons: (1) That Wikipedia has a duty to not delete articles about any entity criticizing it, (2) that various editors who favor deletion are acting in bad faith, and (3) since we have other articles that are similar to this one, it's unfair to delete this one. Those three "keep" arguments are all spectacularly unpersuasive, and (for the most part) do not address the objections raised to the article other than to assert their falsity. Added to this we have the spectacle of solicitation and/or spamming for keep votes. I have no opinion on Encyclopedia Dramatica — never having heard of it before tonight — but I am using my discretion and bringing this to a close, so we can hopefully all move on. Nandesuka 05:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Encyclopædia Dramatica

This article has been created under different spellings: The first AfD: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Encyclopedia_Dramatica resulted in delete. Article was recreated under a different spelling. 2nd spelling: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica resulted in keep, 3rd spelling: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Encyclopaedia_Dramatica resulted in no consensus. (This AfD uses the same spelling as the 2nd AfD).

This site does not appear notable (WP:WEB) outside of a rather limited sub-community. Additionally this article falls well foul of WP:V and is likely in conflict with WP:NOR. As well, it is very likely that this article meets the requirements for vanity deletion (see the specific vanity reason on WP's deletion policy) as there are very likely editors who edit on Encyclopædia Dramatica who concurrently edit the Wikipedia article that corresponds to it (in conflict of interest). This site appears to only be geared as an attack site and lately the article has become a bit of an attack page, that in combination with it's lack of notability and vanity problems merits a deletion. ( → Netscott) 01:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Note to closing admin(s): Please refrain from merely counting keep or delete "votes" in determining consensus on whether this article should be kept or not. Please take the time necessary to read the arguments for and against deletion including discussion on the talk page of this AfD and properly evaluate said arguments in deciding the outcome of this AfD. Thanks. ( → Netscott) ( → Netscott) 05:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The_Psychology_Wiki, Jurispedia, Mac_Guide, Open_Source_Reiki, OpenFacts, OrthodoxWiki, PSConclave, PeanutButterWiki, Personal_Telco, ProductWiki, Quicksilver_wiki, Science_Fiction_and_Fantasy_Wiki, Star_Trek_Gaming_Universe, State_Wiki, and Symbolwiki.
Definite keep per all of this. rootology 21:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Point taken about all the other articles. Having said that, we've got some set criteria for notability and I think we should stick with them until these rules are changed by consensus. I'm not saying this out of some slavish devotion to rules; I respect the fact they are formed by a broader consensus and are our best bulwark against a much busier, messier and more subjective deletion process. (In the meantime, maybe we've just been handed a working list of wiki-related articles for PROD tags.) -- A. B. 18:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, perhaps speedy as a blatant WP:POINT violation. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 21:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete and my worst fears are proving true...even SchmuckyTheCat who may or may not be also a SysOp at at encyclopedia dramatica sums up my fears with his comment above "ED is going to be the new GNAA". Wikipedia is not here to promote that website and many editors from there are now going to come here to filibuster this vote. The page is anarchy, the supportors of the wesbite editing it are nothing but trolls for the most part, and the article is a slap in wikipedia's face. I can see no reason at this time for this article to exist...it violates original research, has virtually no reliable sources and is being used as a soapbox for their own promotional agenda, which violates what wikipedia is not. Use a MOAB on this thing and send any remains to Yucca Mountain.-- MONGO 21:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Removing article is unneeded. If there is a problem with some content, then delete that content. Articles referencing WP are a small minority on ED. Most are about Livejournal. Even if the article exists only as a stub it is of no less merit than related stubs I listed in my vote. rootology 22:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. As the purpose of this site appears to be an attack on Wikipedia and/or certain Wikipedians, and consdiering the other reasons cited by MONGO, it needs to go. -- Donald Albury( Talk) 21:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep as per Rootology. Since when has it been against policy to list those that criticize WP? Blatant home field POV.  T.K.   TALK  22:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • We delete attack articles. -- Donald Albury( Talk) 22:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • As we should. This is not an attack article. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 22:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • This editor has admited on his userpage that he is a SysOp at encyclopedia dramatica. Painly put, Badlydrawnjeff's POV here should be obvious. The article may not NOW be an attack article but it certain was just yesterday. I can find little rationale to allow these people to use wikipedia resources to promote their hostile website.-- MONGO 22:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
          • Um, people are not prohibited from having POVs, only articles are. And it's not like you don't have a conflict of interest here either, having been mocked by the site. Karwynn (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
          • It wasn't one yesterday, either, actually. You might actually want to do a tiny bit of research before blowing things out of proportion in the future. Your repeated violations of policy during this charade the last couple days has been noted by more than one person, and your personal investment in this should also be noted. If this is how you treat people who defended you on the talk page, I'd sure hate to be your enemy. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 22:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
          • Please provide a diff link proving the ED Wikipedia article was an attack article. Also, is it against the rules or policies of WP to be an admin at ED as well? Please cite this policy. Also, "Painly put, Badlydrawnjeff's POV here should be obvious." As is yours, as stated (citing you here for clarity/relevance, not a policy violation--DO NOT EDIT MY COMMENT, original link: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Tony_Sidaway&diff=prev&oldid=64453125:

          • I agree...problem it, it has been through two or three attempts to delete it. I may redirect it later on, or make it so insignificant, it won't be a troll magnet as it is now. I'll wait until they remove their nonsense from the mainpage and we then lift the protection. Then the article will be fixed once and for all. They think they will win, but policy is on the side of wikipedia.-- MONGO 12:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

          • I contend this whole vote is done (ultimately) in bad faith... rootology 22:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Define how this is an attack article. It links to a site with SOME pages that attack WP. Wikitruth still exists however, is much more detailed, and links to a site dedicated to trashing Wikipedia completely. I call bias based on the MONGO/ED incident. rootology 22:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • NOT an attack article! Just because a site links to pages that criticize/attack WP does not mean they should lose their listing! The article as it stands is a collection of factual information, with no bias or attack as far as i can tell. Which is what a WP article should be.  T.K.   TALK  22:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • How interesting that you yourself are using the word "attack". ( → Netscott) 22:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Well, the site clearly says it is 'parody/satire' so why would the rest of the site beconsidered parody but the wikipedia parts be considered serious attacks? Can't have it both ways. Either the site is serious, which means we can use the statements on it as fact. Or it's not, which means we cannot trust what it says and therefor it is not attacking, merely parody/satire/etc like uncyclopedia-- Bouquet 22:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete. per nom and Dalbury. -- Aude ( talk contribs) 22:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, no one will take us seriously if we delete our critics. Verifiability is possible for some version of this article, don't take the nuclear option for what should be an editing dispute. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I seriously doubt anyone takes Encyclopædia Dramatica to be a site geared towards "criticism" of Wikipedia... it's all about attacking... is that not obvious? ( → Netscott) 22:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • It's not obvious because it's not correct. It's all about humor! There's plenty of articles in there that aren't attacking, or even sensical at alL! Read the website, you'll see what I mean. Karwynn (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per Rootology.-- Nosmik 22:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. My view on this is that there are some subjects--Daniel Brandt, Encyclopedia Dramatica, and Wikipedia Review being chief amongst them--on which we cannot expect to write dispassionately and neutrally. We're better off concentrating on the production of a high quality encyclopedia that omits those few subjects on which we should clearly disqualify ourselves from commenting as if we were neutral parties. In these cases we are not.-- Tony Sidaway 22:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete-The website does not offer "criticism" of wikipedia, just lowbrow and slanderous attacks (Jimbo is a pedophile, etc). Brandt's Wiki-watch is more constructive then this site. Clearly self published and original research. 205.157.110.11 22:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • keep-The website is notable.
  • Keep This reminds me somewhat of the Coca Cola userbox (or was it the Firefox one? water under the bridge now), where they used a copyrighted image, and the box was deleted rather than removing the image. If there's an issue with the article, try to fix it, rather than rushing to delete it. -- Toffile 23:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I agree that it should be cleaned up, but a few Wikipedia admins are blanking large areas of the article then hiding behind the loosest parts of Wikipedia policy to justify their actions, this whole thing stinks of bad faith. ~ IICATSII 08:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Karwynn. -- Elonka 23:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not only does it fail WP:V, WP:NOR but it also fails WP:WEB. Has the site "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself"? No. Has the site "won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation"? Again no. Finally, has content been "distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster"? This last condition it might have some chance of getting, but if so, someone needs to point it out. I was unable to find any evidnece of it meeting the third condition, and it clearly fails the first two. Therefore delete. JoshuaZ 23:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • As mentioned in my initial vote, this logic of deletion for Wike-related projects means that nearly EVERY such article in Wikipedia must be removed as well. As those articles remain in WP space, so must the ED article. rootology 23:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Absolutely not. The failure for some articles to follow basic issues does not mean that we have to ignore the guidelines here. If you want to go through and AfD a lot of the minor Wikis I won't disagree with you. If you want the guideline applied consistently that's what you should do, not save this one in defiance of the guidelines. JoshuaZ 00:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Perfectly logical argument on the part of JoshuaZ. Well expressed there JoshuaZ. ;-) ( → Netscott) 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Well, if the concensus based on the voting is to keep, or no concensus, does that take precedence over individual admin action/freedom of choice in deleting? I am curious as there is at least one admin "hostile" to this article's existence, and possibly another. rootology 00:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
          • This site is not notable and the others are likely not. As well with editors like User:badlydrawnjeff editing on the article as an admitted sysop on Encyclopædia Dramatica you've got a conflict of interest that corresponds to vanity which is a very valid reason for deletion. ( → Netscott) 00:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
            • The notability of the site is still being debated after the issue was first raised a day or two ago, and this deletion was immediately forced through after editors complained about perceived bias (almost immediately after). Admins do a good job, but this does feel like a retaliatory nomination, especially given the ferocity of people to "get rid of it". This nomination so far is heading based on votes to either a weak to solid keep, or a no concensus. If that happens, the article should remain while it gets worked out further on the page itself. rootology 00:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Low traffic website. Ramseystreet 23:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep bad faith nomination. -- Ozmodiar.x 00:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, Dalbury, Hipocrite et al. Not particularly notable; vanity applies. Apparently virtually impossible to source. Note to those voting "Speedy keep": Since there has already been at least one delete vote, Speedy keep is not possible. Speedy keep is for all Keep votes. KillerChihuahua ?!? 00:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Please read speedy keep part 5, and note that many articles have been speedy kept rightfully due to WP:POINT violations. I'm a monger about these sort of things, as I'm sure you know, and this would likely qualify. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 00:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Where is the foundation of this ridiculous accusation of WP:POINT? ( → Netscott) 00:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Multiple renominations, bad faith at the article, bad faith by various editors, falsehoods being strewnabout, etc. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 00:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
          • None of what you mentioned here describes my involvement surrounding this article (and now nominator for its deletion). Where's the assumption of good faith? ( → Netscott) 00:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
            • THe same place it is with me, if that's what you're thinking. Actually, you have renominated it yet again, even though the first attempts didn't get anywhere, so it does actually descibe your involvement. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 00:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
              • If there's WP:POINT happening here it's that an admitted sysop (yourself) for the site that corresponds to this article is editing on it and arguing for the existence of it. Prior to today I've never once edited on the article nor participated in any discussions surrounding its deletion. My reasoning for the need for the deletion of this article is very valid. ( → Netscott) 00:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
                • And when's the last time I did anything substantial there? Hell, when's the last time I made any sort of substantive edit at the article? My point stands, your labeling of my argument as "ridiculous" is out of line. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 00:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
                  • Your falsely accusing me of WP:POINT is out of line particularly with your established partisanship in this whole affair. ( → Netscott) 00:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
                    • I don't believe it was false, and I don't beleive I have any "partisanship" in this affair. I haven't edited at the site in ages, and I didn't approve of what caused MONGO to act out improperly. You coninue to assume bad faith about MY motives from the very beginning of this thread. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 00:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
                      • Yes, your timely edit went some way to reduce your appearance of partisanship. I see. ( → Netscott) 00:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
                        • It's funny that a massive rehaul of my userpage is considered timely. Is it false, or are you just trying to get me fired up at this point. Do a little research, get a clue as to what I've actually been up to instead of continually assuming bad faith. You should certainly know better. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 00:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
                          • Actually I haven't really assumed bad faith on your part but your participation both on the article and here illustrate masterfully my contention that this article merits deletion on vanity grounds. ( → Netscott) 00:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
                            • Actualy, you have and continue to. You have yet to demonstrate vanity or the exent of my actual participation in the editing process, either here OR there. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 00:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
                              • Hmmm, there is nothing to demonstrate here. You are an admitted sysop at Encyclopædia Dramatica. It doesn't really matter how active you are there now. On your userpage it doesn't say "former admin" does it? Ergo if you are editing on the article about it and arguing for the article's existence, it is safe to assume that you are doing so with some motivation of vanity (as likely a number of other editors are). ( → Netscott) 00:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
                    • Given what appears to be possible partisanship on BOTH sides, I again bring up what I wrote above, and my concerns of bias/retaliation over the whole MONGO 3rd party thing in all this: "The notability of the site is still being debated after the issue was first raised a day or two ago, and this deletion was immediately forced through after editors complained about perceived bias (almost immediately after). Admins do a good job, but this does feel like a retaliatory nomination, especially given the ferocity of people to "get rid of it". This nomination so far is heading based on votes to either a weak to solid keep, or a no concensus. If that happens, the article should remain while it gets worked out further on the page itself." rootology 00:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Guys, can we cool it down a little? Or at least move it to the talkpage. -- Bane s 01:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Reasonable people can disagree about WP:WEB, but I think it's too low a bar as it is. I would support raising the standards for inclusion. Tom Harrison Talk 12:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I disagree with you 100% CBD, Notability has no validity as an argument for deletion... and OR / RS / V are absolutely reason to delete any article that does not meet these well defined policies. WP:WEB is a guideline and as such can be argued either way... but WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS are non-negotiable.-- Isotope23 01:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Yes, those are all policies... about the content of articles. They have nothing whatsoever to do with deletion. All but a very few Wikipedia articles failed the 'verifiability', 'original research', and/or 'reliable sources' policies when they were first created... indeed, the vast majority of articles still fail those policies. Yet no one is arguing for the deletion of several hundred thousand articles... because those have never been and never will be criteria for deletion. The frequent citation of them on this page is an embarrassing example of searching for a pretext to accomplish a goal founded on entirely different motivations. Lack of notability IS a reason for deletion, and ED is within the (very wide) grey area defined by Wikipedians' wildly differing notability standards... but it seems clear that ED is notable enough that it would be unambiguously kept (like many less notable web-sites are currently) if the subject matter were not so controversial. Which is what this really comes down to in the end... an effort to exclude information on ED because the site is annoying/offensive/obnoxious/et cetera. If it weren't then the page probably never would have been nominated for deletion or, if it were, a handful of 'high notability standards' deletionists would be the only ones voting delete. A few people have been up-front about deleting for these reasons and to prevent strife et cetera... which are valid motivations, but I think outweighed by the importance of impartiality in how we review and maintain articles. -- CBD 13:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The argument presented is not that the article fails WP:V (which it does), but that it is fundamentaly unverifiable - that it cannot pass WP:V, ever. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Hipocrite has it exactly right. You may disagree CBD but any article that fails WP:V and WP:NOR can and should be deleted if it cannot be verified. It has nothing to do with personal feelings about Encyclopædia Dramatica (to be honest, I quite like the site).-- Isotope23 18:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
As I said in my original vote... a good deal of the article IS verifiable. The claim that something can't be verified unless it has been printed in a major newspaper is just silly. The current user count of Wikipedia has been included in the Wikipedia article for years... despite not being stated in a 'verifiable third party source' or, since we got big enough that they did start reporting it, despite contradicting outdated figures in such sources. How is this possible? Are we 'breaking the rules'? No... we're using a primary source. The Wikipedia statistics page and/or list of users can be linked to directly as verification. ED exists. It has users. It has articles. Those articles are on various subjects. All of these things are easily verifiable by any user of Wikipedia... indeed, far more verifiable than references to obscure out of print books, which we accept without controversy. If the ED article were to say, 'ED is the funniest site on the internet' that would be POV. If it were to say, 'Josh Bumblemeyer of the New York Times says ED is the funniest site on the internet', that would be a verifiable opinion from a reliable third party source. If it were to say, 'ED claims to be the funniest site on the internet', that would be a verifiable claim made by the primary source (not that I am suggesting the make this claim - just an example). Verifiable means that there is some way for the reader to check that the info in the article is accurate. For most of this article... there is. Ergo, no... the claim that it can never be verified is just false. -- CBD 11:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, as per nom and others. Strong failing of WP:V, with little potential for not. Jefffire 12:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete It's been said above already. Karma fist p 13:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete We have heard their intentions, to which they are welcome, but Wikipedia does not exist to help them achieve those goals. 800 ghits, ZERO google news, ZERO cited reliable sources, and basically it's just an offsite troll-a-rama. Just zis Guy you know? 14:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. I was asked about this, but reluctant to vote. The discussed site seems to exist for no purpose other than abuse and insult of Wikipedia(ns); and the article itself seemed to be pushed mostly as vanity by editors associated with ED. Nonethless, I had tended to feel the website itself did just barely reache notability guidelines, so didn't feel like I could quite vote delete. However, I had separate occasion to reflect on Wikipedia:External links, which seems to suggest several grounds to make this deletable. One is simply that linking to outright libel reflects badly on WP. But also linking to blogs like ED is generally deprecated. LotLE× talk 14:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I must totally agree with CBD's 12:32, 19 July 2006 comment above. Everything in the article is, or can be, phrased in a way which matches all Wikipedia rules for content. As for how notable Encyclopædia Dramatica is, I provide an example myself: I heard it mentioned (in real life!) a few days ago and had no idea what it was. I therefore looked it up on Wikipedia, where I found what appears to be a quite accurate article about its content, as well as the link to this discussion about possible deletion. Kremmen 14:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep AfD ain't for content disputes. JeffBurdges 14:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete does not assert notability per WP:WEB. KWH 14:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Despite the emotional and dramatic pleas from its backers, I don't see how this website is notable in an encyclopdic sense. It's really just a vanity article. Deli nk 14:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and for the http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Lulz lulz. -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:V & WP:WEB. this is obviously an emotional issue for a lot of people on both sides of the debate. The primary problem I see here is that there are no reliable sources given that show how this site meets WP:WEB guidelines. The "references" are a members list, statistics page, Alexa rankings, a Washington Post blog, and a Newsvine article. the stats and Alexa rankings are meaningless for WP:WEB purposes and the media mention is a blog... not a reliable source. The Newsvine article is barely a paragraph. Additionaly, verifiability problems arise from the fact that most of the cites are either links to Wikipedia discussion/AfD pages or Encyclopædia Dramatica pages. All in all, ED falls well below accepted guidelines for this sort of material.-- Isotope23 15:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Like it or not, we must abide by our central policies, WP:V and WP:NOR. We cannot keep articles that do not meet these policies. Most of the "keep" voters seem to be arguing that it should be kept because it is notable -- note that notability is not a criterion for inclusion, whereas V and NOR are criteria for inclusion. It is irrelevant whether the subject is notable or not if it cannot be written about based on existing, reliable, reputable, secondary sources.
    I strongly encourage the closing admin to disregard all comments, both for and against the article, if they are based on the mistaken assumption that either notability or the lack thereof is able to override the core policies on which the whole of Wikipedia is founded. — Haeleth Talk 16:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The solution to a blog review is to move it to external links, or even remove it, but not delete the article. Mongo's conduct has nothing to do with this, and should be addressed at WP:ANI, or for a matter of such detail, by an WP:RfC. Septentrionalis 16:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. It is nn and breaks WP:V. FloNight talk 16:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete on grounds of original research, verifiability, and notability. -- Kuzaar- T- C- 16:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete as not meeting WP:N. In particular, it fails to meet WP:WEB summarized here (with my additions in caps):
The content itself has NOT been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works ... The website or content has NOT won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation ... The content is NOT distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators ...
This one seems cut and dried for all the disputation it's generating here; perhaps all the other reasons pro and con are muddying the waters. The site's criticism of Wikipedia should not be a factor even if harsh. A Dramatica sysop's involvement is irrelevant since we're voting on an article, not an editor; the devil himself can write an article for all I care if it meets the guidelines. Vanity can get cleaned up and should not be a reason to delete if otherwise notable. Two previous failed AfDs are instructive but do not prove notability (as someone else claimed). Original research can potentially get cleaned up, but then that might also fix the notability issue. I started to vote "weak" delete based on 117,00 Google hits, then I noted only 109 were unique. There are no Google news hits from the last 7 weeks. Checking alternate spelling ("æ", "ae") gives similar results. Prove notability (or change WP:WEB) and I will be happy to change my vote. -- A. B. 16:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Google Hit Question have people tried "Encyclopedia Dramatica" or are they just using the ae? Hardvice 16:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Unique Google Hits are completely meaningless. "Microsoft" only gets 460 unique hits. Silensor 16:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • I was unaware of the unique hit issue. I did, however, look at (but not open) all 109 links and none were to traditional media; some might have been to notable blogs but I wouldn't know. As for the spelling, as noted in my previous comment, I tried all 3 possibilities ("e", "ae" or "æ"). -- A. B. 18:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per JoshuaZ. Would Microsoft Encarta or Encylopedia Britannica cover this? Would you go to a library and be able to find information on Encylopaeda Dramatica? Most likely not -- Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • You can find one mention of Wikipedia in Encarta, and only in context of the open-source movement in a discussion regarding encyclopedias, and nothing in Britannica. So I don't see how that's really relevant. There are far less important things with articles here. Tx9 18:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Please note the talk page history of the article as well, related to reasons for deletion. The less important articles (of which there are tens of thousands surely) will not be nominated and pushed for deletion as aggressively as this one. This is a matter of subject matter. Or, using this AfD as basis, if this article is removed, the AfD will surely be clogged with thousands of AfD requests in the next weeks? This is a dangerous precedent being set here. rootology 18:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per AB, with a further plea for reliable sources, - FrancisTyers · 17:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I've heard of it. Homey 17:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Have you heard of WP:NOR and WP:V, too?
  • Keep - can't see a problem with it. quercus robur 18:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Can you see any reliable independent sources for it? If not, you're looking at a problem with it. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete nn Ian¹³ /t 18:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, notable enough for me. That its content is or was bad is obviously no reason to delete. That it is an attack (is this really so?) on Wikipedia, is obviously not a reason to delete. Paul August ☎ 18:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Toffie and Karwynn Will ( message me!) 18:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Abstain. Comment: Someone is sending unsolicited emails [4] from Wikipedia (presumably via the "Email this user" function), alerting recipients about perceived administrator abuses, this AFD, etc. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete At this point my opinion won't make much difference, but consider: it's ranked 24,000. Do we need 25,000 articles on the top 25,000 websites? Just because it exists, just because you heard of it, doesn't make it notable. Less than 4 thousandths of 1% of Internet users visit it on a daily basis. Furthermore, it is almost without citations, mostly because the facts involved may be unverifiable. Ingoolemo  talk 18:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as unverifiable. All cited sources are primary sources, which are not acceptable under WP:RS. -- Carnildo 18:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • delete, unnotable, and apparently far more bother than its worth. dab (ᛏ) 18:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Some US federal government computers, such as mine, are blocked from viewing this site. I suppose that means it has at least a tiny bit of notability. But actually I don't know how these things work. ike9898 19:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Can't quite see the merits of deleting, I'm afraid... - Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 19:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Can you see the merits of citing reliable secondary sources for content in Wikipedia? Are you aware of any of those, for the content about Encyclopedia Dramatica? Is there a good reason to waive our policies about verifiability and original research for this particular article, and others like it? - GTBacchus( talk) 22:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Ridiculously strong extreme speedy keep.  Grue  20:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Do all of those adjectives in front of "keep" somehow obviate the need to contribute a reason to the discussion, or explain why original research is just fine in this case? - GTBacchus( talk) 21:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    What original research? I see one section tagged as original research, which doesn't merit the deletion of the whole article. The adjectives in front of my "vote" demonstrate my utter amazement that this article is even considered for deletion.  Grue  21:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    The only reason the other section does not have similar tags is this unexplained removal of a tag. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Replying to Grue, all of the information about ED's content and tone, and most everything about its history that isn't a link to a deletion discussion here, is cited back to ED itself. That's original research, carried out by reading a lot of ED pages, learning about ED, and then writing on Wikipedia what you know about it. Are there any independent reliable sources that talk about ED from the outside, and comment on it, as a noteworthy phenomenon? Are we locating such sources and reporting on what they say is significant about ED? No, because such sources do not yet exist, as far as I can tell, anyway. Until you're doing that, you're doing original research. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Wikipedia links back to itself and unverifiable Wikipedia/foundation stuff in several places. Double standard. If these are not valid, the count of users/articles and web traffic volume (the chart) on Wikipedia are not valid and should be removed. rootology 21:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    "Double standard" isn't a reason to keep policy violations around. I would suggest that any unverifiable content should be removed from any article, but if it turns out there's a good reason to make an exception for the Wikipedia article (I'm not familiar with that article, and the inevitable OR issues I assume it has), that's certainly no argument to make any other exception. Wikipedia is not AboutUs.org, a new sort of web-directory Wiki where users are encouraged to write about websites based on their experiences with them, and content directly from the site is ideal. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Oh, stop spreading the nonsense. An article about some document (be it a book or a website) can and should use the document itself as a source. In fact, it is the most reliable source available. The whole argument for deletion is based on ignorance and pettiness (because apparently they don't like Wikipedia - oh my).  Grue  07:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Grue, I'd appreciate if you don't speculate about my motivations. I happen to really like ED, have an account there, and think their take on Wikipedia is hilarious. I also agree that, if this article is to exist, it certainly should use ED as a source (obviously we would want to link to examples of what we're talking about), but not as the only one. At that point, it's original research, and there's no difference between using a non-notable website as a source about itself and using some self-published book you wrote yesterday as a source about itself. Independent reliable sources have not yet seen fit to talk about ED and provide us with sourced material yet. I'll be ecstatic when they do; until then, this article doesn't have the kind of sourcing it needs. You can say I'm speaking out of pettiness if you want to drag the conversation to that level, but it won't make it true. I'm speaking out of my belief that WP:NOR and WP:V are sound policies that should be followed more strongly and more enthusiastically than they currently are, because they are what will make Wikipedia more trustworthy and more valuable. Now, if you think my argumets are based on ignorance, perhaps you can lead me to better understanding by teaching me what I currently don't know. I'd be quite happy to have that conversation with you. Can we do it quite civilly, though? - GTBacchus( talk) 07:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Aye, Grue needs to try a little WP:AGF before jumping to ridiculous, unfounded conclusions about why others might opine deletion.-- Isotope23 18:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Simply Keep. Kitia 21:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per nom -- Ragib 21:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • One more simply keep - It could be a conflict of interests but it's just a reality. -- Szvest 21:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™ reply
  • Delete. No reliable sources. - Will Beback 22:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • VERY STRONG SMERGE. I've looked over the history of this article, as well as this discussion, and it seems to be breaking out into a war similar to that which happened to Brian Peppers, which ended very controversially. I don't want to see that happen again. Therefore, I am proposing this compromise to stop stupid debates like this once and for all. To my understanding, much of this information is Original Research, and thus must be removed. However, there is some verifiable information, at least in the opener that can be written without violating WP:NPOV. It is also my understanding that both ED regulars and Wikipedia admins are trolling the page and personally attacking each other. Several people even want this deleted because ED bashes Wikipedia. Censoring Wikipedia bashers violates WP:NPOV last time I checked. One person also sarcastically asked if World Book or Encyclopedia Brittanica (sp?) would have this. Well, they wouldn't have articles on a lot of notable stuff we have here, and WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia. However, WP:NOT a soapbox either, which is what about 4/5 of the article is. Also, the fact that so many Wikipedians, including myself (I'm an Uncyclopedian), hate ED, makes this have notability. I ask everyone, especially the extreme keepers and deletionists, to take this argument very seriously. This is one of those debates that went on for an extremely long time and have become flamewars. These debates need to end with all of us giving up a little of what we want to establish a firm community consensus so that doctrine doesn't get forced down our throats. Find a place for the one or two notable, verifiable sentences, and delete the rest of the article. Let's stop the trolling and settle this properly, okay? Thank you. Have a nice day. Crazyswordsman 22:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    I can get behind this. This would be fine for me as a valid stub that can be expanded in time as press cites grow. rootology 22:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    For the benefit of those who have followed the edits less closely, can someone provide a link to a reasonable version that's limited to what can be properly sourced? Crazyswordsman made one comment I have to reply to: the fact that so many Wikipedians, including myself (I'm an Uncyclopedian), hate ED, makes this have notability. I can't agree with that at all. Notability means notability in the world at large, not among Wikipedians. I love ED, and that doesn't make it notable, either. - GTBacchus( talk) 22:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    [5] Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    This article: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/01/account_hijackings_force_livej.html also cites and links to the ED website. I've just been told as well that www.newsbank.com has some sort of archived Chicago Tribune article that cites it. Waiting for a link. rootology 23:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    That link doesn't point nor does it cite ED. A COMMENT on the blog post does. Unless I'm missing something, if this is the closest to actual coverage you can provide, this is far from evidence of notability, and more evidence of grasping at straws. Why is establishing ED's notability so important to you? Is it truly in the interests of informativeness, or merely vanity? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    I shouldn't have said that, GTBacchus. What I meant was some Wikipedians like to use ED as a dumping ground for non-notable memes. Also, it seems to have widespread (yet unfortunate) popularity within internet communities such as Fark, YTMND, etc. Putting one or two sentences or even a section about ED in the LiveJournal article is something I bet we could all agree upon. Crazyswordsman 23:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Swordswoman (and others), would you say the washingtonpost link I entered just above and this reference to ED: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikizine/2006-04 ...are valid sources of something's notability? rootology 23:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Rootology, as a blog the first link does not constitute a reliable source and the second link is self referential meaning... does not establish notability. ( → Netscott) 23:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Agree with Netscott. No. To me, reliance on those specific pieces of evidence is in fact strong evidence of ED's non-notability to date. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Per Wikizine's site it is seperate from Wikipedia and the foundation, it's just hosted on that URL. Read the page. It appears per that link that ED was notable enough to mail out however in a "news report" to the admins, sysops, and ambassodors of the Wikipedia family. Correct? rootology 00:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    How does a rather non-notable Wikizine establish the notability of non-notable website with a one line reference to that website? ( → Netscott) 00:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Nope. Blogs aren't reliable, sorry. I'm sure there is something out there, but frankly I have better things to do than deal with endless debates such as this. My main purpose is to end the debate, not help decide in the fate of an article that is obviously controversial. Crazyswordsman 02:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete because multiple people have spammed me about this. Yes, that's not an argument. Here's the argument: fails WP:V, no evidence of notability has been presented (Wikitruth is notable because it has been cited in a newspaper story). Ashibaka tock 22:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I think that many here have made good cases for it being WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:WEB. Arguments against deletion seem to be along the lines of "there are worse examples in wikipedia". In that case, fine, let's get that lot into AfD too. David D. (Talk) 22:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Whispering 00:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment this site is as notable as Uncyclopedia. if there's attack content in the article. Take it out. Don't delete an article based on that.-- LBMixPro <Sp e ak|on|it!> 00:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and because of the email spam I received promoting this thing. I detest email spam. Vsmith 00:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Vanity, non-notable. Also people don't like getting spammed. You've probably worked this out now. ed g2s • talk 00:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I'm fairly new to this discussion and have mostly been reading the comments of others, but it seems rather odd to me that we are considering deleting an article on a website which is home to a great deal of negative criticism of Wikipedia. It would not appear very favorable, now would it? I have done some reading of ED's articles on Wikipedia, and I can imagine that the editors of ED would be thrilled to see non-ED'er Wikipedians deleting the article on ED. It would serve to confirm every negative thing they say about Wikipedia. That alone is reason enough to keep, maybe prune it back to a stub, maybe block certain known abusive editors from being involved with it (esp. those cited as ED users above, per WP:vanity), but in general, keep it. Deletion is too draconian a solution. Kasreyn 01:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
And the notability and verifiability questions? ( → Netscott) 01:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I must admit that I don't understand precisely what the notability and verifiability complaints are. If the article isn't that notable, it should be trimmed back; I feel that at least some mention of ED is warranted, so I suppose it would be fair to characterize my opinion as being that ED is at least minimally notable. As for verifiability, is there a concern that ED pages are being changed and thus cannot be cited? Don't they have permanent page history like WP? If so, just link to the specific revision in which a claim was made rather than the article name, and add a caveat explaining that ED is a wiki and its content may change. Kasreyn 07:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
For me, it has more to do with avoiding original research, which is intimately linked with verifiability. I understand our policy to be: first something exists, then people in the world take enough note of it, someone publishes words about it, and then we get to write a Wikipedia article based on those published words. That gives you notability, verifiability, and the certainty that you're not doing original research, all in one. I don't see that happening with this article. Most of the facts in it just came from people who happen to be familiar with the website, which is pretty much the definition of original research. If we insist on using facts that come from independent, reliable published sources, then we aren't doing our own research. - GTBacchus( talk) 09:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - it seems that the desire to delete this article comes from the fact that its subject holds criticism of wikipedia. If wikipedia doesn't tolerate freedom of speech, and criticism of itself, then there's something wrong. - Richardcavell 01:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment about personal attacks on the site to which the article describes: Wikitruth's website has a category called http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Category:Wikipedians and it has far more personal attacks on wikipedia admins than encyclopedia dramatica. It also has links to three of them on its front page. Where Encyclopedia Dramatica calls one on the list a mere name, wikitruth has pictures, real names, etc. I hope you consider this who voted to delete the article. Hardvice 01:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Ummm... what on Earth has any of that to do with this article's WP:V and WP:OR problems, which are the only sane reasons being given for deletion. This discussion will go more smoothly if we can avoid being distracted by the fact that ED has pages attacking Wikipedia and Wikipedians. That's just irrelevant here. - GTBacchus( talk) 07:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I can't believe the utterly obvious double standards over web content notability guidelines that exist on Wikipedia. Having trawled through countless trivial and banal entries for webcomics, I can tell you 100% that any webcomic with an Alexa rank of 24,000 would be speedily kept and the nominator slapped on the wrist for a bad faith nomination. There is, and should be one guideline for web material, WP:WEB, why the page interpretes as very much laxer for webcomics is beyond me. The amount of delete votes here suggest that any web material less notable or popular would be railgunned out of existence forever. This however, is not the case at Wikipedia, as can be seen in this AFD and this AFD and many others. For example, I agree with the keep outcome of this AFD, but note the total lack of delete votes for a website with an Alexa rank of 60,000. I think that an AFD for it's spinoff The Wotch: Cheer! would also result in a keep, something which I would absolutely disagree with. But the reason that I'm voting keep, isn't just out of spite for the double standards at Wikipedia, but because I genuinely think it's popular enough to be notable. - Hahnch e n 01:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Care to address the complete lack of reliable independent sources for the actual content of the article, which is the only sane reason being given for deletion? I agree that our standards for webcomics are stupid, but that's no excuse to do everything else wrong too. - GTBacchus( talk) 07:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Related to this: nearly every project article on Wikipedia from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:MediaWiki_websites has LESS outside references let alone Alexa rank than ED. Why are those not attacked as vehemently for deletion? rootology 07:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Because there hasn't been a catalyzing event yet. Isn't that always why some things haven't happened yet while others have? What's the point in calling motives into question here anyway? That's a red herring, and we'd do well to keep this discussion on topic if we wish to resolve it. - GTBacchus( talk) 09:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:V.-- Ávril ♦ ʃáη 01:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Homestarmy 02:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. The subject appears nn with no actual reliable sources to show notability (despite Washington Post blog, as WP:WEB points out Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores., thus trivial coverage is not relevant). Furthermore many of the keeps seem to be coming from mass spamming campaign, it seems that this is one of the cases where there is a massive backlash at attempts to manipulate Wikipedia.-- Jersey Devil 02:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - notable website. Its notability is due to its importance in LJ community & spreading LJ memes, and also because it is related to Wikipedia. As equally as some people have argued that it could be a vanity page, I think the attempts to remove it are taking "anti-vanity" too far -- just because it is somewhat associated with Wikipedia, doesn't automatically imply its non-notable or vanity. Subjects of articles like Bomis, Nupedia, Larry Sanger, Jimbo Wales, MeatballWiki, Enciclopedia Libre, Uncyclopedia, Wikitruth all derive some of their notability from associations with Wikipedia, but that does not mean that they are non-notable, or vanity. -- SJK 03:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    What about the lack of independent reliable sources for the contents of the article? That's the only sane reason being given for deletion; what's your response to it? - GTBacchus( talk) 07:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    I can interpret "the lack of independent reliable sources for the contents of the article" in one of two ways -- as referring to verifiability, or to notability. In terms of verifiability, most claims made in the article are verfied through primary sources (i.e. if Wikipedia says "ED says X", a link to a page saying X on ED is verification; in fact, its better verification than a link to a secondary source would be.) There are a few [ citation needed, but I don't think that's a major issue. In terms of notability -- when dealing with websites, or Internet memes/phenomena, its not always possible to determine notablity by reference to "mainstream" sources, because this is the kind of stuff mainstream sources tend to ignore. But that doesn't necessarily mean they are unnotable... at the end of the day, notability guidelines (or even "policies") are only guidelines -- they are applied in accordance to consensus. (This AFD is one way of measuring that consensus.) -- SJK 08:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I guess I have this picture of how Wikipedia is supposed to work, and this article and many web-related ones conflict rather badly with that picture. My picture is this: first something exists in the world, then people notice it, and if enough people care enough about it, they start writing about it in published works. After that happens, we get to write an article about it. I got this picture largely from AfD discussions relating to biography articles. It's also reinforced by my conception of an encyclopedia as a tertiary source, which relies on reliable and independent secondary sources. They serve as a filter, both in terms of verifiability and notability. In this discussion, I'm seeing people trying to bypass that filter, which is probably not how they see it at all. I guess we're dealing with conflicting visions of what Wikipedia is. I'm not sure how to resolve that. - GTBacchus( talk) 08:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Of course, "published sources" are inevitably going to exhibit selection biases. And of course, Wikipedia is inevitably going to have selection biases as well. The question is -- what selection bias does Wikipedia want to have? Personally, I think in writing an we need to consider both published sources & the collective experiences of Wikipedians--something can be notable if enough people here agree it is notable, even if published sources have not considered it notable. I think, in part because WP:NOT paper, Wikipedia need not be beholden to published sources. But this is really a question which needs to be answered through Wikipedia's decision making processes (such as this one)... -- SJK 09:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    "If enough people here agree it is notable...". I think that's a bad idea. That's a good way to really hard-wire our systematic biases, for one thing. It's a good way to make Wikipedia more about internet culture and less trusted as a source for general information. It's a good way to make Wikipedia more like Encyclopedia Dramatica. I think it should be a matter of pride for us to have high standards for verifiability in independent reliable sources. If we actually get good about that, Wikipedia will be so much stronger. Articles like this erode at that possibility, and that's why I feel compelled to speak up against it. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Well, I suppose the reality is that Wikipedia is a quasidemocracy. What the majority of people think does count for something -- including about the questions of what kind of content should Wikipedia include -- although its not a pure democracy because its a system in which some people's opinions count for more than others. (For example, Jimbo's views about what Wikipedia count a lot more than yours or mine.) -- SJK 10:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is one of few websites I've actually referred back to Wikipedia to learn about. RFerreira
  • Delete. Non-notable website outside of its users. Google gets me 123,000 hits -- only 14 of which are unique. I'm not seeing the least sign of the alleged notability.-- Calton | Talk 06:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment I get over 150 out of 1000, whats going on? Lapinmies 06:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment: I have posted what I feel is a great good faith compromise to this absurd mess here: proposed compromises (two). Please review and add commentary there. rootology 08:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Move to subpage of Wikipedia:Parodies, which is an appropriate place to keep unencyclopedic information like this. (My earlier recommendation of "delete" above has been striken.) - GTBacchus( talk) 10:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Question: Can this prove notability??? The massive number of people who came here to vote and debate on the site for this AFD, with strong opinions on each side. If it was nonnotable, it would get maybe 10 or 12 votes and that's only it. Hardvice 11:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Absolutely not A high level of interest among Wiki subculture people has nothing to do with what we actually mean by "notability". "Notable" is really a codeword for "people who publish reliable sources have taken note of it, and talked about it in print". A tempest in this teacup means nothing. - GTBacchus( talk) 11:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, the site is not very notable and in borderline nobility cases, I'm willing to entertain factors that I would not otherwise to make the decision. However, "borderline" is a charitable description in this case, as I have higher standards of notability than most editors. First, I received a spam email concerning the article. Second, the site has attack pages on Wikipedia editors. Third, those who edit the site are extremely interested in having a Wikipedia article and have gone to extraordinary lengths to have the article kept. This is a very bad sign. A notable organization would not care whether it has a Wikipedia article and a good non-notable organization would let the decision be made without trying to influence it, especially in an underhanded manner. Finally, unless an evil site, person or organization is so notable that Wikipedia would be incomplete not to have an article on it, like Charles Manson or the Aryan Nations, it should not have an article. When dealing with topics that are not very notable, Wikipedia can sometimes participate in the topic, increasing its notability, rather than just documenting it. In many cases, this is innocuous. In other cases, such as articles whose subjects are evil, it might not be. Wikipedia should never promote evil, not even a little and not even unintentionally. Based upon the attack pages, and the failure of the site to delete them, I believe that Encyclopædia Dramatica is evil. -- Kjkolb 11:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I also got the spam, I think many people did. -- Bane s 12:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment: Actually, even if the main article is deleted, wouldn't a recreation after under parody count as a seperate article? Also, does anyone have any reason under policy that it shouldn't just be moved there NOW to end this nightmare? I now support just moving it RIGHT NOW. I'm tired of this, and if even thinks this won't be a no concensus vote where either a vote to keep or delete won't be met with scorn and appeal all the way up to ArbCom they're not thinking right. Rather than waste EVERYONE's time anymore I say we just move it to the parody section. Some day when (simple law of probability states it will happen... in 5 days, 5 months, 5 years, or 5 decades) when the site gets more notable press it can move back to the main name space. My vote is now to end the AfD, stick it in parody, and be done with it? Even if a truly neutral admin makes it a keep vote someone will just AfD this again and we will indeed have the next GNAA. Who wants to waste the next five years fighting over this? rootology 14:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment: It must be noted that as of 10am PDT on 7/20/06 Admin name: Zanium is abusively editing the protected article as part of possible bias vs. the subject matter. It has been raised as an issue at AN:I but not addressed yet and he has not reverted. This is biased as 1) no editor can challenge his unilateral edits; 2) its a policy violation; 3) further evidence that as the thing that brought this to the fore was the attack on MONGO by the ED site, there is NO way for this to happen fairly. rootology 17:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Comment: We do, when it seems otherwise reasonable, accept people's statements about themselves and their own field. There are fairly tight restrictions on this; see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_dubious_sources_in_articles_about_themselves, but much of this article seems to meet those restrictions. Septentrionalis 18:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply


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

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 09:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Michael Dunahee

This article looks more like a missing person ad than a true Wikipedia bio, and aside from him being missing, I don't get how notable he is. Editor88 16:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Delete. This is a hard one, until you look at the inclusion critera. This case has been in in the media BC and Canada over the years, but I wonder if that is more through the tenacity of the family keeping it in the news. This missing child, as sad as it is, is no more or less notable than any other missing child. Could treat this one under WP is not a memorial page. Agent 86 17:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This case has been in the media over the years and this makes the subject in question notable. Moreover, children going missing in the world today are relatively rare. These kinds of rare events makes the topic notable in itself. Thus, we should keep this article. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 18:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete tragic, yes. But WP is not a forum for finding missing <insert Foo> here. Sorry -- MrDolomite | Talk 18:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. NN. Sad to say, children going missing are not that rare, and this one happened fifteen years ago. Fan-1967 19:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 03:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep rewritten version. - Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 03:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Dancing on the edge of the notability line, but I'll go with the keep given Resolute's improvements. Bearcat 04:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - for reasons above, plus others, the case has had an impact not just on the family but on BC society in general. The rewrite helps, and if Resolute posts it to the Cdn noticeboard, there undoubtably will be more improvements in short order. -- Ckatz 07:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I support keeping this article although my comments may be discounted for the fact that I began it even though I have nothing to do with the participants or any previous involvement in the story. I agree that it was a skimpy start. The improvements that have followed have helped. The noteriety of this disappearance are unique in an area that goes beyond the City where he lived. This case struck a chord across BC and Canada that has sustained its recollection as an event familiar to many even those born after or too young at the time of the disappearance to remember the event. kgw 05:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Cluster Resources, Inc.

Non-notable company, but was told, I cannot speedy away as spam, despite previous deletions as such. So I open the floor in hopes of resolution Antares33712 15:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment, this has been tagged as spam before, but can't get the speedy so hey....down the river it goes Antares33712 16:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, therefore Angela will join Jermaine Dupri here on Wikipedia. Money ain't a Thang! - CrazyRussian talk/ email 17:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Angela Constance

Defeated candidate who holds only local public office, fails WP:N. See Ann Garrett and Ben Abbotts for AfDs on losing candidates in more recent by-election (where Abbotts also came significantly close). Mtiedemann 13:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Do not delete - useful information of a leading Scottish Nationalist Politician. often those who unsuccessfully fight by elections are those who have a high profile (eg Tony Blair was an unsuccessful By election candidate). Suggest that those from Scotland or interested in Scottish politics are more likely to see the importance of this information.-- Sjharte 13:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • While there certainly seems to be some merit to the notion that "often those who unsuccessfully fight by elections are those who have a high profile", I really fail to see any of the alleged "useful information" contained within this stub. If you can expand this article to include said "useful information" (which I can't seem to find in existance), I would be willing to support keeping it. -- Vengeful Cynic 15:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Per nom. -- circuitloss 14:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. If you can cite evidence that she does have a high profile, she can stay, otherwise she goes. -- David Mestel( Talk) 15:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Vengeful Cynic 15:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Surely importance is in the eye of the beholder. All of those advocating deletion do not appear to be from Scotland or exhibit an interest in Scottish politics. Those who are and so will find it useful to have a Wikipedia resource that includes individuals such as Angela Constance. Although I am not a supporter of her party I do know that she is standing for one of their target seats (Livingston) at next year's Scottish Parliament elections. Keeping this entry will, for example, allow ot to be sued as a link when discussing the election process in that constituency.-- Sjharte 15:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Gerry Stephen Freedman

Vanity about failed local authority candidate, who holds public office only at the most local level ( Community Councillor) Mtiedemann 11:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 nomination raises the questions of sources and verification, and these points are never addressed: The article is still wholly unreferenced.

I'd encourage every editor to print out and read at your leisure Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Don't skim them, or just read the lead, take them to bed with you and curl up with a nice cup of tea.

The issue of what is "cruft" is not one we should be debating. That is a personal judgment, and not an editorial one, and editors whom have worked in good faith in producing an article should not be subjected to pejoratives. In almost every case, however, meticulousness regarding sources will solve any perceived problems without resorting to disparagment, or even appeal to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

brenneman {L} 01:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

A deletion review has been opened. - brenneman {L} 02:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

StarCraft units and structures

Wikipedia is not a game strategy guide. This article consists of nothing but game guide information, such as "a Protoss Zealot has higher hit points than a Zergling but the Zergling can attack faster to balance this out" (and that's in the introduction). There's also a great deal of individual units, each with their own article and useful game guide information such, but this is not the AFD for those. Does nothing that the StarCraft category doesn't do. And so, to summarise: Redundant, game guide (fails WP:NOT), and unreferenced (fails WP:V and WP:NOR). Delete. Proto:: type 17:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. There seems to be a craze of AfD debates about computer game-related stuff recently; and I have voted delete to almost all of them. They are not suitable for Wikipedia because of WP:NOT. The onus is on people to say why they should be kept. Batmanand | Talk 18:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply
CommentI looked throuh WP:NOT and didnt see any reference to a game guide at first, I finally found it under instruction manual. So really this page just needs to be modified to fit what it was meant to be, it is currently horribly organized and needs alot of coordinated help from the VG group to Wikify it, but its premise is needed. It consolidates all the units from Starcraft and Starcraft:Broodwar into one place, yes the category can do that as well but it also contains people, places, etc. One thing for sure that needs to be done is to remove the "this unit is better because" references and just have a reproduction of the sheet that came with the games listing units of similar tier with cost and possibly stats. That is all verifiable fact, people can draw their own conclusions from it. Sir hugo 19:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply
While the data from "the sheet that came with the games" is verifiable, it's also copyrighted. Just making this page into a reproduction of that information sheet would be worse than things stand currently, IMO. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The data is not copyrighted, all that data is available in the game for everyone to see. The exact layout with pictures and such might be though. I also beleive the only copyright notice on it was protecting the Blizzard and Starcraft logos and such as trademarks. Sir hugo 21:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Most text is copyrighted by default; if something doesn't have an explicit message disclaiming or modifiying copyright, you have to assume it's 'all rights reserved'. For example, look at the bottom of any Wikipedia page for a copyright notice stating the copyright as GFDL. -- ais523 09:12, 18 July 2006 ( U T C)
Reply - The sampling bias of WP's editors is fascinating in its own right, but each topic should be evaluated by objective evidence on a case-by-case basis. And anyway, judging solely by the vastness of the chess content on WP, its systemic bias would appear to be toward canonized pillars of culture over the new and shiny. As evidence in this case: over 9.5 million copies of Starcraft have been sold so far; [12] at over eight years old now, it typically has around 70,000 Starcraft games currently being played on Battlenet at any moment, which is about three times higher than during its first year; 46% of over 10,000 voters in a World Cyber Games poll this year named Starcraft, out of eight WCG competition games, as the one they'd most like to participate in, [13] a gain over the prevous year; at eight years old, more professional competitions keep forming, and professional earnings and endorsements are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and have continued rising, while it is one of only two computer games with leagues of full-time professional players; [14] the government of Singapore let a pro Starcraft player postpone his obligatory military service to play Starcraft at the World Cyber Games, out of its support for those "who are selected to represent Singapore at prestigious international sports and cultural events"; [15] in South Korea, two cable channels have programs devoted to Starcraft competition, and schools post students' Starcraft rankings along with their academic rankings. [16] While identifiable ancestors of chess have been around for 1000 years, modern chess would be at least "Chess 7" if they had kept track of different versions, and chess in its modern form has been around less than 200 years, only 25 times as long as Starcraft, while evidence indicates Starcraft has only continued to grow more popular over the past eight years, so it shows no sign of dropping into a void anytime soon. A fairer comparison with the greater body of ancestral games under the "chess" aegis should be to the whole Starcraft/Warcraft family, which has sold over 35 million copies over the past twelve years, and with the newest version, World of Warcraft, accumulating about one million new paying monthly subscribers every three months, since its release around a year and a half ago (the most paying subscribers of any computer game ever, by a vast margin). In sum, there is substantial evidence that Starcraft and/or its descendants will still be of comparable popularity and encyclopedic notability to chess in ten years. If not, I'll AfD this article again in 2016. - Reaverdrop ( talk/ nl/ w:s) 23:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, verifiable and not a how-to, and I tend to agree with most of Reaverdrop's comment. JYolkowski // talk 21:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Users wanting this level of detail should buy the manual. The attempt to compare StarCraft with chess is intellectually interesting but fails to convince me. Chess traces its roots back to the 6th century, is played and has been played by far more people, has been the subject of literally thousands of books and the subject of academic studies and publications is a wide range of disciplines, has a highly formal tournament process with recognized Grandmasters, etc. If, in 10 years, StarCraft is of comparable notability to chess, create this level of detailed article then. Rossami (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment The debate is not whether this level of detail is needed it is whether this type of information constitutes "Strategy" guide. If I were to say "When playing as the Zerg you need to build alot of Zerglings really fast and try to overwhelm your closest opponent." that would be a strategy guide, where as saying "Zerglings cost 50 minerals for a set of two and produce in the same time as a Zealot which costs 100 minerals making each Zergling more economical" that is no longer a strategy guide. If I had more time to actually edit this article instead of just skimming and fixing small things then I would try and rewrite it. When I first came looking for Starcraft on Wikipedia it was for this particular page, I wanted a page with a link to each units page as well as a place for basic information about each unit compared to other similar units. Sir hugo 12:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
"Zerglings cost 50 minerals for a set of two and produce in the same time as a Zealot which costs 100 minerals making each Zergling more economical" is strategy guide information. Just because it avoids using 'you', doesn't make it any less game guidey. Proto:: type 14:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
How is that strategy guide information? It is straight out comparison, a strategy guide explains step by step how to accomplish something. Saying this unit attacks faster, or costs less is just stating verifiable fact. Stating that one unit is more economical then another may be straying too close to original research though. I see this as no different then an article listing military aircraft comparing the F-22 to the F-16 and stating that the F-16 costs less and is faster to produce but less capable then the F-22. Sir hugo 14:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment - Compare with this passage from Queen (chess):

The queen can be moved in a straight line vertically, horizontally, or diagonally, any number of unoccupied squares as shown on the diagram at the left, thus combining the moves of the rook and bishop. The distance it can move is known as the Chebyshev distance. As with other captures except en passant, the queen captures by occupying the square on which an enemy piece sits. Ordinarily the queen is slightly more powerful than a rook and a bishop together, while slightly less powerful than two rooks. Because the queen is more valuable than any other piece, it is almost always disadvantageous to exchange the queen for a piece other than the enemy's queen, unless doing so leads to a position where the king can be checkmated.

I don't think either article is any less encyclopedic. Dividing between providing objective content on specific game mechanics, and actually suggesting or recommending strategy, is the appropriate dividing line between encyclopedic and WP:NOT. Otherwise, where is there a principled dividing line between eliminating specific game mechanics, and eliminating any rules of a game, and eliminating any content at all related to a game or sport? If forms of recreation are encyclopedic at all, providing specific descriptions of their rules or mechanics should be limited only by the same criteria as for anything else, i.e. notability, references, etc. - Reaverdrop ( talk/ nl/ w:s) 19:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Saying that "Users wanting this level of detail should buy the manual" seems a personal opinion having nothing to do with wikipedia policies. One could say that if you want to learn the chess rules you should buy a chess manual. The argumet about the number of people playing chess or playing starcraft or about the age of the games has no relevance with the WP policies. The real difference (not explicitily expressed so far) between chess and starctaft here is that starcraft is a trademark. This could make you think that if we go in the details of the aspect of starcraft we are behaving unfairly with respect to the owners of the trademark. This would not happen with chess. If this is the problem please say it explicitly.-- Pokipsy76 14:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Reply to chilling effect of conceptions of trademark - It pains me to see conceptions about intellectual property having this chilling influence on speech. Trademarks and copyrights do not exclude sharing information or opinion. Please do not censor your own communications out of fear of intellectual property. Looking at "behaving fairly" from the other side, would you think it was fair if a company sued someone for telling her friend how many minerals are required to make a Zealot? - Reaverdrop ( talk/ nl/ w:s) 19:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC) (Disclaimer: although the writer is an intellectual property attorney, this is written as personal opinion and not provided as legal advice. If you require legal advice, retain an attorney admitted to practice in your jurisdiction.) reply
Comment - Do we "need" chess or go "gamecruft" intstead?-- Pokipsy76 17:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment *sigh* there is no way you can compare Chess to Starcraft besides you can always AfD those articles as well if you want. Whispering 20:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment - I know they are "different", I just cannot figure out what * policy* are you supposing to apply to accept chess "gamecruft" while not accepting the same for starctaft?-- Pokipsy76 20:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - You may be interested in a similar AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Units in Advance Wars. - Hahnch e n 17:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This (with the sub-articles - on its own, it's pretty much a useless lump of ugly tables) is a detailed guide on how to play Starcraft, and doesn't offer the historical context or copious sourcability of a chess article. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 09:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - there are no policies about the need of "historical context" or "copious sourcability". Moreover an article like Rules of chess has no historical context and is a "guide on how to play chess" but I saw nobody asking for its deletion.-- Pokipsy76 10:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • There is, however, policy about game guides being inappropriate for Wikipedia: WP:NOT. I'm not wild about Rules of chess, either, frankly. If you think it's unencyclopedic, put it up for deletion. The existance of other inappropriate or borderline articles doesn't justify keeping this awful article. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 10:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • I don't think that Rules of chess is unencyclopedic and this is coherent with my position that describing details about other games like starctaft is encyclopedic too. The incoherent position is yours if you think that the former is encyclopedic but not the latter. I saw nobody saying that rules of chess is inappropriate or borderline. Last: The fact that you find an article "awful" is not relevant at all.-- Pokipsy76 11:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
          • This is awful because it's a poorly-written game guide. That's pretty relevant. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 01:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
            • Your opinion about its being "poorly written" is not relevant with the initial motivation you gave for the deletion and is not related to the policies (we are supposed to improve poorly written article, not to delete them).-- Pokipsy76 08:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
              • It's poorly-written. It's a game guide. It's garbage. It needs to be deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 08:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
                • When people have valid points they generally are able to express them by rational means rather than by emotional slogans.-- Pokipsy76 08:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
                  • Game guides are called out in WP:NOT. Additionally, this is poorly-written, so there's little to salvage with a merge. Are you done asking me to repeat myself, or need I do it again? - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 08:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
                    • I was just trying to make a rational discussion until you started repeating the same things about alleged "awfulness" and "game guide" without taking in any consideration the objections already done.-- Pokipsy76 09:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
                      • I've read the above objections. You're harping on the chess and go articles, but I'm unmoved; I don't think they're particularly encyclopedic either. I really think they should be merged into a more-encyclopedic article, which I think is quite possible given the centuries-long history of chess. Not so with Starcraft, which, while exceedingly popular, doesn't have the history or breadth to justify more than a single article about the gameplay itself. Additionally, this article is so poorly-written that it is unlikely to form a useful basis for that single article, nor will it be a useful merge into that single gameplay article. On top of all this, this article is wholly unsourced and unlikely to become sourced.
                        Basically, this is hopeless junk. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 09:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 05:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • On the fence Keep, maybe with some merging I believe that Starcraft units are notable enough to be covered, but this does read like a game guide and one article per unit seems excessive. Perhaps merge all the units to the page for their respective race and have brief information about them there. It's often a fine line between encyclopedic coverage of gameplay and game design and game guide, but I think in current form, these articles are on the wrong side. Transwiki to Encyclopedia Gamia, though. Ace of Sevens 09:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as redundant Changing suggestion. I stil believe this is encyclopedic and worth covering, however, this page seems to contain no information which isn't on the main StarCraft page or the pages about the individual races, so it's unecessary. Ace of Sevens 08:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a clearer consensus, see talk. - brenneman {L} 23:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Gamecruft. Artw 00:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep it was really big game in its time and I can see there being interest in this into the future. Is it as big as chess? No. but I think the comparision is largely apt. -- Pboyd04 00:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. As sympathetic I am to people who work hard on articles like this that might be of some interest to some people, Wikipedia rules are rules. WP:NOT clearly states no game guides. The argument over [[chess] doesn't fly with me, because you don't have articles for each chess piece in Wikipedia describing their moves and role in the game. If you really want to make the Starcraft article consistent with the chess article, provide a brief description of Starcraft units and the differences between available races in the article, or perhaps in one split-off article. Describing them in such detail, however, is without question a game guide. Aplomado talk 00:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Well, I guess I got owned. I still think these articles are excessive, though. Isn't there a gamewiki for this kind of stuff? It just all seems oddly out of place on Wikipedia. Aplomado talk 01:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Dragoons are created from Zealots who have been crippled or mortally injured in combat and are thus unable to continue fighting in their preferred manner - with a pair of psionic blades. They continue to volunteer their services, however; their crippled or mortally injured bodies are placed within large exoskeletons which contain any life-support equipment required by the individual Protoss. Living within a cold and dark environment, Dragoons are very somber compared to their Zealot counterparts. Seeing themselves as fallen warriors they show many signs of lost pride. Based on their quotes within the game; "I have returned", "For vengence", "I am needed", and "Make use of me" it becomes clear that Dragoons feel a sense of worthlessness among the protoss. For this reason Dragoons make a large effort to contribute to Protoss society. Although considered second class citizens compared to Zealots, Dragoons are undeniably valuable. Having both a ground/air attack and a ranged attack they are the all purpose Protoss unit(similar to the Zerg Hydralisk or the Terran Marine). When combined with Zealots they create a simple yet deadly force of long and close range attacks.
God help us all if this is what Wikipedia is becoming. Aplomado talk 01:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is a game strategy guide -- and no amount of wikilawyering and false comparisons changes that. Where else is it of use except as guide for the game? -- Calton | Talk 02:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment You're defining game guide so broadly as to be meaningless. Any sort of information could be called a guide. This isn't a guide to playing a game, more an overview of its design characteristics. What sort of nformation about games do you think isn't a guide? Ace of Sevens 02:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Was there an actual response or any actual information buried anywhere in that bit of handwaving? "Any sort of information could be called a guide"? True, but utterly a non sequitor, since I'm talking about THIS piece of information.
  • What sort of nformation about games do you think isn't a guide? Type of game (board, FPS, turn-based strategy?), point of game (gathering treasure, surviving to the end, outscoring your opponent?), type of opponents (computer, partner, online?), distinctive qualities (customizable, nearly infinite combinations, biggest seller for a platform), etc. You know, facts (or, to use a meaningless phrase someone keeps introducing to these discussions, "true facts"). -- Calton | Talk 04:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • If I were to write a single article on Draw Poker (actual example is kind of moot, since it's been sub-divided into so many articles on all the variants), pertinent information would include that you use a deck of 52 cards with numerical values of 2-10 and 4 face cards. Then I would have to describe the hierarchy of hands, as well as the betting system. I wouldn't describe the proper ways to bluff or other subjective tactics, as that would be a strategy guide. With Starcraft, the units and structures are equally worth mentioning and pertinent to the game's design, as they are base elements of this very complex game with its rules. The fact that it is a computer game and the subject requires a lot of material to adequately cover doesn't mean it should be dismissed as unimportant, and I believe that it can and should be covered without veering into how-to/guide territory. -- SevereTireDamage 05:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • the subject requires a lot of material to adequately cover No, it doesn't. The principles are easy enough to set forth. Going into the mechanics in detail makes it -- wait for it -- a game guide. -- Calton | Talk 07:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete gamecruft. Transwiki is potentially a good idea, especially if the article is cleaned up considerably. Dbratton 04:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Regarding the nom: First of all, the quote at the top is misleading, because while it sounds crufty, it actually immediately follows the sentence: Unlike Blizzard Entertainment’s first two forays into RTS with WarCraft, StarCraft went against the typical symmetrical match ups. Instead, each race is given its own unique properties, their own advantages and disadvantages. As such, each unit does not quite match up easily with another race’s. which is then followed by several examples. This seems like a valid encyclopedic description of StarCraft's unit system. Which leads to me to another point: This page, StarCraft units and structures is the one up for deletion, not the sub-pages, which should each get their own AfD and be measured by their own merits, if people feel it's necessary. Remember, we are talking about this single page.

    This article is not cruft and it is not a game guide or instruction manual. It is an overview of the races, units and structure in a notable video game, a key part of the explanation of a complex gameplay system. It does not instruct the players - in that regard is it is pretty useless. It is also not original research, since this straight-ahead comparison of units can be cited from a secondary source such as an actual strategy guide, or just using the game itself as a primary source. I am further swayed by Reaverdrop's arguments. -- SevereTireDamage 04:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • If that's what peopel think is a game guide, it's no wonder we've been getting these votes. Explanation of design and gameplay issue is not the same things as guide, which is directions, not an explanation. Ace of Sevens 04:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I already explained this. Guide is a broad term. Any sort of information could be called a guide. However, the game guide rule is a corollary of wikipedia is not a how-to-guide, which this isn't. Saying you can't cover game design in video game articles, only the publisher, release date, etc is like sayign you can't discuss literary technique in an article a book or cinematic technique in an article about a movie. In most cases, it's whatmakes a game notable. Stating the publisger and story of a game doesn't really you anything about it. Ace of Sevens 08:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Just fyi, all the article quotes that SevereTireDamage has listed are all original research or at least information thats not from a reliable source. Determining that "each unit does not quite match up easily with another race’s", for example, is original research as it is an unsourced interpretation of the gameplay of Starcraft. Wickethewok 04:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Everything is original research at some point. All information must originate somewhere. WP:NOR only applies to Wikipedia itself, not cited sources. Ace of Sevens 04:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • How is it original research? The statistics of each units are facts - the units of different races do not have the same stats and abilities. (This is also a deliberate change in the from earlier Warcraft games, where for the most part, the units on both sides were equal in strength, movement, etc. That is probably why it is noted in the first place.) Those are factual observations, not interpretations - speed, attack, other things are hard numerical values in the game that can compared directly. It is not some kind of subjective value judgment, as you seem to imply. Everything in that opening paragraph is of the same nature. -- SevereTireDamage 04:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
It is short on references, but that doesn't mean it's original research. Basically any review of Starcraft would work for this point, such as this one. [17] Ace of Sevens 05:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete productcruft, fans of this game should start their own wiki, something like Memory Alpha for Star Trek. Phr ( talk) 05:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note - individual units are up for deletion here. Note that there is a StarCraft wiki here: wikia:starcraft. Wickethewok 05:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete. I vote delete, but with several major reservations that I feel have to be taken into account. I agree with this particular deletion, but only because the section can be done better justice on the strategy wiki. Wikipedia itself can provide an external link. However, after reading this page, I have to post these reminders since some people obviously don't remember:
  • Reminder 1: There is no official fancruft policy so don't pretend there is. If you voted Delete because you believe there is such an official, binding policy, change your vote because that's not the case. It's a guideline at best, and heavily disputed. Not all Wikipedians have to agree with it.
  • Reminder 2: Starcraft is not just a game, it is a cultural phenomenon. See the compilation of information provided by reaverdrop.
  • Reminder 3: Not knowing something doesn't make it original research. Aka, your ignorance on Starcraft is not an opinion. Sorry, no offense to those who actually know StarCraft material, but anyone who mentioned original research either doesn't know StarCraft or doesn't know original research. A quick google search verifies most of the information. Note that Blizzard, the company that produced StarCraft, has endorsed much of the strategy on this page. Is that official enough for you? See http://www.battle.net/scc/terran/ufire.shtml for example.
Last but not least, this is no reminder but a minor editorial from yours truly. In my humble opinion, the "how-to/advice" and "fancruft" mottos that have become common as "reasons" for deletion are (1) too vague and (2) too dogmatically applied when personal bias would concur with the result. It is impossible to provide encyclopedia information on a serious, potentially competitive or practical topic (chess, Starcraft, football, programming, etc) without delving into "how-to" at some level. Therefore, moderate use of "how-to" information in relevant articles is not be a problem. -- Solberg 06:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg reply
Blizzard... has endorsed much of the strategy on this page. I wish you guys would make up your mind on whether or not this is a strategy guide or not. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I did not say whether the page is or is not a strategy guide. Who are "you guys?" Do not associate the opinions of others with mine in order to undermine my own argument. Such an action is referred to as a strawman fallacy. -- Solberg 23:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg reply
  • Comment The chess analogy is hilarious. It's like saying we need articles on every episode of Spongebob because we have articles on every play by Shakespeare. Too, too funny. -- GWO
Reply - If this is the point stop using the "gamecruft" argument (that applies to chess (that is a game)) and just say that there is "not enought notability". Actually nobody did.-- Pokipsy76 08:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Reply - That's because "not enough notability" would be a lie as reaverdrop has amply demonstrated. Only valid reason for deletion is transwiki. Everything else is just a lie. -- Solberg 09:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg reply
Second reply. The amount of space/number of articles a given game deserves should be proportionate to its historical and cultural importance, and its intellectual depth. This is why Chess is like Shakespeare, and Starcraft is like Spongebob. One is a cultural touchstone for hundreds of years, the other will be basically forgotten within 50 years. -- GWO
Reply You're right that the articles a game deserves should be proportionate, which is precisely why StarCraft deserves more pages. As already demonstrated by reaverdrop, Starcraft is historically and culturally notable. It's undeniably the most popular RTS and like several other major games, it has transcended its medium and become notable outside of gaming circles. Prove that StarCraft isn't notable culturally or historically or that it lacks intellectual depth. I'm a tournament chess player so don't try to fool me with poorly stamped comparisons. If you have any concrete comparisons to make with chess, make them now. If you have any evidence that contradicts reaverdrop's, show it now. Otherwise don't bother with the notability argument, it's worthless without any evidence backing it up. -- Solberg 21:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg reply
Reply - Why should starctaft be compared to Spongebob and not, for example, to Harry Potter or Lost which do have much more space dedicated to them than the Shakespeare's operas even without sharing the same historical value?-- Pokipsy76 23:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Clear delete per consistency. Punkmorten 08:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Deleting units and structures is the equivalent of deleting any mention of cards from poker or chess pieces from chess. Articles like Rook (chess) are less encyclopedic then this collection of information about each individual unit. I would argue the chess articles are even worse since they actually dedicate an entire article to each piece describing how it moves etc. which is equivalent to this condensed article describing the facts of the "game pieces" which happen to be bits and bytes. I think people are just failing to grasp how large Starcraft is and how much of cultural phenom it is. Terms have arose from this game, not fully directly, but popularized because of it, such as "to zerg". While there is a word, the term gained its popularity through the pieces in this game, much like people using the term "checkmate" when they out do an opponent. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I've no interest in this computer game, and find some of the comments about it laughable. Having said that, the comparison between it and chess are appropriate, & it is clearly a notable game. On the other hand, chess is not 'owned' by anyone, unlike star craft, and it requires simple equipment to play without buying a license from a 3rd party. Markb 12:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOT a game guide. Starcraft is an interesting cultural phenomenon, but there is no good reason for structure and unit lists for any game unless it has a very profound and lasting impact (ala Chess).-- Isotope23 14:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The fact that we have another bad/crufty/minutely detailed article on a different topic has NEVER been a good reason to keep in AfD. If you don't like the Chess sub-articles, nominate them and see what happens. Right now there's a lot of momentum toward consolidation/trimming of extraneous detail on AFD, so you might succeed. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- As bad as this article is, I don't see any procedural or policy reason why it should be deleted. Look at the class descriptions at World of Warcraft for example. A similar situation, just better written and edited. This article just needs a major rewrite, and maybe an excorcism. -- circuitloss 14:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep why? because my interpretation of why strategy guides are NOT encyclopedic is related to original research(i.e. my personal strategy) and NPOV restrictions as well as the non-factual basis of such things. I would submit, that many things that are common knowledge(FACTS known by a reasonably large group of people) are worth keeping for those who don't know. A similar thing would be a zerg rush, which, while an element of strategy, is seperately important because it has a massive cultural understanding as to what it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ikanreed ( talk • contribs) 09:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    Errr, the "massive cultural impact" of zerg rush (which redirects to the arguably broader topic of rushing) is blunted by the fact that very few people who don't play the game have any idea what you're talking about. Lots of things LOOK important from the inside, but are actually minute details when viewed from a broader perspective. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • trans to gamewiki This article must go other place where it suppose to be. -- Wnmnkh 18:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep per Reaverdrop, SevereTireDrop, Solberg, and IkanReed. This is not game guide material in the least bit. Game guides is under the instruction manuals subheading in WP:NOT. This article has no instruction manual material whatsoever, I think this claim is totally false. It is a table of units in StarCraft, nothing even hints at strategy. Wikipedia will fail in its mission to be the sum of all human knowledge if people try to delete everything that they perceive to be unimportant. Cruft does not harm the encyclopedia in the least bit. The article is not harming those who are uninterested by existing; they are free to choose whether to look at it or not. However, it is still there for those who are interested in it. -- Varco 19:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete.
    Answering Varco: this is not knowledge, so we lose nothing if we delete it. Let me explain. The basic details -- such as the fact that different races have different units with different attributes, and require different strategies -- are knowledge, encyclopedic, and belong in Wikipedia, and can usefully be illustrated with representative examples. But full lists of every single unit are facts, not knowledge; they are to StarCraft what a phone directory is to Telephone. One does not need such information to understand the nature of the game, nor its cultural importance; one only needs such information if one is actually engaged in playing the game, in which case there are plenty of better places to get it. So it should not be here. We are in the business of producing a first-rate encyclopedia, not second-rate game guides. — Haeleth Talk 19:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- belongs on gamewiki.org, if it ever comes online, or even gamewiki.net. The main article StarCraft is encyclopedic; the tree of articles it has spawned are not. While I realize WP has more capacity than World Book, let's face it, their editors would have laughed this article out of the room. -- MrDolomite | Talk 19:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Additionally, Chess's articles are acceptable because chess has had immense cultural impacts. Maybe if this game becomes important in society or lasts for an additional twenty to thirty years, this article can be re-created. As of right now, the game is not notable enough to require an extensive list of units and structures. Srose (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide; article is gamecruft hoopydink Conas tá tú? 20:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Emphatic Delete In all of these debates the keep argument keeps getting less and less convincing. This is clearly only useful in the context of playing this particular video game. In my mind that makes it a game guide. I'm a big fan of this particular game but this is completely unencylopedic and is exactly what you would find in a book on the subject.-- Nick Y. 22:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • My vote is still delete per all the excellent reasons above. Whispering 00:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Transwiki The chess argument is a fantastic one. -- JD79 00:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Are you all really that convinced that because we have an article on chess, that means we should have an article that covers in excruciating detail each and every fictional unit in the myriads of computer games in existance? I think anyone who votes "keep" on those grounds is reeeeeaalllly reaching. Aplomado talk 00:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Are you really that convinced that this is the argument at all? No one suggested covering every fictional unit in the "myriads of computer games in existence" anymore than it has been suggested we cover every book in existence simply because Shakespeare is good. See strawman fallacy and false analogy. -- Solberg 00:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg reply
OK. So I must be hallucinating when everyone brings up chess when an article like this is nominated for deletion. Aplomado talk 00:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Um, no one has suggested covering every book in existence. See AfD Thalir. Sometimes they make the cut, sometimes they don't. But, based on the AfD discussions and, as an example, the contents of ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Real-time strategy computer games, one can say that many computer game articles with extreme amounts of detail have been added. I'm not going to wikilawyer and pull quotes from Jimbo or previous discussions. As to the chess argument listed above, any game invented more than a century ago, which can be played by two people who don't even speak the same language, using very simple objects (think rocks and sand), which has world championship going back to c.1520, definitely falls into the notable category. Is there a grey area between chess and SC? Definitely. Can I understand that editors are excited about things that are top of mind in pop culture and use WP as an outlet, knowing there are others that share an interest? You bet. Another sanity check; would your grandma know about chess, or SC, or both, or neither? This level of treatment of fictional objects in a video game, albeit a currently popular one, is not appropriate for an encyclopedic resource, printed or otherwise. -- MrDolomite | Talk 01:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Here's my question. What on earth is a game guide if this isn't? If I posted the StarCraft manual on Wikipedia, what would it have that isn't covered in these articles other than installation instructions? Aplomado talk 01:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. User's other edits are only vandalisms. -- Golbez 00:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Colt angels

Speedy tag removed. No ghits. Nothing on Allmusic. Reads like something made up in school one day. -- DarkAudit 00:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC) why is this being deleted? Pie182 00:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply


Hyes we are a band looking to storm the music industry. We deserve an article. Poo you, DarkAudit. Don't you have anything better to do than deleting worthy articles. Mmm. Thought not. Ta. Beyatch91 00:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium. bd2412 T 21:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

MM Support Network

Simply a website run by the Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium for patients with multiple myeloma or their caregivers. Fails WP:WEB, can be merged/redirected with the MMRC page or simply deleted (my preference). JFW |  T@lk 00:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 09:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Erik Rhodes (porn star)

Rhodes appears to fail the proposed WP:PORN BIO notability guidelines. He is exclusively signed with Falcon Studios, has dated another porn star who is redlinked, and has a relatively short filmography (less than a dozen films). Searches on IAFD and IMDb both result in zero relevant matches. As usual, comments are welcomed on my talk page if anyone feels I have made a mistake somewhere along the line with this nomination. RFerreira 00:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

There's no need to attack the guy's looks in AFD, Gareth. -- nae'blis (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
concur that there should be concern over this type of spam about which there has been discussion. When someone goes to this length to bias a discussion by contacting others with whom there has not been prior contact just based on their edits, that is spam. Doc 23:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Because AfD's are shortlived, it is wholly appropriate for someone to give notice to possibly interested editors. I thought WP was about inclusion; if someone's "spam" causes an editor to put in his/her $0.02 or it's British equivalent, so freaking what. You can contact whoever you feel to give input, too, it's a free country (free world). And your suggestion that my comment and position should be discounted or devalued because I was alerted to this by another editor is frankly kinda scary. Carlossuarez46 00:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Alerting other editors with whom you have dialogued is one thing, it is quite another to alert other editors with whom you have had no contact based on their edits alone. That's spam, pure and simple. Doc 01:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
If people complain about spam, then someone may address it; to try to push your POV by discounting my (and anyone else who has been contacted) opinion has no basis in WP policy. Often alerts are posted on message boards for various wikiprojects about ongoing AfD's, do we stop the counting then? No. Why? because WP should want to hear everyone's opinion. If they are new or a sockpuppet they get discounted anyway. We don't care whether they are "regulars" or "lurkers". Carlossuarez46 03:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Response: If I have violated a policy or a guideline, please let me know where I can find it, becuase I do my best to behave according to the rules here. I have looked, and have not been able to find a Wikipedia policy against alerting other editors to an AfD. I did not try to persuade editors other than on this page to vote against the AfD. If there is no policy, then I don't know how I can be expected to conform to behaviour that certain editors think is appropriate. Zeromacnoo 04:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Response: In defense of Zeromacnoo's alerts, I personally appreciated this as it was a topic I was interested in, and I wouldn't have known about the discussion otherwise. Daydream believer2 04:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Zeromacnoo and others: I could have explained that better. There's an objection to "spamming" about discussion of deletion/policy/candidacy here at Wikipedia, because most of our processes work on the basis of consensus/rough consensus, the idea that most editors will come to some reasonable conclusion that is obvious, given the chance. Letting a certain subclass of editors know about a particular discussion skews those results and makes the final decision by the closing admin harder to determine if it's true or false consensus. Note that I didn't say "thse editors should be ignored", because a) that'd be assuming bad faith on Zero's part, and theirs, and b) I didn't look up what the reason was he contacted them (presumably, edit history with this or related gay porn articles). I just noticed that suddenly this discussion jumped from three commenters to six or seven, and wondered why. Does that help explain my message? -- nae'blis (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Response: In additional defense of Zermacnoo's alerts, I have been editing other gay pornographic pages. The decision of this AfD will set precedence for other gay porn star articles. I did not view his contact as spam, but relating to articles I have recently edited. PsYoP78 18:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Completely. I'm sorry if I sounded negative, I don't think spamming is necessarily right. I guess I'm just thankful to be informed about discussions I'd like to weigh in on. Daydream believer2 14:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I also should have mentioned that the reason notices on WikiProject pages, for example, are not considered under the same bad light is that they are " opt-in" and available to anyone on any side of the discussion (for instance, I could watchlist WikiProject Porn stars and hear about any relevant discussions that people wanted to post there, whatever my personal interest/POV was about their notability. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Zeromacnoo's contact with other editors is no reason to close discussion. As for the topic at hand: The reason why Erik Rhodes seems to have appeared in Falcon Studios videos only is that he has an exclusive contract with Falcon. Falcon Studio (+ Jock and Mustang divisions) produces a limited number of films per year. While I may disagree with Falcon's business model of concentrating mostly on white males, the "Falcon Exclusive" is a status that Falcon grants to a very select few gay porn actors. Rhodes has such a contract and most wannabe gay porn actor would kill for such a contract. As for notability, go to the falcon website [20]. See that guy on the left? That's Erik Rhodes. Falcon, one of the world's leading gay porn studios, promotes its website by putting Rhodes on its homepage. BTW, Rhodes (before signing on with Falcon) did appear in a video produced by Studio 2000, Flesh, in 2004. And yes, Studio 2000 is one of Falcon's main competitor for top talent. As for the counting bean criterion for notability: it's quite off. Ryan Idol, one of the biggest gay (for pay) porn stars ever, appeared in around ten (10) non-compilation videos from 1990 to 1996. The reason he did so few was that he thought doing so many would make him more of a has-been a lot sooner. He was right. Idol is not alone. See Rex Chandler and Jeff Stryker. Mtparnas 23:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Cloachland 23:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • IAFD and IMDB are not appropriate resources by which to measure notability for gay adult film performers. Case in point: Al Parker was one of the most prolific gay adult film performers of his time.
  • A search on IAFD [21] for Al Parker returns a no match. The same search on IMDB [22] lists Parker as an actor in 12 films, a director of three, a producer of one, and one appearance as himself. Hardly representative of his actual work.
  • The video retailer tlavideo [23] lists Al Parker as a performer in 32 gay adult films (some of which are compilations of scenes of other films), a director of 22, and a producer for 2. He is also listed as a model in two books, as the subject of another, and as appearing in a deck of playing cards of gay adult film performers. Al Parker’s career spanned 13 years; tlavideo's listing does not include all his work.
  • Erik Rhodes, having begun his work with one film in 2004, is listed in tlavideo as being in nine films. Five of them he made for Falcon Studios, three for Jocks Studios (a division of Falcon), and one for Studio 2000. Zeromacnoo and Mtparnas have addressed the concern regarding Erik's short filmography; which, given the average output of a gay adult film performer, is pretty impressive for roughly 2 years in the industry.
  • Being exclusively signed with Falcon Studios is an excellent indicator of notability in terms of gay adult film performers, as Falcon is one of the largest studios (if not the largest studio) currently producing gay adult films. Falcon is also one of the oldest surviving studios to do so and is a highly-recognized brand.
  • Dating someone who isn’t notable (i.e., redlined) doesn’t lessen an individual’s notability.
  • As for the comments, I appreciate that Zeromacnoo noticed my fledgling editing efforts and thought to inform me of this discussion - it's a topic in which I have a great deal of interest. I would hope that being new to a forum doesn't automatically discount one's contributions to it. Chidom 08:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mostly Rainy 02:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Counter-Strike Spray

Pure gamecruft. Additionaly sprays are not even an original feature of Counterstrike but of Half-Life, the game Counter-Strike was derived from - are we to have an article for every game that allows sprays? Artw 00:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete (A6/A7/G4). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anry Nemo for an earlier discussion of this subject. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Anry

Speedy as attack tag removed by author, so it's here. -- DarkAudit 00:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. — Jul. 18, '06 [21:29] < freak| talk>

Juan Camilo Montoya

Cannot verify notability per WP:MUSIC. Nicely written article but no sources that can verify notability are cited. Nv8200p talk 00:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

NBA International

Looks like original research. I don't think this has much encyclopedic value. It also has no sources for any of it. Metros232 00:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - Metros232 most have missed the source I gave under "Sources". The 06 season is clearly from the NBA website. I created this page as a way to talk about the international effect of the NBA. Both the effects of the league and the effects around the world, as the league is making the sport more popular. But, I guess nobody went with it and exand it. Chaldean 03:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • No, I see that link at the bottom. And I see that it leads to the 2001-2002 rosters. But if you went through and counted each one of those and tallied where each player was from, it's original research. And it's not "clearly" from the NBA site since you didn't cite it. Metros232 03:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • keep and expand please this is a important topic we should cover Yuckfoo 20:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, I would say merge into NBA, but it already has a long paragraph discussing this topic. Recury 00:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep although it needs clean-up and expansion. Unpublished data is original research, but tabulation of published data is not (unless it advances a position). -- NORTH talk 20:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Sea Warriors

There is nothing in this article that isn't covered in the Hawaii Pacific University entry's Athletics section, or is so notable as to deserve its own article. Only two pages, a user page and a project page, link to it. -- EazieCheeze 00:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G4 - repost of merged article. Pumpkinfest reverted into redir to Waterford, Ontario. Kimchi.sg 03:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Pumpkinfest (Waterford, Ontario)

This seems to be an end-run around the AfD on Pumpkinfest that closed on July 8, 2006. The result of that AfD was to merge the article into Waterford, Ontario. As you will see, the former Pumpkinfest info that was merged into the Waterford article now forms the basis of the new article now nominated for deletion. Normally, I'd say this qualifies for Speedy Deletion as a recreation of an article deleted after an AfD; however, this might fall into a loophole. If I'm wrong on the qualification for Speedy, then I "re-nominate" this article for the additional reason that this is an event of only local importance which otherwise lacks any notability or importance. That the article itself has to include an argument for notability is a sign that there is none. It would not be surprising if many small towns had such an event, but we don't need an article on each and every one of them. Not sufficiently encyclopedic. Agent 86 01:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy Delete - there's no "seems to be" about it. This is blatant. Rklawton 01:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and also delete the pumpkinfest disamb page. Phr ( talk) 02:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete lest we get every town's fest. I live in the area of this article and can think of a dozen "fests" around it. Roby0215 02:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the disamib page was created by the closing admin (Tyrenius), this page is not a speedy since according to CSD G4, "A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted as a result of a discussion in Articles for deletion or another XfD process (may be deleted.)" The page was not deleted but merged. However, this article can be deleted for creating a sepearte page for something that is notable within the scope of a city, but not notable enough for it's own article. Yank sox 02:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • OK, maybe I've had too much sun today, but I don't exactly understand these points. It's not that I disagree, I just don't understand them. Could you explain each of these points again in simple English? Rklawton 02:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • I've had about 10 hours in the sun and no sleep so I could be out of mind right now. What exactly is confusing? Yank sox 02:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • I just listned to an online tech presentation, so I think I'm back up to speed again: we can't speedy it 'cause it wasn't XfD'd, just merged. It was then recreated by a user with a history of creating articles that get deleted. OK, so delete and frag makes sense. Question: is there a disambig page that needs removal, too?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Unauthorized Rolling Stones

vanity/spam article, marginal notability

This is a self-promotional article by persistent Wikipedia spammer Rudy Colombini; see

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rudy Colombini

for more info. It was originally entered from an IP address resolving to a hotel owned by Colombini and as such is almost certainly a vanity article. The band in question is a part time Rolling Stones cover band that plays in the San Francisco area. It has no records released AFAIK (anyone who wants to listen to Rolling Stones records buys real ones). It does have a few local press articles cited but that's pretty marginal for a global encyclopedia. The "Best of the Bay" award is not impressive since it's not really a competitive award; the newspaper just makes up categories to give out awards in, as a way of promoting local businesses and products, nothing like the "major awards" listed at WP:MUSIC. The article gives no evidence of the band's notability per any of the other WP:MUSIC guidelines except the above.

The tone of the article is relentlessly self-promotional and many of the details are unverifiable, and the author has a history of making disputed self-promotional claims (see the AFD linked above). The article also tries to promote the nonexistent "SF Rock and Roll Hall of Fame" and "Music City SF", two more vanity articles now deleted (author wrote about those venues as if they were separate and notable entities, when in fact both are at the same street address and are still apparently under construction. See Talk:Rudy Colombini for some details.

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

MBADiversity.org

Weak case for notability. Looking over their corporate website, their activities are heavy on the fundraising and promotion and light on actually helping minorities earn MBAs. I think this qualifies as advertising. -- Xrblsnggt 01:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Steve Schuh

Notability/importance in question. ghits: [24] -- NMChico24 01:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 20:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Brain Teaser

This article does not meet wikipedia's notablity requirements. If this were a full size roller coaster than sure, but it is just your run of the mill little kiddie coaster. see a picture here [25] Although I understand the need for articles on the big rides at parks like this, small generic rides should not be granted their own articles... thanks for reading T-rex 01:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Merge any relevant info to Six Flags Darien Lake to expand the short blurb that already exists on that page. At least the other rollercoasters listed there (except for the The Viper) are located in several parks and are not kiddie rides. Fabricationary 01:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - I'm a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Roller Coasters, whose goal is "to make Wikipedia into a BETTER roller coaster reference than the Roller Coaster Database". To do that, we need articles on all coasters, big and small. This one just needs some time and expansion. Note that it's also linked from the SFDL template -- also part of Project roller coasters -- if the article is deleted, it will leave a hole in this template. -- Rehcsif 05:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    No, if this is deleted it will be removed from the template... the biggest drop on this thing is only like 2 feet... -- T-rex 13:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
RCDB thinks it's worthwhile: [26]. -- Rehcsif 14:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
This is Wikipedia, not RCDB. Our standards are different. Not higher, not lower, just different. And less directly oriented towards the inclusion of rollercoasters. — Haeleth Talk 19:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep. If the intent of Wikipedia is to be better than RCDB, then this coaster should have its own page. That is the goal of the Roller coaster WikiProject--to make Wikipedia better than RCDB. -- myselfalso 20:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Well wikipedia's goal is to be an encyclopedia, not a directory -- T-rex 03:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as Fabricationary. Too minor/generic for its own article. -- GWO
  • Merge. Sorry to the rollercoaster project, but I'm afraid your goals are secondary to the goals of the Wikipedia project as a whole -- that is, you can only create a better rollercoaster reference to the extent that that is compatible with our goal of creating an encyclopedia. I don't think that this particular ride really merits its own article in the context of an encyclopedia. — Haeleth Talk 19:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep. This article isn't much as it is, but all it needs is for a Wikipedian who lives near the park to go there and do a little first-hand research and maybe take a picture or two. Also, if this article is deleted and its entry is removed from the park's template, the template will be rendered meaningless as it wouldn't list ALL the coasters at the park. We'd have to call it "Selected roller coasters at Six Flags Darien Lake" or something to that extent. If this is deleted or merged, it will set a bad precedent for other similar coaster articles. Also, as much as I hate to refer to WP:PTEST, it pretty much applies here. Dusso Janladde 19:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Please look at this page ( sixflags.com), the park itself doesn't even think this ride is important enough to put on their ride list. The first two are their big new rides, followed by the 5 (yes only five) real rollercoasters and then selected other rides, no mention of this non-notable want-to-be coaster -- T-rex 03:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - I am also a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Roller Coasters, and I agree with Rehcsif - FTIII 20:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - Basically all of Dusso Janladde's reasons -- Phantom784 21:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep & expand For the reasons stated above. RCDB simply lists statistics whereas Wikipedia has the potential to include a detailed history for all roller coasters. However, articles like this need expanding by someone with knowledge of the ride in question for the Roller Coaster Project to be taken seriously. -- Fozi999 22:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Even with no previous knowledge of this coaster I've done some research and added a little more to the article. However, it still needs attention from someone who has more knowledge of the ride. For example, there's no information on where the coaster is actually situated within the park. -- Fozi999 11:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - The creation of Wikiprojects attest to the overall notability of the subject matter and deserves the Wikipedia's community's support. The size of the size of the drop is irrelevant. Each coaster (big or small) is an architectural structure that incoporates the applicable laws of physics. If we are compiling a worthwhile and informative data base on coasters then there is need and notability in the inclusion of all types of coasters--even teh small ones. 205.157.110.11 22:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as per Fabricationary and Haeleth. This is an Encyclopedia, not a database. T. Moitie 23:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Also, you can keep it as comprehensive as you already have it when it is in the main article. There is no warrent for an article for every single rollercoaster big or small. And there is no reason why having the article inside a larger article would ruin the project. - T. Moitie 23:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge & Redirect, there's no reason that there cannot be a half-dozen paragraphs in one article about the coasters at that park, rather than six separate articles that are only a few lines each. Merging would actually make it more useful. -- JD79 00:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: But this is not a finished article, so saying "a few lines" is not a fair statement. Please check out Kingda Ka, The Demon, or El Toro for an example of a coaster article with some maturity. -- Rehcsif 03:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: This article has been nomiated for deletion, and I oppose that idea. Certainly it is not a major article, and certainly will never rise above stub level, but there is little reason to delete it based upon how much work has been done by members of the Roller Coaster Project on tracking every roller coaster possible. (Note: The preceeding comment was placed on Talk:Brain Teaser by User:Zotdragon)
  • Keep: This article may not be the most important ever, but I think its vital to Wikipedia:WikiProject Roller Coasters. - Bagel7 04:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Six Flags Darien Lake. Kiddie roller coasters are non-notable, they just are. Claims that its deletion will destroy a template or go against a WikiProjects guidelines are irrelevant. It is not the intent of Wikipedia to be better than RCDB. It is the intent of Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia. -- NORTH talk 05:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 22:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Sharma Method

Article is a hoax, or at the very least non-notable. No references of it can be found through googling. Whpq 01:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. — Jul. 18, '06 [21:27] < freak| talk>

No Mercy Video

Not notable video company. The article itself states that "they didnt [sic] sell more than 100". The website doesn't offer the video release for sale anymore, and it's hard to find any meaningful references to the company or its products by searching the web. So we're failing WP:CORP, and if we apply WP:MUSIC to a video release, it fails too. Only substantial contbributor is User:No mercy video, same name as the article title, so WP:VANITY.-- Mikeblas 01:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Conflict Style Inventory

this article had an aborted nomination on July 2nd that never got posted here and was removed from the article. I'm bringing it here because I think it needs a broader viewpoint; as it stands it is written largely by one user whose name is suspiciously similar to "Kraybill" itself. -- nae'blis (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete or Clean-up at least. Totally incoherent. If made any sense I'd have a stronger opinion. A physical tool? Psychological tool? Testing procedure? WTF? -- GWO
  • Delete as nn topic, 671 Ghits and all of those appear to be product/catalog listings. No major third-party articles by uninvolved writers, and the listed authorship here makes impartiality questionable. The article apparently has been steadily massaged by some attentive writers. It has however no context, evidently was written by someone who knows the topic, and makes assumptions that a layman would not. The talk page contains a claim the writer is selling books by making manifold links to the page; I can't know the writers' intent. WP:VAIN is also a guideline, not policy, and I'm not quite seeing relentless self-promotion in the text despite the original contributor's username Kraybilr. The name is admittedly close to the Ron Kraybill Conflict Style Inventory, which in turn lends itself to the question of impartiality. Bottom line: No notability stated or implied. Tychocat 09:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless radically cleaned up and notability asserted. This reads like an advertisement. — Haeleth Talk 19:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The word "Inventory" in this context implies a method of rating or measuring behavior, and thus the article must show evidence the mesurement instrument is reliable and valid. Published scientific evidence from verifiable and reliable source, I may add. KarenAnn 23:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above Massmato 16:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G1. Kimchi.sg 03:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Glistening

Delete as nonsense. Speedy tag removed by author. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 02:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Trick or Treat Bang Bang

Not at all notable. "Trick or treat, bang bang" is a phrase that appeared in one episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm. The article provides no assertion that this phrase has somehow entered popular culture, been referenced outside the series, or even is considered remarkable by anyone but the individual editors.

I successfully nominated this article to be speedied a while ago under A7, no assertion of notability. I'm not a sysop, so I don't know if this is a carbon-copy recreation of the same material, but it might be, meaning that this article could be eligible to be speedied under A7 and G4. However, the {{prod}} tag I added yesterday was removed by User:82.40.35.24 with an edit summary of "its a very funny line. many of larry davids phrases end up in popular culture." Not very compelling, but I felt I would be being a dick for taking this to be speedied after the {{prod}} was removed, so I'm bringing it here. Dylan 02:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Hannon Hill

Is this company note-worthy? If it is, someone should cook up some content for the article. Otherwise it's just cruft and should be deleted. goofyheadedpunk 17:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Delete, I'd be stronger about it if I knew whether or not this "Cascade Server" product is of any note. If not, the article has had over a month and a half to prove its subject's notability, and so far that hasn't happened. Willing to change my vote if someone more knowledgeable about this field can share what they know or don't know about the company and/or the product. -- H·G ( words/ works) 23:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I did an extensive notability check before creating this article after its suggestion at articles for creation. As far as I remember, it was borderline, but did pass to my standards. However, I know nothing about this company, and apparently the IP hasn't returned to edit it. So I'm neutral. It looked notable, but if nobody cared to edit it, then it must not be. Cheers! -- Keitei ( talk) 06:47, 15 July 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, - CrazyRussian talk/ email 02:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 back to Scouting in Louisiana and redirect. Mailer Diablo 20:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Chilantakoba Lodge 397 (Order of the Arrow)

I prodded this but it was just deprodded, so I'll just use my original prod reason: Non-notable chapter/lodge of a larger organization. About 25 unique Google hits none of which seems to be an independent sources. Metros232 21:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC) reply

relisting to generate a clearer consensus. - brenneman {L} 02:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 fresh copyvio. Kimchi.sg 03:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

H-o-m-e-r

The article looks like copied and pasted information, and I don't think it's notable. JD don't talk| email] 02:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete If it is copied, it's ok to speedy as it has no other edits, but I couldn't find an exact duplicate online. (someone did, and marked it for speedy. Though it looks more like an advertising of the site than a copyvio, probably) Even so, doesn't read like an article, and is all in an OR tone. Delete. - Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 02:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 00000011111111111bbzbzbzbz I mean OMG gone! - CrazyRussian talk/ email 02:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Special Characters

A 130-kb text dump of HTML special characters: that's it. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this is about as indiscriminate as you can get. Was Prod'ed, but tag removed without comment. Calton | Talk 02:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Scott Millett

This not overly intelligent young man was not the "primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of [him]". As such, I say we electrocute this article to reduce light pollution.- CrazyRussian talk/ email 02:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. I created this article after being referred from the Brandon Vedas article, and the subject is noteworthy for being one of the first internet deaths by misadventure. He was subject to a fair amount of news coverage at the time due to the internet angle. BoojiBoy 03:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete in agreement on Calton's Darwin Awards comment. Michael 07:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination and Calton's comments. I don't think this incident really stands comparison to Brandon Vedas -- Millett just went out, did something dumb and got himself killed, whereas Vedas pretty much died on screen and became a symbol for the stupid bravado ("i told u i was hardcore") and the cowardly group mentality and evasion of responsibility ("damn this is hard call[.] yall make it[.] good night[.] [exits]") that directly contributed to his death. They pretty much watched him die. That element is what made the Vedas incident famous and an ongoing part of internet lore, and that element is precisely what's missing in the Millett incident. (Obviously, they should've talked him out of it, but they honestly didn't realize that a) he was really going to do it and b) it really was a very dangerous thing to do.) Sure, the two incidents have parallels, but in the end, one of them is a very notable event, the other one isn't. -- Captain Disdain 08:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a list of people who killed themselves doing stupid things. -- GWO
  • Delete as those above. Nuttah68 10:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Captain Disdain. Not really "Internet related", if that makes a difference; else every suicide, criminal, or accident victim who records their plans on MySpace or LiveJournal is encyclopedia material. Smerdis of Tlön 14:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment The point was that he was the first such idiot, and was newsworthy at the time. However I will obviously accept the judgement of the community if consensus is reached. BoojiBoy 14:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Subject fails WP:BIO. A chat log is not a Reliable Source. If he was the subject of "multiple non-trivial published works" then please cite those sources. Note, WP:BIO states, "Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage." Subject is trivial. Scorpiondollprincess 14:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 20:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom -- KarenAnn 23:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete not-notable, vanity, trolling article. -- Werto 13:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep purely because of the insensitivity shown by the nom to a human being who has died. -- Tim1988 talk 11:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete per WP:BIO. Clipped the wires on a light pole??? Such a minor crime likely wouldn't even make the local paper, much less an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Ehud Olmert and Iran

First let me start with some history. Because of all of the attention and debate caused by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statements regarding Israel and The Holocaust, the section of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dealing with his comments about Israel became too large for the article on him, so it was split off into Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel. Ehud Olmert and Iran was clearly created as a POV response to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel. This article was created with the intention of showing that the Israeli Prime Minister makes parallel comments about Iran that Ahmadinejad makes about Israel. However, whereas Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel actually talks about an ongoing controversy that is frequently in the news, this article is intended to create a controversy. If you read the article you will see that it is entirely POV and OR, and the grammar ain't much to write home about. Further, the subject is bogus, anything here that's relevant already exists at Ehud Olmert or could be merged there, and nothing that Olmert is quoted as saying here is particularly notable or hasn't been said by other world leaders. GabrielF 02:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

If you think about it, the reason why there exist an article called Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel is simply the echo of his statements in western media. Non of his statements were new and many of former Iranian and non Iranian muslim officials have had very similar remarks. Olmert's statements had also very similar echo in Iran and muslim countries. In this respect wikipedia is very much POV as it mainly covers what is in western media (as most of the media of Iran and muslim coutries use a language other than English). -- Mitso Bel 14:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Where is advocating genocide in the article? Khorshid 05:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment There already appears to be an article on Iran-Israel_relations. -- Xrblsnggt 01:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Have you tried to merge the relevant and sourced information into Ehud Olmert? -- JWSchmidt 17:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Actually, he's now trying to insert the exact same information into 4 different articles, including Ehud Olmert. Jayjg (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Warren Woods Tower High School

High school article with minimal content and no assertion of notability about the school. — C.Fred ( talk) 02:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Not by researching it on Google, but by giving knowledge acquired through actual experience with the school. That's how most information on small towns, colleges, etc gets added anyway. AdamBiswanger1 23:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the well reason arguments documented at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. This and all other secondary schools are notable enough for an encyclopedia aiming to provide the complete sum of human knowledge. Not that notability is a requirement for inclusion. Silensor 09:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • enough for an encyclopedia aiming to provide the complete sum of human knowledge.
If you find such an encyclopedia, add this article to it. If you think this is such an encyclopedia, you have greatly misunderstood the stated aims of Wikipedia. -- GWO
You're the one with the misunderstanding problem, as these are always kept, and the founder of Wikipedia is in favor of them being kept. Golfcam 23:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
No. They're not always kept. That's an outright fabrication. A policy insisting they're always kept was rejected by the community, and the community outranks Jimbo. -- GWO
.... and as such has a major influence on those students' lives. Keep as per standard approach to schools. If you ain't interested, don't read the article. Markb 12:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I was interested until I read the article. GassyGuy 16:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep or else merge — Yes there's no commonly accepted criteria for H.S. notability, but this page survives my personal criteria. Thanks. :-) — RJH ( talk)
  • Delete. Parents have an influence on childrens lives, but being a parent doesn't make you notable. Just another unnotable high school. -- GWO
  • Merge to district article. -- Liface 15:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per every other high school article being kept. You aint telling me you're gonna waste your time and ours by trying to delete every school thats ever been "kept" are you!? If I need more reason, its a high school and if we have to have articles about every damn pokemon that (n)ever existed, then a school is a no brainer! Jcuk 18:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • If you believe that the Pokemon coverage should be amended (and I'm sure you're not alone) then perhaps it'd be more productive to attempt to change the way those rulings are administered than to pick a new topic to fill with unnecessary entries. GassyGuy 19:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • keep please this secondary school is important we should document it Yuckfoo 19:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, just another school like any other. The existence, nature, history, and development of schools are all very important topics that deserve extensive discussion. Individual schools that do not stand out from the crowd in any way are not important; their existence is a random fact, not a part of human knowledge. We have articles on cherry trees in general, but not on the rather fine example outside my window, even though its existence is easy to verify; we have articles on prominent people, but not on me, even though I can find plenty of independent sources that discuss me; we have articles on the telephone, but we do not include lists of phone numbers.
    Summary: schools in general == knowledge, specific schools == not knowledge except in exceptional cases, this school == not exceptional == not knowledge. — Haeleth Talk 19:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete -- disclaimer #1) ok, I grew up going to school near WWTHS and the Titans are not even notable in the immediate area, let alone on WP. disclaimer #2) My POV is that school articles can all go, unless they have notable alumni or an event. -- MrDolomite | Talk 19:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep per my notion that all secondary schools carry inherent notability hoopydink Conas tá tú? 20:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and improve. High schools are notable. -- Baron Larf 22:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep High Schools and Colleges have an intrinsic notability, this article must be kept. -- Librarianofages 22:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and allow for organic growth per Jimbo Wales. [27] Bahn Mi 22:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Secondary schools are important I don't care what the out come of WP:SCHOOL was. -- Pboyd04 23:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The secondary school notability debate needs to end. To recap key points, secondary schools often have many more students than a small college or university, often have famous alumni, and are the location of many important events in the lives of thousands of young adults. Intrinsically notable. AdamBiswanger1 23:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand to match the many other school articles. Cloachland 23:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Schools are important. Ramseystreet 00:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Secondary level educational institutions and above are inherently notable. Yamaguchi先生 00:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per precedent. My opinion is that all public schools are notable. hateless 00:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • delete - I believe that most schools can be notable, but content is what establishes this notablility. Very little content. Note I am here due to an email sent to me asking me to vote here. Please wieght my arguement accordingly. HighInBC 00:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment. HighInBC has been active on Wikipedia for about five months with a somewhat sizable edit history. —nom. — C.Fred ( talk) 00:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

DELETE. This school is not discernably notable, no real encyclopedia would ever accept this trash. GameSet 01:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. All enduring institutions are verifiable and should be documented in any encyclopedia whose purpose is to comprise the sum of all knowledge. -- Centauri 01:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • If the purpose is to comprise the sum of all knowledge, then I don't think any article would be deleted that contained facts, including the ones about nn people, nn bands... 'cause, like, you can verify their existence. And yet we do delete those articles, because the sum of all knowledge is not quite what we're collecting. GassyGuy 01:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

100 best movies of the cinema of Mexico

This article, like several others that have been deleted recently, is simply a restatement of some single source's "best of" list. In this case, we don't even have an article on the magazine yet, which makes it all the more spurious to have this article recreate their arguably copyrighted content. -- nae'blis (talk) 02:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g4, it's pretty much the same. - Bobet 10:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Z Games (2nd nomination)

This article has been deleted three times. The main contributor is a user called " Z Games" and the company still fails WP:Corp. Half of the links are to sitesled.com and the other half are to awardspace.com. Please see the last Afd ~a ( user • talk • contribs) 02:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Sean-Michael Smith

Inclusion of an individual at IMDB does not imply notability. While IMDB notes a few minor acting and directorial credits, these do not meet WP:BIO standards. (Plus, all the article asserts for notability is that he is a union member.) — C.Fred ( talk) 02:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Djnet

Fails WP:WEB: no media coverage, no awards, no distribution by non-related avenues. — C.Fred ( talk) 02:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was bury the treasure, and salt the Earth. Mailer Diablo 09:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

TreasureTrooper

As we have decided this should not be speedied, this has five days to run, so we need to wait until July 23 to determine the consensus. -- Avi 01:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
It is only semi-protected. -- Avi 03:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Plus you (141.151.94.113) were making the article look like a referral or an advertisent for the website. Koolgiy 14:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • How? All I initially wrote was that it was a survey site that pissed others off for spamming! I then just REFINED a very LONG and ONE SIDED, but INFORMATIVE addition that another user had added. I transformed it to be neutral, and cleaner! All I wanted was to learn more than its user's spamming.-- 151.197.119.208 21:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • So why am I the original author who did not write it as an advert blocked from editing? How is this semi-protected?-- 151.197.119.208 21:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Section from History on TT article
This is what you (151.197.119.208) added. Tell me if it sounds advertismentish
There is also an opportunity to complete daily surveys in the Cash Surveys section. If you qualify and successfully complete the daily survey, TreasureTrooper will pay you .75 cents. If you qualify for and successfully complete every daily survey, you could potentially earn up to $22.50 each month by doing the daily surveys alone.
TreasureTrooper.com also allows you may also participate in contests, earn items gold coins, pearls and virtual gems, which are used to purhase items at an online trading post called Mabutu's Trading Hut. The purchases made at Mabutu's Trading Hut can be used to earn extra referrals, participate in online contests, and help you in your search for the fabled Lost Statue from the Mambiku Tribe, worth $100.00 in prize money! There are several contests offered to help you increase the amount of money you make on Treasure Trooper.'-- Koolgiy 04:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Reply What You Think
  • I did NOT write that! Look over ALL the history if you want to reference to it. I refined that over many re-edits. If you look through history longer you'll notice that text's original addition was added by another user, while it's dramatic change was made by me. Remember me saying here, "I then just REFINED a very LONG and ONE SIDED, but INFORMATIVE addition that another user had added."? YOUR QUOTE was what I was talking about! ALSO, did you not notice my criticizing that in the discussion section?-- 141.151.78.22 04:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • HAHAHAHA eheh hahaha... My randomly bieng logged off for a period would explain why I, Dagibit and 141.151.78.22, couldn't sign edits as Dagibit, and was not able to edit the article or to argue. I did admit to sucking at this kind of stuff in the discussion section, but either way, I'm sorry for the large amount of spam this caused here and for sort of flaming you, koolgiy. Now back to buisness, The article really is improved from the state that you shared, so why can't it stay?-- Dagibit 15:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (As a side note, plenty of old pages fall through the cracks here. Also, if I can AfD a page that's four years old, no article is sacred based on the amount of time it has been here.) Grand master ka 20:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Star Wars Epics Forums

Non-notable forum. Alexa rank around 5 million at the time of nomination. Delete as original research as well. Wickethewok 02:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • What? Its the number 5 result when you type the name of the website into Google. Is that what you mean? If this was a measure of notability, we would have had a featured article on Clifford's Cat Hats already (it has a Google ranking of 1 according your measures, which I assume means it is 5 times as popular as your site). Also, this is my favorite reason for keeping an article about a forum ever. Wickethewok 15:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I'm glad I could amuse you. That's not what I meant. The google pagerank is 5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.0.196.74 ( talk • contribs)
  • Yet another reason to keep it, everyone who saw it for 3 months apparently felt it was worthy. But I won't contest further. Thera2400/— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.0.196.74 ( talk • contribs) 15:43, 20 July 2006 (EST)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Haylee Oakes

Fifteen-year-old national karate champ with 0 GHits. NN or hoax, take your pick. Oh, she also works part-time at Tim Hortons. Fan-1967 03:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. --- Charles 03:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. If you look up a Simcoe Composite School yearbook for either this year (2005-2006) or last year (2004-2005), you will see her name and photo. Her name (which might have been unintentionally misspelt as "Haylee Oates") and photo can also be found on the Simcoe Reformer. GVnayR 03:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Having a yearbook entry does not make her notable. This is not the Norfolk County Wikipedia. Bearcat 04:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • This editor is responsible for a lot of articles nominated for AfD. I'd appreciate it if an admin with a bit of extra time would review this user's "contributions" and assess whether or not this editor should still maintain an account here. Rklawton 00:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
His contribution history, from what I can tell, is more crufty than invalid per se (although admittedly there's no excuse for Kelly Lloyd-Jennings on any level whatsoever.) Bearcat 04:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Jul. 18, '06 [21:24] < freak| talk>

Dork (band)

The article admits this is an unsigned band, lucky enough to get on a regional tour by virtue of playing roadies/doing manual labor. I don't see this as passing WP:MUSIC. Delete. Xoloz 03:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. If you wish to propose a merge, discuss it on the article talk page, not here. Grand master ka 20:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Vashi Bridge

non notable bridge. possible merge and redirect to either Mankhurd or Mumbai. - SynergeticMaggot 03:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

If Train A is traveling toward Vashi at a speed of 100km/h, and Train B is traveling toward Mankhurd at a speed of... oh never mind ;) -- Rehcsif 14:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems "notable" enough to have an article. To the nominator: if you wish to merge, simply do so - you don't need a VFD. -- SPUI ( T - C) 19:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep needs to be sourced and expanded, but a quick look at the bridge categories identified by Shenme shows lots of U.S. bridges of lesser notability so keeping verifyable Indian bridges fights systemic bias. Eluchil404 19:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Gran Turismo 4 Car List

Previously nominated and deleted a year ago. Nothing has changed since the last nomination. It is still unecyclopedic, gamecruft and just a FAQ. I would possibly suggest a transwiki to Wikibooks, but I don't think they take FAQs (if this could even be called one) so that suggestion is out. There are also a number of these lists around the Internet and could always be linked to from Gran Turismo 4 if people feel that this resource is really all that valuable. PS2pcGAMER ( talk) 03:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After four hours, absolutely no reason at all even vaguely hinted at by the nominator as to why the article should be deleted. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Lassie (2005 movie)

Delete and redirect to Lassie. SynergeticMaggot 04:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 09:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

New Jersey Brewers

Very WP:NN. This was a soccer team, never having been to a playoff, nor the U.S. Open Cup. Delete. SynergeticMaggot 04:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as db-author since blanked by author. -- JLaTondre 02:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Jeremy Preston Johnson

Can't quite speedy this as "patent nonsense" but I'm not sure what it is. Maybe original fiction? The name googles, but nothing that looks relevant to this. Danisvjold Makijivic does not google at all. Whatever it is, definitely not encyclopedic. Fan-1967 04:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 San Andreas (Grand Theft Auto). bd2412 T 21:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Brown Streak Railroad

Cruft about a company from a game that isn't mentioned anywhere except on trains. Also original research. 1ne 04:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment My suggested target is the "state" in which the game takes place and which the railroad serves, not the game itself. youngamerican ( ahoy-hoy) 13:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 09:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Daniela Hamaui

Delete per possible WP:VAIN and fails WP:BIO. SynergeticMaggot 04:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was De'Lete. Mailer Diablo 09:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

D'Leons

Non-notable local resturant chain with only 3 locations. Delete Jaranda wat's sup 04:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete with the possibility of transwiki. The prevailing wind here is that these articles are more than we need, and any possible merge targets already contain ample information on the subjects. As I don't think the StarCraft wiki is really a sister project of ours, I'm not going to mess with trying to transwiki this whole thing (also, it is possible/likely that their articles are better than what was here!). If someone would like the deleted content to do the transwiki work themselves, drop me a line. ( ESkog)( Talk) 07:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Specific StarCraft units

Original research, game cruft, game guide, whatever you like to call it, these articles' content features mainly strategy advice, unit statistics, and other content that is quite unencyclopedic. Regardless of goings-on on other AFDs, this content should certainly be deleted.

Nominating:

Note that I am not including heroes/NPCs/characters in this nomination, only generic units. Judging by a similar previous AFD ( here), most editors believe this content does not belong in a general encyclopedia and should instead be in a separate Wiki.

Wickethewok 04:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Side note: Someone posted on Digg to influence the AfD
  • Delete, gameguide stuff. Recury 13:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Don't Delete!, If this is removed from Wiki then obviously we have to go even further than that. Anything pertaining to Star Wars or Star Trek in complete details involving planets and race's have to be marked for deletion as well. If you remove one set of fictional articles, you remove them all. Personally, I don't think this is a path that should be traversed. -- Wil2197 14:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Eh? If you remove one set of fictional articles, you remove them all. Why would one have to do that? If one includes Romeo and Juliet, must we include every play ever written? Not all fiction is created equally, or has equally cultural notability. Furthermore, its not POV to point that out. -- GWO
      • Eh? I too am in favor of transwiki-ing, and you are right to point of the slippery slope fallacy. However! Starcraft is one of the most culturally notable videogames ever. Especially in .kr, but even in the English-speaking world, the starcraft is legendary. En taro adun, eigenlambda 19:10, 18 Jul 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Zergling, delete the rest Ironically, the title of this AfD is the one that should be kept, and seeing it on the afd list piqued my interest to come here and say so. Do we need an article on every SC unit? No way. But the Zergling has become extremely notable in popular culture - the term has come to be a word on its own, and is also more symbolic of the game as a whole than any other unit. However, it should be made into more of an article explaining these points than the strategy-guide reading they get having one for each unit. - Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 19:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Additional comment to my above - While I originally said keep zergling, delete rest, I'd like to clarify I have nothing against a transwiki, as seems to be the growing consensus. The thing is, while I don't know the SC wiki, I would assume they probably already have info on all these units, and probably more about them than we do. But if not, then sure, trans away. Also, there have been a few suggestions to merge to a list. I would say that this is probably the best way of keeping any info here, as a list of units with minor single-line-ish info. - Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 03:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Transwiki and merge down to a single 'list' style article, after generous cutting. -- InShaneee 19:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Transwiki all per first few comments. Maybe I might as well go ahead with this. --Slgr @ndson ( page - messages - contribs) 19:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, transwiki, smerge, any would be an appropriate solution to this problem. Goldom may be right that zergling should be kept, but I think it's really the concept of the "zerg rush" that's the culturally notable thing (I know what "zerg rush" means, I didn't know that it involved zerglings), and that is quite adequately covered in Rush (computer and video games). — Haeleth Talk 19:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all, transwiki, merge Deletion based on Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a game guide hoopydink Conas tá tú? 20:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/Transwiki It appears Wikipedia is on an AfD rampage, but this one actually might be justified... however total deletion is still stupid and pointless, and the slippery sloper argument is becoming increasingly valid. Merge them into Starcraft Units, etc. or transwiki them to where they fit better. But don't delete outright. The game guide stuff should not survive any such change however, but it seems that rather than fix articles, Wikipedia is just deleting them altogether. I'm not sure that's a good idea. David Fuchs 22:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete All game guide. Someone could take all of this material slap "StarCraft Game Guide" on the cover and make some good money selling this at Barnes and Nobel. As to the slippery slope there is a difference between video games and movies or books. There is no issues of "succeeding" or "doing well" at movies or books. ALthough this should not mean that video games or individual components of videogames are inherently game guide material. For example Mario is highly notable and the article about him has no useful information in the execution of any of the vast number of games in which he has appeared. It is the collection of small bits of information that is useful in playing the game and fail any notablilty outside of the game that is the issue.-- Nick Y. 23:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to their races per above. -- Pboyd04 23:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The thing is, there's already sections on the units in the articles for the races, as I described earlier. Merging wouldn't accomplish anything because the information is already there. E946 02:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all. Love the game, but this is a crystal clear violation of WP:NOT. If this isn't a video game guide, nothing is. Aplomado talk 01:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Transwiki I didn't know there was a SC wiki. Prolly be nice if it were listed on the Interwiki map. Great info, I play the game, but let's keep it where it belongs. -- MrDolomite | Talk 02:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Transwiki per StacyD. The game guide material needs to be on game wikis Stacyd
  • Transwiki per above. These articles are non-encyclopedic, and most of the usable information is already well covered in other articles, as said. -- SevereTireDamage 07:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, tag for cleanup if necessary. I'm sure the Starcraft wiki doesn't need our contribution. If the articles have too much advice in them, they need editing, not deleting. I see no reason why we can't have articles on individual Starcraft units when we have articles on individual Pokemon. Mango juice talk 14:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep All - These articles provide objective information on one of the most popular computer games of all time. [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] There are basically three rationales to this mass-AfD: original research, notability, and "game guide", and they have to be address on two levels: what content could ideally make good articles but is not currently of high quality, and what content is inherently non-encyclopedic. As for the quality issues, these should be resolved by IMPROVING rather than deleting articles. From what I've seen, most of what has been called original research is actually insufficiency of references; these issues can be addressed by deleting true OR and improving the articles with more and better references for the objective information. As for notability, there is little question, as the references a few lines up indicate, that Starcraft is one of the most popular video games in the world and has remained so for the over eight years since its release, with indicators such as media coverage and endorsement contracts for professional Starcraft players (!) continuing to go up. As for the fuzzy, poorly defined "game guide" objection to encyclopedic worthiness, the proper dividing line is an active area of discussion, but I think should be between providing recommandations on strategy (not encyclopedic), and providing objective information on details of how the game works, as we do for detailed explanations of the rules for any notable game or sport (encyclopedic). Otherwise, where is there a principled dividing line between eliminating specific game mechanics, and eliminating any rules of a game, and eliminating any content at all related to a game or sport? If forms of recreation are encyclopedic at all, providing specific descriptions of their rules or mechanics should be limited only by the same criteria as for anything else, i.e. notability, references, etc. An apt comparison here might be made to chess, which has dozens of categories, with up to 137 articles per category; these are all properly encyclopedic as well, and must have been found so by the untold number of WP editors it must have taken to write them and who must have read them without a problem. I for one find them relevant, informative and fascinating and wouldn't want to see them deleted, just as with these Starcraft-related articles. They are filled with the sort of detailed game mechanics that populates the content of these Starcraft articles, such as this passage from Queen (chess): "The queen can be moved in a straight line vertically, horizontally, or diagonally, any number of unoccupied squares as shown on the diagram at the left, thus combining the moves of the rook and bishop. The distance it can move is known as the Chebyshev distance. As with other captures except en passant, the queen captures by occupying the square on which an enemy piece sits. Ordinarily the queen is slightly more powerful than a rook and a bishop together, while slightly less powerful than two rooks. Because the queen is more valuable than any other piece, it is almost always disadvantageous to exchange the queen for a piece other than the enemy's queen, unless doing so leads to a position where the king can be checkmated." An even more apt comparison might be made to Final_Fantasy_X, which is today's featured article on the WP front page (as of this writing). Final Fantasy X passed the gauntlet to featured status in part because it is well-referenced, obviously a notable subject, and provides objective information on detailed specifics of how the game works - see, for example, Final_Fantasy_X#Battle_system. The editors who agreed that this deserved featured status did not seem to apply an absolute rule against "game cruft" as opposed to detailed, objective information on a notable recreational subject. This is the same in principle as each one of these articles would do in their ideal state, after being appropriately improved, rather than deleted. - Reaverdrop ( talk/ nl/ w:s) 00:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC) (repeating some comments made previously elsewhere) reply
  • 'There are basically three rationales to this mass-AfD: original research, notability, and "game guide"' In my case, this is incorrect. I want them deleted because the articles on the three Starcraft races already have sections for all of their units and structures which describe them well enough. The fact is, there's not much to say about most units, and what there is to say has already been said in the unit sections of the race articles. E946 02:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for ALL subjects! I want to know the statistics for the Protoss Arbiter (besides the fact that I wrote the article on the Arbiter). Where do I find them? Wikipedia? Yes. Unless this AfD comes through. And, like E946 said above, AfDs have 3 reasons: original research (definitely not), notability ( StarCraft is VERY popular), and game guide. I fail to agree with his reasons, though. StarCraft units fit none of those! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RelentlessRouge ( talk • contribs)
    • Starcraft is notable. That's why it has an article. A Protoss Arbiter is not notable. Therefore, at best, it should be included in the game's article. And then it should still not be about how to use it in the game, or that's a guide. If you want to look up stats on units, there's tons of sites with that info, including the official one, so it's not like you're gonna be out of luck if these pages are deleted. - Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 18:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not a game guide. And we aren't discussing whether or not Starcraft is notable which it is very much. However Wikipedia isn't a game guide and these articles are and that is why they need to be deleted. Whispering 17:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete what with WP:NOT being a game guide. There is a starcraft wiki where this might be welcome. If so, transwiki, but delete whether transwikied or not. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Ugh, Delete all. The only articles that I considered keeping might be the ones for specific units which are extremely well-known, such as the Zergling. However, the current edit of the Zergling article is - like most of these articles - primarily focused on the unit's statistics in-game. While this information may be of interest to some, it is not the sort of material that belongs in an encyclopedia. Blizzard already has a page with this information and more.
A reasonable standard that I've been mulling over in my mind for topics such as this is the following: "Fictional topics should only receive articles if they are featured to a significant extent (i.e. not a cameo appearance) in works which are significantly separated from the ones in which they originally appeared." For example, Bulbasaur (to use a popular example) gets an article, as it has appeared in a bunch of Pokemon media -the collectible card game, various video games, the TV series, etc. However, aside from a brief cameo appearance in Warcraft 3, the Zergling has never (to my knowledge) featured prominently in anything besides Starcraft. Neither have any of the other units listed here, so none of them should have articles. The same goes for Charles Foster Kane (of Citizen Kane); I may eventually propose that that article be merged to Citizen Kane. Zetawoof( ζ) 01:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • That's certainly a...unique opinion. The Bulbasaur example makes no sense under your criteria, since all of those other works are all Pokemon works and not any more "significantly separated" than the Starcraft books. Also, I think it's fair to say that Holden Caufield deserves an article, even if J.D. Salinger refuses to license any of his works for treatment in other media formats. 129.61.46.16 19:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Josh reply
  • Ooh, the existence of Starcraft books actually throws a real wrench into this particular issue. The difference as I see it is that the various Pokemon works are not as directly connected to each other as the Starcraft books are to the game: as far as I know, the Starcraft books serve as minor expansions and "riffs" on the story told within the game, while the Pokemon card game (again, as far as I know) shares very little with the TV show or the video game. Holden would, incidentally, actually be safe under my policy, though, as he appears in (or, at least, is strongly connected to) several other works of Salinger's. Zetawoof( ζ) 00:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep all. These articles have been worked on for YEARS now (look at the history on some of these), and contain a lot of valuable information. If they read too much like a game guide, there's no reason they can't be modified (after all, this IS Wikipedia). Those that have little information left after removing strategies could simply be redirected to the main StarCraft article. I think the biggest issue here is that if these are removed, there's really no telling where to stop. I mean, what about this? There are articles for just about every character in the Mario series. In fact, "Goomba" was once the featured article of the day, which is why I bring up this point. Also, what about the countless articles on Wikipedia dedicated to schools and songs and episodes? Are these somehow more notable than StarCraft units? I strongly urge you to re-think your votes. This sort of careless deletion immediately throws about 90% of other Wikipedia articles into question. Czj 06:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Goombas have been in many different games and pieces of media. No StarCraft unit can claim such for themselves. The argument that there are articles worse/less notable than these are not a defense. If you have issues with those articles, bring it up there. Though, right now the Goomba article is large uncited and parts of it could very well be original research. Wickethewok 12:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep all. Why shouldn't Wikipedia have this information? Wikipedia is supposed to have information about all subjects. If you don't like the pages, don't look at them. Some of the Star Trek related pages are better here than on Memory Alpha. Some of these pages need cleaning up, that's all. Rondmc170 07:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Have you read the nomination or the discussion here? It has been amply explained why Wikipedia shouldn't keep them. I think you are mischaracterising Wikipedia; it is not supposed to be a compendium of "information about all subjects", as you put it. Rather, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. For an encyclopedia a mere mention or a short sentence or two of description of the minor units of this game is sufficient and the interested reader can be pointed to other more comprehensive sources. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 12:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Popular This game is extremely popular in Asia, so popular in fact it is a live "sport" on television. I believe this dictates keeping the page. Founder 02:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Keep! 24.146.24.61 03:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ( ESkog)( Talk) 04:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Steve Wisdom

The person is not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.241.185 ( talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. -- CharlotteWebb 18:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Loki (Band)

Completing AFD. Tagged by anon IP. No vote. Fan-1967 05:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment, you should be able to create another one, no? Antares33712 15:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - brenneman {L} 01:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Gitanshu Buch

Not notable person, no press coverage 62.189.241.185 05:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply


  • Keep This article should not be deleted, he is a hedge fund manager, who keeps quite a low profile. He is responsible for the returns of the top performing Hedge Fund in the USA, Manchester Trading, which won a MAR Hedge award in 2006, for its last three years of performance, which Buch was responsable with along with Victor Niederhoffer. He has recently started his own firm, and it is likley that he will have more press coverage going forward.

The article also makes sense as a link from the Niederhoffer page as a prominent ex trader at that firm.

On top of all of this he developed a widely used market indicator the heatmap which can be found on almost all finance websites. ~ Daviegold 13:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Meridian larp

Event that hasn't happened yet, 500-1000 possible participants may not be notable, article sounds more like an advertisement. Tapir Terrific 05:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete until after it's happened, at which point numbers/coverage etc will be available to make it notable if it turns out to be. BigHaz 05:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I believe this falls under WP:NOT a crystal ball.
  • Delete. not sure about the crystal balling, but this article definitely has an advertising tone. Also, it's 18 Google hits (most of which are either broken or completely unrelated) seem to suggest the event isn't notable enough for wikipedia. tmopkisn tlka 06:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Well, for a larp, I think 500-1000 participants is kinda notable, actually. You have to take a certain degree of relativity into account here; a thousand larp geeks is a significant gathering, whereas a thousand NASCAR geeks is not. That's just the dynamics of scale. However, that's neither here nro there, because this is way too crystal ballish -- I could see this becoming an article if they're successful (and particularly if it does become a yearly event), but that's going to happen after the event, not before it. We don't even know if there are going to be fifty people there, never mind a thousand. Delete. -- Captain Disdain 06:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per nomination. Graham 07:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per Crystal Ball. "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Notability depends on the event taking place as planned. It doesn't seem certain and won't be notable until after it has succeeded. I agree with Captain Disdain's comments: if the event actually takes place and sees 500-1000 participants, it may become notable. Scorpiondollprincess 16:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 salt the Earth. Mailer Diablo 09:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Raceconflicts

Keeps being deleted and re-created Dakart 05:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Speedy close, obvious redirect, no need to bring to AfD.. -- Hetar 06:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

U.S.S. Prometheus (NX-59650)

Redundant to USS Prometheus (NX-59650). Only link to this page is from a user's to-do list. -- EEMeltonIV 05:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Atlantis of the Sands

Article is a copy and paste of information that makes no sense at all. I have lots of experience in copy-editing and there is nothing I can do for this page. JenLouise 06:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy close - RFD is two doors to the left. Kimchi.sg 10:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Cornish toe

Neologism Pete.Hurd 06:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Sugest delete. Google returns zero hits for the term, term unknown to medical science, see related debate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celtic toe. Pete.Hurd 06:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Kershaw Knives

No evidence that this company meets the criteria set in WP:CORP. howch e ng { chat} 06:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • neutral company is a well known knifemaker and probably meets the guidelines, but I'm generally against this type of article and I think the guidelines are too loose. Phr ( talk) 06:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fails WP:CORP. tmopkisn tlka 07:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • For related discussions, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginsu and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roselli Knives. Uncle G 10:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment if you think an article fails WP:XYZ could you please consider telling us WHY it fails? Otherwise we're peeing in the wind a little if we dont know much about the subject.... TYVM :-) Jcuk 18:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails WP:CORP. But I'm beginning to see that it is impossible to have any knife company deleted. KarenAnn 23:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Most notability guidelines WP:XYZ are of the form "to be noteworthy, an XYZ must be A or B or C or (D excluding D1 or D2) or E... So a statement that it fails is primarily a statement that the person does not see how it meets any of A, B, ... E.... If you disagree and want it kept, explain how it meets any of A, B, C... preferrably with evidence from independent reliable sources. The nomination was "no evidence that this company meets". This is a subsidiary of another company, so presumably private. The only WP:CORP criteria it has a chance at then is the first. The article has only external links to the company's own website, and no references. That is certainly no evidence of being the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial published coverage. GRBerry 03:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I think such coverage probably does actually exist, at least in the specialty press. This is a well-known knifemaker and there are many knife enthusiast publications (they're similar to gun mags) likely to have published reviews of the company's knives and so forth. Otherwise, yeah, it's just spam. I'd rather see a biographical article about Ken Onion. Phr ( talk) 11:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Massmato 16:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Alyssa Miller

Article about a model who has appeared on the covers of a few magazines, but I don't think Wikipedia is a Who's Who of the modeling world. howch e ng { chat} 06:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. "Alyssa Miller" gets about 9700 Google hits, "Alyssa Miller" and "model" gets about 400. (Compared to, say, Google has its weak points, but when it comes to gauging models' notability, I figure it does okay. (As a point of comparison, really big names like Tyra Banks or Heidi Klum get over a million and a half hits with the word "model" thrown in for good measure, whereas notable-but-not-mega-big models like Daniella Sarahyba get 40+K hits. Compared to numbers like that, Ms. Miller doesn't seem to be readily distinguishable from any other professional in her field; sure, her name gets mentioned, but apparently only in credits, not so much in articles or news stories. -- Captain Disdain 06:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - doesn't seem to match any criteria outlined in WP:BIO. Fabricationary 06:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep Comment. Has an entry on IMdB and receives Substantial Google hits. tmopkisn tlka 07:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Uh... I just checked, and I actually get more Google hits than she does. (Though not with the "model" qualifier thrown in. She wins flat out on that front.) In fact, I get way more, because most of the "alyssa miller" hits aren't about her -- there's a 14-year old kid with diabetes, for example. My hits are pretty much all about me, thanks to my crazy Finnish name. In any case, I certainly don't think ~10K hits is all that substantial. As for that IMDB entry, uh, well, you might want to take another look at it: the parts she was playing in 2004 were "Baby Forrester", "Baby in Nursery" and the like. I'll hazard a wild guess that we're not talking about the same person here. =) -- Captain Disdain 07:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Michael 07:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- GWO
  • Delete generic model. Just zis Guy you know? 12:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. It should be noted that it was I that requested that this article be undeleted as it had not gone through an AfD. I presumed that more content than is clearly present was in the article. Per WP:HEY, should a presumption of notability be established by editors adding content to the article, my vote would change to a Keep. She appears surprisingly close to meeting "Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers" from WP:N due to her presence on the cover of Vogue and several other such magazines. Google tests regularly fail to adequately represent models that are big in the industry but have failed to acheive pinup status on the internet due to the type of work they participate in. This is particularly true for high-end fashion models. I will endeavor to do a little lexisnexis digging later today for further clarity. Kershner 14:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I would have to say that just being on the cover of Vogue isn't the same thing as having multiple features in Vogue. (The former being "just" a picture, the latter being an actual discussion of the person in question -- more or less, anyway.) Of course, if you're a model, chances are that you're more likely to be shown than discussed, but then that's the nature of the job -- I guess that's not unlike the difference between starring in a single blockbuster movie and being "Man #2" or equivalent in numerous movies; the latter doesn't really meet our criteria, while the former obviously does. That said, I'm entirely willing to change my stance here if it appears that she's considerably more notable than I thought she was -- I just don't think that fashion models are inherently qualified for inclusion, even though their jobs are inherently more high-profile than those of, say, plumbers or city council members. -- Captain Disdain 15:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete according with WP:BIO guidelines. Scorpiondollprincess 14:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per above. KarenAnn 23:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:BIO - CrazyRussian talk/ email 03:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Massmato 16:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep on notability. Ten thousand google hits far exceeds the bar. Wjhonson 23:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • It's too bad the original author didn't do more work. I've added five more links to her page. She was on the cover of Vogue for heavens' sake :) That's pretty darn notable to me! I've never made it on the cover of any magazine (but I'm still young so there's hope). Wjhonson 00:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Architectural Building Materials

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this article just lists basic constructions materials and gives a dictionary definition of said materials. I can see this being an actual encyclopedic page in the future, but not in its current context. tmopkisn tlka 06:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

AsiaXpress

Fails WP:WEB. There's really only 6 links independent of AsiaXpress that link to the website (none of which are of interest) and its overall google presence is minimal. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Robots in Ancient Greece

Non-notable webcomic. No reliable sources or any sign of significant and independent syndication. -- Hetar 06:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete both. Mailer Diablo 09:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Internet session (and Remote_session)

Neologism article on conducting music recording sessions over the Internet. All articles cited so far were originally published by Prism Business Media Inc. The whole concept doesn't seem notable enough yet to warrant an encyclopedia article. Just about anything can be colloborated on via the Internet these days. --  Netsnipe   (Talk)  06:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

House Sudoku

Violates WP:SPAM; this is a nonnotable entertainment Web site. -- Graham 06:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. — Jul. 18, '06 [21:21] < freak| talk>

Www.freewebs.com/jammiet

Self promotional article for a Non-notable website. --  Netsnipe   (Talk)  06:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - non-notable group). Tangot a ngo 08:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Delayed promise

Fails WP:MUSIC - has had a notability tag since January, but no attempts have been made to assert notability DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 07:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Nathan Paul

Non-notable player playing nine levels below the Premiership. Only potential claim to notability is that he is a sportsman who was the victim of a knife attack, but even that didn't turn up any Google hits that I could find.... ChrisTheDude 07:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Rick Meyerowitz

I did try to research and edit this, but had to give up because (after removing all of the unencyclopaedic language) it turns out that he is just a commercial illustrator with no assertion of notability - Fails WP:BIO DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 07:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. Well, "recent collaborations with the artist Maira Kalman have produced New Yorkistan, a hugely popular cover for the New Yorker magazine" sounds like an assertion of notability to me. Also, the New Yorker is often considered to be pretty much the pinnacle of American cartooning, as far as prestige goes. But I can't seem to pin down whether he's done anything else for them (or how significant the rest of his work is), so I'm not gonna vote here. -- Captain Disdain 08:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Oh, boy, whether someone or something has a Wikipedia article is a terrible gauge of notability! (I know you threw in that "maybe" so I'm not pouncing on you here, but it's a point worth addressing.) I agree that if a topic has an article, that's a fairly good indication that it's notable, but the reverse should not be assumed to be true! (If nothing else, if that was the case, that would obviously mean that there would be absolutely no need to create new articles on anything except new topics!) It's a particularly bad gauge of notability in this instance, because female cartoonists (particularly female editorial cartoonists) are not the kind of people who're most likely to get articles written on them. There's been a lot of talk about the problem of systemic bias on Wikipedia, and while I think there's a lot of unreasonable alarmism about when it comes to that, the underlying concern there is entirely founded. -- Captain Disdain 14:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

George Smith (John Lennon)

Non-notable uncle of John Lennon. Being the uncle of John Lennon does not make him notable, and I don't think that there is anything else that could possibly make him notable. DarthVad e r 07:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep (see below for striketrough reason and new vote), the article explains that John Lennon was raised by this uncle (rather than being a random uncle) and had a significant impact on Lennons life. Given the fact that also Lennons mother has an article ( Julia Lennon), which is probably true for more famous people, I would not delete this article. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, and integral but oftern overlooked key in The Beatles (and especially Lennon's) mythology (if that's the right word). George features prominantly in any other work on or about Lennon. Vital information that cannot reasonably be included in the Lennon article. The main problem is the unfortunate article title, other than that it is a desirable article for anyone wishing to learn about John Lennon.-- Crestville 11:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Notability doesn't rub off on relatives - My favourite example : David Beckham = notable footballer Victoria Beckham = notable singer Brooklyn Beckham = non-notable baby DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 13:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - If he's notable, it's only in his connection to John Lennon, so just beef up the already in place comments about him in the John Lennon article. -- PresN 14:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand per Crestville and Reinoutr. Smerdis of Tlön 14:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per Crestville and REinoutr. Scorpiondollprincess 14:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete - Notability is not genetic (otherwise pretty much everyone would be notable!), though does anyone else find "Menlove Avenue" funny? Wickethewok 14:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Definite keep This man has been sadly neglected by history, and one of his few epitaphs is this small page. What a travesty. He bought Lennon his first harmonica, and encouraged him musically, unlike Mimi, who nearly destroyed the fledgling Beatles with her negativity. Don´t forget that Lennon played harmonica on Love me do. His presence is as important in musical history as McCartney´s mother, father, Lennon´s Mimi, Julia and Fred. Are the tourists that visit Menlove Avenue not told about him? Definitely keep, and hopefully expand with a photo. andreasegde 19:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as subject does not meet WP:BIO on his own. Mention is already made at John Lennon and could be expanded there. If kept (and it appears there is a reasonably good chance this will happen based on consensus here), the article should be moved to a more standard namespace: George Toogood Smith.-- Isotope23 19:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If everybody keeps merging things into the main articles, they will only be readable if you have a few hours to spare, and will be almost incomprehensible. If The Beatles´ tape engineers have their own articles, then why not George? andreasegde 19:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Please spare us the slippery slope fallacy. We have a perfectly good system for splitting up articles when they become too long to be manageable. John Lennon does not currently suffer from this problem. — Haeleth Talk 20:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: While the subject of the article is the uncle of a Beatles member, it just doesn't do anything to prove how notable he is per WP:BIO. Less famous, by the way, and only a mere footnote in the history of the Fab Four. --Slgr @ndson ( page - messages - contribs) 19:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and Merge with John Lennon article. I agree that George Smith does not rate a seperate article, but he is an important and largely forgotten influence on Lennon. He might be usefully added as a footnote section in the Lennon article. LessHeard vanU 20:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Have you read the Lennon article? George Smith is already covered in it, and as more than a footnote, too. — Haeleth Talk 20:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Read it? I've rewritten bits of it!(grin)I mean; rather than have Uncle George as part of Lennons pre Beatles history, have a "sub article" toward the end of the Lennon article relating to George Smith. Just a thought... LessHeard vanU 12:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, or merge if any of the handful of additional details here are felt to be relevant to John Lennon; George Smith is not notable in his own right, and does not need an article of his own. No redirect is needed (unless a merge is performed), since the page title is disambiguated and thus not a likely search term. — Haeleth Talk 20:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As LessHeard vanU points out, a very important influence on Lennon. In a different league from the Beckham/Beckham example. Vera, Chuck & Dave 22:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and provide sources for existing content. Yamaguchi先生 02:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • George Smith was important to Lennon, but not nearly so much so as his widow. As such, a merge with the article on Mimi Smith might be a reasonable solution. Grutness... wha? 03:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete I read the article three times to make sure I hadn't missed anything but I still couldn't find any notability whatsoever. This is one of the least notable relatives I've ever come across on AfD. Less notable than Beckham or Pitt/Jolie kids, less notable than relatives of early Islamic figures. Those relatives get deleted routinely and I can't see anything here at all notable. MLA 08:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment, I suppose this really depends on how well-known you are with a given person or subject. Personally, I find someone who apparently was a big influence on one of the worlds best known artist much more notable than the kids of random famous people, of which it is still unknown whether they will ever do anything significant or influence anyone else who does something significant. If it is not kept, a merge and redirect to Mimi Smith would be the best solution I suppose (per Grutness). Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment Hi, this is why I ensured that I included the mention of the Islamic relatives. There are some editors who believe that parents of Islamic figures are more notable than someone who apparently had an influence on a musician - this is not recentism on my behalf. At present, the article does not contain a single assertion of notability. Even if there was some influence on Lennon, that does not mean that the person themselves is notable. The article states that he was the uncle of Lennon, and that Lennon lived with George Smith for most of his childhood. It then asserts that Smith lived a non-notable life before dying when Lennon was 15. None of that is even a claim of notability hence my statement that this is the least notable relative I have ever seen at AfD. MLA 09:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete. No claim for notability in his own right is made. Any useful information should be in John Lennon. David | Talk 10:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment About this he was a great influence on John ... my dad once bought me a harmonica - didn't get me anywhere!!! John Lennon already had the music in him ... it was he who met Paul &co at school/college. I think if he lived with my uncle the Beatles and John Lennon would still have existed exactly as they did. In a nutshell ... John was talented and self motivated (obviously POV this!!!) DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 11:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge George and Mimi into one article. This is a perfectly valid content branch from the John Lennon article, which is already too long as it is. No sources given but that shouldn't be a problem. I see no reason to keep them separate though. ~ trialsanderrors 10:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • (Meaning no sources given is a problem, but it shouldn't be too hard to source the article. Get to work, Beatles fans!) ~ trialsanderrors 10:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment I will sort that in time. I have some books about him.-- Crestville 11:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • I'm sure they pop up in about a hundred Beatles biographies, but you should still list them. The article also needs de-cheesifying. (George delivered milk by pony and trap in the Woolton area. The milk was held in a large churn which was ladled out to customers into their own bottles and receptacles is not of particular encyclopedic interest.) If people have problems about them getting top billing in an ecyclopedia, rename the article John Lennon's Youth and add his parents to it. ~ trialsanderrors 17:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
          • This is a good suggestion, a merged article with all members of his family, with a link from the John Lennon article, "pre The Beatles" section. ps. It wasn't cheesy, it was likely to have been freshly pasteurised! LessHeard vanU 21:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the fact that he needs (John Lennon) to disambiguate him stronly suggests that he lacks independent notablity and thus should be covered in John Lennon. Eluchil404 19:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment. There are 37 other George Smiths' listed in Wiki's disambiguantion page, 17 of whom have blue links. In this instance (but perhaps not others) the individuals notability is not dependent on how he is disambiguated. LessHeard vanU 22:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I wish those people associated with The Beatles Project would declare an interest when voting on these matters. No matter how important the Beatles are, this is not WikiBeatles! As suggested above, George could easily be moved into an article about John Lennon's youth. Who is actually going to look for this George Smith because he was once associated with John Lennon? Nobody - anybody who wants that kind of depth of information will buy the books. At this rate somebody will want to write an article on me - and that would never do! So a firm delete -- Richhoncho 12:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
As a member of The Beatles Project my interest is the same as everyone else on this page; improving Wikipedia. My votes and comments have not been a straight "keep" either, more a weak keep - and merge into a more suitable article. LessHeard vanU 21:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment that's pretty speculative. Who's to say someonne wanting to know about him would immediately turn to books? With that sort of thing my first turn is always wikipedia so as to save meself a tenner nad a trip to waterstones. BTW, LessHeard vanU declared his intentions way up near the top.-- Crestville 12:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Further comment. You're right, Crestville, to want to look up George Smith (John Lennon) you would have already read some Beatle books, which is the only reason he could be considered notable in the first place. -- Richhoncho 13:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Yet Further Comment I disagree. Anyway, what about the people who just come to browse? Why should they have to read all the Lennon page, when they could look in the Lennon category and find a link?-- Crestville 20:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

MyFavoriteGames

Article on a non-notable Dragon Ball Z website. Fails WP:WEB almost as awfully as it is written. Voice of Treason 08:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Howard R. Johnson

Likely self-promotion (see contributions of author). Main claim to fame is being chairman of Atlantic Group Holdings, Ltd.. If I recall right, the article for the company was deleted and it has 8 Google hits anyway. The other is being one of the many co-founders of the Bahamas Democratic Movement, (The party's founders included: Cassius Stuart, Howard R. Johnson and a number of then-students of the College of The Bahamas.) This is a very minor party, which got 0.32% in the 2002 Election, and Johnson left it within a year of its founding. In other words his impact on politics in the Bahamas has been miniscule. Finally, note the 215 Ghits for Howard R. Johnson. Punkmorten 08:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Moseley dance centre

prod2 deprodded by anon. Probably NN and doesn't make a whole lot of sense. -- ais523 08:46, 18 July 2006 ( U T C)

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

The result was I'm being bold here and will say Merge and redirect to Kuching, there wasn't much content only said the school name and the city, if you want to recreate the article with more content, feel free to. Jaranda wat's sup 22:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Green Road Secondary School, Kuching

Just a list of staff at a non-notable school - I see no reason to keep it. Ladybirdintheuk 09:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. – Avi 01:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Exocortex

I created the article when I first joined Wikipedia, it is unsourced vanity and original research with only little notability (i.e. used by a single science fiction writer.) I find the page a personal embarressment and I am surprised that it lasted this long without an AfD.

  • Delete - as original article creator and AfD nominator. -- Ben Houston 14:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I speculate there to be a good number of aspiring transhumanists who would want this article to stay. I suppose you may however remove all references to yourself if you so desire. -- Amit 15:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Xe is making the very point that if all references to xyrself were removed, there would be no article left, since xe created the concept, and the only traction that it has gained in the real world outside of xyrself is use by a single science-fiction writer. Uncle G 15:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Bhouston, are you and the science fiction writer the only people who have ever written anything about exocortices? If so, you could challenge this article for being original research, the promotion of a novel concept that has yet to have gone through a peer review process and gained acceptance by the world at large. Uncle G 15:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - I created the article when individuals started giving the science fiction writer credit for coining the term (in his Summer 2005 book) when it was clear I had coined the term in that sense in 1998. The term has been used by fans of the science fiction author. It is not a scientific term but rather a fringe specualtive term. Maybe it should stay? But the article needs to be majorly cleaned up with regards to original research and vanity by someone other than myself. -- Ben Houston 15:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • The question still stands, because such cleanup bears upon it: Is there anything written about exocortices that doesn't have you as its source? That exocortices are speculation is not important. It is whether people independent of you have written about them that is important. Is this a concept that is limited to one, possibly two, people? Or has the world at large accepted the concept (even if such acceptance is merely to argue against it)? Uncle G 18:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • I actually tried to track the mentions of the term "exocortex" that were distinct from references to my minor website. The list is on del.icio.us here: [38]. There are only a couple dozen -- and I checked the whole web via a number of search engines. Via google there are 20K+ hits for Exocortex but almost all are references to my website or my various projects. Thus I would say that it doesn't have the notability as a separate concept from my website to warrent its own Wikipedia article -- again I wrote it to fend off this science fiction author from claiming that he coined the word -- I was concerned common usage within sci fi circles was going to take off, but it didn't. That said, if there is going to be an article in Wikipedia on "exocortex" I would like to remain noted as the one who coined the term and not the science fiction author Charles Stross. -- Ben Houston 19:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC) reply
          • It seems to me that it may take some more time before the term catches on, and I do think it will. If the article is deleted now, at least some of the info in it could be lost. -- Amit 04:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 09:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:NEO - it starts "An exocortex (speculative) ... ". If the creator acknowledges it's speculative then WP:NOT (a crystal ball) applies. Just zis Guy you know? 12:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - as above, it's crystal ball atm. I agree that, unless another term comes along, it will most likely be a popular enough term for wikipedia in the future, as I can't think of a better term for this concept than exocortex, but, as for now... Do make sure that if it ever comes around again you get credit for creating it though. -- PresN 14:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep if almost (but not all) references are to the author's website. Article needs cleanup, but if more than one reliable source can be listed I think it should stay. I agree with Amit's comments. If the article is deleted, some valuable info would be lost. Scorpiondollprincess 14:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - If the author claims it to be original research, have it deleted. No prejudice against recreation in the future with entirely different content though. Wickethewok 14:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Author & Nom. 205.157.110.11 22:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Huh, what is embarassing about it? It is quite well written and has links. Yes, it might lack some strong sources. Ok, for encyclopaedic purists, it might well be deleted. But then, we could delete half of Wikipedia as well. If Amit wants to keep it, then keep it. I see no harm in doing so. -- Ligulem 07:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - If the author claims it to be original research, it should be deleted. -- Loremaster 14:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, and I'll rename it forthwith! Proto:: type 15:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Peter NEYROUD, Chief Executive Officer of the National Policing Improvement Agency - Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police

Local British police officer. Claim to notability is that he won the Queen's Police Medal, which isn't a big deal as far as I can tell. Creator of article appears to be same as subject. Grace 10:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Question, are there specific criteria involved for police? Peter Neyroud is slightly more than a local police officer. He heads one of the larger police forces in the UK, covering a number of counties. Thames Valley Police. Nuttah68 10:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There are only 56 Chief Constables in the UK each with a responsibility to serve around 1,000,000 people and overseeing 5000 staff. This should make him notable enough, but blimey has anyone ever seen a serious article name this long??? Rename it!!! DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 13:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral I don't see anything that meets WP:BIO (and from the username & article tone, one could speculate that this is a probable WP:AUTO violation). There are no specific guidelines for Police, but I assume this is similar to the U.S. post of Chief of Police or Police Commissioner. That being said, I suspect there are external media sources out there that would qualify Mr. Neyroud under WP:BIO, I just didn't see them. The probable violation of WP:AUTO makes me refrain from opining keep though. If this is kept however, a move to Peter Neyroud is imperative, as is a rewrite so it doesn't read like a resume, and a rewrite for content as it appears there are some truthfulness issues with this article as well (or maybe just misleading wording). It would appear from this link that he is no longer the "Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police"; their is an acting chief since he took up the "Chief Executive Officer of the National Policing Improvement Agency" in January 2006.-- Isotope23 13:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment — Suggest at least a page rename to Peter Neyroud — RJH ( talk) 14:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • No vote yet; do Chief Constables frequently appear in public fora to comment on arrests, investigations, or administrative issues? If so, a holder of the post may be notable enough; not sure that having a staff of 5,000 is enough in itself. Agree with Isotope23 that moving to a standard title is required if this is kept. Smerdis of Tlön 14:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Answer, yes Chief Constables are public figures, they rarely deal with individual cases but are responsible for developing methods to enforce law in their areas and allocating resources as needed. Chief Constable is (London excepted) the highest rank in UK policing. Nuttah68 14:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:AUTO, WP:VAIN and WP:V. If this individual truely is notable, someone will create a properly titled article about him. Also I believe the title alone belongs in BJAODN. Resolute 02:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and rename. His claim to fame is not that he won the medal but that he's the chief constable of one of the largest police forces in the UK. Thames Valley Police covers an area with a population larger than 15 U.S. states. Next year he is going to be promoted further to a newly created national position which will make him one of the top two police officers in the UK alongside the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. He's also a published author and an adviser to the Prime Minister. There are 9,130 google hits for "Peter Neyroud". Basically if this is deleted its pretty much a ban on articles about British police officers. Now do we have a ban on articles about American police officers? Of course not! This sort of nomination shows up Wikipedia as being focused on covering what is important to adolescents rather than what is important in the adult world. Chicheley 02:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Chicheley and move to Peter Neyroud. Piccadilly 17:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a directory for every single high-ranking civil servant of every government Bwithh 06:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Keep Since it is a directory of a lot of material about transitory pop culture it certainly should include people of this importance, or it will never be regarded as much more than a children's hobby site. Landolitan 17:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ( ESkog)( Talk) 07:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Statement syntax (MySQL)

This was previously nominated in March, 2005. The article had two robot edits since then and no other improvements. The article is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a programming manual. The content of this article will never be more insightful or more current than the documentation pages (available for free, online) at mysql.com. Mikeblas 10:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. An eyesore as well. -- Brad101 13:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete abortive attempt at creating a programming-manual article. Lukas (T.| @) 14:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, albeit MAJOR REWRITE or transwiki (is that right?) to the WikiBooks section of this website 216.141.226.190 12:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. Note that the outline as it stands in the article isn't correct (SELECT isn't DML, for example; it's DQL). It also isn't complete; I'd estimate that the outline includes about 5% of the keywords that the language recognizes, not to mention the other background information (data types, execution model, and so on) that needs to be covered in order to establish adequate context for such an article. A "MAJOR REWRITE" would take two people about six months, and they'd finish with something that isn't as accurate or as up-to-date as what the MySQL project makes available at their own website. -- Mikeblas 13:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and above. -- NORTH talk 20:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Charles Fulton (minister)

Nonnotable minister, for virtually same reasons as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan W. Hansen. NawlinWiki 18:10, 11 July 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, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Celoxis

A privately held company, solely the workd of Celoxis ( talk · contribs). Advertorial in tone, may be a response to deletion of redlinks from numerous list articles. No evidence of meeting WP:CORP. May have the potential to be fixed (please feel free) but the current content fails to establish importance and reads like an advert; better to have nothing than this I think. Just zis Guy you know? 10:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply


Hello i have fixed this article, can we close this discussion ?

  • Comment If Celoxis is notable enough for an article, then I imagine this could be NPOV'ed. However, I feel unqualified to decide if it is. If the writer or anyone else could provide a bit of documentation about Celoxis from a reliable source, it would be a bit easier to decide. GassyGuy 11:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I got 31500 hits for it on Google, which doesn't seem like a lot for a software product. I couldn't find any real discussion of it online. One site I saw listed various similar packages and gave the number of pageviews for each entry; Celoxis had a pretty low number of page views. Even if the article was improved - it has NPOV issues - the package seems to be Not Notable. -- Brianyoumans 21:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 23:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

ATC Professional

Very short article about a piece of project management software. A Google for "ATC Professional" yields mainly links to a professional development programme. Excluding these gives few hits, and this article does not establish significance of the software per WP:SOFTWARE. The software is a niche product for refinery and chemical plant use, which may well explain its very low Google presence (<150 unique). Just zis Guy you know? 10:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. – Avi 02:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Daniele Capelloni

Young player who has never appeared in Inter Milan's first team. Definitely not notable. Angelo 10:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all about Primavera (youth team, usually Under-19 or Under-20) players too:

  • Delete for much the same reason as the above rationale to keep them - if all we're engaged in here is guessing that one day those players will play for a first team, then we're looking through the Crystal Ball. What if they all end up pursuing careers in unrelated fields or playing their club football for a third-tier team in Outer Mongolia? Unless and until they play for the first team (we can argue the notability of Outer Mongolia FC later) somewhere, they're not notable. BigHaz 11:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Week Keep Inter youth team players are likely to end up being notable within a couple of years. Keeping these articles is not crystal-balling, the same as in, say, 2014 FIFA World Cup, which we know is likely to come into existence in a couple of years (when bidding officially begins). A more sensible approach would be to keep them for the time being, then re-submit them for deletion in a few years' time once it's known they would no longer be notable by virtue of being a professional football player. And it would be easily to verify -- if the article says a player's an Inter youth team player, and by, say, August 2008, he no longer appears on the Inter official web page nor plays in any other notable football team, then it would be safe to remove such a player as being non-notable. -- Pkchan 11:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • It's not a likelihood matter. There's nothing to say about them as of today. If one day they'll deserve an article on Wikipedia, we'll make it. By the way, I'm not so convinced they will play all in Serie A in the future. -- Angelo 11:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete without prejudice. They do not meet our guidelines yet. Punkmorten 11:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Week Keep. I could live with them being deleted, but I've learnt some info from those stubs. I now know where they all come from, the teams they are at, their positions and ages. If they are deleted the chances are they'll just get made again, e.g. Paolo Tornaghi. They are notable for being players at (mostly) major professional football clubs — it's not like they're someone's mate who plays for the local pub team. aLii 12:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I have a feeling Abdoulaye Diarra has been capped for the Ivory Coast, so strong keep him. Esteffect 12:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Crystal ball. Reinstate when they make the first team. -- GWO
  • Delete all per GWO's reasoning. It is sheer unfounded speculation to say any of these players will definitely play first team. No predjudice against recreation when they actually do make the team.-- Isotope23 14:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Professional athletes really aren't notable until they make the majors in their respective sport. No prejudice to recreation if they win some notable player of the year award or play for a "first team", "major league team", or whatever they're called in Italian football/soccer. Wickethewok 15:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Crystal ball-- Andymarczak 09:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or possibly merge into one article ( Internationale Under 20, say). -- Daduzi talk 10:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as crystalballism. Many of them will become notabl but they aren't notable yet. Eluchil404 19:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all - fail WP:BIO. BTW Angelo, you an AC Milan fan? :-) BlueValour 02:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

TaskJuggler

MOre software form the lists where redlinks are nuked. 118 unique ghits, zero from Google News. No evidence of non-trivial external coverage, market share, user base, significance, innovation etc. per WP:SOFTWARE. Just zis Guy you know? 10:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Tattertools

Creator's contribution history suggest spamming. Input from those who are more acquainted with the subject of blogging software is requested. Until I see evidence otherwise, however, delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 10:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Bite Records

Hoax. As far as I can tell, no record company by this name exists, certainly not one that is part of UMG. Created to support a series of articles surrounding Lee Kaay ( AfD). All non-Wikipedia Google hits for "universal music group" "bite records" and similar searches refer to Shark Bite Records, a real label. Delete. Sam Blanning (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

88SLIDE: The Daily One Minute Trivia Challenge

Advertising and non-notable per WP:WEB - Bogsat 13:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • With 854'000 Google hits, I wouldn't exactly call this non-notable. Google hits can be artifically inflated, but not that high. I vote weak keep but move to 88Slide and cleanup. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 15:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom; are you sure about that Google total? I got over 400,000 hits, but only 92 unique hits, which is damned soft [40]. Going through those hits, I'm seeing a lot of blogs and redirects. Ravenswing 16:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I vote to Keep, as it provides useful info for people, such as the full names of those involved with the project, but I do believe it should be moved to "88SLIDE", as Che said above. Eric 00:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. For things like this, I like to ask myself, "Will anyone care in a year?" In this case, I like to answer myself, "No." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguerriero ( talk • contribs) 22:16, 12 July 2006
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Incorrect spelling of name and incorrect format of name. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Gil White, Francisco

Incorrect spelling of name, improper formatting of name (i.e. comma), and there is already a page with the correct spelling that is short, actually lists relevant information (such as published works) and does not contain obvious POV regarding some kind of internet squabble. Ryan4 Talk 11:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to Francisco Gil-White or, if this is too unlikely a search term (and it may be), delete as being the lesser of two articles on the same topic. May want to check to make sure there's nothing decent here that needs to be in the other first, though. GassyGuy 11:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - FrancisTyers · 11:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Stop and Chat

Not notable, unverifiable, and possibly the recreation of deleted material (see link, it's been speedied twice). Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trick or Treat Bang Bang from the same author for the same objections. Dylan 11:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, or include in the article on the show from which this came. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article appears to be defining what a "Stop and Chat" is through means of its origins. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this phrase mentioned in one episode of one show isn't notable. -- Porqin 12:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete CYE cruft. -- GWO
  • Keep How on earth was a phrase used in the UK by the entire population possibly coined by someone in the last year?, that's from the discussion page for the article, by an anonymous user. It may not have been invented by Larry David, or even popularized by him, but does seem notable. A Google search gives 92 200 hits, and most of the first hundred hits is in this context (and a majority doesn't even mention Curb nor David). qwm 16:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment The first google hit mentions Larry David as the founder (or popularizer) of the term. That being said, this is a term and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We don't make an encyclopedic entry for every set of actions one can do, ie. walk and chat, stop and talk, etc. This isn't notable to make an encylopedia entry about. -- Porqin 17:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment The first result I get is from UrbanDictionary.com, which does attribute it to Larry David, but which is far from a reliable source (as it is user-controlled). For all we know, the same person wrote both the Wikipedia article and the Urban Dictionary entry. 63.76.142.114 19:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless common currency (per Qwm) can be demonstrated and included in the article Alcuin 14:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Some such articles are useless - I agree that Trick or Treat Bang Bang can go. But Stop and Chat is actually more popular, and there are plenty of google results as pointed out above. It's not used well-enough to warrant a huge article, but it's certainly notable and worth having a bit of background on, I think. I don't see any reason at all to delete it. It's nice to have, in my opinion. -- midkay 10:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Article rewritten a bit to make it clearer that the origin is unknown but that it was used in Curb your Enthusiasm, which gave it popularity. -- midkay 00:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Thanks for your efforts, but I still note that (1) there's no indication that the phrase is even popular at all, and (2) no indication that it was Larry David who popularised it. Dylan 01:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Well, I don't think there are any statistics anywhere which can "prove" that it's a popular phrase - although you said "indication that it's popular" (I'd assume you meant to ask for proof), and it is indicated in the article. Nor is there definitive proof of how it became popular. Most of the Google results use the phrase in the same context that Larry David did, so it's a good guess that his TV show gave it some popularity (e.g. "I didn't want to stop and chat", "I hate the stop and chat"...). Again, Google has plenty of results for this; I did in fact come here looking for a Stop and Chat page before deciding to write one ("I wonder what Wikipedia has on 'Stop and Chat'" versus "Hm, I feel like writing a Stop and Chat article); it's fair enough to imagine that people have done the same before, isn't it? The article's also been updated again with more background; more to come, probably. -- midkay 02:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment While I agree with your assessment on a factual level, the article still doesn't meet the requirements for Wikipedia in terms of verifiability. All material has to already have been published by a reliable, outside source. What source has defined the stop-and-chat in the same way that it is presented in the article? What source has stated that this is a popular phrase? What source has stated that Larry David popularised it? And why haven't these sources been cited in the article? Dylan 05:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: Those are fine for the Hispanic customs that are discussed in the article, but again, not for the original definition or the mention of Larry David. Further, I feel like their might be a slight confusion here, between the Larry David use (the stop-and-chat: a specific, defined social encounter) and the common phrasing of "stop and chat," the coincidental use of those particular words to describe a social encounter not thought of as ritualistic or a specifically-defined encounter.
I hope that made sense. For example, see Facts of Life. That's a common euphemism for knowledge about human sexual/reproductive activity. However, there are instances in which that phrase could be used, but not in reference to the idea of the euphemism: for example, someone could say, "The idea that sometimes you have to do unpleasant things is just one of the facts of life."
This is the kind of distinction that I feel may be a problem with the stop-and-chat: while many people may have chosen to use the particular words "stop and chat," I still fail to see anything other than Larry David that defines it as a codified, specific social encounter rather than a particular way to describe a common practice. And if it's the latter, we would be seeing articles entitled shoot the breeze, make small talk, bump-into, and the like. Dylan 05:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Commment - Well, I'm not really sure what to say. I personally feel like the article's nice to have, as I'm sure some people have looked for it before, but I can't prove that nor can I prove that it's "popular" or "widely used" in this context. My vote is keep, but I don't think anyone else is convinced. :( -- midkay 06:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Hob Knobb

fails WP:CORP Nuttah68 11:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. - Yomangani 12:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Chemical soup

unsalvagable OR Nuttah68 11:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete- per nom (and WP:NEO) - Yomangani 12:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - poorly written opinion. Better written similar info at Sick building syndrome -- Whpq 12:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete this; but I'd suggest making the page a disambiguation between sick building syndrome, on the one hand; and origin of life and Miller-Urey experiment on the other; these were the first things that came to mind when I saw the title. Smerdis of Tlön 14:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 11:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Linda Gorn

Losing election candidate, has came in third or fourth in a number of elections. Punkmorten 11:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Please do not delete. Gorn was a candidate in a prominent By election to the Scottish parfliament and improved her party's share of the vote. For those interested in the Scottish political scene it is useful to have information on those who have played a part in By elections. I appreciate that this may seem less important to those from countries other than Scotland.-- Sjharte 12:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom - see Ann Garrett and Ben Abbotts for AfDs on losing candidates in more recent by-election (where Abbotts also came significantly close). Mtiedemann 13:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Failed regional nominee, doesn't pass my standards for politicians. Wickethewok 15:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Just being a candidate in a prominent election is not enough to make one notable. Perhaps some of this info could be salvaged and merged with an article on an election itself? Scorpiondollprincess 15:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Surely importance is in the eye of the beholder. All of those advocating deletion do not appear to be from Scotland or exhibit an interest in Scottish politics. Those who are and so will find it useful to have a Wikipedia resource that includes such individuals.-- Sjharte 15:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Comment Perhaps all those with such an in-depth interest should come forward and present their views alongside you. But nevertheless WP needs to have one standard for failed candidates and local office-holders worldwide and, like it or not, they usually get deleted unless they can show a greater level of notability. Mtiedemann 15:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • It will be a shame if those who have this deletion preoccupation succeed. The only otehr comprehensive online Scottish politics resource ( http://www.alba.org.uk) is brazzenly partisan. It would be sad to have to rely on this and lose the even handedness of wikipedia.-- Sjharte 16:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • It is definitely unfortunate that better resources for Scottish politics aren't online. That said, Wikipedia really isn't the place for such things--it's standard practice here to removed pages on losing candidates (regardless of country) who are of no other notability than having run. The good news is that there's a new site called Campaigns Wikia that might be appropriate for this article. I don't know the site's limitations, but look into it and see about opening an article on this subject. -- H·G ( words/ works) 18:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- H·G ( words/ works) 18:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- she may have failed in her bid for election to the Scottish Parliament, but is nevertheless the elected representative on Moray Council. The policy on notability does not suggest that such articles should be deleted-- George Burgess 21:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete 19 unique hits on the Scotsman is not a lot, 15 on the BBC is better, but given the storm in a teacup, not really enough to make her notable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Sandy Keith

Election candidate who came in fourth. Punkmorten 11:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Heralderixia

Contested prod. Claims to be an eating disorder, but returns zero Google hits. Probable hoax. GassyGuy 12:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

1-800-GOT-JUNK?

This article is very useless and has no WP:CITE. -- Shane ( talk/ contrib) 05:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - I note the original writer is an anonymous IP, whose only contributions are here and to Scudamore's puff-piece resume. I am not filled with hope that anything constructive is coming out of my leisurely suggestion. Tychocat 11:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment I've never been deferred to nifty. Whispering 23:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I dont know why putting luncheon meat up you butt makes this a deletable article. FancyPants 20:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Bootball

  • No Google hits for any page containing both the "major teams" mentioned.
  • One official site, bootball.org, seems to be about football. Nothing mentioned about a new sport.

Probably a hoax - or at least, if not a hoax, entirely non-notable. EuroSong talk 18:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Don't Delete - I know WP is not for things made up in one school day, and it's been a long time since any of the members of the Bootball community have been in school. Merely because you haven't played the game doesn't mean those that do don't take it very seriously. It seems rather elitist to call it a hoax or absurd.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cdelaland ( talk • contribs) .
  • Delete, unverifiable; please feel free to add cites or add some other reasons why you feel this is a notable or encyclopedic entry. Kuru talk 03:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, likely WP:NFT, due to the lack of WP:V and WP:RS. -- Kinu t/ c 03:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Hoax sport. Hardee67 04:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Don't Delete - most definitely not a hoax! i guarantee that every one of you have played a variation of bootball at one point of your life. google hits are not the end all and be all of empirical facts, so lets not get hasty with the finger pointing. just because you cant find info on your trusty interweb, doesnt mean its not real. read the article again, and turn down the conspiracy radar for a minute. -- Radioactiveflesh 03:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: Congratulations on your first edit. Since you're new here, I'd suggest reading WP:V and WP:RS, which might shed some light on the apparent conspiracy here. -- Kinu t/ c 05:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Agree with Kinu. Yes Radioactiveflesh (are you the contributor to the article with the IP address?) - we're not saying that it definitely is a hoax; just that it looks like one.. and the reason it looks like one is because when we try to find independently verifiable information about it, that information can not be found. Google is not an absolute measure of notability, it must be said - but if the sport really was notable as mentioned in the article, then SOME sort of references would be found on Google. Take, for example, the statement '"Page 99" and "Axe Wound" are the two teams credited with rejuvenating interest in Bootball.' If they are "credited" with this, then why can no information be found on the teams - let alone the fact that people attribute credit to them? An article needs to be verifiable. Even if someone submits an article here which is 100% true, it may still be deleted if it's impossible to show that it's true. I hope you understand now :) EuroSong talk 12:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 13:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Delphic of Gamma Sigma Tau Fraternity

Unreferenced and unverifiable article on a fraternity that may not meet WP:ORG or other notability criteria. Stifle ( talk) 21:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Kelly_Lloyd-Jennings

Poorly written submission of a personality that has nothing more than a local impact. Roby0215 03:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 articles. Mailer Diablo 13:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Maths A

Unnecessary subject description supposedly part of the Australian secondary mathematics curriculum. The external link (praising Jacaranda Online for their "award-winning textbooks") makes me suspect this is linkspam. Also doubt some of its veracity: curricula can change quickly, and I'm pretty sure this is only used in Queensland.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

-- Canley 03:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 13:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Okopipi (software tool)

I nominated this article for deletion, I do not feel that this article improves the encyclopaedia. The article I nominated does not hold any references, or citations as to its importance. Apologies if I upset anybody. Cєlαя∂σяє Talk 23:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per citations to establish notability, as follows: CNet article VNUNet, Extensive writeup at techtarget.com. I am adding some or all of these to the article, though I don't think I'll be destubbing it (I have other things I'd like to get done today). If I may offer helpful advice, in the future it may be helpful to run a Google check first and see if you can improve an article before nominating for deletion; this saves time and effort compared to the cross-site editing that has to be done to complete an AfD nomination. Captainktainer * Talk 19:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Only a spammer or those in league with spammers

would want this article deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.197.236 ( talk • contribs)

  • Keep, per additions by Captainktainer. There would appear to be many other articles and references available that would satisfy WP:SOFTWARE - the ones he has listed are just the cream of the crop. Kuru talk 03:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - this shouldn't be considered a promotional page since it is just an open-source project. Also it is directly relevant to the article. If the project fails, then this article can be deleted. Eliot1785 talk 14:10, 19 July 2006 (EST)

By the way, I'm not a spammer nor in league with spammers... I just feel that this is an article for something that doesn't exist. Sure, we have articles that express ideas - I just feel this doesn't qualify. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea but there's not actually anything other than an idea going on. Cєlαя∂σяє Talk 21:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. HA sums it up well at the bottom - there is nothing to merge here. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

United States citizenship test

Have we become a crib sheet? -- Shane ( talk/ contrib) 10:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

( talk/ contrib) 16:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • 'COMMENT - as mentioned by several others, it used to be a feasible stub, not the series of questions - I've reverted it back, but left the AFD tag on it. All delete votes should be assumed to have been talking about the anonymous editor's rewrite, not the current/old copy which seems to have no complaints Sherurcij ( Speaker for the Dead) 13:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as stub or alternately merge. Viable topic but questions themselves are unencyclopedic. Eluchil404 20:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I've reviewed the reversion and reconsidered my "vote"; however, I still come to the same conclusion. The test is already mentioned in United States nationality law, leaving the opening sentences unnecessary. That just leaves the questions, which probably shouldn't be here anyway. Unless there's some history behind the test that is not already provided here, I'm sticking with my redirect "vote." -- H·G ( words/ works) 20:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ( ESkog)( Talk) 07:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

VIP Team To Do List

Another piece of project management software fomr the list where redlinks are expunged. 224 unique ghits, no evidence presented of innovation, market share, significance, multiple non-trivial coverage, per WP:SOFTWARE Just zis Guy you know? 12:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, non-notable, advertising. Bjones 12:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per above. Wickethewok 15:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, spam. -- CharlotteWebb 18:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Wait a minute!, I feel like being in a court among jury crying: guilty, guilty, guilty. You know, I agree there is no "evidence presented of innovation, market share, significance", but how many of programs listed provide this information? I haven't noticed any. Just start telling such things and there will be more chances to be accused in advertising and spamming. There were some text I took from the site that sound advertising, like 'Intuitive interface'. Ok. Got rid of them. Have other claims, do tell. Don't want to discuss it? Great. Delete it. You were quick enough to consider it non-significant and non-notable. Not equal to MS Project? Probably. Ok. Delete it from the list of PM software, but why delete the article itself?. -- Serge Toper 10:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake. Fl owerparty☀ 09:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Zanzibar Land

Gamecruft and duplicate content. The bulk of this article is plot summary of Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake, which already has a lengthy plot summary. Another chunk is an unencyclopedic set of statistics for a fictional country (which are only ever mentioned in the manual of the Japanese version of the first release of the game), and the last chunk is yet another list of the bosses (which I think is present in at least three articles at this point). - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 12:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ifnord 14:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Rafael Peralta

Propaganda Pro-US Army.-- K4zem 22:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - this is a joke. Please take your politics back to the Spanish wiki. Also, for the record, he is in the Marines, not the Army.-- Looper5920 23:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep. Very notable in US Military history. There has only been one member of the US military to be awarded the Medal of Honor during this Iraq conflict. So, Peralta's nomination is quite notable. — ERcheck ( talk) 00:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
(updated my vote to speedy keep ... Peralta is notable, the information is verifiable, and the article is written in keeping with WP:NPOV. — ERcheck ( talk) 02:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your highlighting of what a good source is. No one here would have been able to know what one is unless you spelled it out for us. Your condescension is greatly appreciated. -- Looper5920 13:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep as a bad faith nomination. There is certainly room to have an open, civil, good-faith discussion upon the merits of inclusion of articles about nominees for the highest military honor in a given country, but the nom does not address that topic. youngamerican ( ahoy-hoy) 14:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as copyright violation of a copyrighted web page ("Copyright © 2005 Cardiffair Natural Home Cooling Fans"). The text was submitted by Cardiffair.au ( talk · contribs). Although it is possible that that is someone at the company whose product this is, it is not certain. There is no indication that there is any intent by the company to license the text of its web site under the GFDL. In any case, the text is clearly a promotional blurb not an encyclopaedia article. An article about the product would need to be written from scratch, and wouldn't be at this title anyway. Therefore I am applying speedy Copyright Judo. Uncle G 15:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Natural Cooling: Low Energy Air Movement - An Alternative to Air Conditioning

OR, reads like an advert Nuttah68 12:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

David Smalling

Was prodded but that was removed by anonymous. Appears to be a non-notable biography. It also appears to have some WP:AUTO issues. The author is User:Small774 who says on his talk page that "David Smalling is aHigh School Student from Kingston Jamaica". I can't find any more coverage of him aside from the two links given in the artcle. Delete as non-notable biography. Metros232 13:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as the article falls short of notability. Nuttah68 13:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as nn bio. Ifnord 14:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but rewrite. It appears he is some young hotshot that is notable because of his age and accomplishments based on that. The article needs a complete rewrite however Antares33712 15:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Doesn't quite make it. Bright student with a couple really nice projects, and he was asked to give a paper at a conference. Impressive for an undergraduate, but not groundbreaking. Fan-1967 02:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete. The inclusion of his theses give him the barest of assertions of notability, or I'd say to speedy delete it. He's clearly non-notable and fails WP:BIO. — C.Fred ( talk) 03:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The two references given do not provide enough material to base an article on. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 05:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep because, as a student at Yale, he's already suffered enough.Strong delete Neither, per Cfred, do any of undertakings presently enumerated in the article appear to confer notability (such that notability really isn't asserted), nor, per Fan and a simple Google search (which, AFAICT, returns only three relevant results), do there appear to be any other achievements in view of which notability would entail (or, in any event, other verifiable notable achievements for which sources exist). As Fan notes, the subject may surely become notable in the future, but he simply isn't now. Joe 04:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Ranky Panky

Non notable term. (Google pulled up a few links, but most were irrelevant to this context, or to pages which no longer exist.) Ladybirdintheuk 13:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was A-B-C, Delete. Mailer Diablo 13:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

A-B-C-D Analysis

Appears to be uncredited rip off of Rational Emotive Therapy originated by Albert Ellis, a famous psychologist. [46] There are endless cognitive intervention methods. Notability of intervention comes from scientifc studies on effectiveness of method plus notability of originator of particular cognitive intervention through published work. KarenAnn 13:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Olympia farmers market

Not seeing the importance here. Also, it appears the original author may have wanted to {{db-author}} the article but didn't know how. re: [47] Brad101 13:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Jane Fellowes, Baroness Fellowes

I can find no precedent on titles and notability. IMO merely being in possesion of a title through birth does not make a person notable. Other than the title, the only other claim appears to be Jane Fellowes relationship to Diana, Princess of Wales. Nuttah68 13:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. "Who are Princess Di's siblings?" would be a legitimate encyclopedia question." It would be, and the obvious place to look, and for the answer to be, would be on the Diana, Princess of Wales article. The reasonably common standard elsewhere is 'being related to someone notable is not enough in itself'. None of the arguments have satisfied why that should be excepted here, apart from 'other unwarranted articles exist so why not this one'. Nuttah68 16:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and Redirect to Diana, Princess of Wales. People looking for thisinformation can find it there. Eluchil404 20:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Comment: If we agree that people who are interested in Diana would want to look up information about her sisters, then I think that the idea of directing them to the article about Diana for such information is unsatisfactory, because we would either have to cut out some of the information or bloat the Diana article with off-topic stuff, which would make it less professional. It would be quite appropriate to put in Diana's article that her two elder sisters were . . . (names and dates of birth), but to give the names of Lady Jane's three children in Diana's article would be a little bizarre, and would stick out. I still think that Lady Jane and Lady Sarah (whom Nuttah68 also tagged with {{ db-bio}}, although another editor changed it to {{ bio-notability}} are at least as notable as Lady Amelia Windsor, Grace Ingalls, etc. AnnH ♫ 09:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Comment, the fact that she is married with three children is not encyclopaedic, Wikipedia is not a genealogy resource. As of now we are still in the position that there has been no claim of notability and the main argument for keep still appears to be 'other unwarranted articles exist so why not this one'. Nuttah68 10:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete Royal vanity, disgusting. Matthew Fenton ( contribs) 08:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Koadic's Endless Intellect

Wikipedia is not a game guide. Article has been deleted twice before (approximately once a year). I can't Speedy it under G4 because I don't know if the content is the same or not (besides which, it's been almost a year and deserves another AfD instead of being speedied). First nomination: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Koadic's Endless Intellect. Second nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koadic's Endless Intellect 2. Note that the related article Spells of Everquest, which was once created as an attempt to salvage the KEI content, was just deleted via AfD here. Powers 13:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Congaplex

WP:OR - author's experience plus broken link to producer of Congaplex KarenAnn 13:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Electronic Load

This article contains barely no information about the topic except a link to a company's website. Same for the Chinese version, and it was listed to vote for deletion as well. -- Tomchiukc 17:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Neutral. Dicdef at the moment, and no real potential for expansion, other than along the lines of "Electronic loads are also made by Agilent, Sorensen, Kikusui, etc etc etc...". Tevildo 19:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep I think the article could possibly be expanded (discussion of how loads are precisely simulated, etc.) It'll never be a front page candidate, but there's room for something here. - Richfife 20:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Is this a special topic that requires certain expertise knowledge, or somebody who came across to related webpages can amend the contents to a reasonable amount to keep the article? -- Tomchiukc 10:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Well, the topic itself doesn't require more than a basic knowledge of electronics to explain - [48] is a good introductory article. I'd offer to do it myself, but it will need diagrams that I'm not, at the moment, in a position to draw... Tevildo 11:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete. Meets speedy criteria as empty. Vegaswikian 08:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I removed the spammy link to a single compay -- there should either be links to several companies or none at all. It's apparantly a real electronic device and a real non-neologism or company-specific term. I got 237,000 Goggle hits for the string "Electronic load", granted that the hits probably cover a plethora of usages (but Electronic load as described in the article leads, with the first few results at least). It's very short, but not empty, and certainly expandable. I think the removal of the linkspam makes it OK. Herostratus 21:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Centrx→ talk • 13:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was sent to Requested moves. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Waldorf Education

Delete. It has been proposed that the page "Waldorf Education" should be moved to the proper "Waldorf education" (note capitalization). This is only possible through an intermediate step due to the system not being able to distinguish between the two names for moves. The intermediate step was to rename the article to "Waldorf-education." Now the redirect page should be deleted, so that the article can finally be moved to "Waldorf education." Aquirata 14:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Mailer Diablo 18:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

SQL-Station

Software spamvertising (even includes a link to a "free trial" page). NawlinWiki 14:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

NawlinWiki 14:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Slob

Obviously a definition of a word, already has an entry in Wiktionary. Contains no usable information Mackan 14:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Scott Atkins

nn unverifiable. ccwaters 14:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I was one of the youngest owners in sports when I owned my teams and was a pioneer in the online sportsbook industry. I believe that is notable bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.118.160 ( talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Dreamberry

Not noteworthy, unclear distinction between fiction and reality and despite for being tagged for a while no clean-up Mackan 14:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Brooke Sealy

NN? Does being the ex-wife of someone notable justify a WP entry? In fact the article itself states that Brooke is most notable because she was married to Jeff Gordon Thanatosil 14:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Croft Funds Corp *****

advertisement Travelbird 14:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Joseph A. Maturo, Jr.

Article was PROD'd with the reason "A7 bio -- mayor of a town of 28,000, no references". I thought it might be controversial to delete an article on a sitting mayor, so I'm AfD-ing. I have no preference regarding deletion. RJH ( talk) 14:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - I popped in to check on the article and saw the change and the notability comment about the repeat terms. Still a little bio-ish and lengthy, but getting better and headed in the right direction. -- MrDolomite | Talk 21:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. "Maturo was only the second East Haven mayor — and the first Republican — to win a fifth term." I'd like sources to support this, but I'll take this as de facto evidence that he's gotten press coverage, and that would get him over the hurdle of WP:BIO for local politicians. — C.Fred ( talk) 01:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I will look at re-writing the article to shorten it. Added reference to his re-election. I also never liked the divorce thing, so I removed the references to family. And finally isn't a encyclopedia intended to convey general knowledge of many subjects? Printed encyclopedia have limited space, but the online version should have the ability to have info on a town mayor with only 30,000 people. After all there is an article regarding a mayor of Carrboro, NC with only 16K -- dep369 18:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Dep369 reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

George Ferguson (Irish dancer)

The article at George Ferguson used to be this one but I chose to move it here as no dancing-related pages linked to the article, which is about a professional athlete. I've re-created the dancer page as above and am listing it for deletion because, well, he's a NN Irish dancing instructor on Merseyside. If consensus to delete is reached then it will be possible to stop the reverting at George Ferguson. BoojiBoy 14:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Willowbrook Mall (Wayne, New Jersey)

Minor mall, non-notable, fails WP:CORP PresN 15:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Fer crying out loud, this isn't even an attempt at an encyclopedic article. Tychocat 18:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Yeah, the article isn't that great, but it is a notable mall. Of course, I say this while living in northern New Jersey. But with that said, it's easily one of the most popular malls in NJ, and it's considerably larger than many NJ malls with articles (including my local mall, the Livingston Mall. In fact, even though I live 45 minutes from it (as opposed to less than 15 from Livingston and a few other malls, including The Mall at Short Hills), it's pretty much the only mall that anyone who isn't wealthy goes to. And, as stated in the article, it contains the majority of stores anyone in the Northeast could possibly expect to see in a mall. -- Kicking222 19:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Ah, close to home... :) Merge to General Growth Properties, obviously... - CrazyRussian talk/ email 20:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge as above. JYolkowski // talk 22:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as there is no evidence of meeting WP:CORP. GRBerry 03:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep at 1.5 million sq. ft. of selling area, it's the second largest mall in the state (not minor) and one of the earliest fully-enclosed large scale malls (notable). Article meets WP:CORP, without any explanation of what criteria are not being met. Alansohn 22:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment For notability standards like WP:CORP, an assertion of not meeting the standard is an assertion of not meeting all of the criteria. Notability criteria are usually written in the form (A or B or C or D), sometimes, as in WP:CORP, in the form ((A not including A1 and not including A2) or B or C). If you wish to say that it meets the standard, it is most helpful to show (with evidence) which criteria it does meet. I've yet to encounter a private company that met the second, and it can't meet the third, so really the independent published works standard is the one at hand for a mall. GRBerry 02:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • keep please it meets corp guideline and is a notable mall Yuckfoo 19:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Burlington, Ontario. I've done this. Proto:: type 10:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Mapleview mall

Minor mall, non-notable, fails WP:CORP -- PresN 15:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Computer Nerd Central

Delete. MySpace page that is not notable per WP:WEB. Only 24 unique Ghits. ... discospinster talk 15:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as patent nonsense. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 18:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

David davidson award

Articel about a non-existent award. Google turns up 0 hits. Speedy delete as a hoax. Prod also removed twice by author. If it walks like a hoax, quacks like a hoax and smells like a hoax... Wildthing61476 15:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete - obvious hoax -- Whpq 15:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy Antares33712 15:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article was substantially rewritten. - FrancisTyers · 11:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Anthropologie

Advert for upscale chain of women's clothing stores. Does not meet WP:CORP KarenAnn 15:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Anthropologie is one of the most talked about brands in marketing (It spends no money on advertising). I'll take the time to rewrite the page. Anthropologie is significant upscale apparel retailer. If you haven't heard of it, I am sorry, but that just means you aren't cognizant of middle class - upper middle class retail. Anthropologie is more recognizable and classier than Urban Outfitters and should not be merged either-- Shrek05 21:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Academic Challenger. -- Core des at talk. o.o;; 08:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Ian Phipps

Non-notable artist, fails WP:MUSIC. Was originally speedy deleted, but editor recreated with different content (so probably not speedyable under that criteria). Delete tag removed by creator. ~ Matticus78 16:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Philosophy of God

Was originally an essay-style article that seemed to be entirely POV and original research. I prodded the article and drew the problems to the attention of the creator. He has since rewritten the article, but it seems to be for an organisation that was created very recently (yesterday, it would appear: the first post on the blog is dated 17th July), and is therefore neither notable nor verifiable. ~ Matticus78 16:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Japanese American Evacuation of 1942

Deprod by anon. The article's talk page indicates that this is a POV fork (of Japanese American internment); I have no knowledge of the subject and no opinion on what the NPOV on the subject is, but WP:POVFORK explains why such forks are harmful. -- ais523 16:21, 18 July 2006 ( U T C)

No references? What are you talking about? The POV reparations activists lock out opposing views from the original article and when our views are provided here you attempt to have them deleted. What are you so afraid of? — Preceding unsigned comment added by History Student ( talk • contribs)

In cases like this you need to cite every 'fact' and note when they are disputed. Citation makes a strong argument against somebody with an opposing POV, having a POV fork doesn't. Basically this article needs deleting and you need to play nicely in the original. Yomangani 17:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
To be fair, more citation is required for the article in its current (protected) revision. That is, many of the "pro-fork" editors have raised reasonable questions about the legitimacy of claims in the current revision. Whatever anyone thinks about the content of the fork, more citation is required in the entire article, not just with the revisions proposed by the fork advocates. -- ishu 18:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Care to provide us with some examples Yomangani? My additions included sources and I challenge you dispute any additions that is not historically correct. Of course you can't. That's why you and you ilk have locked the original article and want to delete this one. You don't care about historical accuracy you care about furthering an agenda - but that's what happens when political activists play historian.

I'm not going to note what you dispute because there is no basis for your dispute other then it's not what you want to believe or want others to believe. What a loade of crap. You delete this article i'll just put up another and another and another... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.79.202 ( talk • contribs)

I meant 'you' (plural), as in you and everybody else who edits the original. As far as I can see the whole of this new article is your work, in which case most of it is uncited. If it isn't all your own work (and is in fact a copy of the original) then you (singular) have argued yourself back into only having one article. For the record, I don't agree with locking the article on one point of view (once it gets to that stage I'd prefer to have it taken down pending resolution of the dispute)...and by the way one of the rules of WP is 'assume good faith'. Yomangani 18:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Show me my additions that are uncited. You can't and that is a non issue. The original article is so full of uncited pro-reparations POV it's a joke. Your clear bias is showing but I have faith the original article will be unlocked and "tom" will have his administrative priviledges suspended.

With respect, this discussion isn't about content, it's about whether a POVfork should be deleted and if so, why, so this is exactly where it does belong (but I've said my piece). Yomangani 20:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
It's roundabout, but it certainly seems to me the discussion above is about content. It doesn't really address whether the article should be deleted, but rather attempts to hash out the debate as to which of the two articles should be at Japanese American Internment. That's content debate. WilyD 21:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Keep it. It's better written than the original. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.79.202 ( talk • contribs)

This discussion is entirely about content and locking an article full of reparations pov to the detriment of contrary, citeable historically accurate additions made by me and others.

So what. This history deserves a closer look than the repartions pov activists who hijacked the article are providing.

Considering the pro-reparations pov propaganda is now locked in the article, I'd say the services aren't working.

Can someone suggest a service that would resolve the protection status of Japanese American internment? That could focus this AfD discussion on the issue at hand. -- ishu 19:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:RFM Yomangani 20:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Have you tried the less formal WP:RFC? ~ Maybe you're beyond that point, I have no idea - either way, these pages will also have links to other steps/resources. WilyD 20:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

This whole "fork" talk is a non-issue. My additions are citeable, relevent and historically accurate. The original artice was not - the only citations were Michi Weglyn, Peter Irons and Personal Justice Denied. Your telling me that's not POV? Even the little addition of "disputed history" has a weasel words disclaimer. What a joke.

You folks are censoring this history. The Japanese American Reparations Movement dug themselves in a whole at so many levels regarding this history. It's obvious their lackeys are infecting this article.

  • Comment No, the whole "fork" talk is the heart of the issue. If your additions are "citeable, relevent and historically accurate" then they should be added to the exisiting Japanese American internment article and if there truly is a group advancing an alternate POV at said article, there are a myriad of arbitration methods you could pursue (ask at my talk and I will tell you what they are). Creating an alternate POV article is not a valid option here.-- Isotope23 23:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Not perfect? That's an understatement. It sure as heck isn't a neutral point of view is it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.207.79.202 ( talk • contribs) 22:42, July 18, 2006 (UTC)


  • Comment - are we at the point where we can get a speedy delete per WP:SNOW? It's pretty clear that this particular article is a POV-fork, and that the real dispute lies with the content in Japanese American internment. Ending this AfD discussion would facilitate the improvement of that article, which is the outcome everyone's looking for. -- H·G ( words/ works) 00:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Well if we can't get the "internment" article resolved then this is the next best thing. Not of my added information is POV so cut the excuses. Facts are facts. Give the reader the facts and let the reader decide.— Preceding unsigned comment added by History Student ( talk • contribs)
  • Comment - forgive the understatement here, but it is an extremely bad idea to have two articles on the same subject. The place that the facts of a topic should be debated is on the Talk page for the original article, not in a new one. A separate page on the same topic isn't "the next best thing"--it's not even a valid option. As for WP:POVFORK: "POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first. This is generally considered unacceptable." That describes this situation exactly. -- H·G ( words/ works) 07:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply


If one page has been hi-jacked by an activist pov group of editors then it is entirely appropraite. I challenge any editor to point out my additions as historically incorrect. First you critize the style, then say sources aren't cited then say it's pov - all of which is untrue. You are looking for any reason to delete an opposing point of view while providing one explanation after another as to why the pro-reparations pov article should remain. Not only that but you attempt to ban IPs. What a load of crap!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.168.93.35 ( talk • contribs)

Almost every contributor has noted the colossal failure of WP:POVFORK as the cause for deletion, and repeated noted that the correct action to take is to work this out at Japanese American Internment, with many services such as WP:RFM available if needed (which it sounds like they are). WilyD 16:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

That's great but the "Japanese American Internment" article has been locked by pov repatations activists. The current article is full of factual errors and the writing is just plain bad history. In the meantime this article needs to stay. While it could use a rewrite to be more concise and correct grammar the substantial history is a heck of a lot better.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.131.114.43 ( talk • contribs)

Anyone following the discussion at the Japanese "Internment" article can see that the it has degenerated into making explanations supporting one's pov. The original article is still up and locked with incorrect history and bad history and history that needs clarification. That is reason enough why this article needs to remain to provide balance as the original has been totally hi-jacked by pro-reparations pov activists.

-- History Student 16:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (keep). Proto:: type 14:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Pål Johan Karlsen

Definitely an autobiography going by the user name of the page creator. This is of dubious notability. He has two books, one of which shows up on Amazon.com, but it shows up as unavailable. 90% of google hits (about 500) are in Norwegian, and the remainder are his personal website. Seems to be a post-doc, which doesn't meet the criteria for academics. Irongargoyle 16:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I didn't mean to suggest that Norwegian Google hits were a negative, just that I couldn't verify them. Irongargoyle 16:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable autobiography. Fireplace 16:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This probably fails WP:BIO, but I'd feel more comfortable if someone able to read/translate the Norwegian Ghits made that call. Scorpiondollprincess 16:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Hi, I am the author of the autobiography and understand your objections. However, I made a serious effort on meeting the three cardinal principles. I thought it would be important for people interested in gay fiction to know about the work published in Norwegian in 2002. Regarding my notability: I am a biographee in Marquis Who´s Who in the World 2006, Who´s Who in America 2007, Who is Who in Science and Engineering 2007, as well as in the 33rd edition of Dictionary of International Biography. I was approached by these publishers and since I am a frequent user of Wikipedia myself, I thought it would be useful for people who don´t have access to these dictionaries to find some of the information at Wikipedia. The books have been the cause of numerous reviews, interviews and articles in Norwegian press (100+ items in radio, television, newspapers, magazines). A pdf file containing many of these can be forwarded to interested parties. The publisher, Aschehoug, is the second largest in Norway and publishes writers like Salman Rushdie and Paul Auster. Regarding the contributions to cognitive psychology, these are published in multiple peer-reviewed journals with a high international impact factor.

Here is a further link, in English, to the Norwegian publisher: http://www2.aschehoug.no/lf/aschehougagency/innhold.php?textID=687

You may also want to talk with the guy administrating the Norwegian version of wikipedia: http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruker:Beagle84

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Natgoo 21:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

L.A. Tool & Die

Non-notable porn film. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (films) Fireplace 16:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Considered one of the ten most "most innovative, influential, and hottest" gay adult films of all time, according to The AVN Guide to the 500 Greatest Adult Films of All Time. [52] Noted in nearly any history of male erotica. Director's 2001 induction into Hall of Fame is based largely on the influence of this trilogy. Jokestress 17:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep following Jokestress's improvements. Notability is established now. -- H·G ( words/ works) 17:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was rename to U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement and keep. I think this satisfies some of the merge votes as well. Mango juice talk 17:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Agreement under Article VI of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States of America, Regarding Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in Japan

Page is only the title followed by "is a 1960 law". Page is in SERIOUS need of wikifying, or deletion. Wildthing61476 16:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I corrected my AfD is not VdD gaff. I still feel a need to request it. -- Kunzite 04:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Fair enough. I'm sure that the closing admin will take it into account! Ziggurat 04:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment, no reason to discount any prior opinions, particularly in light of H·G's comments below. Even after the rewrite I reiterate my deletion opinion.-- Isotope23 13:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

OASC

The subject MIGHT be notable (most of the Google hits for OASC don't relate to this and when searching for what the full name is, it's only 84 Google hits), but this article doesn't express notability for it or provide sources of its use. Instead, it is a diary or step-by-step guide of what to expect. I prodded it as Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, but it was removed by the article's creator saying it wasn't. Metros232 16:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

LifeTime Gamer

Non-notable web site Shadow1 17:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete - keeping this article in limbo for a merge is only viable if there is anything to merge. PresN (despite arguing for merge) asserts that there is nothing to merge, Mangojuice argues that merging is unnecessary on this basis, and no-one is really taking issue with that (despite this AfD hanging around a very long time). Anyone can create a redirect if they want. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

New Tribal Revolution

Neologism, recently invented in one guy's book. Cheese Sandwich 16:46, 5 July 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 19:40, 11 July 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, Ian Manka Talk to me! 18:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

PUMBA

I cleaned up this article as best I could, but I wonder if it's worth having an article on. It's an acronym for the business school of University of Pune. The department doesn't have its own article, so I don't think an acronym article should occur before that. And I also don't think that this department is notable enough to stand alone as an article like this. Metros232 19:52, 11 July 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, Ian Manka Talk to me! 18:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Luk

Advert for company that fails WP:CORP KarenAnn 18:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge and delete. Mango juice talk 16:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Winners of the Vukcevich Super Cup

A pointless list of winners of a chess tournament. It should be merged to the Vukcevich Super Cup page, or deleted. 11kowrom 18:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Cram, Pass and Dump

NN, no Ghits except exact copies, questionable dicdef at best Thanatosil 18:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

VEKASY'S

advertisement Travelbird 18:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (user has already done this 4 times) — Quarl ( talk) 2006-07-19 04:34Z

KFYT FM

Radio station does not seem to exist. I have attempted to discuss this with the user who created the page and continually edits the List of urban-format radio stations in the United States page (often many times in a day), but have gotten no response. The website listed for the radio station is a spam/placeholder page for a webhost/search company. I have no reason to believe KFYT exists (particularly as long as the author claims) and their shifty IP/login behavior and edits leads me to consider this a hoax/vandalism. ju66l3r 18:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was renamed already. Mango juice talk 16:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

15th century in United States history

There was no United States before 1776, and naturally, nothing in history that would directly relate to the United States. I think renaming it 15th Century in North American history would be the way to go, but I wonder how much value such an article would have. Guess it depends on what the article's creator has in mind, but there needs to be a standard on the importance of events that go there, lest it become an indiscriminate list of information. Delete or Rename Ytny 19:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - As per nom, if there is no U.S. prior to 1776 then there is no U.S. history prior to 1776. QED. The best that could happen to the current article is to rename it as "15th century in North American history" if it's not deleted. ju66l3r 19:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Rename article as "15th century in North American history." Likewise for 14th century and any others that apply. Scorpiondollprincess 19:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per ju6613r and Scorpiondollprincess. My understanding is that various territories and peoples have similar articles as part of history timelines. Smerdis of Tlön 21:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Rename. The article is far from quality but the information there can be used to as a pad towards something worthwhile. 205.157.110.11 21:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Agent 86 21:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. There's hardly any information in there; accurate, useful, or otherwise. DJCartwright 23:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per the above. Ziggurat 23:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note. There are also articles 14th century in United States history (also nominated for deletion) and 16th century in United States history, and the three articles should be dealt with in a consistent way. -- Lambiam Talk 08:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. As the author of the article proposed for deletion, I desire to defend it. I intend this article (and its predecessors and successors) as a time line of events that occurred within the present political boundaries of the United States of America or that profoundly influenced their later development. I chose to use the "in United States history" title even before the Declaration of Independence in the same sense that American history textbooks typically include chapters on Native Americans and colonists. This article titles continue backward into prehistory to provide continuity in both nomenclature and geographical coverage. North America typically includes the Aztec Empire and Mesoamerican civilizations but excludes Hawaii. I have added some extra events to the time line segment. Dufekin 03:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. Defining events in time based on geopolitical boundaries of the location's future seems artificial. For example, is it relevant to determine whether Viking exploration reached the current coast of Maine (or any particular of the numerous different boundaries between Canada and Maine as it shifted through time) to define whether it would be relevant to this article or is the exploration of Newfoundland and other parts of Canada sufficient to remark on the development of the region? How far back do you go and still call it relevant to the history of the United States as opposed to someone/something else's history? I'm not certain that Native American events prior to arrival of Europeans would necessarily constitute some portion of "United States" history. Native American descendants may even find it insultory to deem the events as part of "what was to come" (which includes the systemic removal of these people from their lands). If in 10 years time, we were to aggressively annex the coastline between Alaska and Washington state, do we suddenly go all the way back in time to the first human history of that region of Canada and annex the history to go with the land? Just some thoughts on your approach to United States history. ju66l3r 18:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per above. Czj 05:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and rename. Eluchil404 20:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep and rename. The issue seems to be the name. Very useful content; it serves as a central point to aggregate and display historical trends among the disparate inhabitants of the continent. Going to the articles for each tribe to glean this information takes time. Concur should be treated consistently with the 14th century article also nominated for deletion.-- A. B. 22:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Those arguing for deletion seem to do nothing but assert the non-notability of this subject, while those arguing to keep actually explain its notability. Those arguments are never countered. Mango juice talk 16:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Smosh

  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!


Previously listed as possibly not notable on 09:55, July 6, 2006. No significant changes to article's notability since then. Unclear if this could have been speedy deleted for {{ db-bio}} or {{ db-club}}. Listed for AfD and discussion. -- MrDolomite | Talk 18:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Though smosh is popular and likeable, they are using wikipedia for a personal reason. My suggestion is they can create a page in smosh instead carrying the same information -- User:non-user 10Ģ:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.156.6.54 ( talk • contribs) 08:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I suggest that we keep this article because smosh is a part of the internet as well pop culture. It has been written about in the New York Times, Teen People as aired as part of a news segment on ABC. (Sorry, I don't know how to place the links on here, but I have edited and checked the wikipedia page of smosh for a while now.) Sure, the writing might be a little on the lacking side but there was help offered by Zeketheo at 13:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC) saying that he'll do it in a day or two. I'm not putting blame on anyone but normally when someone offers help like that, it should have been follow through.
One of the reasons I'm ticked off by this whole deletion situation is that the smosh wikipedia page keeps being marked as "advertisment" and does not meet the Neutural Point of View. No one has explained to us how the page got these status nor gave any suggestions how to improve on it to overcome this tag. Overall I suggest that we keep this page, but work on it so that it meets these standards and not to have just people tag it without a clear explaination. Thank you. Rockmusic389 07:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Also, I have been doing some reading into the Wikipedia pages and keeping with a unbias stance, I don't see anything wrong with the page except with the quality of writing. I kept addmening and adding to the page it address a current pop fashion or fad becuase of the poplular "pokemon video" from thier site which was also broadcasted onto youtube. smosh is more than the website but it's becoming more poplular as more people are finding out about them through their videos. Also, according to WP:WEB (see link in the comment below this), this site was created a user of the forum other than the 2 smosh guys and it is not a promotion of this site, just an informative piece about the site, thus it is not going against any of the neutrality guidelines. amended by Rockmusic389 07:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment Smosh can be considered as an internet phenomenon and is notable on the internet. Although not mentioned in the article, their site is always linked to when videos are released and is notable as well. -- Gigano | Talk 05:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Creating a new user just to contribute to an AfD does not lend a sense of credibility to the discussion. Especially when the user has the same name as the article. And when the comment includes "...our videos..." -- MrDolomite | Talk 01:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC) -- amended by MrDolomite | Talk 20:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment I've had this account for some time now ( October 2005) and I check this page every once in a while to see if the updates are accurate. I did not make it simply to make a response here. -- smosh 01:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment My apologies to User:Smosh about being a new user created for this AfD. I did not check the creation logs -- MrDolomite | Talk 20:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It gives people a place to find information on Smosh. Thus elimating them spamming the forums with questions the wikipedia article answers. -- Ashuku
Comment Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site. Sorry about their forums. -- MrDolomite | Talk 01:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC) -- amended to remove possible negative connotation of "blog" reference, which is part of the linked article's subsection's heading. -- MrDolomite | Talk 20:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Who said we were using it as a blog? -- Ashuku
Comment The pronoun in the preceding sentence strikes me as interesting if not necessarily incriminating in/of itself. Icewolf34 19:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not-notable. -- GWO
  • Delete, at the time this article fails WP:WEB standards of notability. A Google search for the term yields 146 unique Google hits, and I couldn't find any articles (from independent sources meeting WP:V) where Smosh was the subject of the article. -- H·G ( words/ works) 08:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I did my own Google Search for "Smosh" and came up with 1,490,000 sites discussing Smosh itself, the Smosh videos, and a wide range of the Smosh community (across sites like Flickr, etc.) I dunno what defines "Unique Google Hits", and I see zero options to filter by that criteria in advanced search preferences, either. And this is just Google hits - it's also ignoring mentions they've gotten, as mentioned earlier, in prestigious newspapers like the New York Times. BlazeHedgehog 18:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Confirm well over 1,400,000 Google hits. Might not be evidence of notability by itself, but I'm not sure where/how HG got his stats. (Government censorship of Smosh sites?) Icewolf34 19:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Google's number of reported hits is not always reliable. "Original hits" refers to the number of pages before Google cuts off the list of result due to the remainder being "very similar". For example:
  • Keep. A youtube search [54] clearly indicates six of their videos have a view count more than 1 million; ten of their videos has achieved 28.8 million views together. But, certainly, the article needs some rewriting (don't look at me :)) Frigo 23:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Many of those saying "keep" here approve of the idea of this being covered only in Quackwatch.. it already is. Mango juice talk 18:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply


Quackpotwatch

Non-notable attack site. Site's author has long-running feud with notable site Quackwatch. Not even in top one million sites per Alexa. [55] No mentions of site in the press-- fails WP:WEB. Jokestress 18:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. Plenty of Ghits, but they seem to mostly be attacking (or praising) the subject. I couldn't find any independent "non-trivial published works," signs that it "has won a well known and independent award," or any indication that content is "distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators." Not-notable. Also, I'm suspicious of how all but one of the sources cited come from the same place. And all but one of the external links in this article come from the same two people. This seems to be a non-notable feud of narrow scope. Not encyclopedic. Scorpiondollprincess 19:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment. I suspect this account to be a sock puppet. I don't know of who, but the users brief edit history clearly shows someone who is not a newbie or unexperienced at Wikipedia rules and regs. -- Stbalbach 00:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Your immediate accusation of the nominator as a sockpuppet simply because they're new smacks of WP:ABF :( Please be civil. Zetawoof( ζ) 01:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I didn't say the nominator is a sock puppet. -- Stbalbach 05:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Mea culpa. The same applies to Scorpiondollprincess ( talk · contribs), though. Zetawoof( ζ) 07:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I didn't say "just because they are new". -- Stbalbach 12:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. However, should Quackpotwatch be deleted, some of it will be copied over to Quackwatch under a criticism section, which is where it was originally. Either way there is a place for Quackpotwatch on Wikipedia. -- Stbalbach 01:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Notable enough to be mentioned on Quackwatch. There are also lots of articles out there about this organization as it is usually mention in the breath following QuackWatch as the watch dog to the watch dogs. Levine2112 03:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Being mentioned on Barrett's website does not qualify Quackpotwatch as notable. If Quackpotwatch has been featured in a major national publication, please provide the references. See WP:RS and WP:WEB for what qualify as reliable sources and notable websites. Jokestress 06:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • WP:RS and WP:WEB are guidelines, not policy. When it comes to deleting an article there needs to a heavy burden of proof on those who want to delete it. This article has been in existence a long time without complaint, there have been a substantial number of editors who have worked on it (I've personally invested many hours so has at least one other person), the website is well known (I could post google hit stats), and most importantly, the content of this website is *controversial* and there is always the concern of bias from those who wish to delete it. All these specific issues, in my mind, should be weighed in with the generic guidelines cited. -- Stbalbach 00:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. If you need an official policy, see WP:BLP. This page contains defamatory statements about Barrett's credentials, among other things. None of these are properly sourced per Wikipedia policy. Jokestress 10:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • You miss the point of the nomination. The entire site has failed to establish notability. It does not appear to qualify as a reliable source or merit an article, per guidelines and policies. Jokestress 17:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • People know about Quackpotwatch, it's been around a long time and has tons of google hits. It's a well-known site. Guidelines are guidelines for a reason, not every case can be easily fit into generic rules and guidelines are sometimes controversial.-- Stbalbach 05:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I also run several websites on consumer issues, and I am a proud affiliate of Quackwatch.
Actually quackwatch seems to be a consortium of professionals, mostly MD's. There is a founding member (as you mention, the same guy), but the Quackwatch article is not primarily about him. Quackwatch (the web site) seems to have had a lot of press from NYTimes as well as an article in Time magazine. The same guy is also mentioned in those articles, which makes sense, since he founded the web site. It appears that quackpotwatch is not close to that level of notability. This should not be about the same guy but about whether the web site is notable or not. At present, quackpotwatch is not notable, even if it does focus on a notable guy. David D. (Talk) 20:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Maybe my interpretation of WP:WEB is incorrect, but to me the first criterion for Web notability is stated as;
  • The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
To me, it means the information within the site. Thus I interpret; both sites are dealing with the same information from different POVs. Am I wrong? -- Dematt 14:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't interpret it that way, otherwise there could be wiki articles on any personal web site about Barrett. Besides the Quackwatch article is not about Barrett, it is about an organisation that comments on a wide variety of 'quack' related practices. The difference is that Quackwatch is a recognised critic of an idustry whereas quack pot watch is not a recognised web site and it only critiques a web site. More to the point it focuses its critiques only one individual, despite the fact that quackwatch appears to be more than one individual. In time quackpotwatch may establish its self as a reliable source of information regarding the 'quack' industry. At present it does not seem much more than a personal web site that is not recognised by any reliable source. David D. (Talk) 15:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Very relevant principles from Jimbo Wales

"We have how many new articles a day? If people had the good sense to nuke 100 articles a day, just on the grounds of being BAD in the sense we are discussing (having unsourced claims about living people which would be libel if false), our growth rate would hardly suffer at all.

"We are a massively powerful text generation engine. People have to drop the idea that every little tidbit is precious. Crap is crap. Yank it." - Jimmy Wales, May 19, 2006 [56] Emphasis added - Fyslee -- Fyslee 21:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The Wikipedia article Quackpotwatch makes no "unsourced claims about living people which would be libel if false" .. indeed you wrote most the article yourself! Jimbo is referring to Wikipedia articles, not other web sites. As for the actual site making unsourced claims, the same could be said for Quackwatch - they are magazine articles (at best), not sourced journal articles. Anyway, this whole section is inappropriate in a vote page and probably violates some rule. -- Stbalbach 05:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
AfD is a debate, not a vote. The above is appropriate enough, just not obviously relevant. Just zis Guy you know? 19:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Fair enough (although comments are suggested to be in bulleted format and not separate section headers). The majority of AfD's are done on the grounds of "notability", which is not a policy -- see this interesting post (which I found as recommended reading on the Wikipedia: Articles for deletion page), for some thoughts on notability as a cause for deletion. -- Stbalbach 22:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ( ESkog)( Talk) 08:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

SnagBiz

Advertisement for company that fails WP:CORP. No Alexa ranking. — Caesura (t) 19:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. — Jul. 18, '06 [21:18] < freak| talk>

HRmarketer

Article was prodded for spam, deleted by author. Article is advertising/spam. Wildthing61476 19:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. — Jul. 18, '06 [21:17] < freak| talk>

Marketing PR

As listed above, prod was removed by author. Article is blatant advertising/spam. Wildthing61476 19:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

List of product placements

Listcruft and original research. Only a few instances in this list have footnotes, and yet only one footnote exists at the bottom. It's hard to say what is an actual product placement and what is an incidental or accidental placement in a film, show, or book without sources, and very few sources indeed are referenced or can be in such instances. Additionally, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- H·G ( words/ works) 19:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. — Jul. 18, '06 [21:16] < freak| talk>

Howdy radio

Wow a MySpace radio show! How extraordinary (NOT) notable Wildthing61476 19:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Websmartz

Spamvertising for nonnotable software, 218 unique Ghits. NawlinWiki 19:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Bettinna

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Looks like a well done vanity article - Nv8200p talk 19:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per above. NawlinWiki 20:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, the edit history says it all--User:Bettinna creates this page; User:Royboycrashfan userfies Bettinna to User:Bettinna; User:Bettinna un-userfies herself to Bettinna, shuffles it around a bit, then leaves it here. Indisputably a vanity article. Subject fails WP:MUSIC--no album out yet, and only a 3-song disc to come; 261 unique Ghits, most of which are unrelated (a few in German); no major awards; no international tours; it goes on and on. If she blows up, she'll deserve a page here, but not until then. -- H·G ( words/ works) 08:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, vanity exacerbated by the presence of dozens of interlanguage language links and links to Wikiquote and Commons, all to nonexistant pages. (I've removed them all now.) User:Angr 12:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - the article says "Now, why a 3 song CD? Well, Bettinna wanted to keep it small for now." I think we should keep her place im WP small also. BlueValour 04:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Friday with deletion summary " Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Crowd". BryanG (talk) 05:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Young Crowd

Speedy and prod removed by author. In addition this page was deleted via AfD not too long ago. Requesting deletion and possible protection from recreation Wildthing61476 19:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

If author is removing the tags, bringing it here is the right thing, as an admin can catch it even if the tags keep getting removed. Fan-1967 19:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Eric Wilson (author)

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

The result was merge into the Clone Manga article. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Daniel Kim (artist)

The notability of the person detailed in this article is suspect. I've done some digging and have found that he does not have a single published work (outside of Lulu.com), interview with a notable source or even a trivial mention of him in any sort of press. In addition, his website where he hosts comics ( Clone Manga) does not appear to be notable - Google turns up no non-trivial mentions of it, or yet again even trivial mentions of it, in anything outside of his own site, and the webcomic community. As he has made no other notable accomplishments besides his (quite possibly non-notable) site and comics, this page has no place in an encyclopedia and should be deleted.

Also, the majority of the lead section appears to be copied and pasted from here, quite possibly leading to copyright infringement. JimmyBlackwing 19:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC) This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. JimmyBlackwing 20:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Agreed. He is only really known in certain subculture circles with a penchant for the morbid. He might produce a notable work eventually, but at this time there is no reason to have an encyclopedia entry about him. -- 82.50.29.220 22:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment: As per that same Verifiability article, "Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves". It then gives a short list of conditions, but I believe that this article meets them all - information not available in the appendices of the [self-] published work Paper Eleven: The Complete Collection is evident one way or another from the subject's website. I suppose this makes the presumption that the artist and the art are considerable as the same entity, but I believe that to be a reasonable assumption in this case. These are not good sources, I'll happily conceed, but they are sources and meet those conditions - and the phrase "outlandish claims beg strong sources" in the verifiability article suggests by implication that mundane claims [only] require weak sources. The website (which does contain all of this information in itself) is already mentioned in the article. Would a link to the book's Lulu page help? I would have thought that would too easily be construed as advertising...
This all said, I do believe that this makes it all the more pertinent to merge this article into a hypothetical 'Clone Army' article. Sar 09:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/Keep I suggest that the subject does in fact meet the Notability guidelines, even if 'only just', and that there is no reason to delete the article. However, I wholly agree that all of his works do not warrant separate articles, and an all-inclusive 'Clone-Army' article would suit those, if not the article about the artist as well. Reasoning in comments indented, 'cause there's a lot of it. Sorry for the verbosity... Sar 03:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Comment Firstly, the guidelines on Notability are very clear to state that they are just that - guidelines - and not policy. From this perspective, it is presumptious to assume that failing to satisfy the explicitly stated examples is sufficient grounds for deletion; in fact, the Notability article itself specifically states the reverse. Not that to my mind it matters - it is easily arguable that Dan Kim has made, to quote Wikipedia:Notability_(people), "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in [the field of webcomics]". The fact that - say - Paper Eleven is not published by a 'mainstream' publisher does not make a hardcopy any less enduring (which is all the historical record we can really cite for webcomics, assuming the Internet disappears and all information contained within is lost), and the work in question has been recognised, as previously noted in this discussion, by several luminaries of the field of webcomics. Not to mention that to any degree which it is quantifiable I suspect Kim passes the 'Professor Test' suggested in Notability, and a quick resort to Google shows me that he passes that alternative suggestion as well. The main Wikipedia Notability article notes that obscure content - which one could argue the field of webcomicry as a whole should be classed as - isn't harmful and shouldn't be deleted on the grounds of obscurity alone; recognition within 'the webcomic community', as the original complaint so puts it, should be sufficient recognition for the article to remain. Sar 03:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Comment The 'digging' the original complaint has done is patently cursory and incomplete. Aside from the single volume published via Lulu, Kim also has work in the City Limits anthology published by Blue Day Media, leaving aside a previous edition of Paper Eleven that was sold through a now-defunct independent publisher. The assertion that the Connecticon text linked could possibly be the original source for the body text of the article is absurd - the article history shows that the text in question was originally written in September of 2005. Private conversation with Kim reveals that he copied and pasted the Wikipedia article and gave that text to the Connecticon staff around the 6th of June, but that's obviously unverifiable information... however, while I suppose it is possible that Connecticon could have booked Dan Kim ten months in advance and written and published an announcement early enough for this article to be a copy of that text, would they really bother for someone who is apparently not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article? Realistically, cons don't typically publish such information until far closer to the event. Sar 03:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Comment According to the Wikipedia:Importance article - which is admittedly tagged as a work-in-progress and not a final policy/guideline - the criteria for whether an article is 'important' enough to warrant a wikipedia article include "There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be simultaneously interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community)". A Google search for "Clone Manga" produces at time of writing 'about 12,000' hits; I counted 3 in the first five pages which were not directly related to Dan Kim. These are, as noted by the original complaint, primarily from within 'the webcomics community', but I could not find anything in Wikipedia's policies that specifically excluded the webcomic community - or any other subset of the population - from consideration. Searching for the artist's name alone produces far less consistent results, but it is a very common name and thus this is to be expected. This suggests that at the very least the proposed 'Clone Manga' aggregation article is warranted, and I would argue that this infers importance on Dan Kim also, since he is the sole creator of the Clone Manga 'brand'. Sar 03:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    Comment Lastly, and by far least relevantly... I don't want this to come across as a personal attack, User:JimmyBlackwing, but I am curious as to your reasoning if you don't mind me asking: You mention on your user page that you edit the AppleGeeks article, which links to the article on Hawk; it's thus reasonable to expect that you have read that article. The only way I can see that the article on Hawk substantially differs from Dan Kim's in terms of notability is that Hawk also contributed work to Penny Arcade's CCG. His article also makes the grandiose claim that "Haque is an accomplished artist, designer, and programmer. He is primarily a digital artist, and at the young age of 23, he already has a considerable body of work under his belt", but since an {{ AFD}} and not a {{ db-bio}} was applied that shouldn't be the problem. The article is no substantially about the PA CCG work, it is mentioned more as an also-ran - should Hawk's article also be deleted? I don't mean to assert that "X should stay because Y is already here" so much as to point out in an exemplary way that webcomics artists are necessarily not so notable as the kind of figures - politicians, athletes, TV personalities and so on - that the Notability guidelines really seek to specifically include, and this doesn't mean that they should necessarily be excluded. In the name of disclosure I am - as could probably have been guessed - a friend of Dan Kim, but am trying to work by objective metrics I would apply to anyone. Sar 03:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: If WP:BIO is not enough, then I must direct your attention to Dragonfiend's above comment. The article is not verified through reliable sources, and most likely cannot be. If reliable sources exist, then please add them to the article.
I might also add that WP:BIO specifies "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." I do not believe the author in question has received such reviews, though I have done some fairly deep digging on the subject. I am not sure if self-published work is notable, but even if that is the case, these reviews do not exist - making it a moot point.
In closing, I must note, in reference to your argument of 'about 12,000 hits for Clone-Manga', that an article for a webcomic with 16,000 hits was recently deleted. Okashina Okashi, the webcomic in question, is also only one comic - compared to Clone-Manga, which houses seven as of this writing. And in regards to your comment on my possible status of bias, I only stumbled upon the non-notability of these articles while using Alexa's traffic rankings feature. Whether or not Haque and/or Panagariya are notable is not something I have seriously considered until now, and I will look into it - nominating the articles for deletion if necessary. JimmyBlackwing 07:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: The WP:BIO article specifies many independent criteria for notability, it is unreasonable to pick one and cite hwo the subject does not fulfil that one criteria if it is already demonstrated that he fulfils another. Should be remove the Philip K Dick article because PKD was never a "Political [figure] holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or [a member] of a national, state or provincial legislature"?
I am broadly an inclusionist at heart, if a picky one, and my position on the Haque and Panagariya articles remains the same as this one - they are people who have achieved notable things within their field, therefore they are notable enough to warrant Wikipedia articles. There is every chance people will come to Wikipedia looking for information on those individuals, and it is more important that any information given is not false than that the subjects are 'famous' enough. Sar 09:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: Even so, the problem itself is the inability to prove that the information given is not false, due to the complete lack of reliable sources to take said information from. WP:V is an official policy of Wikipedia - not just a contested guideline. And unless there is some hidden reliable source on this with which one could verify the factuality of this article's contents, it is not going to last much longer. JimmyBlackwing 10:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: As I noted above in response to Dragonfiend, the Verifiability article also states "Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves". Is there a reason I'm missing that the PXI book and/or the Clone-manga.org website don't meet any of the criteria given for this, or that this doesn't apply? Again, I'm in favour of a merge, where such arguments would be more directly relevant, but I don't see why this shouldn't be sufficient in this case. To ignore them would be to suggest that Wikipedia doesn't trust Dan Kim as to who Dan Kim is, which is surely just as much a problem whether he's telling this information to us directly via his own site or in an interview with the Wall Street Journal? (Addendum: 'Proof' is not the point of Wikipedia's Verifiability clause - it is about passing the buck, deferring the blame. Or, more politely, allowing the reader to determine for themselves how much they trust and believe the source in question. The motto is 'Verifiability, Not Truth', not 'Verifiability In Search Of Truth'.) Sar 21:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: However, reading deeper reveals WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper). "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material." The subject of this article does not meet these requirements. JimmyBlackwing 23:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: The section headed "Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves", from which the passage I quoted was sourced, features after the section you mention and I believe that it is obvious that it is intended as a special case separate from the previous section on self-published works. To give an example, the self-published works section intends that Crank Scientist Joe cannot write a book on cold fusion in a teacup, have it published on Lulu and then cite that in a Wikipedia article about how cold fusion is perfectly possible in a teacup. The section on self-published works in articles about themselves allows that Crank Scientist Joe's biography of himself that is carried in the appendix to his teacup book should still be a valid source when writing the Wikipedia biography of this obviously-notable luminary of crank science... facts such as where he was born and where he lives, what his middle name and his birthday are are not contentious facts, and he should himself be in a position to reliably impart them. I believe this intent to be obvious because if it isn't the intent of the '...in articles about themselves' section, I cannot see what the purpose of that section possibly is, since it would be entirely excluded in all cases by the previous section that you cite and it would be entirely pointless to include it in an important and considered Wikipedia policy article. Sar 00:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment: While this may be true, allow me point out this section in WP:RS, which happens to be the extended version of what I noted before:

"Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym."

In addition, here we have a bit of information not noted in the WP:V article, but taken from the WP:RS section of the text you originally quoted:

"However, we should avoid relying on self-published material, such as a vanity-press book or a personal website, as a sole source. That is particularly true when the subject is controversial, and the self-publisher has no professional or academic standing."

The personal website and a self-published work are the sole sources for this information, to the extent of my knowledge. JimmyBlackwing 01:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment: Oh, indeed. However, again, Reliable Sources is a guideline, not a policy, and the text specifically uses language such as "we should avoid ... is particularly true", which suggests that while it is frowned upon, it is not specifically wrong, just preferrable to avoid. And as it goes, I quoted the Verifiability policy, not the RS guideline, which contains a couple of sections of similar text. Assuming for the sake of the argument we cannot easily avoid such a weak source in this case, it is the best source we have and there is no Wikipedia policy which says that it is invalid - indeed, policy specifically allows it. We are not talking about controversial claims, here, we are talking about basic biographical and descriptive information. I'm in total agreement that it's not a great source, and I'd prefer more 'reliable' information. I guess this is a difference of philosophy; it seems to me that the question is between preferring a lot of reasonably informative articles on a wide array of subjects that have only a few sources, or a tiny number of articles with references in triplicate. Personally, I think it is reasonable to believe that the contents are true (and unreasonable to doubt them, largely), and Wikipedia's policy - while preferring articles of a higher quality - allows it as it stands. Going out of our way to find guidelines and suggestions that tell us it is imperfect - which we already know - strikes me as a waste of time that could be better spent removing actual inaccuracies and lies. I firmly believe that the intent of these guidelines and suggestions you are picking up on is to ward off intentional fraud and force a leery stand against 'common knowledge', not to filter out factually true articles which happen to only have poor-quality sources available. Sar 12:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: Regardless of your personal attack, Wikipedia guidelines exist for a reason, and are not to be ignored without very good reason. As the very template at the top of guideline pages states, they are considered standards which all users should follow. Although it notes that they are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception, I have yet to see any reason why an exception should be made for this article. The subject of this article has not made a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in [his] field" any more than Greg Dean of Real Life Comics (his article was deleted) or Scott Kurtz of the extremely popular PvP (he has no article of his own, and never has). And the reason I cite these facts is not because I am relying on the "if that doesn't have an article, this shouldn't" argument - it is because even people more notable or on the same level of notability as this article's subject are still not notable enough to include on Wikipedia, by its very guidelines on notability. I might also mention that the professor test, which you cited earlier, is a proposed guideline, as seen on the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) page - not an actual guideline.
And one final thing I think I should mention: a person's creation being notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia does not automatically suggest that said person is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. For example: Max Goldberg, the creator of the incredibly popular site YTMND (a subject notable enough for inclusion), does not have an article of his own. This stems from a few key factors - namely, Goldberg has not made any other accomplishments which would be deemed noteworthy enough for an article of his own in Wikipedia, and YTMND is not notable enough to in turn make him notable by itself. An example of a modern work so notable that it pushed its creator into notability would be Counter-Strike - Minh Le is notable because of this work, and only because of this work. Daniel Kim is in a similar position to Goldberg's - his work, while notable, does not push him into a position of notability on its own. With that said, I do believe now that at least some parts of this article should be merged into Clone Manga as opposed to outright deletion. He is notable enough to be detailed to some extent past a mere mention in the article on his creation, if not in an article on his own. JimmyBlackwing 14:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: The relevant part of this comment is just a note of my agreement that the article should be heavily edited before a potential merging into Clone Manga; the more I look at it the less satisfied I am with the quality, particularly in terms of structure. By inference, I'm also kind of ashamed that it's sat in my watch list for this long and I haven't done this on my own initiative at any point. The rest of this comment is just unimportant philosophical rambling, really...
As guidelines go - well, I am perfectly happy to conform to policy where is exists and I am aware of it, and I am content that the onus is on me to go in search of policy in order to self-regulate my activity on Wikipedia. Policy is the hard-and-fast rules, and it follows that guideline - by virtue of not being policy - is not. As best as I can see - and this stands for the Reliable Sources guideline in question - the main reason guidelines are not policy is that that they tend to cover the areas where there is a black and white answer for the extremes - "A guy I know met Dan Kim on the stairs and he told me..." is not reliable (or even verifiable!), an entry in the Britannica is - but the middle ground is often indistinct and filled with qualifiers, conditions, and possibilities too great to enumerate entirely. Thus, when not talking about an obvious case, it is in my opinion wiser to consider the intent of the guideline when considering words such as 'should'. The intent of RS is not to exclude perfectly good information, it is to ensure that articles are not written based on information that is not reliable. I see no reason to consider Dan Kim an unreliable source on the subject of Dan Kim, and thus my position. Apologies if it was not clear, but there was no personal attack intended - I was merely attempting to summarise what I saw as my position and your position in order to more efficiently work out which parts it is pointless trying to convince you on and vice versa.
As notability goes, I would - had I had those articles mentioned in my watch list at any such time their merit or lack thereof was being discussed - have made much the same argument in their defence as in defence of this article: their existence does not harm the encyclopaedia in any way, so long as they meet policy's minimum standard, and more information is better than less information, so long as there are people willing to edit that information as and when it needs editing. In this case, both those criteria that I consider important are met, and I suspect that they would be in Greg Dean or Scott Kurtz' case. (Kurtz, from what I know of him, probably deserves an article to himself more than either Dean or Kim; I find the idea that there has never been one kind of puzzling.) The concept of notability which you keep returning to in order to justify the removal of [admittedly badly-] sourced, valid information is not policy or guideline for the moment for the simple reason - as noted on the Notability essay page itself - that is is a controversial razor to use when deciding what should and shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The examples you cite, for instance, make little sense to me. What is particularly special about Counter-Strike that makes Minh Le notable that isn't special about Real Life Comics or YTMND? Why does Counter-Strike make its creator notable where Team Fortress apparently doesn't? Assuming some particular quality of or level of awareness, where does that line fall? These are rhetorical questions, of course, the point is that it's fairly arbitrary where one draws that line, and I (and many others) will be wary of an argument that is entirely based on border cases in such a non-consensual ideal. That said, we're going around in circles now, and we both seem to be agreed that butchering editing and merging is the way forward. Sar 03:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was categorize, will be done soon. Mango juice talk 14:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

List of straight edge groups

Not really listcruft per se, but items such as these work better as categories. My vote is categorize and delete. -- H·G ( words/ works) 19:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • I don't think I follow. If the band is notable within a genre listed on Wikipedia, how could it not be notable enough for Wikipedia? Conversely, if a band is not considered notable enough for Wikipedia, how would it be considered notable within a genre listed on Wikipedia? -- H·G ( words/ works) 20:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • because all that means is that no one has taken the time to create a wiki entry for them. wiki is not a be all end all of information. which is why lists like this one have value when you're talking about a specific subject, like straight edge bands which is a very specific genre. Ondcp 01:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep although some of the bands are not notable, the subject is worthy of being noted. 24.57.5.161
  • I think the article is very well written, and thus it should stay. Also, the list of SxE groups/bands could be a little more thorough, but it's better than nothing.-- 70.58.50.136 02:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Whitney reply
  • Comment, deleting this list wouldn't delete reference to the subject; there's a great page on Straight edge already, and it certainly deserves a good article. My nomination for deleting this list was simply because I think this list would work better as a category. I'm not sure how a list article can be "well-written" if it's just a list, though I agree that there are reasons to argue for keeping it (see Ondcp's post above). -- H·G ( words/ works) 20:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Nina & Mike McDonnell

Not-notable per WP:MUSIC that I can verify - Nv8200p talk 19:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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


  • Hi. Its me again. Well this article has been here for a while since the AfD decision. The Category: Pop punk groups is pretty reflective, but not competely reflective of this list. Of course the Category doesnt assist in dividing the bands by dates or provide a list of independent pop punk bands. But, as it seems, this list will be deleted at some point. One thing that is going to be a problem though, is when people start vandalizing the pop punk article with more band names. Thats the good thing about this list. It receives the vandalism and the pop punk article is spared a bit. I do now understand the importance and utility of Categories, but in the meantime, I would rather have this list than more vandalism on the pop punk article. The list might seem to be arbitrary, but its acting as a buffer and it also can be a reminder that wikipedia needs to figure out new ways to sort and represent information. Xsxex 15:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply



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

The result was categorize; will be done soon. Mango juice talk 14:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

List of pop punk bands

Same as my nomination for List of straight edge groups above. These types of things really work better as categories. If there isn't already a sufficient category, I'd vote categorize; otherwise just delete. -- H·G ( words/ works) 19:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Secret recipes

Cruddy list = very yes Soup Blazer 19:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Cleveland steamer

This is exactly the kind of article that Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms cautions against. After a lot of good effort to improve and source the article, we are left with a bare dictionary definition, plus a rather short list of cultural references to the term (some of which don't refer to the term, but to the act only). The article includes references, but all the references are examples of use of the term, rather than about the term (as is specifically required for reliable sources about neologisms in WP:NEO. See my vote for specific criticism of the FCC document, which is the best source). The article was nominated for deletion before, three times, however, each of those nominations had a problem. The first was based on an ill-advised attempt to censor WP. The second (no consensus) was perhaps the best, but several of the keep votes are based on the idea that the article could be expanded and sourced properly, and it's now 3 months later but this hasn't happened; the keeping of the article in the previous round was also a factor. The third AfD was largely decided because of the outcome of the previous two, plus allegations of a bad faith nomination that led to a user conduct RFC. The most recent nomination is now two months ago, so I feel it's time the community can give the issue a fresh look. Mango juice talk 19:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as nominator. Let me point out that the FCC source is not a reliable one. In it, a "cleveland steamer" is defined by a radio jockey in a transcript that the FCC includes in a document. The FCC document is not about cleveland steamers, but rather, includes the transcript to demonstrate the portion of the show the FCC objected to in fining the radio station for broadcasting it. The article uses this source to back up the definition of a Cleveland steamer.. however, the definition in this source is just given off-the-cuff by a DJ (with apparently very little certainty). Mango juice talk 19:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Although it is gross, and dubious in ever having actually occured, it is a widely known and used term. If references are needed ... oh God, I don't want to have to look any up ... eww. Nonetheless, it passes WP:NFT with flying colours, and any other standard I could require it to uphold. If you don't buy the citations, that's one thing, but I'm sure it'll be easy enough to dig up ones everyone can agree on. WilyD 20:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment why does this article keep coming up on AfD?? Stop stuffing beans up my nose! :) :) - CrazyRussian talk/ email 20:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment; whilst I do not wish to vote either way on the issue at present, this is the fourth AfD in just over 7 months. The last was two months ago, and was for "keep". Have things changed significantly since then? If not, I don't believe this AfD is justified. This is verging on abuse of process. Fourohfour 22:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Yes, things have changed, namely, we've done the best we can to find sources and we still haven't. Also, two of those nominations were badly tainted debates. Please see my nomination; I explained all this. Mango juice talk 13:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator (or transwiki to Wiktionary). From WP:NEO: "To support [an article about] a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. ... Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." It appears that cleveland steamer is exactly such a term: there is demonstrable use of the term, but it has not yet been the subject of any writing that Wikipedia can actually use as a source. Therefore, the subject is necessarily original research and can't have an article written that conforms to policy yet. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The appropriate merge target is probably coprophilia. Mango juice talk 00:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Good call - would this be an acceptable compromise? When you strip away the unverified information there's really not enough for a full article on this subject. Ziggurat 00:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Been there, tried that. There was no consensus for a merge. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 00:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
If there's no consensus that just means we have to try harder to find one :) If I may ask, what was the reasoning against it last time it was suggested? Ziggurat 00:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Because the subject is notable enough as is, and deserving of an article. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 00:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Perhaps a Merge may be in the best interest. Nom has a some really good points. Maybe the act can be merged with a Dirty Sanchez and others, into some sort of master list of similar acts. Pete Peters 14:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP Instead of deleting the article, why don't you just expand it.-- Glaze 04:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP Why delete I rather get the definition here than some other stupid site, 19 July 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.248.13 ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. You want urbandictionary. Down the hall, third door marked "WC". -- GWO
    • Comment Cleveland Steamer is not really slang. I checked my desktop dictionary and it doesn't contain blowjob but that's not really slang either. The current entry may be small in its encyclopaedic content (i.e. just appearences in pop culture) but it's not a straight dicdef. Plus, Urban dictionary is basically just for things that are made up, not for real, ordinary, widely used terms like Cleveland Steamer. WilyD 12:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Um, forgive me, but that's not a very good comparison. Cleveland steamer is a very new, fringe-use term. Check out a googlefight. But even if you buy this comparison, I'd like to note we don't have an article on blowjob, we have a redirect to oral sex. Mango juice talk 13:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Cleveland Steamer is neither new, nor fringe. Of course it loses a google fight to blowjob - the porn content of the internet combined with the mainstream vs icky gives that an obvious edge. If you wanted to offer an appropriate merge target for this article, that might be worth considering, but deletion is an extremely poor idea. I doublecheck and see a merge target is already offered. I'll consider that issue. WilyD 13:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and merge with coprophilia. Attempts to expand significantly seem to have been unsuccessful. Perhaps, if further references are found and it can sustain as its own article, we can create a seperate article for it again in the future. -- backburner001 14:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I've never heard of it and I'm the biggest pervert around. 64.26.148.240 14:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Turpentine (band)

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC - Nv8200p talk 19:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Small band that doesn't meet WP:MUSIC requirements to be notable. -- Porqin 20:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Despite the fact that the article creator, JuanSacco, removed the AfD notice (which I have since restored), I feel the article is on a noteworthy subject. They've been reviewed in the Argentinian edition of Rolling Stone, as well as in less significant publications. They are an indie pop band from Argentina, so I feel that fits that whole notable style/prominent rep in area part of the Wikipedia policy. We might not know this band because they're not from our area, but now that we do, we shouldn't ignore it. PT ( s-s-s-s) 17:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - This band meets the following requeriments stated by the WP:MUSIC:
  • Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre.
  • Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre.
  • Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture.

and can be proven by checking the external links bit of the article. JuanSacco 20 July 2006 19:06 local time

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 attack article. -- Nlu ( talk) 20:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Bluetooth envy

This is a pointless article assuming people are evnious of people/products with bluetooth capability, there are no sources cites nor does this even resemble an encyclopedia entry Aspensti 20:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. There is nothing to merge. Proto:: type 11:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Battle Field 2

Dispute on talk page as to whether the page should be merged in Battlefield 2 or just deleted. The article is badly written, contains virtually no information already included in Battlefield 2 and should be deleted and redirected, judging by the poor quality of its contents and the lack of useful info. Martinp23 20:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Merge this page should be merged it has valuable contrabutions and a vandal delted the icon for it to be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunter91 ( talk • contribs)
    • Comment I removed the merge template replacing it with an AfD, as with an afd the decision can be merge. As I wrote in my nom, there was a lack of consensus on the talk page which is why I took the steps which I have done. Martinp23 15:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • this page should be merged as it has been the victim of vandals determined to muck up anything i contribute to because for some reason they have a personal vendetta against me.-- Hunter91 17:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Change the page name to 'A political history of Islam' then we will have a far more constructive artical. -- Mr blobby 19:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply


    • Comment - What on earth is going on here - do NOT delete votes - if you feel a user is a sockpuppet, then you should comment on it, not remove the vote made by the editor. -- Charlesknight 22:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete "battle field 2", everything mentioned in original is alot better--General Oumrov 14:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC) - This was deleted by another editor and I am trying to ensure this vote is counted -- Charlesknight 22:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete What is the fuss about this. Delete it! There is nothing really need to merge. Perhaps hunter91 or another conributor can copy a couple of lines. Apart from that it really isn't neccessary. Hunter91, should also watch out how he is treating other users. U do not delete other peoples opinion. They can voice their own opinion. If u do suspect them of vandalism or a sock puppet, take it up with an administrator. It makes u look like a vandaliser yourself otherwise!-- Chombawomba 12:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Comment litraly all these votes are by the same people but have created other sock puppet acounts i suggest the votting should be disgarded and admin should decide becasue this is simpley ridiculous i have recived about 10 e-mails from the vandals who openly admit to me and have to other users such as David Comley to being sock puppet acounts many admin also recognise these acounts as sock puppets and are trying to get them banned.

-- Hunter91 13:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete' I can see nothing worth keeping, alternatly you could change the page name to 'A political history of Islam' as i recomended, as it would probably reduce the probability of anybody accidentally stumbling upon the page.-- Mr blobby 14:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment charles knight it was discussed on my talk page and you have voted twice please remove the second vote this is exactly what i am talking about you are a vandal with sock puppet acounts trying to influece the voting and now you have voted twice! -- Hunter91 17:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment I would respectfully request that a) you refrain from calling people Sockpuppets and b) you carefully check the page before making such remarks I have voted ONCE. -- Charlesknight 17:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I do not know Charlesknight, but having worked with him on other articles, he seems an upright and honest user and if he does have sockpuppets, he would not use them here. Dev920


      • Comment How dare you accuse me of being a sock puppet! I'm now reporting you to an admin. I am fed up with this. Seriphyn 19:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Comment Seriphyn is not a sock puppet of anyone. His editing style does not match any other user involved in this dispute; I can also vouch for him, as a disinterested user(check my contributions, by all means), as I know him offline and he does not have any sockpuppets. Dev920 20:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge if any non-duplicated content can be found, otherwise Redirect. According to WP:REDIRECT: Redirects are used to "aid searches on certain terms" and to "make the creation of duplicate articles less likely...by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term". Removing the content of the page isn't the same as deleting it. If you are voting to delete because you deel that Battlefield 2 is more appropriate, please consider the possibility of redirecting if you haven't already. Redirects are cheap and creating one at this title wouldn't be harmful per WP:REDIRECT. This is a possible search term so it should be kept per User:Pboyd04.— WAvegetarian• (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Point; a redirect is suitable as 'Battle Field 2' is a possible search term, as said. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seriphyn ( talk • contribs) .
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

April Grace

No claim of notability; apparently a very minor seldom-working actress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valrith ( talk • contribs) 20:36, July 18, 2006

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

A Student's Guide to Liberal Learning

Contested prod. Non-notable "booklet." Some relevant discussion at Talk:A Student's Guide to Liberal Learning. delete. Mango juice talk 20:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mango juice talk 16:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Scum punk

Dubious whether this can really be classified as a subgenre of punk rock. It more or less seems to sum up the practices of G.G. Allin but I can't find any valid sources for this "genre". Punkmorten 20:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • DELETE Stupid article -- Aspensti 20:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral - Granted, only 270 unique Ghits; not huge, but this isn't incredibly small for unique hits on subgenres. It appears to be familiar enough to its purveyors and fans to be a legit subgenre, but not too well-known outside of that group. The only reason other WP pages point to it is because it's included in the {{punk}} template. I'll admit I've heard the term before, so I came here expecting to be this article's defender, but I've switched positions on this a few times while writing this comment out, so I'm staying neutral for now. -- H·G ( words/ works) 01:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect (vote change) into Punk subculture. That article mentions it briefly, but that subsection could use more elaboration. It'd be the only subgenre there not to have its own page, but I really don't think it's notable enough to merit its own article. (Some of the other subgenres on that page aren't, either; maybe they should come down as well.) -- H·G ( words/ works) 18:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment The punk subculture article is running the risk of being way too long. Having all the information related to scum punk in the punk subculture article would put way too much emphasis on this very minor style. I would rather the information on scum punk there be put into the scum punk article, and only a couple of sentences about it and a link in the punk subculture article, in order to balance due emphasis and maintain reasonable size. That is, if we decide to keep any scum punk information at all, of course. Ecto 18:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. WesleyDodds 10:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I've seen it mentioned before in zines and such not to mention I've heard others mention it before ever knowing of this article. Real subgenre, though just not known well because of it's small and underground following. Gold Stur 00:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Do you think you could please dig up some sources? I am not at all framiliar with scum punk, so I do not think I could find any off hand. Ecto 18:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Undecided. Ecto 18:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Jul. 18, '06 [21:31] < freak| talk>

Jackpike

Delete NN band. Award is either too minor or not real, per article talk - CrazyRussian talk/ email 20:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mango juice talk 16:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Ismael Camacho

The first version of this article was massive, including half a novel! It has now been chopped down to a sensible size. But it is still a personal memorial with no assertion of notability. Author did not even manage to link to her own website. -- RHaworth 20:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Hi Mr. RHaworth
    I have edited my article. I hope that you like it now. You can find a reference to my father's novel at [59]. It's a bibliography of the Colombian novel. Please go to page 45
    Maria 19- 07- 2006
    • It's difficult to find the articles he wrote for the Colombian newspapers in 1970. There wasn't any internet at that time, so I won't find anything on line. His play was famous in Colombia in 1969. I'm trying to find anything about it in the Colombian newspapers. The archieves on line don't go back to the sixties. It would be easier if it had been in England. Perhaps I can get a time machine. I give you again the link where you'll find a reference to his novel (Go to page 45) [60]

      I have to find archives of the Colombian newspapers on the internet. An impossible task! I think it's easier to build the time machine.
      Maria 19- 07- 2006
      • Mr RHaworth and friends.
        I have been thinking about this. You only want in your Wikipedia people who are very, very, very, very famous. My father only had some fame in Colombia as a writer in the sixties. I have been trying to find the articles in the Colombian papers about him but it has been impossible. So I don't mind whatever conclussion you reach. I have translated his book into English. If it is published again, perhaps he could be in your wikipedia.
        Thank you
        Maria
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Jean-Claude La Marre

Vanity Sanbeg 23:42, 13 July 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, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:08, 18 July 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, Will ( message me!) 09:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment OK, to not let the poor guy get stuck in AfD limbo, I looked up his movie and found 3 1/2 articles. Sources are posted on the talk page. The article should still be deleted as-is, but if someone wants to adopt this they can contact me and I can forward the text of the sources. ~ trialsanderrors 09:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD G4. This article was just deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy But Dead. This particular version appears to be a copy and paste from Comixpedia (c.f. Comixpedia:Happy But Dead), which I'd moved over there from here last month. – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 22:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Happy but dead

non-notable webcomic Crossmr 21:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Gander Academy

I sooooo didn't want to do this, but I'm fool enough to do it anyway. Originally listed as speedy per A1 (empty). The article at that time was simply an infobox. The speedy tag was removed and two sentences were added which, succinctly, tell the reader that this is an elementary school. With apologies and no intent to impute endorsement by Dpbsmith, I've applied the WP:BEEFSTEW test. The answer to every question is "no". Add to that the fact that elementary schools are not inherently notable, WP:SCHOOLS did not pass and is not binding one way or another, and precedent is not supposed to apply, I'd say that this article must go. Agent 86 21:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The New Defenders of Earth

Contested Prod. It's "an upcoming book" with no named author or publisher. Totally fails google. Someone's unpublished work that they hope to expose here? Clearly not notable or verifiable. Fan-1967 22:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - created by a sockpuppet, Dundee Cake, of General Tojo. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The symptoms of Parkinson's Disease and Biochemistry of Parkinson's Disease

POV forks of Parkinson's disease created while the main article is protected. More details on the nature of the articles is available at Talk:Parkinson's disease#Possible forks created. -- Allen3  talk 22:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This series is still months away, the article is pure unreferenced speculation. AfD is not a vote, and the keep reasons are much weaker than the delete reasons. — Fire Fox 21:49, 23 July '06

Big Brother (UK series 8)

The article is based on total speculation, and includes no information that isn't already in other Big Brother UK articles. JD don't talk| email] 22:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

It's still full of speculation, even if it is going to return. -- Lorian T C 13:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now, create it later once it has been officially confirmed -- Alex9891 (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Alex9891. godgoddingham333 17:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Save it has been confirmed by both Davina and Dermot on numerous occassions - Jezabelda 08:55, 22 July 2006
  • Save Dermot Confirmed it and then it was later confirmed by Davina. PB22 08:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Save Davina and Dermot have both confirmed BB8
  • Save if it has been confirmed. I will delete The show's format is expected to be unchanged from previous years....There has been no runner up prize in previous years. (aka. the second paragraph) as we have NOT been told that the format will remain the same - they could well try someting different. Anon Dude 17:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Even if Big Brother does happen next year, do we really need an article that has absolutely no information in it, nearly 10 months before it's even going to be broadcasted? The article can be re-made nearer the time, and when there's actually information worth going in it. -- JD don't talk| email] 17:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Daniel Sosa

Joke or vanity page. Google does not support the assertions. Mr Stephen 22:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Viktor Kozlov (politician)

NN-bio, his major achievements are the deputy chairman of a dacha co-operative Moscow writer. Was speedied twice but the author insists on AfD abakharev 23:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Harold Donald Hopkins

Doesn;t appear to meet the notability requirements for academics. Artw 23:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Harlequin Theatre Guild

Non-notable theater group. Artw 23:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, this appears to be a vanity page ("We are the SALT (Student-Artist-Leader-Teacher) of De la Salle University") at best, and maybe copyvio at worst. Either way, notability is not established--"Harlequin Theatre Guild" gets 22 unique Ghits, and the article provides no other assertion of notability. -- H·G ( words/ works) 07:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - not referenced and they say "The Harlequin Theatre Guild is the resident theatre group of the De la Salle University-Manila. It is a venue for student artists to hone their talents in theater arts" - sorry but WP is not a place for this group to showcase their talents. Student theatre without a convincing notability case. BlueValour 04:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Ben Barton

The only real claim to notability is The Red Book which is from a vanity press Plane Tree (UK) .

A vanity press charges thousands of pounds to print ANY book, regardless of quality, and will not expect to sell any copies other than those to the author themselves. Plane Tree is a POD printer who specialise in new small-press books and reprints of out-of-print books. You are fudging the terminology! Vanity press = exploited writer, out of pocket and devalued. POD printer = writer in control. The difference is clear. (N.B 'The Red Book' is still number one on Amazon's Hot Books chart - has sold over 1000 copies in two months - very large number for a poetry book!) Poetics uk 23:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Fair enough, although today's bestselling book under Gay & Lesbian > Literature > Poetry > Gay isn't really the same as "number one on Amazon's Hot Books chart." (Congratulations on doing as well as you are, though.) However, at this point I still don't see how WP:BIO is met. Probably the easiest criteria for the subject to meet would be "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." Thus, if citations can be provided in the article of several independent reviews or awards from sources meeting WP:V and WP:RS, I'd be willing to change my vote. -- H·G ( words/ works) 20:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • 'The Red Book' IS on the 'Hot Books' chart - has now been in the top 5 for six weeks. Hot Books Poetry OK - feel like it's we're fighting a losing battle here, but regards sources, I will only say that 'The Red Book' / Video Nation aren’t the only reasons Ben Barton is noted as a poet! These were just noted to make the biography succinct.

For over ten years his poems have appeared in many of Britain's foremost literary magazines, these include: Acorn, Carillon, Decanto, Harlequin, Masque, New Horizon, Parameter, Roadworks, Scriptor, Secret Attic, Sentinel, Time Haiku, The Ugly Tree and X Magazine. Regards your “independent reviews and awards”, there are many sources, which because they are not online, don't seem to be valid to wiki people:

  • Reviews of 'The Red Book':
    Writers' Forum, August 2006, Writing Magazine September 2006, Terrible Work, The Frogmore Papers Summer 2006, iota 75, Poetry in a Cup, Poetry Kit.
    Ben also won the Folkestone Faber/Ottakars Poetry Competition for National Poetry Day two years consecutively (1997-1998).
    Reviews of his poetry/career:
    e-poets.com, Writers’ News October 2004/January 2000.
    His links with Derek Jarman:
    Pyramid Magazine Fall 2006.
    Also his Derek Jarman project with photographer Jennifer Harris has just been commissioned by the Kent Council to go on a countywide tour of art galleries. He is also a full-time writer for Britain’s biggest selling subscription magazine, Saga – some of his articles can be read here: ONE TWO THREE This information is not exhaustive. I think people have concentrated too much on the POD printing of a particular book and ignored the full scope of the writer and his publishing acheivements. Poetics uk 22:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Sources that are not online are perfectly valid , it's just harder for us to check them. The above does lend some weight to notability as a poet. Some points in connection with it
a) There are very many little literary magazines that flower and die. Which of the above are major, longstanding ones that I can find in a good reference library? What issues should I be checking?
b) "In 1997 aged fifteen he won first prize in the Ottakars/Faber & Faber poetry competition for National Poetry Day in his home county of Kent. The following year his poem The Re-Birth Remembered repeated this success by winning the competition again. The poem was also a winner in the National competition and was published in the accompanying anthology. Reviews at the time labelled him ‘Britain’s youngest, most published poet’." That seems to be a regional rather than a national win and in a Children's section.
c) Links with Derek Jarman - what are they? Notability is not contagious.
d) The Saga magazine links are short travel articles - INMHO they add nothing to a claim of notability. Thousands of articles of this genre are written (they also seem to be unattributed but I'm not disputing authorship).
----
"unattributed" ? On my screen articles clearly state 'Ben Barton' in the intro.
----
Ok - I see the name now. However, my point is that it's a travel article. Dlyons493 Talk 11:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply


e) In general, I'd personally expect to see much more published and by mainstream publishers before a Wiki article was warranted. Dlyons493 Talk 00:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - repost. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Laser Perfect Inc.

This page is a re-create of the recently approved for delete page Laser Perfect. The original article and this one are spam. Rob (Talk) 23:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment Since this is a repost of Laser Perfect, I am taging this page for speedy deletion. I had moved the page to Laser Perfect Inc. without realizing that it had been deleted before. Travelbird 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Mark David

Article effectively fails existence with 0 google hits; subsequently failing WP:BIO. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I picked Official PlayStation Magazine, because it already covered the topic. If anyone wants to add info on this to Game demo be my guest. Mango juice talk 16:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

PlayStation Demo Discs

I just don't see why this article is here. Why not an article on Xbox demo discs? If not deleted, at least merge or redirect into Game demo. Thunderbrand 00:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Rowell Fair Society Band

Article does not establish notability. As well, it appears to violate WP:V. Stanfordandson 00:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_18&oldid=1081095760"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE