Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 29 October 1 >

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 Speedy Delete WP:CSD:A7. Gwernol 13:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Gamereplays.org

Unwikified article that is a target of vandalism with notabillity concerns. NormR 12:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator -- NMChico24 04:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Romanes

Delete - Vanity -- FlareNUKE 02:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Forget it, I know this is vanity, no reason to AFD. Please delete this. -- FlareNUKE 02:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was already speedy deleted. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 00:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Trendsettersthestore

  • 'Delete - Advertisement, fails WP:WEB as not top 100000 in alexa.com|this article's entry. - Patstuart 00:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Previously deleted spam. It's gone. So is the user. - Lucky 6.9 00:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
























































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

The result was Delete per failure of WP:WEB. -- Nishkid64 19:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

HubPages

Company launched in August 2006, likely fails WP:CORP WP:WEB. Alexa ranking of 21,062. Hús ö nd 00:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 00:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • what kind of Alexa ranking would the site have to have to merit entry? -- Polskajason 00:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Alexa ranking doesn't imply notability or non-notability, but a relatively high ranking (i.e. low notability) can hint at a non-notable website. What really has to happen is that the site satisfies WP:V and WP:WEB. — Dark Shikari talk/ contribs 00:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Alvin6226 talk 02:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. — Khoi khoi 02:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Not a speedy. MER-C 13:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Kevin 17:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now. I would vote keep if it had been around longer and had been well established. UberCryxic 01:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep . There is historical significance with Hubpages in that it is the first company to launch on the Google Adsense API
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Fantastico De Luxe

Nominated for speedy deletion as "spam" by IP user, but I believe that was just a fake excuse. Nonetheless, I'm nominating the article for deletion to determine if this article is really necessary. I'm not familiar with this, but I just did a simple Google test and saw that this appears to be somewhat notable (~75,000 hits also). -- Nishkid64 00:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Tarret 00:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It is by no means a major piece of software but it is a common web hosting feature. I'm not sure there would be enough information for a proper article, but the same applies to CPanel. Such scripts could easily be lumped together in a single article. metaspheres 00:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Tarret. MER-C 04:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to cPanel, which it is a plugin for. Zetawoof( ζ) 10:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Tarret. Further, the references used in the article are all forum posts. Kevin 17:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- Nishkid64 19:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Vanilla Bicycles

Delete. Article is an advertisement. Prod tag removed by author. ... discospinster talk 00:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom and wikipedia is not for advertising. Hello32020 00:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete does not meet WP:CORP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosobra ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete per above. — Khoi khoi 02:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - spammy. MER-C 04:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - though prod might have been more appropriate, I have to agree with the nom and above. - Harmil 04:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as WP:ADVERT for non-notable business. -- Satori Son 05:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. 9200 Google hits, and I found two reviews which seem to pass the criteria of WP:Corp (The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.). I agree the article did read like an advert and lacked citation of notability which is why I tagged it originally. I've now cleaned the article up. —  Tivedshambo ( talk to me/ look at me/ ignore me) —  08:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and Satori Son. Even after the cleanup, the article is little more than an advertisement for a relatively obscure company. Kevin 17:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per all above. UberCryxic 01:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom,. -- ArmadilloFromHell 01:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Cantina, Tel Aviv

Some sort of Israeli bar or restaurant. Some claims of notability, but there's no sources verifying the claim that this place hosted the finals of Kokhav Nolad, or the listed notable guests have been there, so this article fails WP:V. External links for the article are in Hebrew. NeoChaosX [ talk | contribs 00:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Personally, I don't think "some (potentially) famous people ate here last summer" qualifies as notable. Delete -- MarcoTolo 01:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A bar or a restaurant in which famous people dine or eat is non notable. A bar opened by a famous is notable-- 203.109.224.204 01:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Possibly delete A bar/restaurant in which the famous dine or eat can be notable precisely because they do (see e.g. The Ivy), but I'm not convinced in this case that Cantina is notable. Emeraude 11:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Dweller 11:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. - Mailer  D iablo 12:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Abramelin (band)

Nothing in the article asserts notability per WP:MUSIC - Nv8200p talk 00:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Hello32020 00:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. — Khoi khoi 02:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 04:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep released two full-length albums on a notable label (repulse/ shock records) as well as toured Australia in support of Cradle of Filth twice. This must be, sufficient for WP:Album Spearhead 07:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep at this stage its weak Jeffklib 07:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Both albums released through Shock Records and debut re-issued by Repulse, which is very well-known in the metal scene. Their guitarist playes also in Akercocke and The Berzerker and former drummer was in Deströyer 666. I also see an 18-year career as a sign of notability. Prolog 09:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As per Spearhead and Prolog, meets the level for albums and tours, along with connection to other notable bands. Dace59 15:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Think outside the box 16:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Certainly not Non-notable -- N R S | T/ M\ B 16:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Read WP:OSTRICH while you're at it. PT ( s-s-s-s) 00:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete, per nom - Deathrocker 11:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Does not qualify for speedy delete. And the nom says the article doesn't assert notability. That is clearly wrong, as the article clearly states the notable record releases, tours, and notable musicians within the band. This AfD is pointless. PT ( s-s-s-s) 19:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per WP:MUSIC. -- Nishkid64 19:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Abrasion (band)

Nothing in the article asserts notability per WP:MUSIC. - Nv8200p talk 00:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was DELETE. You've got an unsigned comment at the bottom from an anon which I've discounted, and then reading the debate Kevin seems to agree that the information isn't all that valuable. Looks like a general consensus to delete to me. Hiding Talk 22:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

SLC Sport Results 2005

This article listing results from a sports season fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Contested prod. alphaChimp (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Alvin6226 talk 02:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment you might want to look at St Laurence's College for the other two entries. FrozenPurpleCube 02:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 04:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the information. While not necessarily academic, it does have value and could be useful to someone. I think the spirit of "indiscriminate collection of information" would be more applicable to "Aunt Millie's Chocolate Chip Cookie Recipe" or "Billboards In SLC's Stadium", rather than a compilation of information that could feasibly be in a sports almanac. Perhaps it would be worth merging with other years in a single "SLC Sport Results YYYY - YYYY" entry? Kevin 17:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    Comment. I really see absolutely no prescient value in Wikipedia serving as a repository for obscure and entirely irrelevant sports results. Let's be entirely clear about this. This is a college sports team. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac, particularly for non-professional sports, whether we like it or not. alphaChimp (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    Comment. While I don't argue that you and I may not see any value in this, that doesn't mean that everybody concurs. Let's say that a player from that team becomes a professional, and someone has the inclination to research the player's background. Or perhaps that school will win a playoff of some sort, making the information relevant. I think suggesting that information that could be in a sports almanac defines Wikipedia as such by its inclusion, is a bit of a longshot. Kevin 20:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I am a very big fan of sports related topics on Wikipedia, including almanac type articles (ie: List of NHL seasons), however game-by-game logs is a bit much. Resolute 00:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It was useful to me and it should stay.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 clear consensus - I'm restarting the AFDs due to extensive changes made to the article(s), and making two separate AFDs for the two remaining articles instead. The other subpages appear to have already been deleted. Cowman109 Talk 01:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The new AFDs are at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lords Reform (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lords Reform - History. Please re-evaluate the articles's candidacy for deletion there. Thank you. Cowman109 Talk 01:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Lords Reform

  • Note to closing admin -- I would urge that you close this AFD as "void" per User:Equendil's suggestion below. As this diff should show, the primary author has put in a lot of effort to address criticisms posted here and, as a result, the article has changed significantly since it was nominated for deletion. Since most of the delete votes were made before October 2, it is very likely that the editors were voting on a radically different version article and might not have voted delete if they had read the current article instead. If the new article is worthy of deletion, it can be re-nominated and we can get a consensus to delete based upon the new article.
Also note that the original nominator has withdrawn his nomination of the article for deletion.
  • Comment Ugh, and that's why articles should not be moved until after the AFD is finished. Too bad User:Haseler didn't read the AFD header text and follow the rules.
Nonetheless, it should be obvious that it is time to close this AFD as "void" and start over if anyone still feels that the current article at Lords Reform warrants deletion.
-- Richard 22:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Same argument applies to the subpages that were added to the nomination. It's very possible that some of the subpages will need to be deleted but, since the whole framework has been reworked, it's better to leave them in place for a short while and then let us revisit each subpage once the dust has settled. The major issue here is that the main article Lords Reform is gettting long and hard to read. Some subpages will need to be created but it's not clear at the moment which ones should go.
The primary author is still learning the ways of Wikipedia and is being mentored by a few Wikipedians including myself. He admits that the initial article was "crap" but I think you will agree that the current article is worthy of retention and simply needs improvement. I think this could be developed into an FA candidate eventually.

-- Richard 16:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Note -- I apologise for wasted everyone's time and getting so upset. I've put the contentious work on User:LordsReform where I, or anyone else who would like to help, can work on it. Having got some kind of initial framework, I'm now populating it with some facts, there are well over 1500 documents to check through (though most are very short, except for a dozen main ones), I'd like to see something "authorative" by End of October 2006. Any help, even someone who would pop in and give us a few hints on style etc. from time to time, would be appreciated!

Mike 09:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Fairly POV and unsourced. Seems to be original research. eaolson 01:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Per Fan-1967 below, I'm adding the following to this AfD:
Also adding:
-- Fan-1967 02:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Adding:
— NeoChaosX [ talk | contribs 21:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply


  • There is good and accurate stuff in all of these articels, but much that is opinionated and unsourced - a pity because much of it can be sourced. I would keep Lords Reform and look at whether others can be merged or tidied. Emeraude 11:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all except Lords Reform, and then we need to reconstruct that article from the ground up. Lords reform is a very encyclopaedic subject and deserves a proper article. David | Talk 13:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I am sick and tired of the hypocracy on Wikipedia. Of course an article about reform of the House of Lords is going to contain opinions and original research because the whole reform process consists of a series of debates about opinions. These pages have not been on a day and I was up to 3am yesterday working to get them into some sort of order before you vultures started picking at the carcass. Where is the tolerance that Wikipedia tells everyone about?

Having set out a template, I was just about to start going through the 1000 different responses to the consultations. I have complained in the past that there is no means (as far as I am aware) to create a trial version and invite comments.

The issue of Lords reform is incredibly complex and given the huge number of views it simply is not possible to explain the issue in one page. I know even less about Wikipedia except its pretended policy of "welcoming everyone" which it does not.

How can some of you be serious. 1000 different people spent days, if not weeks putting together their consultation responses, hundreds of MPs over decades if not centuries have put in huge amounts of time, it is one of the highest profile issues in the UK, and all you can say is "delete it". I'd have some respect for what you said if one of you had actually offered to help make the article more acceptable.Mike Haseler

Comment You misunderstand. It's original research and opinions because they're exclusively your opinions and research. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source and should collect the opinions and research of others (with references) into a comprehensive whole. Also, "tolerance" does not mean we sit back and let you do whatever you want. If you want us to establish a compromise position with you, then you shall have to engage us in debate. I would've though you'd know that given your expertise in politics. Sockatume 13:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Furthermore, there are plenty of established ways to present trial articles for comment. The most obvious would be to put the article together in your namespace and then find the appropriate forum, via the Community Portal, to ask for comments. Sockatume 13:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

*Delete. Interesting and significant issue, but the articles are all original research written in patently unencylopedic style. Wikipedia is not a textbook! Sockatume 13:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Transwiki. Thinking about it, surely Wikibooks has a politics textbook which would benefit from this? Sockatume 13:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The comment that "there are plenty of ways to trial it" is news to me.... but then my only other real experience of Wikipedia when when a bunch of thugs jumped on me last time when I started an article on "incrementalism". I ask myself, is it worth carrying on editing these pages or will they be deleted however informative I make them? At the moment I'm inclined to ignore some of the less informed comments and try to make something on it, but if I'm wrong then please email me now because I've got plenty of other things I could do with my time!

Mike Haseler

Comment. Well, if you don't join the community, you can't expect to find out about these things. Being productive on the Wikipedia is about more than producing a lot of material - engaging with the other editors, particularly over controvertial articles, is incredibly important. Acting as though the Wikipedia "Edit This Page" button is a videogame and your goal is to get your version of the article in place is not effective. You should be spending a considerable proportion of your time debating the direction of articles on Talk pages and User Talk pages. Sockatume 14:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment.This is not a controversal article, as far as I'm aware there have only been three contributors and none of them have disagreed. You are making a controversy where there is none. And I take great exception to your comment: using "Edit This Page" button is a videogame. In fact I haven't a clue what you are talking about! I will restate my position. The Lords is one of the oldest institutions in the World. Reform of the Lords is one of the highest profile issues for the UK government. I apologise that I am not an expert at Wikipedia, indeed, I would love people more informed than me to add to the page, but if this subject can't be included in the encylopedia section of Wiki, then what is the point of it? Mike Haseler (And How does everyone else get that user-time stamp?
Comment Is there anyone willing to talk to me offline rather than engage in a slanging match here? Mike Haseler
Comment As an article which is providing informaton on the process of reform; a reform that is largely dictated by the opinions of those involved, it is inevitable that much of it will be reporting of opinions. I have had the dubious pleasure of reading many of the contributions and talking to quite a few MPs and Lords involved, I am will try to provide information on the range of opinions. I am trying to represent these as fairly and neutrally as possible (although regretably I've had to copy and paste some stuff to at least get a start) so for the meanwhilst, some of it is quite obviously my own opinion of the situation, but unless there is something there to edit, how can others make their contribution and so arrive at a mutually agreed consenus?
Comment. And I take great exception to your comment: using "Edit This Page" button is a videogame. In fact I haven't a clue what you are talking about! That's surprising considering I elaborated upon the point in the following sentence. To reiterate: at this stage you aren't making an effort to react to our criticisms (it doesn't read like an encyclopedia article, for example) beyond the blanket statement that this is an important issue. It is important when facing a conflict of opinion on the Wikipedia that you sit down and discuss it thoroughly with the other editors. Judging from your previous comments (the sense of being "jumped on" when starting a new article, and the "me against he world" tone you've taken here), this is something you were unaware of.
We agree that it's an important issue, hence the concensus to keep the central article. However the issue is not presented in a thoroughly referenced, encyclopedic manner. It is written like a collection of sections from a textbook or perhaps primer on the subject. It reads like somebody's original research and commentary, in other words. Sockatume 18:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all, Wikipedia is not a soapbox/a webhost/a publisher of original research and so on and so on.. -- Charlesknight 23:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

A Marker

Can I thank the person who added the comments to the article - that was very helpfull. If anyone has tried to contact me, I've not received it, if no one has bothered to respond to my request for help and advice .... all I can say is I hope you all choke on the carcass of this article! ImpeachMe 19:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Sockatume, I tried to email you. I got to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sockatume where's the "how to contact mr X?" I've never in my life every encountered such as hostile community as Wikipedia. Please forgive if I'm sounding grumpy, there is nothing so infuriating as having half finished work torn to shreads because it .... isn't finished. And then sitting here wondering whether it is both bothering to finish it. And now all I'm doing is talking to myself like some madman! ImpeachMe 19:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I have just received an email from an expert in this area, whose input would be extremely valuable. To summaris, they've seen the "this site will be deleted" and have decided to use their time more profitably ... thankyou very much! ImpeachMe 22:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Topic worthy of an article As someone who worked on this article some time ago, I can only say that I tried to include a neutral summary of some of the history and the issues involved in reform. I certainly referred to the Parliament Act 1911. As I was providing background for an article which I take to be mostly about the attempts of the Blair government to reform the House of Lords, I did not go into a lot of detail anout the history but I tried to be reasonably comprehensive. I think that the constitutional crisis leading up to the Parliament Act 1911 is an important historical topic but not central to the contemporary issues.

When I looked at Haseler's work on the main Lords Reform article yesterday I was impressed by it. I did not see the problems described in the comments above.

In summary I think the issue of Lords reform is an important topic in current British politics. There ought to be an article about it, setting out enough history for the non specialist to grasp what is being argued about. The options for reform which have been proposed should be summarised.

I suggest rather than just sweeping away all that has been done before (good, bad or indifferent as it may be), it would be helpful if those who object point to the specific passages they consider to infringe the policies on Neutral POV, lack of sourcing and original research etc. These points can then be examined in detail and if the complaint is found justified the existing text can be corrected so it does comply with applicable policies. I am willing to assist with such an effort. -- Gary J 23:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I see some of the historical information about pre-1977 reforms I inserted originally, has been moved from the main article since I saw it yesterday. It is fair to say that is not in itself a complete treatment of the history, nor is it sourced. It was designed to be a section of a larger whole not an independent article. I presume Haseler was going to get around to expanding it later, but perhaps it will assist the community if I do some work on it, to see if something can be produced which is acceptable. -- Gary J 00:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Some specific examples for Lords Reform - Democratic Appointments:
  1. "Democratically Appointed Lords is a proposal to Reform the UK House of Lords..." Proposed by whom? Is Wikipedia the only place this proposal has been put forth? If so, it's original research.
  2. "With a jury of 15 and perhaps 10 permanent staff, the running costs would be around £2.5 million per year for the jury." Where did this number come from? Is it valid?
  • For Lords Refrom - Allotment:
  1. Again, where did the proposal come from? Who is doing the proposing?
  2. "In democracy the people are supreme and the politicians are there to serve the people. By voting for politicians we pick the House of Commons on merit and by its nature this makes it literally undermocratic. An upper chamber does not need to have a mandate to govern, and therefore selection by lot is the best way to make it democratic." This is POV. The best way? If this is unambiguously the best way, why are other proposals being considered?
  3. I also just noticed that there is a typo in the article title. "Refrom" instead of "Reform"
  • Lords Reform - Roles
  1. This whole article is very clearly original research.
  2. Explanations by analogy (which is most of the article) are inherently inexact, and not particularly encyclopedic.
eaolson 19:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all dreadful — Mets501 ( talk) 19:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • On the points about the varioius proposals. They are not single proposals but intended to be summaries of the range of proposal that have been verifyably put forward. All you need to do is read all the proposals on the department of constitution web site, read all the speaches made in parliament. The problem is that the average person doesn't know where to look. If they want to know what proposals have been put forward, they need a summary and that I expect to find in Wikipedia. Mike 20:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Eaolson Thanks for the comments - they were mostly helpful and in the main I accept them and have made some changes (but I'm struggling, and I'm supposed to be working next week). For details see the comments on the talk pages for each of page. I've requested help in several places, and so far your comments are the only help we have received! Mike 21:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Lords Reform but delete all the subpages. In my opinion, "badly written" is not grounds for deletion, but rather a reason for revising the page. Lords Reform is a topic that certainly merits a Wikipedia article. The many subpages, however, are duplicative, largely original research, and simply unnecessary. -- Russ (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I feel so bad voting delete but such a good intention for an article is dripping in POV. This article is unquestionably worthy of an article but this is not the way to do it. doktorb words deeds 16:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Someone is taking the micky In a few days, I might have had the time to get this article ready for some comment, giving me a relaxed 5 days responding to any criticisms. I can't do what is required in the time - there literally isn't time - Well done! I give up! Mike 18:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Lords reform is a perfectly sensible topic to write about, and there is plenty of third party comment to use as sources without delving into original research, but this seems to be a rather ambitious programme! It may be easier to try to write one article at a time, and split off sections into subarticles when they get long enough. I think the current content in the sub-articles should be merged into the parent article, and perhaps Reform of the House of Lords would be a better title. Having said that, I'm not sure I would start from here... -- ALoan (Talk) 19:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Close this AfD as void. The main article is not nominated anymore, various subpages have been added, several apparently deleted as per the author's request, initial comments do not reflect the status of this AfD anymore ... I believe the process has derailed here. I suggest an admin closes this AfD as void. Individual subpages can be relisted individually if necessary. Equendil Talk 19:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Seconded. Lankiveil 12:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC). reply
    • Comment Why not just kill off the remaining subpages right now? Haseler's already removed most of the content from the surviving pages, there's no need to renominate them individually if he doesn't want them any more. NeoChaosX [ talk | contribs 21:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • DELETE. The lords reform article is a mess, it's not written in a wikipedia-like tone or manual of style or guide to layout or well, it's basically a whole jumble of mess that looks like someone vandalized. Also per IslaySolomon, Opabinia regalis, Sandstein and physicq210 It's DEFINITE DELETE!!! I found the article after stumbling onto three empty articles when stub sorting: Lords Reform - Proposals; Lords Reform - Aims; Lords Reform - Roles which was emptied by User:LordsReform. I don't know if it constitutes as blanking or vandalism since it was (after digging around) I suppose was for a rewrite of the Lords reform series. But it is unwikipedia-like to leave articles like that with improper redirect. Which I think the three articles doesn't even worthy the redirect. (per redirect policy) Also, I would like to rais the issue of User talk:LordsReform's purpose of moving the article onto his/her userpage as it is an irregular wikipedia practice. Also, could someone cleanup this afd? Feureau 22:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Help is much appreciated! Mike 11:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
      • It is NOT irregular Wikipedia practice to move an article to User space. In fact, the action Userfy is a recommendation that shows up from time to time in AFD debates. In this case, the author User:Haseler was advised to move articles that were "not ready for primetime" to User space. So, he created a separate user account User:LordsReform and moved the articles there. The creation of a separate user account for this purpose is not ideal. It would have been better to move the articles to subpages of User:Haseler but Haseler, being a new Wikipedian, misinterpreted the suggestion. He is working on a new article in User:LordsReform/New which he has created as a sandbox. -- Richard 22:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per Russ above. Subpages should go though. Lankiveil 05:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC). reply
    • Comment, to clarify, the main article does need cleanup, but I don't see why it's not worthy of an article. POV and poor formatting is not grounds for deletion, as far as I am aware. Lankiveil 12:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC). reply
  • Strong Keep Topic is encyclopedic. I can't tell what the original article looked like but the current article shows a lot of promise. It needs cleanup, wikifying and sourcing but all that can be fixed with time. Article creator seems to be a relatively new Wikipedian with good intentions but in need of some coaching. I volunteer. -- Richard 06:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep. -- Nishkid64 19:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Showoff (band)

Article does not assert notability per WP:MUSIC - Nv8200p talk 01:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Alvin6226 talk 02:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 04:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep considering the notability of MTV and AMG as verifiable sources, they are considered notable per WP:MUSIC. However, I'm not personally convinced that being listed on those sites makes a group inherently "notable". Kevin 17:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep WP:Music, meets notablilty requirement. "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." and "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." Chris Envy worked with Fall Out Boy. Showoff has also been cited on MTV, [1] and has been signed to Pacific Ridge Records. Valoem talk 19:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Read WP:OSTRICH while you're at it. PT ( s-s-s-s) 00:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - seems notable enough Spearhead 21:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- Nishkid64 19:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

A Murder of Angels, While You Sleep, In the Air

Article does not assert notability per WP:MUSIC - Nv8200p talk 01:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Non-notable myspace band du jour -- NMChico24 03:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and also delete While You Sleep and In the Air The band's article and the articles for their albums assert a grand total of zero notability. -- Kicking222 03:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per lack of notability. (And if you haven't noticed yet, the person who closed this AfD was not me, but an impostor).-- Konst. able 03:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC.-- Dakota 03:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and please take a second look at the A Murder of Angels article. I added under "References" an interview with one of the band members and two reviews of the band's albums. -- TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 04:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    • None of those come from reliable sources. How do they confer notability? -- Kicking222 04:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I don't know if reviews really count much or if the websites that did the reviews are significant. The interview barely mentions the Murder of Angels project. Still does not seem like much to me. -Sorry Nv8200p talk 04:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Non-notable. RickReinckens 04:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and also delete the category Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 05:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete All as insufficiently notable per WP:MUSIC, and no "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy" as required by WP:V. -- Satori Son 05:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete All per nom. Kevin 17:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • keep seems to meet WP:Music to me by having released 2 albums Spearhead 21:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • According to WP:MUSIC: Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). The record label does not seem to meet this criteria. -- NMChico24 21:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- Nishkid64 19:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Aconite Thrill

Article does not assert notability per WP:MUSIC - Nv8200p talk 02:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 04:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Kevin 17:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • keep seems to ahve released 2 albums... and thus meets wp:music Spearhead 21:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Actually, WP:MUSIC states "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." The record label for those two albums, Mighty Atom Records, does not seem to meet this criteria, thus the band here does not meet WP:MUSIC. -- NMChico24 21:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Cedric Ced

Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. No sources given to establish notability. [Check Google hits] doesn't show any relevant results in the first few pages. "Lil Ced" search shows a musician by that name, but with an album released in 1997 (subject of the article was born in 1992). "Cedric Jermaine Brazle" returned nothing. Prod tag (and prod2) removed. ... discospinster talk 02:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per above. Vanity. MER-C 02:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — Khoi khoi 02:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment - just noticed it's been redirected to Lil' Cedric -- plange 03:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Which is even worse than the first article. MER-C 04:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Seems to me to be unvorthy to exist in an encyclopediæ → A z a Toth 16:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per all above. UberCryxic 01:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

An-My Le

Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines plange 02:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. MER-C 04:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Gulshen Ahmed

Possible violation of WP:BLP -- has unsourced negative information on a living person plange 02:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • I removed the unsourced negative text and added the sources template. Keep the remaining because he was the person in charge of a state within a significant country. I think that meets appropriate notablity guidelines.
  • Comment - sounds good - my vote is now Keep -- plange 04:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Encyclopedia Project

Not notable. With "'Encyclopedia Project' Moon" I get 1,000 yahoo hits including this wikipedia article and mirrors. Uses metawiki type technology. Thus, it fails WP:WEB. Arbusto 02:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I'm unable to find any sources online not from the Unification Church so it also misses WP:V. JoshuaZ 04:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep. Not sure how it could possibly be unverifiable - it's there on the web [2]. You can see it. What more do you want? Notable: well it doesn't meet the WP:WEB guidelines, but for some reason I'm tempted to keep it anyway. The Land 14:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I relisted to get more opinions. Arbusto 03:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete per {{ db-web}}, no claim to notability, so tagged. Sandstein 07:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB criteria. -- Ter e nce Ong ( T | C) 08:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- Nishkid64 19:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Bargain hunter

Spam garden. Spam since the very beginning, I don't think it's worth redirect or rewrite. Hús ö nd 02:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - If the name for such sites was unique and in use as a neologism that might be looked up, I can see reason to keep, but without listing the sites themselves, but this just looks like a way to list websites that deal in bargains. -- plange 03:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - spam target and per nom. MER-C 04:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, and failing WP:V. -- AbsolutDan (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:SPAM. --Slgr @ndson ( page - messages - contribs) 04:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • DeleteI agree with the deletion, there's no rhyme or reason who goes on the list, and it's all external links. I know there are some legit sites on there, and some with their own wiki pages as well, but I just don't see much need for this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.240.104.120 ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete Advertising spam, an unmaintainable list, Wikipedia is not: a directory, an indiscrimate collection of information. -- IslaySolomon 06:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but delete the external links. Emeraude 11:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, or rename and rework. Perhaps move into a subsection of an article on internet shopping? Cheap as chips. Sockatume 13:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Spamgasmic 205.157.110.11 22:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per nom. Cedars 00:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Steel 19:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Riskopoly

A board game somebody made up. There is no evidence of notability or external marketing, and no reliable sources. Google is no help. Crystallina 03:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy keep because the nominator explicitly wants an article merger of what xe sees to be duplicate articles, not a deletion. Article merger does not involve deletion at any stage or any requirement for administrator intervention. When you see duplicate articles, your first port of call should not be AFD. Uncle G 08:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

ANSI C

Duplicates information in C programming language without adding anything not already found there. Fuels a misconception that "ANSI C" is some kind of C dialect, as opposed to just being another name for standard C. Suggest replacing with a redirect to C programming language. (See Talk:ANSI C.) Quuxplusone 03:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • So you know, you don't need AfD to (merge and) redirect. This desperately needs cleanup but I'd support keeping it as a separate article specifically on the standard, or redirecting it to a new article on C variants. The main article is long enough already. Opabinia regalis 04:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted CSD A7 and recreation of previously-deleted article. Has no incoming links other than from her husband (which I will now delink) but I'll put a redirect there anyway. kingboyk 21:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Sibi Blazic

Doesn't meet notability guidelines. Just don't see how spouses of famous people warrant an article. Has copyvio pic as well plange 03:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect She's certainly not notable on her own, but there's certainly no reason to keep her name from redirecting to Bale's article. The copyvio picture certainly will be deleted, but that's a whole different story. -- Kicking222 04:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per above. MER-C 04:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per above, speedy image as copyvio too Computerjoe 's talk 19:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted by Xaosflux (nn web) - Yomangani talk 17:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Conscrew

Doesn't appear to meet notability requirements. -- plange 03:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC) plange 03:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Not even assertion of notability. GrahameS 05:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete under the newly expanded CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 12:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- Nishkid64 19:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Galactic Market

Non-notable, browser game related website. – Matthew A. Lockhart ( talk) 03:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment My bad, reason as Kicking222 said below. – Matthew A. Lockhart ( talk) 15:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Jeez, it's not even a browser game- it's a web site devoted to selling in-game items for a single browser game. Now that, my friends, is non-notable. -- Kicking222 04:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. --> So sayeth M e t h n o r Sayeth back| Other sayethings
  • Speedy delete under the newly expanded CSD A7. Asserts non-notability, only had 3000 members. MER-C 12:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, also no notability asserted. It's a trading site for a fan-created videogame, which in two and a half years has managed 15,000 trades between 3000 members. This may well be wanted on a Star Wars Combine site or Wiki, but it's way off the scale for a WP article. QuagmireDog 15:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No Alexa rank Computerjoe 's talk 19:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. No speedy since this is a likely future G4 candidate. Danny Lilithborne 22:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Niels 00:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, voted as a member of the game which it affects - it is just a single website. Article's author has also voted for deletion. Sherurcij ( Speaker for the Dead) 18:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per the above comments. RFerreira 22:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete It's been said. dump it. P eople Powered 01:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- Nishkid64 19:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Final Fantasy Summons/ List of final fantasy summons

I'm pretty sure we've been over this before but I don't have any previous discussion links handy at the moment. Basically, the article is way too detailed and therefore fails WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, all relevant information to include has been discussed to death and can be found at Final Fantasy magic#Summon Magic already. Axem Titanium 04:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, Delete quite inacorrate and should never be created again! Plus many names of the summons creatures are spelled wrong. ShadowKinght (Talk)
  • Keep. I believe it's a collection of information that arbitrates the franchise as a whole. As it currently stands much of the same information is repeated several times over in different articles, but placing the information together as one article would seem much more accessible. - Emhilradim 06:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as original research. It's a nice read, except when it's wrong. For example, the Japanese elemental philosophy has five elements, not four. ColourBurst 06:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I have merged the related List of final fantasy summons into this AFD. My reason for deletion was "Unneeded list, Wikipedia is neither a game guide nor an indiscriminate list of information." MER-C 07:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete both per Wikipedia not being either a game guide or a indiscriminate collection of information. NeoChaosX [ talk | contribs 18:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Final Fantasy Summons as original research. For example, the terminology adopted by this article ("aeris genju" and so forth) appears to be completely new, as witness precisely 0 Google hits for any of the classifications used here. Perhaps there's a Final-Fantasy wiki that would welcome an article like this?
    Weak delete List of final fantasy summons as a game-guide-esque list that seems to exist primarily as a repository for very minor trivia about very minor characters in various games. — Haeleth Talk 19:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
"Aeris Genju" translates to Wind-type Phantom Beast. Likewise Geo Genju is Earth-type Phantom Beast. Phantom beasts are the recurring mythic creatures, the most common being Efreet and Shiva. - Emhilradim 04:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment But where, either in the series or in third party reliable sources, is the phrase "genju" or "Phantom Beast" ever used to describe all series of Final Fantasy summons? It seems like something fans (or just this set of fans) coined. ColourBurst 15:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was to Delete the article.


George Schuyler/Rewrite

subpage in main space ( Disallowed uses section of Wikipedia:Subpages); no links; article exists in Main Ling.Nut 04:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - neglected draft. MER-C 05:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - housekeeping. Yomangani talk 16:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel . Bryant 04:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

King Wutugu

Person may or may not be historical figure (is figure in historical book written centuries ago . . . ), the information here is not notable, the character/person is possibly minor MPW 04:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, requires cleanup. However, the Romance of the Three Kingdoms is a highly noteworthy book, allegedly based on history, though hardly a reliable historical source. The article needs to mention that the incidents of King Wutugu's life may be subjects of some exaggeration. But even if Wutugu was a fictional character, he is a notable one. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Unless he is a major character or real person, there doesn't seem to be much need for an independent article. K e rowyn Leave a note 02:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Fairly minor character, but the Romance is an important enough literary work that I think his impact on its plot merits a page. Shimeru 07:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Romance of the Three Kingdoms is significant, as are its characters. Wutugu is not one of the primary characters, certainly, but he is mentioned in far more than passing. Analogy arguments are weak in AFD, of course, but we have articles for characters of similar depth from Shakespeare et al, so I consider WP:BIAS to give this the final nudge toward survival. Serpent's Choice 05:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Changing my nomination for deletion. Seems there is a lot of knowledge here from these people about this character. Maybe some of you could edit the page so the next reader doesn't do the same thing I did and try to delete it because it did not say anything notable about the character? or impact on plot:) -- MPW 16:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Page was speedy deleted by User:Geni under G7 Computerjoe 's talk 19:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Kambojas/rewrite

subpage in main space Disallowed uses; few or no links; article exists in Main -- Ling.Nut 04:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - neglected draft. MER-C 05:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note - This was an attempt to clean up the main article (take a look at it's state about 1 year ago and see the mess). Anyway, events over took this approach and some clean up was done without a major rewrite. I think this can be speedy deleted, under G7 if nothing else (I'm the only significnt author). I have added the appropreate template so get on with it. Andreww 17:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Hispanics and religion

This article is content from other articles about Hispanic religions, mixed with such editorial opinion as "several Protestant denominations (particularly Evangelical ones) have vigorously proselytized in Hispanic communities." I would say "merge," but again, the content is already in the other articles present in the "Latinos and Hispanics in the United States" family of articles. (It is for these reasons that Hispanics and Politics is also up for deletion.) Delete as entirely unsourced POV or redundant content. JDoorj a m Talk 05:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. After looking at the article, it seems that there is a lot of POV going on, and many of the external links go to suspiciously similar sites for translation services. None of the external links appear to provide a basis for the article. The subject matter itself isn't of much value on its own, since it already exists in other articles. Kevin 18:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and Kevin. Danny Lilithborne 22:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete POV, unverifiable, sources refer to the Hispanics in the United States thus not even conforming to the article itself. Simply no. -- Hús ö nd 23:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep. For all the same reasons the article Hispanics and Politics (vfd) will stay on Wikipedia.-- JuanMuslim 1m 01:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Your main reason for keeping Hispanics and Politics (which by the way should have been deleted and is likely to be relisted in the near future) was "the article is basically a cut and paste work off the main article on Hispanics". I find it hard to comprehend why would redundancy serve as a reason for keeping an article. How come you consider that such odd justifications for keeping the hispanic politics article should apply here? The reasons provided for deletion between the two do not even entirely conform.-- Hús ö nd 02:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Michael Binetti

He likes to ride the bus? Not a good reason for a page. Wolfchild 05:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete without prejudice against recreation if he wins. Bearcat 05:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, candidates for a city council with no other assertion of notability don't need pages. If he wins, maybe this can be recreated, but he fails notability as of now. Picaroon9288 22:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Congestion control/Rewrite

subpage in main space Disallowed uses; few or no links; article exists in Main -- Ling.Nut 05:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - neglected draft. MER-C 05:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I wish we could userfy but it's not clear who to userfy to. If the author doesn't step forward, delete. Alba 16:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I would suggest moving it to the talkspace, but this draft is indeed neglected, with no meaningful expansion since October 2005. That's a shame because the main article definetly could use work, but if no one's gonna work on this, there's really no point in having a rewrite subpage.-- danntm T C 22:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Why not ask Mozzerati, the last nonanonymous contributor, if moving it to his/her talkspace is OK? Michael Kinyon 16:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Kevin Richardson (politician)

This is just an ad for an otherwise unknown political candidate Wolfchild 05:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete without prejudice against recreation if he should win. Bearcat 05:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete If he wins, put it back. - Richfife 07:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete If he wins and does something significant, put it back. - Teanth 19:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Add external link on main election page like other candidates. Delete this page. - merlinds33 09:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Mr. Lefty ( talk) 16:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

List of changes in edited albums

It would be pretty much impossible to get this list anywhere close to complete. Otherwise this seems like an indiscriminate collection of information to me, not particularly encyclopedic. GrahameS 05:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 05:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Far too broad a topic, could carry into thousands of examples. Might also violate WP:NOR. This information is better placed in the articles on the individual albums. A good article on the editing of albums is possible, covering the topic and using a few notable examples (i.e. the 2 Live Crew situation). 23skidoo 06:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment - If you mean what I think you mean, we already have this at Clean version and Radio edit. GrahameS 06:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per above, this info should be organized per album in the articles for each album, not in one big lump. If necessary, a category of "Albums that have been edited" could be created so people could browse. - Richfife 07:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 22:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to the individual albums. -- kingboyk 23:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge because a flat-out deletion of all of this information seems a bit harsh. (NOTE: I did contribute to this article, but only slightly.) Sir Lemming 16:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to individual albums, because this is indeed too broad of a topic now that I think about it. I can't imagine how huge this page would get if it were anywhere close to comprehensive. This stuff is better suited for footnotes on individual album or artist entires, in my opinion. Busta Uppa 17:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep because this is a current event and is definitely notable. (Page has been properly renamed.) If it dies down in a few weeks, anyone can feel free to merge it back into Mark Foley with consensus. Ashi b aka tock 17:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Congressional page sex scandal (2006)

There is no reason to believe that any congressmen/women, other than Mark Foley, was involved, and the topic is already adequately covered in that article. Delete. (If kept, because no actual sexual conduct is alleged to have occurred between Foley and the pages, rename to something like "Congressional page explicit messages scandal." -- Nlu ( talk) 05:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy keep The associated press, as noted in the article, quotes three top Republican leaders who knew about Foley's actions in 2005. [3] Arbusto 05:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Roll Call reports "at least" 4 Republican leaders, and it was purposely withheld from Democrats. [4] Meanwhile Congress has approved an investigation. Also the article has only been up for two hours. Arbusto 05:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Given the number of confirmations and what will almost certainly be a media frenzy, there's no reason to think that this won't go beyond Mark Foley. Heck, even if it eventually turned out that no one knew about it (which has been pretty well disproven) it's still going to affect other members of Congress. - Senori 06:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)i> reply
  • STRONG Keep: With the new information that top Republicans knew and ignored/covered up this event, this is the single most important American political story since Clinton's impeachment. Preston 06:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: This isn't going away, its newsworthy, and important. Vertigo700 06:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per Arbusto, this seems to warrant its own article. Nlu's suggestion of a name change might be worth considering. I'm p r e t t y sure this isn't "the single most important American political story since Clinton's impeachment." though. -- IslaySolomon 07:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Maybe rename to "Congressional page scandal (2006)". -- Arbusto 07:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. A political event with major and mainstream media coverage, and which has led to the resignation of a member of congress and a major stir in the 2006 midterm house election. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, qualifies as speedy keep. This is explosive. I think "sex scandal" is fine as most people agree that cybersex is, well, sex. (It's all in your head, right?) Sorry I moved it during the AFD. -- Dhartung | Talk 11:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • <rolls eyes> Delete. One (1) congressman having trouble keeping it in his pants (virtually, at least) does not a full-blown sex scandal make. Put those lurid details into Mark Foley, and don't bother calling it a (general) sex scandal until it draws in others or until someone uncovers the Jeff Gannon/Mark Foley/<Insert politician's name here> orgy pix. -- Calton | Talk 12:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep you have freaking got to be kidding me, AFD'ing this. There's probably not a paper on the planet that isn't covering this. A separate article is required since the news coverage is much broader than Foley; it's focusing on the leadership response. Think Catholic bishops. Change "sex" to "sexual harassment" though, unless he actually .... Derex 12:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Rename or delete. Wikipedia articles should exist under a title that the average user would be reasonably expected to search for. Nobody is going to come here and run a search on "2006 Congressional page sex scandal" or anything along those lines. At the very least, this title is a WP:NOT violation; Wikipedia is a not a crystal ball, and as of this point there's no evidence anyone is going to be taken down by this besides Mark Foley. -- Aaron 13:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • STRONG Keep. I have to wonder why this was even nominated. I can see the argument for re-naming, however, although since sex was clearly discussed, it is sexual in nature. Moncrief 15:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable event. -- CFIF ☎ ⋐ 15:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep for every reason mentioned above. -- tomf688 ( talk - email) 16:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep, consider renaming: since the name seems to be the only actual point of contention. There is no question of this being notable and verifiable. I would be concerned about partisan attempts to keep this under Mark Foley and thus avoid potential political damage to the Republican House leadership, but the WikiFairy reminds me to assume good faith. At any rate, there's no way this qualifies for outright deletion. Alba 16:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Calton. Wikipedia is not (no. 6) for breaking news. Pan Dan 16:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted (in effect) by reversion to the original disambiguation page. Zetawoof( ζ) 10:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Progeny

Completely nonnotable band, having an album "slated for release" and a tour not confirmed yet isn't good enough. Bordering on speedy. GrahameS 06:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating article on their bass player.
  • Speedy Delete Both Progeny as " an article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)" and Keven Hammonds-McArthur as "an article about a person that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)". It's also crystal balling (their first album is yet to be released), a vanity page and they fail WP:BAND. Also Delete Progeny Discography, which seems to be something of a contradiction in terms and invites readers to visit their myspace "to listen to some of the tracks". Wikipedia is not a web host. -- IslaySolomon 06:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete the bass player. I just reverted progeny to its previous state as a disambig page. Opabinia regalis 06:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete the bass player. Speedy close as to Progeny because the nomination is moot. Tagged as such. MER-C 07:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Sun - Moon Spear Blade

Article about a single weapon of a single character in a video game, article was repeatedly tagged for speedy due to lack on context earlier but creator kept removing it and added the context, though this context is not notable at all. –– Lid( Talk) 06:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, no evidence that this a real weapon. Editor continues to remove the AfD tag & has been warned repeatedly. ~ trialsanderrors 06:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and trials. -- Kicking222 14:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete wow. Danny Lilithborne 22:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, only claim to any notability is that it is used by a Mortal Kombat character, which isn't much anyhow. Looking at the article, I still can't decide if it's an entirely fictitious weapon or not and whether it's a polearm or a sword. WP:NN and WP:V. QuagmireDog 12:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as recreated content. Page protected. Nandesuka 15:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Speed Demon Community

This is a vanity (and orphaned) article. Its sole purpose appears to be an excuse to provide an external link on Wikipedia to the SDC discussion forum. It has also been deleted five times previously, and the song remains the same. — Twisted86 - Talk - at 06:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Very low google hits [5] [6]. Alexa ranking of 388,969 [7]. Fails WP:WEB. -- IslaySolomon 06:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per IslaySolomon. master2841( User | Talk) 06:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as repost. Tagged as such. MER-C 06:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - could the deleting admin salt this page? Thanks. MER-C 07:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete rewritten stub. W.marsh 13:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The Art of Reasoning

This is basically a table of contents for a current textbook. Probably falls under the category of Wikipedia is not a dump for indiscriminate knowledge? Nothing in here I probably couldn't get off of Amazon, and doesn't seem notable. MPW 07:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete as copyvio. Tagged as such. MER-C 07:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Speedy delete A8 does not apply after 48 hours. Removing. ColourBurst 07:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep, noted book by a noted author from a non-vanity press. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 11:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (not speedy) as copyvio. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete without predjudice. The article is copyvio and can't be kept in its present form. No editor has seen fit to clean it up during the AfD. It should be deleted but I am happy for it to be recreated, per Bdj's arguments, with encyclopaedic, 'clean' material. BlueValour 22:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Stubbed. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 23:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply
      • The problem now is that there is way too insufficient material for a separate article; the two external links can be added to the suthor's article. I do not believe in splintering information across a series of small articles; it is inefficient both for the editors and readers. Articles should grow organically then split when required. In the case of this book it should only be split out from the author's article when the material on it starts to overbalance the host article. BlueValour 02:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and maybe redirect title to author David Kelley page. Searching Google, I couldn't find any info on the book alone that would merit its own article. Also looking at Wikipedia, I didn't see any similar type articles on a text book for comparison. Agne 06:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Ci&T

This is an advert, written by the subjects, who have aleady removes one prod tag. All the links go their own sites. WP:notability says:"Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service." Chris 07:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete all. W.marsh 13:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Famous Telugu Brahmins

Reminder: New Comments go at the bottom, and sign your message by ending it with four tilde characters: ~~~~.

This list is not an encyclopedia article, and is contextless, as it has no criteria for inclusion - it's just a list of names, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There may be a problem with POV, as well. The article is more than likely beyond cleanup, as it's fundamentally the same as Famous Kapus. Core des at talk! 07:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • PLEASE Delete List of Famous Kammas, Rajus and Brahmins These articles actually list famous people in each caste among people of Indian (Asian) origin who speak Telugu... Think a list which lists famous Telugu people makes sense rather then break them down by CASTE which means nothing outside that state... Not really informational and given the nature of Wikipedia can be manipulated to include anyone deemed important by a reader... There was another page listing Famous Kapus which is essentially another caste that was recently deleted... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.43.35 ( talk)
  • Do not delete List of Famous Kammas This article provides wealth of information about Kammas who achieved something in Life. Do not delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.165.151.178 ( talk)
  • Famous Telugu Brahmins should not be deleted When one can have a article listing the names of all nobel laureates, names of presidents of united states of america, etc etc... why cant one have a article which lists the names of all famous telugu brahmins, who have excelled in their respective fields, in my opinion wikipedia should include all such articles which are informatory(though the information may be useful only for few people), this article might be a valuble resource for some one who is keen about knowing more about his community and people who made the community proud.
    • in my opinion wikipedia should include all such articles which are informatory

      Did you miss the people above you pointing out that Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate list of information? NeoChaosX [ talk | contribs 18:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

    • The inclusion criteria for lists of nobel laureates and presidents of the United States are not fame. They are being a nobel laureate and being the President of the United States, respectively. Wikipedia is not a forum for caste-vanity. It is an encyclopaedia, and it is neutral. A list of people must have some objective, neutral, criterion for its contents. Uncle G 11:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all, Personally I can't see how this can ever be NPOV, famous in this case is far too subjective. It has plenty of WP:OR throughout and this is a model example for Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.-- Nilfanion ( talk) 18:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment - If they dont have a wikilink, they should be removed. Bakaman Bakatalk 23:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC). reply

Do not delete List of Famous Kammas The article is a valuable source of information about many Kamma persons, achievers, intellectuals etc. As long as there is no expression of animosity towards others, it is OK to reatin the article. It may need minor changes such as deletion of "not so famous" people.

  • Keep List of Famous Kammas I agree it needs some cleanup. Other than that, it's pretty well done.-- Milki 21:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: AFD header was removed from primary nominated article by User:Lookuman at 14:03 (UTC) 3 October. I have just now restored it. GRBerry 02:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all as lists with no criteria for inclusion that constitute original research. Adequate criteria for inclusion and clear citations could salvage some of these under WP:LISTS, primarily as a development list, but none of these merit keeping. In their current form, Categories are superior. GRBerry 02:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Deletion List' If Pages like Kamma and Bramhins have been nominated for deletion then i guess this also should be nominated for Deletion why was this left out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Famous_Reddys — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.70.235 ( talk • contribs)

  • Please Do not Delete List Of Famous Kammas When we are discussing about a particular caste from a particular state or region, whats wrong with listing the prominent or well known people belonging to that caste? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.86 ( talk)
    • Please be careful editing. You accidentally deleted the header of this discussion. Also, new comments should always go at the bottom or at the bottom of sub-thread if threaded, not at the top. GRBerry 03:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • DO NOT DELETE THE LIST OF FAMOUS BRAHMINS I do not find any reason as to why wikipedia should delete the list of famous brahmins, the page is informative and none of such kind exists any where else, this is the only platform where people can contribute and the list containing the names of famous brahmins can be updated, in case it is decided to delete this page then pages containing the list of american presidents, list containing the names of nobel prize winners, etc. should also be deleted. I put forth the above argument not just for the sake of argument but to indicate that when such lists exist why cant this list be allowed??? Lookuman 20:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookuman ( talk • contribs) reply
    Note: This is user's third edit. utcursch | talk 07:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Please Delete The Lists Of All Castes These pages are dedicated for various castes in india who are trying use wikipedia as a medium to publicize their achievements and a very bad caste momentum in India. I think wikipedia is being totally screwed up with these bloody articles from India. I pity wikipedia.
  • Delete all per nominator, although the same information might work well as a category. Seems like there's sockpuppets on both sides of this one, and I hope they're realise they're only hurting their viewpoint, rather than helping it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral at this point but bordering on a Weak Delete. I would be curious as to the views of our Indian Wikipedians on this one. Looking at these lists, I don't recognize any of the names but that is just a reflection of my own systematic bias. The few names with Wiki-links are generally informative and the benefit of a list is that encourage articles to be created for other members of the list. At the same time, the concept of a "Famous [caste members]" seems daunting and unmanagable. While there is obviously not a comparison to a US caste, but I can't really imagine seeing an article like Famous Middle-Class Americians or Famous Rednecks on Wikipedia either. I am also concern with the lack of sources for all the articles to verify what makes them "famous". Agne 06:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Plus, there's also lack of sources for what makes them Telugu Brahmins. utcursch | talk 07:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge. If someone feels the redirect isn't useful, just delete it, the list was split from the main article in the first place. - Bobet 09:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply

List of Verticordia Species

Was nominated for speedy deletion, but the content may hold some value if deemed appropriate. Bringing here instead. No vote from myself. -- Longhair\ talk 07:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • The content clearly belongs in Verticordia, where there is more than enough room for it. Uncle G 11:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD:A7 Gwernol 13:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

ForumDigger

Failure of WP:WEB Mike 07:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Tiny web directory; no claim of notability, and no current Alexa ranking. Zetawoof( ζ) 10:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete failure of WP:WEB. Hello32020 11:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete under the newly expanded CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 12:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 13:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Youmail

Spam for a non notable product offered by a non notable company Nuttah68 08:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Why is this even at AFD? MER-C 08:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - presume the nomintator brought it here because the advert tag was regularly removed by the creator and an anon - it was never proded, but I think it would have been removed just a quickly.-- Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 12:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I mean, why does spam like this have to go through a five day deletion debate? MER-C 13:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete - as a failure to meet the product criteria in WP:CORP and does not cite reliable sources.-- Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 12:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Do Not Delete - Maybe the article just needs to be updated? I know that it's owned by a company out of New Zealand called Zeacom, that's been around for more than a decade - they're in like 20 countries. I'm using it and it's very much a reliable product/company... regarding reliable sources, they were just in the New Zealand Herald last Monday. Not sure who these people are who are bashing the article - perhaps they could do some research and update the article?! I'm new to wikis but starting to contribute on subjects that are close to me. As a user, I think this should stay. posted by: Kelly, kellyeboyle@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.140.162 ( talk • contribs)

Do Not Delete - Yes, I posted this article and I don't think it should be deleted. Zeacom (whole owner of Youmail) is absolutely a notable firm - in existence 11 years, with 2000 business running this software and more than 60,000 end users in 21 countries, offices in Irvine California, Atlanta Georgia, Auckland New Zealand, Sydney and Melbourne Australia and Brighton, UK. If I've made a mistake of some sort in my posting, please help me correct it but please don't delete it. This is NOT an advertisement, nor is it intended to be. It is merely a statement of fact. And if I do say so, when reading there is no use of persuasiveness or selling at all. There isn't even a reference to the site! Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Brickley.

Delete Reads like an advertisement, no quotes from reliable sources, lacks notability. I think this qualifies for speedy delete under WP:CSD G11. If it becomes a substantial company, and they have a better article, they could resubmit later. EdJohnston 04:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Katie Shanahan

A biographical article about a non-notable person. There's just enough assertion of notability to make it not really a db-bio CSD. (Dull procedural note: for some odd reason, this article was created with the name "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Shanahan", from which I've moved it into the article namespace; voters who cast similarly recursive votes will receive extra credit.) Finlay McWalter | Talk 08:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as Vanity "She also goes by her online handle Kt Shy," And low and behold the user who created the article is Ktshy. I'd also be okay with Userfy as well.EnsRedShirt 10:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment one other thing the only edits that Ktshy has done are on this article, which was created in April..EnsRedShirt 10:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete without userfication; the user isn't active on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not a web host. The only claims of notability are some sort of involvement with a few minor kids' cartoons, which don't appear to be important enough to show up on searches of Google and IMDB, and a small webcomic. This doesn't really add up to much, I'm afraid. Zetawoof( ζ) 10:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:VANITY and WP:NOT as said above. Hello32020 11:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete vain vanity in vain. Danny Lilithborne 22:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel . Bryant 04:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Cornwall Apartments

Contested prod about a non-notable building. MER-C 09:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • A national landmark seems fairly significant to me, and it should be verifiable, so this is definitely information we ought to keep around. It's just a little short right now, so maybe its own article isn't the best place for it. Either keep or merge with Denver, Colorado. JYolkowski // talk 13:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep if there's a policy on keeping National Historica Landmarks, though I'm concerned that the article is a copyvio of [8] (One out of two sentences is an exact copy). FrozenPurpleCube 14:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I've rewritten those sentences to remove any possible copyvio material. JYolkowski // talk 15:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
      • This is an historic and beloved building in Denver. Either keep or merge with Denver, Colorado.
  • Speedy Keep. This should not have been here in the first place. Vegaswikian 02:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy redirect to National Capital Marathon. Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

National Captial Marathon

Incorrect spelling of title NorthernThunder 11:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Speedy deletion enochlau ( talk) 15:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Tfc Robert Gavell

This page is incomprehensible, has no context, no sources or references. What is it about? Standards of grammar also very poor, so could be improved, but still would not make the article meaningful. Emeraude 10:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy Delete per a7—"May be considered by some as an American Hero" is not an assertion of notability, nor is being a police officer. Tagged as such.-- Fuhghettaboutit 13:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. kingboyk 12:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The Best Of Spice Girls

This page is pure spam. There is no announcement of a best of. No confirmation that the album will be or has been released in Europe. The release dates stated in the article are completely made up. The list of producers includes names - such as R. Kelly - that the group have never worked with, and the tracklisting is completely made up. Pure vandalism from start to finish. The user that created the article has no sources at all. The article has no merit whatsoever. Rimmers 11:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I speedied this a while ago at The Best of the Spice Girls, so a speedy again would be preferred. That is unless someone can prove this thing exists. — Xezbeth 11:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    • They cant prove it exists - because its a completely made up article lol. Ive just checked the users talk page, it seems he/she likes to make up stuff and vandalise Wiki...the user is Js2Jo Rimmers 11:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per aboce. MER-C 12:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 13:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Turntable Timmy

Nonnotable book/cartoon project NawlinWiki 12:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete. W.marsh 15:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Remembrall Live

Podcast. Non-notable. Felix Felicis 12:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete under the newly expanded CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 12:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

List of record producers

This really isn't a sensible topic for a list. There's just too many for it to be complete and a manageable size, and most readers I suspect won't want to read line after line of "person x produced albums by x y and z". Categories and a search engine are far more effective for readers. kingboyk 12:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Speedy deleted by W.marsh ( talk · contribs). Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Joseph C. Green

Vanity. Does not meet WP:V or WP:MUSIC. - Nv8200p talk 12:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete - rumors of having an album in 2007 is not an assertion of notability. Tagged as such. MER-C 12:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

DeveLinux

Non-notable Linux distro. Contested prod. MER-C 12:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete there's a plethora of minor linux distros at List_of_Linux_distributions, many of which have articles, but some of which probably don't deserve them. Still, what's worst about this page is it's clearly a copy and paste job from the website. FrozenPurpleCube 17:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and, of course, delink at List of Linux distributions. If this isn't going to be anything but a copy of the webpage, then the webpage link in the list's entry is sufficient. (Incidentally, the prod contester, who added more copy-and-paste from the website, has been indef blocked for vandalism.) Michael Kinyon 09:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and/or no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

College-Ready Math-Science School

Articles about schools that fail to assert the notability of the subject. All are contested prods. Also nominated are Bosworth Commuity College and Clapham School. MER-C 12:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Strong keep the nominator was warned about prodding schools. NormR 12:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
User just got blocked for vandalism. MER-C 13:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, the articles should be verifiable and this this is a very unhelpful grouping of articles for deletion (a community college in England and an elementary school in America?). JYolkowski // talk 13:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. These schools are notable. -- TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 17:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Schools are generally not notable. Cedars 00:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This is an odd grouping, but I'd say strong delete on the header article (regardless of your position on school articles, how can one be notable when it doesn't even exist yet?), and delete on the others due to lack of notability. Opabinia regalis 01:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Correction: it's just the building that doesn't exist yet. Still not a notable school. Opabinia regalis 00:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete All as insufficiently notable and lacking credible, third-party sources as required by WP:V. I agree these probably should have been nominated separately, however. -- Satori Son 04:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, schools assert notability, and some cleanup is needed. -- Ter e nce Ong ( T | C) 07:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This may be a sad example of how people don't bother actually reading the articles under question. As Opabinia notes, this school doesn't exist yet. Hence, WP:NOT, viz. crystal ball. nn per the lengthy debate that remains unresolved at WP:SCHOOL. (vote amended) Eusebeus 09:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Nominating these schools together makes no sense at all since they don't seem to have anything in common. Despite the confusion of some of the delete voters, the schools do exist and the school year has started - hence if that is the basis of discussion there is nothing to debate. Needs expansion and more references. -- JJay 16:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Bosworth Commuity College and delete the other two. Arbusto 23:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep/Rename Bosworth Commuity College. The other two can be merged into their local community page(s). — RJH ( talk) 15:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep them all -- these have little to do with each other; a community college, a private school, and a charter school? Why not nominate apples and oranges while we're at it. Silensor 20:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, redo AfD with seperate listings, there clearly will be no consensus for this ackward set of articles. -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Mass nominations are pointless and unhelpful in achieving consensus. RFerreira 22:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and remember mass noms are in poor taste and generally blow up in your face.   ALKIVAR ™ 02:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Just wanted to say that grouped nominations are often appropriate (and NOT in "poor taste") when the subjects in question clearly all have the same level of notability (eg. Starcraft units, albums by a particular artist, etc. - would YOU want to nominate every character in non-notable arbitrary webcomic for deletion separately?). These probably shouldn't have been grouped together as clearly some schools can be notable and others may not even pass WP:V. Wickethewok 15:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all per Silensor and Alkivar. Though Wickethewok is correct that mass nominations can be appropriate in some situations ("often" is debatable), they are not appropriate in the case of schools. -- Myles Long 16:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all, minding that the three of these schools are unrelated. Bahn Mi 00:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Bosworth Commuity College and Delete the other two per Arbusto. Are keep votes because of a mass nomination really valid? Vegaswikian 02:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Alumni House

Student residence with no claim to fame - Nv8200p talk 13:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Don't Delete. This is a useful source for the history of a campus building at UWO. Many other residences at UWO are on wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.168.41 ( talk • contribs)
  • Comment. The fact that other articles are potential candidates for deletion does not mean this one should stay up. Dormitories need to have very long histories to be considered notable. Besides, there's only 1 cite, and it's not even referenced. Delete. What are the other residences for UWO, by the way? ColourBurst 18:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Dormitories are not inherently notable and are often bad article ideas. No claim that this alumni house listed on a Historic Register, and no sources showing media coverage, etc., that might provide other bases for importance. Possibly some material could be merged into University of Western Ontario.-- Fuhghettaboutit 14:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Seems to me that requirement of being in a Historic Register are biased towards U.S. establishments (UWO is a university in Canada). I believe there's an equivalent for Canadian sites, but I can't find it right now. ColourBurst 18:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above.-- Hús ö nd 23:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Cedars 01:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Incredibly non notable. IrishGuy talk 03:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 23:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Nadege hottier

Does not meet WP:BIO - Nv8200p talk 13:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Completely unsourced. MER-C 13:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

HQ9+

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 13:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Keep. Non-notable joke language. After some more googling I have become convinced that the language is indeed notable. — Tobias Bergemann 17:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC) 13:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Probably the most notable joke esolang; the notability is precisely because it was a joke. This was kept in the overturned AfD (unlike most of the languages which were deleted). -- ais523 14:33, 2 October 2006 ( U T C)
  • Keep as for ais523. -- Cyclopia 23:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Obfuscated Weird Language

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 13:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Article not expanded, so delete votes carried. (aeropagitica) 23:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

P programming language

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 13:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 09:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply

ZT (programming language)

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 13:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete all except: The PayPal Wars, Eric M. Jackson, The Stanford Review, Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine, and Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under my Bed. The result for these articles is no consensus, suggest re-nomination of those individually to obtain clearer consensus on those specific articles. Petros471 15:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

World Ahead Publishing

Non-notable. Lead article of a walled garden of spamvertisement articles created and then abandoned by the IP address 64.81.83.193 in August 2005, who has never been back to Wikipedia since [9]. Most of the cites in the article are misleading attempts to assert notability. Suggest deletion of this article and all related articles in the walled garden which I'm about to list below. Aaron 14:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: Per badlydrawnjeff's comments below, I'd like to make clear that I am asserting all of the articles below also fail notability on their own terms, above and beyond the walled garden/spamvertisement problem. (I will provide details for any individual article upon request.) This is the entire problem of why walled gardens are bad for Wikipedia: It allows people to mistakenly fall into circular reasoning traps when it comes to AfDs (e.g. "Keep Candice E. Jackson, she's notable!" "For what?" "For writing Their Lives!" "But why is Their Lives notable?" Because it was written by Candice E. Jackson, and she's got an article!"). (Please note I'm not accusing badlydrawnjeff of circular reasoning; I consider his vote 100% legit. It was just his comments that led me to think I didn't make a clear enough nominating statement.) -- Aaron 16:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • That's fine, and I want to assert that I didn't think your comments were directed at me before I read your last note. I do think many (most?) of these meet our standards, but some do not. Just like I wouldn't want to see the obvious ones (These Lives, Help! Mom!) deleted because some of the minor ones might not meet it, the minor ones shouldn't just be kept because of the high notability of two of them. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 16:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Also nominating for deletion, none of which are notable and seem to exist only to reinforce the false notability of the original article:
Candice_E._Jackson
Eric M. Jackson (third nomination)
Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine (second nomination)
Thank You, President Bush
Norman Book
The Stanford Review
Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under my Bed
Katherine Debrecht
The PayPal Wars

-- Aaron 14:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Agreed. Delete the lot. Emeraude 21:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: And here come the SPAs, right on schedule. -- Aaron 23:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I personally know that many of these articles are legitimate, and include information worth keeping on Wikipedia. Please don't delete! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.118.223 ( talk • contribs) 13:52, October 1, 2006

— 128.12.118.223 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

These articles chronicle important issues in our current society. Any decision to delete would not be in keeping with the first Amendment of the constitution. There are many articles that relate to a seemingly small subject, but these articles are rightly retained by Wikipedia for the purpose of making that information known to the public. Do not delete!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadna13 ( talk • contribs) 19:18, October 1, 2006)

— Kadna13 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep all for now. The publisher is certainly notable, due to the books on this list - specifically "Help, Mom!" and "The Paypal Wars." However, a discussion could be useful on some of the other articles. As they're all related to the publisher, keep all for the time being. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 11:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • To expand a bit, "Help, Mom!," "The Paypal Wars" and "These Lives" have all recieved noteworthy independent media coverage. Their authors, therefore, would also be worthy. I'm not sure if the rest of the list falls in, but I again suggest individual AfDs for the few that may be questionable. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 12:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the lot per nom. I think this publisher may become notable in the future, but not quite now. At this point it looks like a moderate presence in a niche market. At best, I think all the articles should be merged into one. - Kubigula ( ave) 14:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I said delete before and Kadna13's comment above confirms me in this. I'm not American, but I do know the First Amendment and that it starts with the words "Congress shall not...". Wikipedia is not Congress, so delete away. Emeraude 17:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The Stanford Review is the second most-often published student publication from the Stanford Undergraduate Student Body. There are Wikipedia pages for the Dartmouth Review, the Cal Patriot, The Harvard Salient, and other such publications that are produced by undergraduates around the country just like The Review. None of them should be marked for deletion, and neither should the Review. And as for me being an SPA, I'm sorry but I am a new member of the group and as a college student don't currently have time to edit a lot of articles. I plan to do so in the future. Please Do not delete the Stanford Review from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.118.219 ( talk • contribs) 14:26, October 2, 2006

— Possible single purpose account: 128.12.118.219 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

  • Delete all except Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under my Bed, which has some small notoriety -- mostly for its amusement value -- as per nom, who has my thanks for finishing a process I intended to start months ago. -- Calton | Talk 01:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete please -- extremely non-notable. BuckRose 04:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all. The publisher is notable both for its books and for the fact it is the publisher of WND Books; it is therefore a significant company in an important part of the publishing industry. The books themselves are notable titles about important social and political issues, and they have all been highly visible in the media and the marketplace. The indvidual Wiki articles are extensively referenced using multiple independent media sources -- including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Publishers Weekly, NewsMax, US News & World Report, Forbes, Washington Post, etc. If highly visible books about controversial topics do not belong on Wikipedia, it raises the disconcerting question as to whether we need to start deleting Wiki entries for books like King & King, Rainbow Fish, Bush's Brain, The Boy Who Cried Fabulous, and State of Denial, too. If it is a book that received media coverage, sparked debate, and facilitated the exchange of ideas, it shouldn't be censored regardless of its political point of view. -- Turkey2020 22:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC) — Turkey2020 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Comment: 1) One look at my user page should be enough evidence that political motivations had nothing to do with my nominations. I nominated them because they're a Walled garden of vanispamcruft. 2) At least half of the "extensive references" in these articles were added by - surprise! - Turkey2020 in the last 48 hours, after my nomination [10], and most of the rest, which were unpersuasive, were added by him earlier because, well: 3) Turkey2020 is an SPA. Except for his very first edit - a keep vote on a long-settled AfD - he has never made a single edit to Wikipedia that isn't to one of the articles that are the subject of this AfD. 4) His "deleting X means we must also delete Y" argument is, of course, fallacious and is listed as a classic "argument to avoid" at WP:ILIKEIT/"What about article X?". 5) I will AGF and simply note that his comment about WND Books is misleading; the publisher has signed some sort of deal to take over that imprint in 2007, but as for now it's part of another company. And WND Books doesn't even have its own article, just a paragraph inside WorldNetDaily. -- Aaron 22:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: 1) Aaron seems to imply that entries he nominates for deletion shouldn't have references or additional information added in an attempt to improve them. 2) When it is pointed out that the articles he wants to delete have long lists of sources (including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Publishers Weekly, NewsMax, US News & World Report, Forbes, Washington Post, etc. etc.) which contradict his non-notable claim, Aaron does not defend his original hypothesis but instead dismissively uses "extensive references" in quotes as if that means the references can therefore be ignored. 3) Aaron calls into question the credibility of who makes edits but not the edits themselves. 4) Aaron ignores valid attempts at benchmarking other articles. 5) Aaron claims my point about WND Books is "misleading" for some reason because the books do not hit store shelves for a couple of months; such reasoning is convoluted, and the fact that the publisher won the contract ipso facto further contradicts Aaron's claim of non-notability. Conclusion: None of the points Aaron makes demonstrate the claim on non-notability; this claim is contradicted by numerous verifiable references to independent media sources. -- Turkey2020 00:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Other than one point, I will let Turkey2020's actions, edit record and statements speak for themselves: The generally accepted standard for good faith editing of articles in AfD is to simply make the edits and then come to the AfD and post a note to the effect of, "I've made an attempt to improve this article/these articles, and I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at them now and see if they're any better before making a vote. Thanks." (Or, alternatively, to do the reverse: Post that you intend to edit and then carry out those edits and come back to let the AfD participants know that you're done.) Instead, T2020 made the edits quietly and then came in here to post a "keep all" vote using his comments to imply that all the articles were already in the state they're in now (not that his changes have done anything to address the concerns I raised in the nomination; IMHO some of them have been made worse), and that my nom was thus making fraudulent claims. Are those the actions of a good faith editor? You make the call. -- Aaron 00:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all except Paypal Wars. Apparently it won some award. If the award does not create notability (not all awards do), delete Paypal Wars as well. It is worth noting that these articles are related to the Rod D. Martin and TheVanguard.Org articles, which were total vanispamcruft. Also I am agnostic on the question of the Stanford Review, which is after all a legit publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.9.65 ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep it but at some conditions like more developpement to the entry and adding the neutrality of this article is disputed and I'm agree with Turkey2020 on one point, if we have an entry about Bush's Brain, why not for Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under my Bed? And to my eyes, this book critic more the current "Social liberals" then the "classic liberals" or "economic liberals" or libertarians. -- Sd-100 October 5 2006, 19:25 Eastern time zone
  • Comment as regards World Ahead Publishing, I suggest that WP:CORP should provide a pretty good basis for a decision. Greenshed 21:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all except Paypal Wars (and by extension Eric Jackson) per 68.51.9.65, as EJ/PP Wars appears to satisfy WP:BIO. Although contemplated keep on Thank you President Bush due to its lineup of contributors, its appears to be purely destined for partisan causes and almost certainly Vanity for Dubya. Its very low Amazon rank (in the 494 thousandsths) is telling me this is obviously a red card. The political parties are skilled at setting up front organisations to channel campaign finance, and it appears it would come as no surprise that they are all helping each other here to get their causes noticed. For Stanford Review, I vote mergeto Stanford University unless/until its notability independent of the University can be proven. Ohconfucius 06:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Articles can be rewritten in whole or in part in a Sandbox, not the article space. (aeropagitica) 23:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Gothic Metal/Rewrite

subpage in main space ( Disallowed uses, article exists in Main. I tried to decipher what what going on in Talk:Gothic metal. Technically I should have put Merge tags on it, but let's be realistic. Frankly, I think this relatively large subpage will sit in Main space forever, unmerged, because there is no clear sense of direction for merging. Delete or userfy ASAP, as it is gathering edits. -- Ling.Nut 13:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination by now-blocked user. Duja 07:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Mirko Norac

This article is about an insignificant military person known to outer world only through the crime he commited. Not a single encyclopaedia, military journal, mainstream media, military institution, or historian ever expressed any interest in him. The article is written along with the ruling nationalist agenda aimed to relativize the crime he commited.

All his military 'achievemnts' are recognized by the people who were directly responsible for the crimes against civilians (Janko Bobetko, Franjo Tudjman). Actually, this man (Norac) is uneducated and primitive person - a hero of the people who are at the same mental hevel as him. I hardly could imagine any interest of an avereage educated reader of Wikipedia - in that man.

All together - following the same reason - we could have entries about a bunch of people praised for the crime they commited in the Burundi, Iraq, or Afganistan wars. Credibility and dignity of Wikipedia shall be ultimately protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mario.radin ( talk • contribs)

  • Keep - notability established: first general of the Croatian Army to be found guilty of war crimes by a Croatian court; also note that the user who proposed AfD did it only after he vandalised the page several times -- User:Dijxtra 14:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Your nomination seems to amount to a claim he's not notable, and you claim "mainstream media" hasn't expressed any interest in him. Yet the New York Times [11] have, as have L'Humanité [12], Der Tagesspiegel [13], and the BBC [14], all mainstream media. Apart from that you claim the subject is "primitive" and the article biased - these aren't grounds for deletion. So keep. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Please avoid giving false references as yo did here!!!!-- Velebit 00:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The fact that Wikipedia is suppose to be unique is the main reason the article should be kept. Why delete anything as long as the article follows the rules for submission. I agree with Finlay McWalter in-part too in that if anyone thinks the article's relativizing, praising, primitive or biased they should change it.
I agree with User:Dijxtra. Do you want to be manipulated by vandalizer? As for Unsigned's comments, in all due respect, you speak of poor education on the part of the contributor, but your text sating, "...and primitive person" maybe should read, "...and a primitive person" and "...the same mental hevel" maybe should read, "...the same mental level." Perhaps it was accidental. If it's correct or acceptable English I apologize.
As about the vandalizer - the very author of this article about Norac twice vandalized my contribution to the Talk page. Bad thing for Wikipedia is that the User:Dijxtra is an administrator.-- Velebit 00:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
That's what we're suppose to be here for though. We're not suppose to censor people. Don't delete it. If anything change it. But definitely keep it. DavidWJohnson 16:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep High-ranking convicted war criminals are encyclopedically notable. The article could use some cleanup however (e.g. weasel words problems, some poor English) Bwithh 17:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep notable and informaive. `' mikka (t) 19:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete The article follow strict and primitive nationalistic agenda aimed to whitewash the image a petty war criminal. As it mentioned before, if we allow this article here the integrity and credibility of Wikipedia will be gravely compromised. High-ranked by the men who are war criminals too-- Velebit 00:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete It is funny thing to even read this article. Telling people about youngest ever colonel of Croatian Army and not telling the fact that the Croatian president Tudjman - and his superior in some way - was a man despised by the world leaders (nobody attended his funeral) and considered as a war criminal too - is a fraud! It is fraud not to tell that Norac's superior and commander-in-chief Janko Bobetko was an indicted war criminal who avoided the ICTY dying before getting chance to be handed over to the ICTY. To put it differently - what is the real value of this rapid advancement of a half-literete man in the ranks of some army??? It is fraud to say that he was duke of Sinjska alka and not to tell that the Zagreb diplomatic corps publicly annonced their disgust by the fact that this (Norac) man was honoured that way and refused to participate in this commemorative and solemn event. I am asking all those writing Keep why they did it so?
    • Why don't you edit the article, then? `' mikka (t) 18:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Bwithh, Finlay McWalter. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. 38K+ GHits and deals with an important event. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 13:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep per all above. It will need heavy copyediting, however, among other things. UberCryxic 15:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete Utter garbage and heavy bias-- Perkovic Ante 17:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep POV-problems can be fixed. The most important point is that this man is notable enough. — Khoi khoi 18:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Enough of the Anglo-centric worldview. Just because some hicks in the US haven't heard of this bastard doesn't mean he's not notable. -- estavisti 08:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete The article is still a garbage. A bastard is a bastard - not a notable!!! Not a single serious encyclopaedia has a Norac entry!!! Please, do not degrade Wikipedia!!!
  • Strong Keep Tsk, tsk, tsk. Revisionism at its finest. Perhaps we should also remove the article on Mladić as well? I mean, he hasn't even stood trial, let alone been convicted. Agree with Dijxtra. Хајдук Еру ( Talk || Cont) 21:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - the nomination for deletion is weak, and I believe in bad faith. Just because his notability is for war crimes doesn't make it any less of a topic for an encyclopedia. "All together - following the same reason - we could have entries about a bunch of people praised for the crime they commited in the Burundi, Iraq, or Afganistan wars. Credibility and dignity of Wikipedia shall be ultimately protected." Then following the nominator's logic, we should delete William Calley, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. because each is an "uneducated and primitive person - a hero of the people who are at the same mental hevel as him." In Calley's case, that is absolutely the only thing he is notable for. Thanks for your concern about keeping the dignity of wikipedia at its oh-so-lofty levels, as I'm sure that is your primary concern, but the disingenuous edit/deletion wars between various Balkan region ethnic groups, Turks and Armenians, Indians and Pakistanis, Arabs and Israelis, Republicans and Democrats, pro-Iraq War people and anti-Iraq War people, and Mets fans and Yankees fans are really wearing thin. If you don't think the info is neutral or correct, change it with verifiable facts.-- Nobunaga24 04:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

San tan pride

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

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Smod

Article gives no indication of satisfiying WP:SOFTWARE Whispering( talk/ c) 14:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Delete - article is a hotbed for FAQing and the like, which Wikipedia isn't. Deserves a paragraph or two in a Half Life 2 Modifications list of something, no more. HawkerTyphoon 18:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • More Information Searching for Smod gives 162 videos on youtube. [15]-- Planetary 00:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per HawkerTyphoon. -- Pizzahut2 15:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails to produce reliable sources when Googling. None provided either. Wickethewok 22:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Alan Au 21:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC) -- Alan Au 21:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. -- Steel 11:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

A-tree

This article was shamelessly self-promoting. Clearly some gang wanted to increase their notoriety by being on Wiki. I tried cleaning up the article, but really it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therin83 ( talk • contribs)

"Increase their notoriety by being on Wiki"? They can't be very hard then. Delete, for reasons above. Emeraude 21:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete. Naming members of the gang is defamatory. None of the statements are sourced. Raffles mk 21:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Dave Glover (personality)

Does not meet WP:BIO - Nv8200p talk 15:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • delete per nom Spearhead 21:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete multi-talented, exuberant, but nn. Eusebeus 13:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. - Mailer  D iablo 16:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Rukas

This seems to be something of a walled garden, a series of self-referencing articles with no other incoming links. Google doesn't have much to say on the matter either. Created by User:Rukas. I believe the record label article may overinflate its own importance somewhat; whilst bluelinked artists are mentioned there's no evidence supplied of them actually releasing any significant albums. One of these was tagged for speedy whilst I was preparing my nomination, and they may well be speediable. You decide. -- kingboyk 15:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Article and linked articles are all edited by this person and are heavily vanity and likely POV. -- Chris (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all. `' mikka (t) 18:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete obvious vanity. Danny Lilithborne 23:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all. I remember tagging one of these for speedy deletion. Kill them all. --- RockMFR 03:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Snuggle (website)

Fails WP:WEB, appears to be vanity. -- Chris (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

StreetHop.com

This article is connected with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rukas but I'm listing it seperately because it makes grander claims to notability (claims 27,000 members). However, for a supposedly super-influential site it has a very small footprint: no incoming links of any consequence, an Alexa rank of 452,225, and not much on Google. Note to closing admin: If the article is deleted, please delete the redirects pointing to it too. kingboyk 15:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merged in to Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show and deleted. (aeropagitica) 22:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Drive-by media

This neologism doesn't qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia, because WP:NEO says that "To support the use of (or 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." While I can find sources (for example in Lexis-Nexis) that use the term, I can find no sources that discuss the term as WP:NEO requires. The article itself cites no sources that are about the term, except a quote from Rush himself. And when the only source that discusses a neologism is the popularizer of that neologism, as in this case, then--by analogy with our other notability guidelines such as WP:BIO which demand sources independent of the subject of the article--I think the neologism should fail WP:NEO, until sources independent of the popularizer deem the term notable enough to discuss it.

(Note: A while back I myself, as an anon using IP's beginning with 152, added my own mundane observations about this term to this article. I realize now that those contributions constitute original research, and trivial OR at that. I also added the Rush quote and edited the lead.) Pan Dan 15:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • merge into Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show after merciless trimming of original research. The phrase gotsome buzz, but the nominator is correct, the article is not valid yet. `' mikka (t) 18:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. - Lex 00:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and delete per mikka. I have heard and seen this neologism used outside of the Rush Limbaugh Show, but not to anywhere near the extent WP:NEO requires. Maybe someday, but not quite yet. -- Aaron 02:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and Delete, per Mikka. -- Idont Havaname ( Talk) 23:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus so keep for now. (aeropagitica) 22:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Robbers on High Street

Does not meet requirements of WP:MUSIC. - Nv8200p talk 15:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - The record releases clearly meet WP:MUSIC. This AfD is pointless. PT ( s-s-s-s) 23:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - does not meet any of the criteria of WP:MUSIC. The closest it comes to is the soundtrack item, but to quote from the guideline, "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.)"-- Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 00:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete That record label is not a major record label. Also per Gay Cdn. T REX speak 01:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, [16] shows two albums for sale on Amazon.com, published by New Line (the music arm of New Line Cinema). In my eyes that does pass WP:MUSIC, and for a company originally set-up to release Original Sound Tracks from their parent company's films to take on an act like this must mean that there's something about them. QuagmireDog 13:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - perhaps we are disagreeing on the definition of "released two or more albums" as the two listed on both Amazon and in the article itself are an album (Tree City) and an EP (Fine Lines). For me an EP is not an album.-- Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
To me an EP is a short album in the same way a 50 or 30 minute film is a short film - same thing just less of it. That's my interpretation of it, and I'm not saying that you're wrong but by the same token I still stand by my own opinion. There seems to be a very fine line in this case between keep and delete, I'd rather give this one a go and look at it again in 6 months to see if citations and news of a new album appear, than consign it to deletion with a stack of NN bands who aren't even signed. QuagmireDog 16:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel . Bryant 04:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Hikari Ota's If I Were Prime Minister... Secretary Tanaka

nn tv show Google 21hits.-- Antonight 16:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Antonight ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. reply

  • Keep - the google test is a particularly poor metric of notability when non-english (and especially non-latin) subjects are concerned. The NYT story cited in the article is reasonable evidence of notability. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Titw 16:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable show. The Google test fares poorly with Japanese-language topics anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Actually, the Google test works just fine, since Google is multilingual. There are over 80,000 results for the show's actual (Japanese) title -- a very different picture from that painted by the nominator. — Haeleth Talk 20:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable television show. That a possible single-purpose account once edited the article is irrelevant. Fg2 00:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
No, you misunderstand. The "single purpose account" is leveled toward the AFD nominator, meaning to sugest that the AFD nomination in itself is Bad Faith nomination. Shinhan 05:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Obviously. Not only was it mentioned and praised in The New York Times, Wikipedia is not a resource that exists only in the English world, where important events that occur on the other side of the world are ignored. I find it hard to believe that the nominator even read the article, and honestly I'm suspicious of the nominators intentions.  freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ  05:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep. as per WP:SNOW. Shinhan 05:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per NYT, and other comments above. Neier 05:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep as bad faith nom. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon jo e 17:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep but expand and cite sources. (aeropagitica) 22:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Nozomu Sahashi

nn people, Google 551hits and 693hits.-- Antonight 16:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Antonight ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. reply

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Titw 16:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom-- Jusjih 17:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep as head of a very major company. Desperately needs expansion though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Maybe merge to an article on the company itself, if suitable information for expansion is hard to come by? — Haeleth Talk 20:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Founder/president of an important company is noteworthy. Information added by possible single-purpose account has been removed. Fg2 00:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Also, edits by single-purpose accounts are not cause for deletion. Fg2 00:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable.  freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ  05:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as definitely notable. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon jo e 17:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, too early to tell. If it is not cleaned up, it may stand for deletion again in the future. -- nae' blis 23:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Pixrat.com

non-notable website-- U911 16:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: U911 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. reply

  • Keep: I guess the fact that respectable blogs like Techcrunch or DownloadSquad (of Weblogsinc group) have blogged about Pixrat speaks about its notability and so have the multiple bloggers, with authority, from various countries who have written about Pixrat. I think it is catering to a particular niche of online image/picture collectors. The site seem to have users who use it on regular basis and that too heavily. - Rajaryanmalhotra 16:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Why discriminate?: Wiki entries for simple bookmarking sites such as digg and delicious exist. Being a picture bookmarking site, it very much makes sense to retain this entry. - WikiUsr 18:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep per WP:BITE, WP:AGF, and concerns that this is a bad-faith nomination. This article wasn't even in existence for an entire day, before it was sent to AfD. Give the thing a chance to breathe. Yes, it's written by a new user who's using a more "advertising" tone than he should, but the article is well-sourced, and in my opinion, a good effort by a potentially valuable Wikipedian, who should be encouraged to stay and write in a more encyclopedic tone, rather than just having his article deleted out from under him. -- Elonka 20:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment to the people who are talking about referencing blogs and good sourcing, blogs are not a reliable source, because anybody can create a blog and upload material. However, the Indian newspaper qualifies as a reliable source. We just need one more article. ColourBurst 15:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quuxplusone 03:43, 22 January 2007 (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 Speedily deleted by Geni (a3 - No content whatsoever) - Yomangani talk 23:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

NigeriaONE.com

nn websites.-- U911 16:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: U911 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. reply

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 09:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Nakedbus.com

non-notable website/company.-- U911 16:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: U911 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. reply

  • A company that started trading two days ago is bound to be non-notable, especially if you're not in the country of operation. However, if Nakedbus (lousy name, but that's irrelevant) is following the pattern of Megabus in the UK it is doing something of note, if it succeeds. Page needs redesigning, proper links etc, but I'm not sure it is a candidate for deletion, yet. Emeraude 21:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Notability is not subjective and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Notability is not a matter of personal judgements made by Wikipedians, such as the above. And keeping an article because the subject might be encyclopaedia-worthy in the future is very close to "Keep the article on this worthy company so that it gets some free advertising from Wikipedia.". Wikipedia is based upon what is right now, not upon guesswork as to what might be; requires that subjects be fully documented outside of Wikipedia before thay have articles; and most definitely is not a soapbox or an advertising billboard for worthy causes. Uncle G 11:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The only things that document this company are reprints of its launch press releases from a few days ago, such as this. The WP:CORP criteria are not satisfied. Delete. Uncle G 11:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. If the author had cited sources for the article in the first place then it would not have needed to come to AfD at all. (aeropagitica) 21:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Walk the Plank (theatre company)

I created this article earlier today and it was at once speedied and shoveled into the incinerator without discussion. So I re-created it and at once AfD'ed it as the only way that I could see to get it discussed properly. Walk the Plank (theatre company) is quite well known in Britain and has existed since 1992 or earlier. OK, so perhaps it is not notable to some because it (as far as I know) has never played in America. This theater company exists and is NOT a hoax. I have no connection with the company, so the page is not ad-spam. It is more notable than many of the hundreds of routine pop music groups and their songs and albums that clutter Wikipedia. Anthony Appleyard 16:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Well, comparing the page to "clutter" doesn't really impress... but, regardless, can you provide references in the article that would meet WP:N and WP:V? Specifically, although we don't have guidelines for theatre groups, I'd suggest taking a look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) and WP:MUSIC. thanks. bikeable (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- found lotsa stuff on google. "Walk the Plank has the UK's only touring theatre ship, the ‘Fitzcarraldo’, which is moored at Canning Dock in Liverpool" etc. Suggest the editor(s) invest time building a case for credibility in a sandbox page in their user space before creating the page in Main space.-- Ling.Nut 17:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    • A better approach would be to cite sources from the very first edit onwards. This article cites zero sources to demonstrate that what the nominator says is actually true. As this article stands, it is speedily deletable under the "author requests deletion" criterion, since xe xyrself has nominated it for deletion. Nominating one's own articles for deletion isn't the way to demonstrate that the satisfy notability criteria. Writing the articles properly is. Please learn to cite sources. Then you won't get into these difficulties in the first place. Uncle G 12:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Seto-Kaiba.com

non-notable website-- U911 16:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: U911 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. reply

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Titw 16:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom-- Jusjih 17:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, appears not to meet WP:WEB. In particular, the claims for notability laid out in the article, such as member numbers, are not verifiable. Additionally, most of the article is taken up with contextless trivia that probably make sense to members of the site, but are incomprehensible to general readers, and it seems unlikely that they have sufficient importance for it to be worth adding all the context that would be necessary for this article even to make sense. — Haeleth Talk 20:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete That sounds vague enough to be the Blue Eyes White Dragon! Danny Lilithborne 23:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted by Uncle G as a copy/paste from the company web site (and, thus, a copyright violation). Zetawoof( ζ) 22:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Mir & A Company

non-notable company-- U911 16:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: U911 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. reply

  • Delete per nom-- Jusjih 17:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 21:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Vanier Improv Company

non-notable company-- U911 16:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: U911 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. reply

  • Delete per nom-- Jusjih 16:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - 38 Google Hits, more importantly individual campus clubs are usually not notable, this one included. -- Chabuk 14:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per nom. WarriorScribe 17:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as a copyright violation of a copyrighted ("© Copyright 2005. Gemini Computer Systems Ltd. All Rights Reserved.") non-GFDL web page. Uncle G 12:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Gemini Systems (Gemini Computer Systems Ltd)

nn company-- U911 16:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom-- Jusjih 16:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This article is full of peacock terms such as "leading", "innovative", and "years of hands on experience". Those set alarm bells ringing immediately, indicating that this isn't an encyclopaedia article but a puff piece, or something that is using solely puff piece(s) as its source(s). (The article cites no sources at all, of course.) Searching, I can find nothing about this company that shows that the WP:CORP criteria are satsified. This is not the Gemini Systems that is related to the NYSE, by the way. Delete. Uncle G 12:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I've found the source. The article is an advertisement because it is copied word-for-word, with only changes from first person to third person, from this advertisement. Copyright Judo applied. Uncle G 12:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Blank email

Unsourced, unverifiable dictdef of the term "blank email" as slang for a threat. I've found no google hits with the claimed meaning. Rick Block ( talk) 16:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. I've never heard of this usage of a blank email, and I don't think anyone ever has. -- Kicking222 16:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. If "blank email" was really a threat, then this article wouldn't be the first result from Googling "blank email" threat. Pan Dan 16:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A blank email is far more likely to be a mistake or software glitch than a "threat". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nonverifiable content. `' mikka (t) 18:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete silly. Danny Lilithborne 23:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It's not a slang term, empty messages are not threats, and this article is original research from top to bottom. Delete. Uncle G 12:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - the concept of a blank email as some kind of threat is ludicrous. More likely a mailer malfunction, list testing, or the result of aggressive blocking software filtering all content. Ace of Risk 13:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Absurd dicdef.-- Nilfanion ( talk) 15:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per the above comments. RFerreira 22:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

War on Terrorism/Rewrite

subpage in main space ( Disallowed uses; article exists in Main; Merge complete -- Ling.Nut 17:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Delete all. (aeropagitica) 20:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC) === The Gasman, The Hourglass (comics), Derek O'Neil, Captain Liberty, The Sentinels of Liberty, [[Ultra Girl (gasman comics)]] === reply

  • del an "undeground printed independently" (read: nonnotable, nonverifiable), unreferenced comics inhabiting Category:The Gasman Universe. The articles most probably written by the author. Full of fantasy and original research. Numerous google hits for "gasman" are mostly about other gasmans. `' mikka (t) 17:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete author's only edits are to these articles. This smells like another Asad Aleem-esque hoax. Danny Lilithborne 23:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete with prejudice. Per the history section of the first article these are not published comics by any means. They have no publisher, no printer, and no distribution. They are printed on a computer printer by their creator and thus offered in a "limited distribution." No independant sourcing, no coverage in the comic community, no mention in underground comics discussions. Some material of this nature can become meaningful when its creator achieves wider fame; this is not of that nature. Fails WP:RS, fails WP:V, fails WP:NOT for things made up in school (or on your home printer). Serpent's Choice 04:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy del pure blatant 100% advertising cut, which is abuse of wikipedia. `' mikka (t) 18:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Boss Sauce

Advertisement for one of many brands of hot sauce. Does not appear to be especially notable. FreplySpang 17:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Support for deletion. Actually suggesting speedy deletion because the spammer keeps removing the deletion tag. Simon A. 17:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - Actually that was an uninvolved editor who removed the AFD tag [17] - I assume it was a simple mistake. The article creator removed the PROD tag, which is permitted. FreplySpang 17:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Furthermore, this article is written in a POV and biased style. However, I must also point out that a google search shows quite a number of hits for this article. No doubt, this article is verifiable but it must be noted that it does not meet NPOV standards, which is one of the key policies of Wikipedia. If this article gets a major re-write, we should keep it as the product is quite notable. But for now, it should be deleted. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 17:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - Quite a number of hits for the phrase "boss sauce," but many of them do not refer to this commercial product. For instance, in the first screenful, I see a competitor (the Sauce Boss), an unrelated recipe, a CD entitled "Sauce Boss", a MySpace user named "Boss Sauce", another competitor who sells his own "Boss Sauce".... FreplySpang 17:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete Vanity. Creator posted numerous times he's from the company. Userpie 18:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless it is rewritten substantially. It's currently nothing but an advertisement. Heimstern Läufer 17:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article is nothing more than spam. shotwell 17:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as per WP:BIO - main claim for this article is as an electoral candidate; article itself admits that the subject garnered 1% of the vote, so doesn't satisfy the guidelines above; "..Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature.". (aeropagitica) 20:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

James Arey

Not notable either for his journalistic efforts or for his badly failed local government candidacy. Please delete. The Land 17:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep. Apparently started as a vanity entry, but appears an ok article now with at least one legitimate link to it from more important article. Local media personalities who've made minor dabbles in politics are generally not something we need articles on, but when they're properly formatted and referenced like this one, IMO they're mostly harmless, and of some possible use to someone doing research. -- Infrogmation 01:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

SummitJournal.com

Website advert Nehwyn 17:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 07:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notabilty, only 410 Google hits. Reads like an advert, with little to salvage. —  Tivedshambo ( talk to me/ look at me/ ignore me) —  20:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was del per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Knox. `' mikka (t) 18:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Jim Knox's Wild Zoofari

Per suggestion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Knox. Does not appear to be verifiable: A Google search turns up very few hits other than the WP article and mirrors thereof. Is not mentioned on the website for PBS Kids' GO!, even though the article says it will air there. Heimstern Läufer 17:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Delete as fancruft. Of little encyclopedic value, more suited to a personal website/blog than WP. (aeropagitica) 20:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

2006 Smackdown Results

No context, very little usable information Martin Hinks 18:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • weak keep. The context is Smackdown. The original author abandoned this trivia article, but it does require heavy cleanup. I will link it into several Smackdown articles, and if it will not improve during the vote, I will change my opinion to delete . `' mikka (t) 18:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as fancruft, monthly TNA iMPACT! result pages were deleted for the same reason. TJ Spyke 21:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per TJ Spyke. -- Oakster (Talk) 07:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per TJ Spyke-- bd ( talk to me) ( watch me) 23:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per TJ Spyke. JPG-GR 07:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per SilentJay. -- (Talk)I will work on this artical so that it won't have to be delteted. I have most of the Results on my comp 18:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per nom. No value, can quickly get out of hand (how long has Smackdown been on the air? And do we do this for "Raw" and all of the other wrestling shows, too?) and of no scholarly value. - WarriorScribe 17:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Celebrinerd

Article on Neologism used in one article in Time Magazine to describe Ken Jennings and apparently thereafter mentioned in Jennings' blog. Article notes an abundance of Google hits but the low unique count of 71 [18] is more telling . Wikipedia is not a dictionary and WP:NEO is now guideline. At best this should be sent to Wiktionary. My original prod went uncontested and the article was recreated today.-- Fuhghettaboutit 18:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as neologism. ... discospinster talk 18:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as I prodded for nomination's exact reasons and post-prod was turned into this AfD. ju66l3r 19:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. To closing admin--given that this is a recreation, if consensus is to delete, consider deleting and protecting.-- Fuhghettaboutit 21:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as neologism. Andy Saund e rs 01:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Don Paul

First Deletion Reason: Fails notability outside of the Walled Garden of conspiracy-theory blog sites. Wikipedia requires sourcing to sources meeting the reputability requirements of WP:RS. This article fails to cite to a single reliable source. Violates WP:BIO and WP:Notability. A Google search of Paul’s work “Waking up from our Nightmare: The 9/11 Crimes in New York City” failed to yield a single reputable source in all 11 pages of returns. A Google search of Don Paul and the word “Fascist”, which would pick up his other work, fails to return a single reputable source in the first 25 pages of returns reviewed. Morton devonshire 18:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Oh, so in order to meet the qualifications set forth for notability, an article must reference sources beholden to corporate media? Such circular reasoning simply goes beyond the pale, especially given the way whitewashing campaigns have so overused this tactic. Your words clearly reveal the evident motivation behind the nomination, yet another example of the broader campaign that is threatening to undermine the Wiki's credibility. Ombudsman 03:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Please read WP:RS. Note that many conspiracy related things have made it into reliable sources. This person has not. When this person does, he will be put in. And in fact, the insistence on WP:RS and WP:N etc. is precisely the things that let Wikipedia have any credibility whatsoever. Also, please stay civil. JoshuaZ 04:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
You're skirting Don Paul's many accomplishments in many other areas long before 9/11 ever happened. Don't try to pretend that the AfD isn't being built around the notion of discrediting well established icons that have made their mark long before the internet arose. Don is a legend in running circles, just ask veteran editors Mark Winitz, over at California Track and Running News, or Bob Cooper, at Runner's World. His extensive work on behalf of charitable groups is likewise quite noteworthy, from San Francisco to New Orleans. He is quite well known in the San Francisco Bay Area music scene, and his poetry earned him a prestigious Stegner Fellowship at Stanford University, the youngest ever to receive the award. [19] Simply as a polymath he deserves an article, or for any of the many disciplines he has mastered, such as when he went under the US and World record in the 50 kilometer ultramarathon, which (in contradiction to a comment below) was certainly covered in the mainstream New York media between 1980 and 1982 (including the NY Times). It certainly has been mentioned plenty of times in the media, usually every time Don produced another stunning performance, right up until his recent retirement from running. This AfD is way over the top. (added cites 10/4/06) Ombudsman 04:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
So give us sources that back up any of these claims. Give us sources. None of us have been able to find almost any mentions of this person. If you can find the sources that back up these claims he will be kept. Furthermore, your repeated accusations aren't helping matters. I (and I suspect most people currently favoring deletion) would be more than willing to keep the article if you gave back up for this. JoshuaZ 04:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Look, it isn't an accusation to state as a fact that most of the criticism heaped on Don Paul's noteworthiness (already piled below) has been built around attempts at discreditation of his work (i.e., in the 9/11 Truth Movement). A minor exception below is the claim that Don Paul doesn't even meet noteworthiness standards for athletes, and that is just plain silly. Maybe you should read the article by Winitz that is already linked in the external links section, "Paul--a notable competitor on the national and California racing scenes for two-and-a-half decades--recently retired from racing." For another thing, Steven E. Jones credits WTC7.net, a website built by Paul and Jim Hoffman, with having piqued his curiosity about the physics behind the collapse of the three WTC buildings during the 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium. Ombudsman 04:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Ok, so you now have enough sources to maybe justify an article about him as an athlete with maybe a tiny note about his 9/11 related stuff. However, a single source doesn't make him notable as an athlete either. From WP:BIO- "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activites that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles. Third party verification from a reliable source outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized as performing at the highest level." and he seems to maybe meet that criterion. So you have enough to write an article about him as an athlete and note the other stuff. JoshuaZ 05:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Oh. More hurdles. Just keep moving the flaming hula hoops. Fist the article is dismantled, then more tactics fail, and now a chance to thank you for your outright admission of the true purpose of the concerted serial attacks on the article. Whitewashing is whitewashing by any other name. Citations can be found all day, all over the place (outside the discredited walled garden aka the corporate media), concerning Don Paul's notability, that issue is just another red herring. All the citations needed were in the external links section all along, but the delete votes below simply wanted to believe the mistaken assertions used to justify suppression. There is absolutely no question of notability with regard to the Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center, because along with Jim Hoffman, Paul helped bring the matter to the forefront of discussions about the glaring holes in the 'official theory' of 9/11 proffered by those darlings of the corporate media, the totally discredited 9/11 omission commission. Ombudsman 02:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
We might be more inclined to listen to you if you gave us reasonably main stream sources, didn't rant about the "discredited walled garden aka the corporate media" and other issues. Either he meets WP:BIO and has enough to write an article with reliable sources or he doesn't. Continued uncited assertsions and accusations of "suppression" won't convince anyone. JoshuaZ 17:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom -- Tbeatty 18:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • strong keep: This AfD appears to be yet another distracting attempt at sustaining the scorched Earth campaign to cleanse the Wiki of any and all rational accounts of WTC issues. Don Paul is quite noteworthy as both an athlete and as a scholar, much less for his involvement in the 9/11 Truth Movement. It is getting to the point where the campaign to purge rationality from the Wiki's 9/11 articles needs to be addressed at a broader level, as the ongoing scorched Earth tactics being used have long since passed the threshold of mere annoyance. Instead of an intelligent discourse on what really happened, this campaign seems designed to ensure that discussion, much less editing, never gets past the most essential basics of events surrounding 9/11. There is nothing too hard about understanding that aluminum sheathed jets floating into heavily reinforced giant skyscrapers represent the equivalent of a nerf football impacting a brick wall. WTC 7 collapsed in its footprint without even the distraction of that red herring. Of course, without that, there is not one credible excuse being put forth to excuse the collapse of the building, aside from the entirely unrebutted controlled demolition explanation, which Don Paul has inconveniently helped place dead center in the controversies surrounding 9/11. For that alone, his bio should stand, his athletic and artistic achievements notwithstanding. It is obvious that the omission commission was stacked with panelists burdened by serious conflict of interest problems, but that doesn't seem to deter those engaged in the efforts to suppress rationality from the discussion here at the Wiki, who instead chirp 'conspiracy theory', until hoarse, at the drop of a hat. But even more amazing is the way that the suppression of debate has kept other basic facts from being recognized as the facts essential for rational discourse. The official 9/11 omission commission insinuation that mere carbon chain fuels, which are quite combustible at temperatures in the mid 400s (and unstable by their very nature), could even have begun to come close to the quadruple digit temperatures, necessary to melt the structural steel alloys of the WTC buildings, is a total farce. The scorched Earth campaign to suppress the ideas set forth by Don Paul, Jim Hoffman, et al, is little more than the product of a sad campaign to empty the Wiki of rational content that would provide insights into the actual reality of 9/11. Ombudsman 19:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Ombudsman ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the article that is the subject of this AfD. reply
There are numerous articles on what really happened on 9/11. They have plenty of space for any additional factual information. Wikipedia is not a blog however, so don't expect too much discourse on what might have happened. -- Tbeatty 21:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm about to apply a personal test. I don't know how it will turn out. The issue here is not what happened on 9/11, but whether Don Paul is notable. I'm going to do a search of The New York Times and see whether it has ever mentioned him. If it has, in the context of his being a well-known 9/11 theorist, I'll vote keep. This is not to suggest that everyone ever named in The New York Times merits an article, nor that mention in the New York Times should be a requirement, but it's a good barometer of national notability, and in the case of 9/11 theories a New York paper would certainly be expected to cover anything remotely relevant. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Search for "Don Paul" in The New York Times from 1/1/2000 to 9/29/3006 produces nine hits, none to this Don Paul. Seven are to the motion picture "The Road to El Dorado" and visual effects director Don Paul, surely someone else. September 9, 2002: "Frankie Albert, a Pioneering Quarterback, Is Dead at 82," mentions "Don Paul, a Los Angeles Rams linebacker who was among the many defenders frustrated by Albert's deception, likened him to Fran Tarkenton." Not the same person. January 8, 2000: "Tom Fears, N.F.L. End and Coach, Dies at 77" mentions "As a former teammate, Don Paul, told The Los Angeles Times..." This is also likely the Rams linebacker. I can't believe that an important 9/11 theorist would not have been mentioned at all by The New York Times, if only in passing. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Incidentally, the New York Times has run numerous articles on 9/11 conspiracy theories. An example of a conspiracy theorist mentioned by them would include James W. Walter, subject of an entire article, Nov. 8, 2004: "A 9/11 Cover-Up? One Man's Ads Say So." Dpbsmith (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per nom and Dpbsmith. Also, does anyone know if the section entitled "Roads scholar" in the article is meant to be funny? We don't generally put puns in articles. Also, note that he doesn't meet the criteria for an athlete either. JoshuaZ 00:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination, Dpbsmith, and JoshuaZ. Crockspot 00:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and Dpbsmith. -- Aude ( talk) 01:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment on this: Yes, i know. They have already deleted most already. Let them, change your vote to delete. Heck, afd the rest that is not already deleted, it is already established C-Class porn stars are more welcomed than people from the 911TM. I mean, they delete the no-Plane at pentagon article, but keep this, this and this. Hey, i mean, why would you need to keep Don Paul, when you have Bambi Woods, Angella Faith and the rest of the bunch? Man, they even can squeze in Category:Hentai stubs, but God forbid we include one of the most popular and well known figures in the multi million people large 911TM, i mean, he only gets 14k hits, what is that compared to Angella Faith's 16k? Hey, delete this guy, we need more room for porn.-- Striver 03:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I'd vote to delete them as well. Put them up.-- Tbeatty 04:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
If you think any of them should be deleted, put them up for deletion. JoshuaZ 04:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Give me a good source citation to a nice mainstream source that says he's an important 9/11 theorist and I'll change my vote. I believe such a citation will have more influence in this discussion than expressing your opinions about Wikipedia articles. I spent as much time as I felt was necessary for "due diligence" and it looks to me like he's not important. But I'm open to change. If you can find a citable source showing he's a prominent talking head in network TV documentaries, or has appeared on Larry King, or Rush Limbaugh, or has gotten more than a passing mention in the increasing number of books devoted to 9/11, I'll listen. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Bro, how many New York times articles do you see about Rusty trombones? Once the movement has been notable, it is up to the movement itself to define what is notable. Sex is notable, people in the sex-industry use the disgusting term Rusty trombone, hence, it is notable. Same to Pokemon, or any other cruft. Do you see Dark Sidius in New York Times? No, but you will find Star Wars. But this principle does not apply to 911TM, you just deleted TerroStorm with 300k hits.-- Striver 15:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I wouldn't apply a New York Times hit count as my personal test on Rusty trombone because of their famous "ear," "All the news that's fit to print." However, I know of no reason why 9/11 material would be filtered out by that policy. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Striver, google testing is not as useful for web-related topics, and no, movements do not get to define what is notable within them by itself. (Again, if you want to AfD various sex stuff, go ahead) as for Darth Sidius, he was mentioned in multiple NYT articles including one a while back that discussed political symbolism of the character. Not an especially convincing example (if you wanted to get rid of stuff from the Star Wars Expanded Universe you might have a point- again AfD it if you feel that way). JoshuaZ 16:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Don't take offence, but i view that suggestion as "go ahead and get yourself accussed of WP:POINT". I am utterly un-convinced of your argument, and would be very surpised if an afd of those articles would be succesfull. Anyway, i have had enough of this topic.-- Striver 17:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Oh, btw, i am still waiting for Lanczos tensor and Petrov classification to get NYT coverage... Hey, they should be deleted, right? I mean, its own comunity is not supposed to define what it claims is notable, right? -- Striver 17:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
You are being ridiculous. Obviously not every group should be treated the same way. Math or science are reputable areas already with wide coverage and thus can to a large extent self-determine notability (note that even then for articles like the one in question- people- they have some difficulty with just that- see WP:PROF) this is less the case for fringe topics and regardless of what you think of the 9/11 truth movement, they are a fringe and thus their community does not get automatically to decide notability- to put it another way, for something to be notable in a barely notable fringe it needs to be noticed by someone outside the fringe whereas if somethgin is from a mroe or less mainstream area of study it is reasonable to look for notability within that area. As to your comment about WP:POINT it would only be a point violation if you were doing it to prove a point as such. If you a) genuinely think that these articles shouldn't be here, you are more than entitled to nominate them for AfD. Finally, please note that many of the 9/11 conspiracy related articls have stayed on Wiki and have survived deletion or not even been nominated. Some of them meet WP:N and some do not. In this case, there is less than compelling evidence that Don Paul does. JoshuaZ 18:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I am going to make what I think is an appropriate test for Lanczos tensor. Again, this is my personal test for this particular topic. I'm going to search for it on Google Books. If I don't find a reasonable number of reasonably relevant hits I will nominate it for deletion. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Found one highly relevant hit here, in "The Introduction to 2-Spinors in General Relativity." This seems to me to be good confirmation that this is an important concept in the theory of relativity. I'll leave the analysis of a similar search for "Don Paul" to the reader, as it is such a common name that it is very hard to disentangle them, but if you can find a book citing him as an important runner or 9/11 theorist I'll reconsider my vote. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
For the record, the New York Times doesn't discuss the Lanczos tensor, but it does have a story, March 7, 1936, p. 10, "Einstein Refutes Attack on Theory, in which a letter by Einstein and N. Rosen mention that "Professor C. Lanczos of Purdue University has independently recognized the error in Silberstein's paper," which to me confirms the notability of Lanczos and his status with regard to the theory of relativity. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per all the above, and so we get more room for porn (though only well-sourced, notable porn) in Wikipedia's ever-expanding servers. — Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 04:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • strong keep - per ombudsman. Don Paul is noteworthy as an athlete, a scholar, and a 9/11 Truth Movement researcher. And I don't think we need more room for porn on here. bov 18:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Could you supply some references for Don Paul being noteworthy in these fields? I was willing to spend a little time trying to dig up evidence for his notability, and I couldn't find any. Those who say he's notable really should be able to present something other than an unsupported assertion. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • comment - His notability as a runner is referenced here in California Track & Running News:
Best Marks: Interview with Don Paul
By Mark Winitz
March/April 2006
California Track & Running News
http://www.caltrack.com/features/donpaulinterviewMarApr06.html
"Paul--a notable competitor on the national and California racing scenes for two-and-a-half decades--recently retired from racing." bov 20:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and others. Wikipedia needs more porn and less 9/11 denying. -- Peephole 08:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and Dpbsmith. CWC (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Dpbsmith above Tom Harrison Talk 13:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete If this author has written over 20 books, why no bibliography so we can judge their notability? Cruft, plain and simple.-- Rosicrucian 15:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, Dpbsmith's research and JoshuaZ. -- Aaron 18:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as a non-notable student/public-access effort with no claims as to notability. (aeropagitica) 20:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

NKTV

Apparently a student-run television program. No claims of notability. Only relevant ghits [20] are a myspace page, and there are no ghits for "North Kitsap Television". (NKTV alone gets a lot, but none are for this). Can't even tell if this is local access TV, something just shown at one school, or it's actually being broadcast - I seriously doubt the claim that it's a "corporation". Prod removed w/ no comment. Jamoche 18:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Article doesn't assert notability beyond the school program, the word "corporation" notwithstanding. -- Roninbk t c # 02:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Don't Delete. Local Access TV shows are very common in High Schools these days. Even if it isn't very popular I don't think that is a good reason for deletion. - Quickshot757 03:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Not many local school-related items survive AfD. You have to show a pretty high level of notability, (plus be able to verifiably prove your claims,) to keep this kind of article in Wikipedia -- Roninbk t c # 19:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Don't Delete. Not only is this one of the highest ranked and watched local access shows in all of Washington State, but its relevance is unquestionable as it is written, filmed and edited at a higher quality than most television shows - Dr. VanNostrand 5:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete. I personally work on this show, and it is one of the highest rated shows in our state. Yes, it is a high school show, but its production quality is higher than most shows on television. I volunteer my services there, along with many other people who have worked for larger production companies. I worked on shows such as, Northern Exposure, and adaptaion of The Fugitive for television. With an entry on wikipedia, letting other students and high schools know about such a widely recieved and popular show in Washington, could inspire them to create their versions of the basic show idea. And who could argue against giving kids some immortality, some national recognition for something, that in my professional opinion, is as good as or even better than most shows on TV today in production quality, writing quality, and acting.- Prefonberry 7:20 3 October 2006
    • Funny, I live in Seattle, and I haven't heard of this show. I didn't know this was on local access television, I don't know what channel it's on, or even what time it's on. Oh and by the way, those three bits of information would be fairly useful to have documented within the article... -- Roninbk t c e # 08:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Oh, and vandalizing user pages doesn't win AfD's. Just so you know. -- Roninbk t c e # 05:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete. Meet several criteria. Vegaswikian 02:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Jeremy Greenway

Lengthy vanity article on a singer with no proper releases (self-released album, popular on Myspace...). The sole claim to meeting WP:MUSIC is that "the uptempo lead-off track (...) made a college radio Top 40 list in Sweden", which is 1. tenuous at best (which college radio?) and 2. unsourced and unverified. ~ trialsanderrors 18:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I didn't realize there were such strict parameters for an artist's inclusion - that he has to be signed to a label (don't you think that's kind of silly? There are lots of highly-respected artists who only perform live and release their own cds and merit a spot on here). I'm afraid I don't know the name of the radio station he got airplay on because I never asked him. I'm just a diehard who was trying to document his accomplishments, because people ask me where they can learn more about him. My apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.193.167.47 ( talk • contribs)

  • Comment. Releasing albums on a notable label is just one of the criteria for inclusion, not a requirement. You can see the whole notability guideline criteria here. Prolog 19:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Steel 09:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Im in ur base killin ur d00dz

nn internet meme Will ( Glaciers melting in the dead of night) 18:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • NeutralWeak delete. "Im in ur _____, _____ing ur _____" might be notable, but the article would have to be moved to "in ur stuff," the most commonly used name for all forms of this meme. Is it notable? Maybe. The YTMND wiki has an article on this... another reason not to have one here. I've seen it used outside YTMND on many imageboards, and it seems to be widely recognized, but it certainly isn't as notable as the most famous, such as AYBABTU/etc. So I'll stay neutral on this. — Dark Shikari talk/ contribs 20:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, as the article shows no evidence that it has had non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources, which means it doesn't meet WP:WEB. NeoChaosX [ talk | contribs 20:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • As I changed my vote above, I'll add my reasoning. The article itself is worthless, but the meme might be notable. However, its hardly salvagable, so I'll vote to delete it for that reason. — Dark Shikari talk/ contribs 20:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the SA forums are prolific meme generators; this isn't one of the top ones. Opabinia regalis 21:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • im in ur wiki, deletin ur artiklez: Insignificant meme, nothing about it that can really be reliably sourced. Warpstar Rider 21:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, not even close to notable. Fails WP:V. Recury 22:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete first I ever heard of this was in the Flash Tub. Then again, I don't play these kinds of games; however, all the votes above seem convincing. Danny Lilithborne 23:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete as per nom. Another staggeringly insignificant "meme" without evidence of notability. YTMND/SA whatever etc. are memetic diarrhea factories Bwithh 01:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete Internet crap. -- Don't mess with Scott. 04:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non notable meme. Soulresin 04:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete another bad meme...-- Nilfanion ( talk) 15:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete NN meme. And the article is a bit speculative and I can't remember seeing this meme discussed in press or anything. Also, the article doesn't explain the role of Lyttle Lytton Contest paragraph winner 2006 (which is in that article). =) -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 16:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Okay, now I've read the article throughoutly and peeked at the history. My pondered conclusion is that it basically reads as "okay, let's start an article about this funny phrase I've read often." Other people go "Hmm, it may have something to do with this thing and that thing. And it may have started there. And here's some variations I've heard." While I'm probably the laxest end what comes to demanding sources for anything, and I'm not in favour of deleting articles solely for being "unverifiable", but I think this is a bad way of starting an article and only leads to sourceless speculation. Right now, there's basically no way to vounch this phrase is used widely, or even what its orgins were. That's the problem. It's no use listing what "may" be the source if all you can do is state "may", "may", "may"! What I think happened is this: People started, for some reason, imitate the Lyttle Lytton winner's phrase, cause it's funny. Then someone started an article: "Oh, said by one gamer to another", one says. "Probably originated in Counterstrike or Starcraft", says another. Or is it other way? We don't know. There's no research, even journalistic one, done exploring that thing! Please, let's not base articles entirely on conjecture (and quite obviously pulled-out-of-your-hat conjecture at that). And sorry for going on tangent like this. I don't try to offend anyone. I'm just saying this is not how articles are made. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 16:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep notable internet memes, but suggest a name change per above. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 11:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep ... I've seen this mentioned often enough w/o being able to figure out the origin. — Hobart 22:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per precedent in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Im in ur base and lack of verifiability from reliable sources. SomethingAwful, being a bulletin board, does not qualify as a primary or secondary source for a definitive account of this meme, nor as a source for establishing this meme's currency. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Rum and Monkey

Fails WP:WEB, and possibly the new WP:CSD A7. alphaChimp (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment if this Afd is passed as delete, presumably Ben Werdmuller would be ripe for a db-bio. -- Dweller 12:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, so default keep for now. (aeropagitica) 20:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

9rules Network

Non-notable blogging site fails WP:WEB (not CSD:A7 because of small assertion of notability). alphaChimp (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • From Wikipedia guidelines for Notable sites WP:WEB: "The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation." 9rules.com won community site of the year at SXSWi 2006. SXSWi 2006 Winners Page It meets the guideline.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.179.35 ( talk • contribs)
    First edits. Computerjoe 's talk 20:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Okay, I do have a POV as I'm a member (and indeed community leader) on this website, but it has not only won that award but has a Alexa rank in the top 10k [21]. Computerjoe 's talk 20:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

List of pop culture references in School Rumble

per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References in Samurai Jack (second nomination) Gofd0 19:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, entirely WP:OR, but even if it wasn't, it's still too trivial and crufty for inclusion anywhere on Wikipedia. Recury 22:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Recury. Danny Lilithborne 23:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- SD22 01:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per the above and the precedent cited. Everything is full of cultural references - it's a natural part of the artistic process. A similar article could be written for every manga, every anime, every novel, every movie, every sitcom... there is nothing particularly unusual about these, making it hard to argue that they are important enough to list in an encyclopedia. — Haeleth Talk 10:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as WP:OR and for baiting WP:NOT (an indiscriminate collection of information). Articles such as these function as pools of fancruft, they tell the average reader nothing accept that pop-culture references happen (will anyone need to be picked up from the floor after learning this?) and indeed have happened in this particular whatever. Fan sites or a fan wiki are where these things belong, not encouraging more of the same on WP. QuagmireDog 18:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was thanks to Uncle G, I now know this is a real fictional persona. Grand master ka 18:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Unknown Hinson

Okay, this is an odd request, I know. I believe that this guy is notable; however, virtually every piece of information in the article is an obvious hoax or joke, as stated in my prod, and the author seems to have no intention of making it into an encyclopedia article. I think this should go right now until someone is willing to write an encyclopedia article on this topic. It seems beyond cleanup, because I don't think any of this content is really that usable. Grand master ka 19:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - You have written YOURSELF that this is a notable subject, the article just needs cleanup. AfD is NOT cleanup. The effort you put into creating this AfD could have been spent trying to do a re-write yourself. PT ( s-s-s-s) 23:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Please re-read my nomination statement. I don't know much of anything about the guy, but I know there's nothing salvageable from this. Grand master ka 00:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Grandmasterka has a point, to an extent. This article presents fiction as fact. Unknown Hinson is a comic persona, just as Tony Clifton was for Andy Kaufman. Uncle G 12:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks! That's what I needed to hear, rather than a really rude and uninformed comment. I had no idea. Grand master ka 18:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus so a default keep for now. (aeropagitica) 20:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Alix Rosenthal

Non-notable local politician that doesn't meet WP:BIO as far as I can tell. The article also reads like a campaign flyer. Thought about Speedy A7, but brought it here instead. ju66l3r 19:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • To the contrary, the article meets the proposed WP:C&E standards for candidates and elections. I dispute the allegation that the article "reads like a campaign flyer." Its tone and word usage is neutral; it merely states facts: her background, experience, where she lives, and her endorsements, which, again, meets WP:C&E. It reads more like a voter information guide than anything else. If anyone finds that a particular word or phrase in the article, as it is written now, indicates bias, please cite those words or phrases. This article is relevant at least until after the election is held on November 7, 2006. -- Waterthedog 21:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: It does not meet the WP:C&E proposition. The proposition states: "articles on elections should be written before articles on individual candidates. Only if and when there is enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article on a candidate should one be written." This isn't an article on the election (because that's not notable either), the information is not independent (as the sole source of the article is her campaign website), and it's barely verifiable as per the comment below given the lack of much info by Lexis-Nexis. ju66l3r 21:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Lexis-Nexis search confirms nom's suspicion of failing WP:BIO. Pan Dan 21:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. In response to the comment above, I have done two things to conform to the WP:C&E proposition: (1) I created an article for the San Francisco, California 2006 election; (2) I edited the article on Alix Rosenthal to conform to the "independent, verifiable information" rule in the the WP:C&E proposition by taking out any information that is not in the San Francisco Department of Election voter pamphlet, which is now cited in the article, with one exception: her endorsements; however, these can be verified on the websites of the endorsing organizations, all of which are cited. This local election is noteworthy because it is an election for the legislative body of a major city; this is on par with an election for mayor. There are articles on Wikipedia on the local elections for similar legislative bodies of cities like Portland, Oregon. Likewise, there is an article on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and with the exception of two members, articles on each member of that the Board. I don't see why candidates who run against them in elections cannot have articles, as well. -- Waterthedog 03:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment:These improvements lessen the problem but since WP:C&E is still only a proposition at this point, I will not rescend my AfD nomination, allowing the community and administrator to decide the article's ultimate fate. While your assertion of notability due to seated members having notability is compelling, Wikipedia article creation/edits should not be used to make a point. Also, simply because others are doing it doesn't make it acceptable policy either (and those articles may end up finding their own way to the AfD pages). One reason why candidate pages are more difficult to consider as notable/worthy is to consider the fact that anyone can become a candidate (barring technicalities for signing up). That's hardly notable, but winning the election is certainly notable (and thus why seated officials might have a page but candidates running against them might not). I hope that addresses some of your concerns for why this page may still go (although the election page looks very good and may stay). ju66l3r 17:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Campaign ad disguised as an article (Look! It even has a list of endorsements!) for a local politician who doesn't appear to well-known even locally. If and when she gets elected and does something notorious (and being on the SF Board of Supervisors gives plenty of scope for that), she can get an article, but she's not even close to rating one now. -- Calton | Talk 06:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment:This article states facts about the candidate. Again, anyone who claims that this article is an ad in disguise or is in any way biased, please point out the words or phrases that give that appearance. Endorsements are verifiable facts and should not be deemed promotional content. Endorsements typically appear in nonpartisan voter guides, and they can further or hinder a candidate's success. An endorsement from an organization with which a voter disagrees, for example, is a reason for that voter not to vote for a candidate. Inclusion of endorsements conforms with the WP:C&E proposition. Although running for local public office does not confer notability by itself, when combined with a growing body of independent, verifiable information -- and yes, endorsements are a part of that -- notability emerges. And that's consistent with the WP:C&E proposition. Further, a Google search of this candidate yields about 12,600 results, and given that this particular name combination is not all that common, it's likely that most of these results refer to her. To say that a local political candidate can only attain notability after winning the election is just as inaccurate as saying that simply running for local public office confers notability. -- Waterthedog 18:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Calton. Eusebeus 13:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Anyone who feels this article should be deleted, please address the points that I raised above in my comment to Calton. -- Waterthedog 18:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Pizza shoppe

Company advert Nehwyn 19:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - spam. No assertion of notability. MER-C 07:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Spam-- Nilfanion ( talk) 15:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Futek advanced sensor technology

Company advert Nehwyn 19:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm a bit confused of why this is considered "spam". I am the original author and work for this company and so I would welcome any feedback on how to improve this entry to avoid this. User:navidmg, 13:52, 1 October 2006 (PST)

That's kind of the point, isn'it? It is an entry written by some who works for the company, to spread the word about the company. That's what the Yellow Pages are for... this is is an encyclopaedia! -- Nehwyn 22:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Wouldn't this rule apply equally to all companies then that have wiki profiles? User: navidmg, 15:30, 1 October 2006 (PST)
No, only to those companies that do not meet the WP:CORP criteria. -- Nehwyn 22:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
So if our company satisfies the first point listed for "Criteria for companies and corporations", how would be proceed to point this out. Do I need to list the publications? Thank you again for explaining this procedure. User: navidmg, 07:27: 2 October 2006 (PST)

You just write into the article sentences that demonstrate that any of those criteria are met, and put a provable, outside reference at the end. -- Nehwyn 14:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus to delete, merge possible of course. W.marsh 13:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Cao Boi

Page was created only because he was a Survivor. He hasn't done anything notable on the show, and their pages shouldn't be made unless they are winner or have done something notable outside the show. Also, the article name is not even his real name. TeckWiz is 12 yrs old Talk Contribs # of Edits 20:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete non-notable. -- Gogo Dodo 01:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and Redirect to Survivor Cook IslandsEnsRedShirt 06:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom this is "survivor hype". Stubbleboy 00:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The article mentions he is a world record holder. Would that meet the notability criteria?
  • Weak Keep: (1) Per WP:BIO, An Bui has been the subject of multiple non-trivial media stories. WP:BIO is unclear on the notability guidelines for reality stars, but I think he makes it. (2) Category:Survivor is full of similarly notable contestants, which suggests that he meets notability criteria. (3) Assuming he's notable, naming his article "Cao Boi" with a redirect from his real name is correct. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) (Per the example given by the guideline, we have a Pelé page, not an Edson Arantes do Nascimento page). Bui already has media coverage; my advice would be to tag the article for clean-up and revisit at the end of the season. TheronJ 20:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm going to sift through the Survivor category in a few minutes and nominate all the other ones with no notability. TeckWiz is 12 yrs old Talk Contribs # of Edits 12:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • What's your standard for reality contestant notability? Can you write something up for WP:BIO? Thanks, TheronJ 12:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I just finished going through the Survivor category and found over 20 that I think aren't notable enough, and will AFD. Basically, I think if they're not a winner, and have not done anything outside of the show major, then they're not notable. Also, compare it to the Amazing Race. Only one or two people has their own article a season. That's 1-2 out of 22. Survivor is usually 15-16 out of 16.
  • Keep contestents on Survivor. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 22:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete None notable person. Survivor Hype.-- M8v2 00:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and Redirect to Survivor: Cook Islands per other deleted non-noteworthy reality show contestants. Ohconfucius 07:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep The obsession among some wikipedians with deleting reality contestant biography articles en masse is both disturbing and truly puzzling. These shows are watched by millions of people, and their casts are known by their first names by millions, at least for a few months. Instead of deleting reality contestant articles, I would argue that an effort should be made to improve them and even add them for some contestants who SHOULD have pages and don't. Several participants on Survivor: All-Stars, for example, do not have pages, and all of them should. Kathy Vavrick-O'Brien, who finished third in her season and became wildly popular, is a prime example. For those of you who are seemingly obsessed with removing reality articles, I would suggest that you find something more worthwhile to worry about. Just because YOU don't think that somebody is notable doesn't make them non-notable. I would argue that reality contestants are notable simply for the fact that so many millions of people can refer to them by their first names. I would suggest that the trend to delete reality articles and refer to "Survivor hype" reflects more than a hint of bias against this form of entertainment. Thus, such deletions are by definition non-NPOV. MahlerFan 14:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted as article didn't assert the notability of the company, WP:CORP refers. (aeropagitica) 20:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Pabian & Russell

Wikipedia is not a directory. Not notable. No links to this page. Emeraude 20:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 07:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Luna Santin 07:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Deformables

Non notable, fails WP:WEB. A Flash cartoon with 5 distinct Google hits (for title plus author, since title is common word in other languages)... Fram 19:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete, subject doesn't meet guidelines in WP:WEB. Equendil Talk 19:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply

AfD notice was removed by author of article, and page then moved to The Deformables: notice now readded. Fram 20:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete does not meet WP:WEB. -- Charlesknight 23:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete - CSD A7. I don't see an assertion of notability in that article. Tagged as such. MER-C 07:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    Tag removed. Let it run through here. -- Ligulem 10:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merged appropriate information in to Royal High School and deleted. (aeropagitica) 20:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The Royal High School

This page is a stub and an artical for the school already exists. See Royal High School. Broxi 20:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Royal High School article covers this. Emeraude 21:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect these articles are the same thing. DRK 21:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and do not redirect The redirect would probably be speedyable as an unlikely typo and would serve no purpose. This article is a duplicate. -- NMChico24 21:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to Royal High School, this does not necessitate an AfD discussion. 71.146.80.214 22:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect, no need for AfD. bbx 01:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Seems uncontroversial. Why was a merge vote not done for this. Should never have got to an AfD. JASpencer 14:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect is the obvious course of action here. Silensor 20:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect per the above comments. RFerreira 22:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merege/Redirect as a likely potential typo. Alansohn 05:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/Redirect per the above. -- Myles Long 16:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/Redirect   ALKIVAR ™ 19:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect as a likely search term. Bahn Mi 00:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Redirect as a likely search term. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

ASU Web Devil

Delete - a webportal for a school department - need I say anymore? Charlesknight 21:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I cleaned it up.... pointlessly... definitely delete as nonnotable. DRK 21:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Almost a speedy. MER-C 07:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, whats the point of this article?-- Nilfanion ( talk) 15:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. (aeropagitica) 20:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Trucker bomb

First sentence could perhaps make a Dictionary of Slang entry, but this is not an encyclopaedia article. Nothing links to it. Delete Emeraude 21:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was withdrawn (and why didn't anyone else do this in the past nearly 4 days this has been withdrawn). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Squidtastic Voyage

This SpongeBob SquarePants episode should be deleted because I've done a search on Google and it only gives one relative link. Google says that this episode is on that German webpage, but I've searched there and it wasn't there at all, so this should be considered nonsense. Squirepants101 21:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I want to withdraw the proposal for deletion because I found a source of this episode. Right here. Squirepants101 00:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Speedily deleted by Finlay McWalter (db-bio, no assertion of notability, 2nd delete) - Yomangani talk 23:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

John Hurteau

founder of a unsourced politcal party. He obviously created this page him self. If i cant create my autobiography then neither can he Dormantfascist 22:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC) And it has already been speedy deleted [22] ( Dormantfascist 22:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)) reply

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

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Terranism

wikipedia is not a place for things made up in school/pub one day Dormantfascist 22:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Freechoice TV

Advert about an online TV that will launch in 2007 Nehwyn 22:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Note: The author has modified the article so that it now states the TV website has been launched today (October 1), but there is no URL, and no relevant hits on Google. Apart from the crystal ball criterion, I'd say this is also a case of non-notability. Nehwyn 09:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, Crystal balling. There is a website, but doesn't seem to be anything notable about it either.-- Nilfanion ( talk) 15:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The Smoke Room

Website advert Nehwyn 22:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Any links have been taken out now so that it cannot be considered an advert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesmokeroom ( talk • contribs)

  • Comment Sure it can. "...established itself as a nucleus of talented artists" and "have attracted a leftfield and edgy audience" are advert speak through and through. Danny Lilithborne 09:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Ok, I see your point. I don't want this to be an advert, just want it in here as a point of reference. Any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesmokeroom ( talk • contribs)

Only one: demonstrate that the WP:WEB criteria are met! Nehwyn 10:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
All points taken on board and agreed. I will re-do it and see if you feel it is suitable. Any better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesmokeroom ( talk • contribs)
Sure. You have a few days before the deletion debates closes. Nehwyn 10:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I have re-edited. Is this now suitable? Thanks

  • Delete. No longer spammy, but it still describes a nonnotable website founded only two months ago, with no Alexa ranking. The first page of a Google search shows that there are also at least three other unrelated websites, and a book, called "The Smoke Room". NawlinWiki 11:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete unchanged since afd started, so if anyone wants to improve the machine translated output, that should still be possible. W.marsh 13:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Marea (band)

Tagged for speedy but not a speedy candidate, notability asserted. Hard to verify, needs a closer look. Guy 23:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - the Spanish wikipedia article says they're signed to RCA, the Spanish language MTV has a biography on them [23] and confirms that at least three of their albums were released by major labels. So it looks like they satisfy WP:MUSIC. Googlers beware - "marea" simply means "tide", so google for the album titles instead. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Don't we, incidentially, have a "this article need attention of an en-es bilingual person" tag/cat? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but tag with cleanup for copyedit and for attention from an en-es bilingual person. -- GunnarRene 02:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, it's a babelfished article from the Spanish wikipedia, and as such, nothing is lost if it's deleted (except some confusion if one reads the article). If someone wants to write a real article about the band that makes some sense, that one can be kept. - Bobet 09:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It seems that the band is on the borderline of being notable, but it's a terrible article. The text we have now is not even usable as a stub. Delete now, but resubmit if someone can do a proper article. Because of the current quality, as the last reviewer says, little would be lost if it is deleted. We do expect to see some *evidence* of notability in the article itself, not just in the assertion of a reviewer. There is no reference provided in the article besides a link to the band's own web site. EdJohnston 04:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Philosophy of unconditional love

Vanity article about non-notable web page created by the author of the Wiki article. Banno 23:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • keep bottom line, it IS a thing/concept..it DOES exist...case closed, end of story
The above entry is from 64.12.122.198 ( talk · contribs), an AOL IP. I request that it be discounted. Not to mention that the reason given would mean that anything could be included in the Wiki. Banno 07:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete that is the message the universe cries out to me (as per WP:WEB and because it's OR) -- Charlesknight 23:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this is real mystic and all, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Danny Lilithborne 00:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, strong doubts that the cited published sources actually talk about this (doubts that could be addressed by quotes from them that use this term). Gazpacho 11:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, concerning the issues presented by Banno as grounds for deletion in the article discussion page:

1. The Wikipedia is not a soapbox Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox; the pages is self-promotion and advocacy.

Rebuttal: No invitation nor mention is made concerning the author of the article to visit any website or support any idea. Thus, it is not SELF-promotion. Furthermore, no invitation is made by the author to visit, support, and/or agree to the OneLuv Philosophy or to visit http://www.one-luv.com. The author and the web-page are listed as references and cited (as required by WikiPedia) in the same manner as all other references.

The argument presented above is irrelevant. The sole purpose of this article is to attempt to draw attention to an otherwise non-notable website. Note that a reverse search on Google for http://www.one-luv.com/ or its sub-pages returned no entries. The page is self-promotion, regardless of how the links to oneluv are presented. Banno
Let's remember that the name of the article is "philosophy of unconditional love"... NOT oneluv philosophy. Oneluv philosophy is a source for the philosophy of unconditional love. All the citations in the article are required by WikiPedia to properly reference a source. Jpmorris2006 23:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

From Wikipedia:Verifiability:

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.

Banno 09:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

2. The article meets the criteria for vanity. Specifically, it contains material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or one of the close family members or associates of the author.

Rebuttal: Again, no mention is made of the author of the article within the article, its references, or subsets. Moreover, no mention is made of OneLuv Philosophy or its author except in the form of properly referenced material as required by WikiPedia. Furthermore, the author of OneLuv Philosophy (accused of attempting to "promote is his personal notoriety") uses a pseudonym specifically to avoid notoriety.

There are a half-dozen or so references to MichaelJaye ( talk · contribs) in the article. Count 'em. Banno
All references included in the article are citations required by WikiPedia to give proper credit to a source. No one, as of yet, has stated those citations were put in place improperly. If so, make your argument. Jpmorris2006 23:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
None of those references meets the criteria set out at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, as a suitable source for the material presented in the article. Banno 09:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

3. The article is not notable. There are no independent reliable sources cited to show that this is a topic worthy of inclusion.

Rebuttal: Essentially, “we experience this primary force, this primary movement of existence, this primary act of creation, as the emotion we call love…When we use the term love here, we’re speaking of unconditional love (Kaufman, 2002).” This is a quote from Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev the first one to prepose a rudimentary philosophy of unconditonal love. The reference for this quote is: Kaufman, Steven (2002). "Unified Reality Theory: The Evolution of Existence into Experience". Milwaukee, WI: Destiny Toad Press. ppg 185,311... an independent and reliable source.

Furthermore, Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev is listed on WikiPedia as an accepted article. In that article, the author states: "His (Dr. Kozyrev's) nearly unified theory and aspects thereof, such as the durational/physical aspects of time itself and cause-effect systems, have never been experimentally disproven to this day. The awesome implications of his work..."

Within Wikipedia, itself, Dr. Kozyrev is listed and accepted as scientist whose works have "awesome implications" and whose identifications "have never been experimentally disproven". Such as source is both reliable and independent... and he was the first to assert a philosophy of unconditonal love.

Again, this misses the point. The article lists no third parties that even discuss the oneluv site or philosophy. An incidental use of the same term by Kaufman simply does not count. Banno
He uses the term "unconditional love", not "the philosophy of unconditional love." And he is by no means the first to describe such a concept, which has been part of Christian philosophy for centuries. What you would have to show (as I said on the article talk page) is that this article describes a philosophical school, the ideas and adherents of which have been recognized by someone other than yourself as a school. Gazpacho 23:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Again, the name of the article is "philosophy of unconditional love" NOT OneLuv Philosophy... a highly reputable scientist stating that existence exists as unconditional love is both philosophical and significant... i.e. metaphysics: the origin and nature of existence.

Furthermore, the fact that the concept has been a part of Christian philosophy for centuries is more proof toward the fact that it is a viable, acceptable school of thought. Jpmorris2006 23:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I will repeat the criticism: there are no independent reliable sources cited to show that this is a topic worthy of inclusion. Especially damming in this regard is the complete absence of links to the key resource, the one love web site. Banno 09:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

4. Similarly, the sources are unreliable and unverifiable.

Rebuttal: Again, reliable and verifiable sources have been referenced in the article:

  • Jaye, Michael (2006, 09 26). The Philosophy of Unconditional Love. Retrieved September 26, 2006, from One-Luv Philosophy Web site: http://www.one-luv.com
  • The Neo-Tech/Zonpower Home Page
  • Wilcock, David, “The Divine Cosmos”, Divine Cosmos, n.d. [Book on-line, temp]; available from http://www.divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=6&id=20&Itemid=36; Internet; accessed 15 august 2006.
  • Wolf, Fred A. (1988). "Parallel Universes: The Search for Other Worlds New York, NY: Touchstone. ppg 69-70.
  • Kaufman, Steven (2002). "Unified Reality Theory: The Evolution of Existence into Experience". Milwaukee, WI: Destiny Toad Press. ppg 185,311.
  • Radin, Dean, "Entangled Minds: Extrasensory Experiences in a Quantum Reality". New York, NY: Pocket Books. pg 231.
  • Talbot, Michael, "The Holographic Universe". New York, NY: HarperCollins, ppg 1, 47, 59.
  • Jaynes, Julian, "The Origin of Consciousness in the Break Down of the Bicameral Mind". New York, NY: First Mariner. pg 55.

Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_unconditional_love"

Furthermore, much of the article contains links to other articles within WikiPedia, itself.

Most of these links and references are incidental, in that they do not mention the specific one love philosophy. The remainder are written by the author of the article. None of these meet the criteria set out at WP:WEB Banno
  • Again, we're talking about the philosophy of unconditional love NOT OneLuv Philosophy. Jpmorris2006 23:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Thus, the grounds for deletion of this article are ungrounded and unsubstantiated.

It appears the editors of Wikipedia are dishonestly allowing their own personal beliefs to influence the content of Wikipedia as evidenced by the sarcastic remarks of one voter:

"Delete that is the message the universe cries out to me (as per WP:WEB and because it's OR) -- Charlesknight 23:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)"... reply

And, further evidenced by the condescending remarks of another editor:

"...But I will continue to object to linking this page from the main Philosophy article, which is about the academic discipline and not new age stuff such as this. Banno 21:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)"

Because such editors do not understand and/or agree with the assertions properly expressed in the article, they seem to be attempting to dismiss it as "unacceptable for Wikipedia". Yet, as shown above, the grounds for which they've made such claims are baseless. The article has and does operate within the guidelines expressed by those editors, themselves.

Anyone who has passed philosophy 101 would be able to drive a bus through the holes in the metaphysics presented in this article. Take it to any of the serious philosophy forums and see what they say. Banno 11:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Yet, continued attempts to delete the article have been made. Thus, it is quite clear that because the article conflicts with the editors' personal beliefs, they are attempting to dishonestly remove it and its value from Wikipedia to satisfy their own personal cravings for "rigteousness" and pseudo self-esteems.

Actually, as an admin I might have deleted it as patent nonsense, and I doubt anyone would have noticed. Instead I will let it go through the due process; and ignore the personal attack implicit in your comment. Banno 11:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

However, such dishonest editors are not without redemption. Upon seeing and understanding the full scope of facts as presented here, each editor has the ability to undo his/her dishonesties and choose an honest path. Upon seeing the full scope of facts, each editor has the inherent right to change his/her vote to reflect a Neutral Point of View... NOT one's own skewed personal beliefs or views.

Jpmorris2006 20:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply


First off - calling other editors liars is not really the best way to try and get people to change their mind. Secondly while some of the sources quoted in that article are good (leaving aside the crank websites), the synthesis of them presented within that article is OR by a non-notable figure on a non-notable website. Can you point towards an article or a book that reviews or discusses the theory (NOT the sources but the emerging theory) as presented on that webpage? -- Charlesknight 21:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Let's see... on the philosophy page, you as editors do your best to present the concept of "philosophy" to people who want to know more. While, you're not perfect... you do your best. You're not notable, nor do you own any notable sites on philosophy (if you do, by chance, it means nothing to wikipedia... that's not the point of it)

I do my best to try to present the philosophy of unconditional love to people who want to learn more. I'm no perfect, but I do my best. I'm NOT notable nor do I own a notable website about it. But, I don't have to be... I'm an editor NOT a source. Jpmorris2006 23:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't actually see anything approaching an answer to my question in there. Let's try again - do you have a non-notable source which discusses the theory as presented on that webpage? Because you answer just seems to say "yes it's entirely non-notable" -- Charlesknight 07:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Second point - could you clarify something for me? your comment is the only one on the webpage - you talk about how wonderful the system is and how you have been putting it into practice for two months, however according to WHOIS, the site only came into existance ten days ago (the hit count says it's had 114 visits - 5 are mine so it fails WP:WEB as well). Can you clear up my confusion? -- Charlesknight 21:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I said this before... he had an old website called http://www.mjaye.com that it was on before this new one. Check out WHOIS on that one... it's been up since October 2005. Jpmorris2006 23:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Finally, I've read over the edits that the author of OneLuv Philosophy made to the page. They don't try to pump HIS philosophy. They simple clarify the philosophy of unconditional love... two different things! Jpmorris2006 23:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

  • KEEP Exactly which part of energy do you deleters not understand? ~Kiwini
    User's first edit. Gazpacho 07:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The references on the oneluv website and in the article do not adequately support either the ideas in the article or the claim that the 'philosophy of unconditional love' is an established theory. If this is an established theory, then one would expect that there would be places where these ideas are considered critically. In an (admittedly cursory) search I failed to find any. Anarchia 09:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete. Anarchia points out, above, that the references do not seem to establish that this thing is a legitimate theory. Well, just let me clarify that even if it were a legitimate theory, it is still not acceptable as it stands, because "the philoeophy of..." means that it needs to be an established academic discipline!! It is not!! Any claims to the contrary are preposterously misleading and false!! You cannot simply write an article and say "the philosophy of doodoo" is that branch of philosophy which studies the multifarious aspects of human waste, the form, the color, the criteria of individuation (where does the crap end and where does it begin). Well, you CAN, (0: but it does NOT belong on a serious encyclopedia. -- Francesco Franco 09:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I can find no mention of this theory within the academic literature - however if someone has a reference they would like me to check I'm quite happy to take a look. -- Charlesknight 10:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Ok, all in all, here's the situation. There are basically two relevent references here. One is to the webpage of someone named Jaye. It is not a book, an article in a serious journal, a magazine....It is just a webpage with his original research on it. Umm....my 14-year-old niece is working on a similar project. The other is to another webpage which does not really discuss "philosophy of unconditional love", but some related theories about some mysterious energy and the ether that permeates the universe. If this article stays, then I will create a blog this afternoon and post some original ideas about counterfactual hate and the origins of time and will request an article on Wikipedia. -- Francesco Franco 10:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I agree. If this article were permitted to stay on the Wiki, we might as well drop any pretence of developing a serious encyclopedia. Looking forward to reading your Niece's work... Banno 11:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I find it interesting how "expert" editors who battle to be taken seriously use childish attacks and non sequiturs to make their points:

"Umm....my 14-year-old niece is working on a simialr project... "the philosophy of doodoo" is that branch of philophy which studies the multaifarious aspects of human waste, the form, the color, the criteroa of individuation (where does the crap and where does it begin)..."

Such attacks (riddled with misspellings and grammatical errors) make no point and serve no purpose... and only point out the childish nature of such editors. Furthermore, with such editors as the "experts" of Wikipedia, "we might as well drop any pretence of developing a serious encyclopedia".

Aristotle identified that the most important "cause" of any existent is its final cause -- its purpose. What is the final cause of such editors? What purpose do they serve? Do they exist to help and coach new editors to create valuable articles... or, do they exist to attack and drain value from new editors in order to pump their egos and boost their pseudo self-esteems?

Let the facts of the case reveal themselves...

Jpmorris2006 13:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Let the facts on my userpage reveal themselves to your superior wisdom. To paraphrase Nietzsche: "Here are my contributions, where are yours?" Is this it? -- Francesco Franco 13:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Furthermore, if you look at that same page and/or discuss the issue with people who are familar with me on this project, you would find that I reject (indeed, I'm beginning to vehemently resent) the appelation of "expert". I am NOT. But I am a relatively experienced Wikipedian and my contributions shall speak for themselves. Therefore, I can only strongly advise you to learn the basic rules: WP:OR, WP:Reliable, WP:Verify, WP:WEB, etc.. Hint: you've gotten off to a bad start. Try working on Alexius Meinong or something like that. -- Francesco Franco 13:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Non-notable psychoceramica. Cheers, Sam Clark 13:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm offended that Jpmorris2006 didn't get offended at my snarkiness. Danny Lilithborne 02:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless there is evidence of notability (e.g. inclusion in an academic curriculum or recommended reading list at an accredited college or university; book review in a major publication); citation by someone whose work meets those criteria. - Jmabel | Talk 21:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Keep---As the author states, this is in the beginning stages of development...the beginning of the study of "Philosophy of Unconditional Love." Every conclusion has a beginning idea, that leads to a hypothosis, which is in turned studied and either proven true or not true. As stated previously on this page, some studies have been noted back to early Christian philosopy and more recently by the authors cited by Jaye. In all of the comments on this page about why to delete this there are not any legitimate reasons. It seems as if those opposed to this article do not understand the definition of philosophy and what it means to think outside the box to research an unfamiliar area. I have read all of the information on this website and on the author's website and I feel that is well researched. This is not a self-promoting article and the author is not try to gain anything personal on this website. This article needs to remain on the website and should not be discriminated against because it is a touchy subject. Looking forward to more from this author...JKalea

As the author states, this is in the beginning stages of development ah so you agree that it fails WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball- many thanks to that new user for making a case for deleting. -- Charlesknight 06:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
70.160.162.211 ( talk · contribs), who signed themselves above as JKalea, is indeed a new user; this, like the other entries voting to keep the article, is another first post. So I guess that we can forgive JKalea for not understanding that the Wiki is not a place to publish original research. It does not mater one jot if the philosophy of unconditional love is indeed the answer to the question of life, the universe and everything. It cannot be placed on the Wiki until it meets the basic requirements of verifiability, reliability and notability. Again, the argument should be discounted. Banno 08:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merged in to Old Firm. (aeropagitica) 20:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

List Of Players Who Have Played For Both Sides of the Old Firm

A list of three, which is unlikely to grow very much - in a hundred years time, might be six...

Come on, it's quicker (and neater) to write "Kenny Miller is one of very few players to have crossed the famous Old Firm divide since the war, the others being Alfie Conn and Mo Johnston.

rather than

"Kenny Miller is one of very few players to have crossed the famous Old Firm divide since the war (see List Of Players Who Have Played For Both Sides of the Old Firm) Camillus (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy Delete has absolutely no context for the non-sports fan (such as myself). Danny Lilithborne 00:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - 3 players isn't enough for a useful list. Ac@osr 09:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no context. This list could be more than adequately replaced with a sentence in Old Firm; like the nominator suggests.-- Nilfanion ( talk) 15:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Camillus (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect into Old Firm as a subsection (see North London derby for a comparable example). Qwghlm 21:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, I'd like to scream out "listcruft extreme!" but I won't. I'll restrict myself to only scream out "replace with sentence in existing derby article!". – Elisson • Talk 21:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per Qwghlm though I'd not be averse to an unlikely keep. Highly notable but admittedly short. MLA 13:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into the article Old Firm. Firstly, allow me to state that the above mentioned article deals exclusively with Rangers and Celtic. The number of players who have played in both clubs is about less than ten (correct me if I am wrong about this information). Nevertheless, this is a very notable subject to research in and the information is verifiable. However, the main problem with this article currently is that it lacks content and it would be impossible to expand this article further (unless the number of players involved in both these clubs increases tremendously in the future). Thus, it is not right to delete this article outright and the most reasonable course of action to take is to merge the contents of this article into Old Firm. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 01:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Steel 11:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Ted Jesus Christ GOD

Biographical article that fails the guidelines in WP:BIO, WP:RS, possibly WP:HOAX, etc. Google test turns up roughly 587 hits, which is extremely low considering that this is claimed to be an Internet meme. Crystallina 23:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Strong delete - For reasons listed above. mirageinred 23:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong not delete - For new reasons listed below and extensive sources added to original article. How about a recommend for improvement and/or other templates? Jeremy Bright 00:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Granted, you make several good points.

Ted is neither a household name nor remotely as popular as other internet memes, like Chuck Norris, Mr. T, or David Hasselhoff. However, I first submit his YouTube channel [24] as evidence upon his behalf, and additionally argue erroneously and irreverently that if I myself had 587 actual returns on Google, I would feel like an internet meme.

Additionally, and more likely to be of any persuasion, I admit that my little article on Ted is in no way authoritive or complete. However, I do think Ted holds just as much weight as the Longniddry railway station and its article [25]. Yet, Longriddry railway station receives a stub alert and invites Wikipedians to improve it and make it better, while mine is, after epochs of hard keyboard labor and toil, proposed for deletion in under two minutes. And I know how important Neomphalida are, and why they deserve their own Wikipedian article, I'm just proposing that maybe, since Ted is (probably) just as famous - if not more so - as Neomphalida [26] are, that he be allowed to remain. Believe me, if I had any information which I could use to flesh out Longniddry railway station's article, I would hasten to add it, but alas I do not. Instead, I am merely trying to add yet another article on a person who can be, on some not insignificant level, considered a "religious (potentially weirdo cultist schizophrenic?) figure".

I know, it's that eternal argument about Wikipedian censorship, but I'm willing to argue that Ted Jesus Christ GOD is just as worthy of a short Wikipedian article of approximately 10kb in size as anyone else already listed on Wikipedia's article of people who have claimed to be Jesus Christ (which I did not add, may I add) [27].

Maybe it's time for Ted to finally have his own 15kb article? He's listed on several already. I for one consider him to be just as valuable to Wikipedia as Matayoshi Jesus [28].

I'm just thankful that my article on Australian Green Tree Ants is still going strong.

Your humble servant,

Jeremy Bright 00:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Jeremy Bright ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the article that is the subject of this AfD. reply

It's not really censorship as much as the fact that Neomphalida, Matayoshi Jesus, etc. have been documented in external sources, while the subject of this article has not. (Answers.com is a Wikipedia mirror and doesn't really count.) All of this is taken from WP:RS (reliable sources). Crystallina 00:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply


TJCG himself in an open letter about his life and his short autobiography, confirming most of the article: [29]

TJCG on his goals, 40 days and 40 nights experience, and Satan's temptation with his saving by angels, which also demonstrates his writing style and details his theology, all on one page. Granted, hard to read, but chocked full of (way too much) information. Chapter 1 of 37 (as of today). [30]

Third party review of TJCG [31]. But I guess that doesn't matter. You can browse the other two, I'll cite them and others as sources now to appease any and all moderators.

Jeremy Bright 00:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I thought you'd like to know that I fleshed out the article with extensive sources from Ted himself, virtually corroborating every statement. Sorry I neglected to do it before. Still working on it. Take a look if you want. Jeremy Bright 00:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Sorry, Geocities sites and official sites don't cut it. Danny Lilithborne 00:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I thought that it was okay to use self-published sources as long as its in conjunction with an article on the same person. Such as Ted's website for a Wikipedian article on Ted.
From WP:RS:

Self-published sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it, and where the material is one of the following:
relevant to the person's notability, or, if the material is self-published by a group or organisation, relevant to the notability of that group or organisation or not contentious, such as basic biographical information. All information of a self-published nature should be looked at with a critical eye

Jeremy Bright 01:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

About self-published articles as sources: Please take it in context. WP:RS goes on to say:
it should also be:
  • not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing;
  • about the subject only, and does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
  • subject to verification by other sources.
Self-published material should always be reported as the POV of the publisher, and not as general fact, until such time as there is independent corroboration of that material. The reputation of the self-publisher is a guide to whether the material rises to the level of notability at all.
In general, if a self-published source is reliable, then other reliable sources will cite it, until then, it should be avoided.
Hope this helps. Mapetite526 21:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete due to lack of notability and lack of reliable sources. I concede that the article is surprisingly well written. However Wikipedia policies don't leave much uncertainty about what to do here. EdJohnston 04:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 13:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Self (sociology)

This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Relevant policies include No original research and Verifiability. Tagged with a "complete rewrite needed" template nine months ago; no rewrite followed. blameless 23:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete it's a well-written essay, but it's still an essay. Terms like "society" and "identity" have different meanings in sociology, but I don't see why we need separate articles for each one. Danny Lilithborne 00:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as abandoned essay without hope of references. -- GunnarRene 02:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Comment It seems we have a volunteer that may be able to make this a relevant article. I still don't know whether or not it nees its own article, but I'm making my opinion a neutral one. -- GunnarRene 08:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, I have problems with the article... but I think this topic deserves a page and I would not want this AfD to bar it from recreation with real content. gren グレン 05:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - and move the essay to the talk page, replacing it on the article page with a stub. The essay may come in handy in providing avenues of research for the article, and there's no reason not to retain the essay in the history of the article - after all, it was displayed for many months. I have around 15,000 edits under my belt, and could easily write the stub if no one else wants to. -- The Transhumanist 06:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • New stub/rewrite completed. Most of it was compiled from material presented elsewhere on Wikipedia, and has standard Wikipedia article structure, which should make it easier for others to refine and build upon. Let me know what you think. -- The Transhumanist 09:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, without prejudice for or against a possible merge. It's now a different kind of article. But it needs to reference reliable sources about what the self is in sociology, and how it is different from the self in psychology and philosophy. I don't want to prejudice for or against a possible merge though. -- GunnarRene 11:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I see references to neuroscience and psychology. What does this have to do with sociology? I've done a little bit of research, and I'm not convinced that self is a key concept in sociology. blameless 17:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Transhumanist rewrite. It is definitely in better shape now to maybe becoming a worthwhile Wikipedia article. Agne 06:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 12:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

M.I.L.K

This now-defunct South Korean group does not qualify any of the guidelines listed in Wikipedia:Notability (music). The page does not indicate that the so-called "notable songs" have charted. Also, they have only released on album on one major record label, one album short. mirageinred 23:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Does not appear to assert notability for meeting WP:MUSIC. Vegaswikian 02:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Hard to gsearch, but notability is not ascerted in the article... so not a tough decision. Themindset 00:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Earl of Lerwick

To quote the article:

The title Earl of Lerwick" was created in 1987 in the Peerage of Scotland for Martin Lotherey. He purchased the name purely as a symbol of his wealth, the title has no significance in royal circles and does not give the beholder the honour of parading their coats of arms for the parading monarch At the moment, the Earlship is held by George, Earl of Lerwick, originating in the central belt of Scotland, and was renewed on 25/09/2006.
George, First Earl of Lerwick, claimed the title recently after aquiring it in internet auction, and although he has the considerable authority of using the name therin with credit card, bank statements, and all other identification it cannot be used to buy property and has no royal significance.

I believe this is a hoax, but even if it is not, it certainly fails WP:BIO so far as either "Earl" is concerned. Whichever is the case, "Earl of Lerwick" produces zero ghits and zero gbooks hits and thus the article is not verifiable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as hoax as per nom. If this was genuine (although it sounds highly dubious), a notice about this would have appeared in the London Gazette and/or the Edinburgh Gazette - the official journals of record where awards and honours such as UK peerages are required to be listed ( see the search functions at [32]). Bwithh 00:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)" reply
  • Delete, either a hoax or a description of a sad (but unencyclopedic) fraud. Wikipedia's coverage of the Peerage of Scotland should be limited to those legitimate titles recognised by the Lord Lyon King of Arms, not delusions bought off eBay. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I want to know how many people bid on it, and how serious they were. Or maybe not. And why settle for a spurious earldom? I'd hold out for marquess at the least. — OtherDave 13:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: speedy keep due to bad faith nom by new user, possible single purpose account/vandal. PT ( s-s-s-s) 00:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

This keep closure was endorsed by deletion review because the 4th nomination was very recent. The closer was a non-admin with a conflict of interest, however, so his accusation of bad faith is stricken. Xoloz 15:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (5th nomination)

Does not follow encyclopedic format

  • Delete: Please let this nomination stand. Bad faith? I dont think so because the last two were too quickly deleted and we did not have a good count because of it. It was said most people at first keep, and later people who see this page delete. I think the page was too quickly deleted before people really read the arguements. If you don't agree fine, but thats what I see happend.

My reason for delete is that Gore III is not a public figure, and is only on here because of his arrests or his accident. He has never been mentioned on the news otherwise, and will never be heard from again unless he gets arrested again. He would not be in a 'real' encyclopedia. Thank you.-- JoeWang2 00:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

San tan pride

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_September_30&oldid=1116878470"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 29 October 1 >

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 Speedy Delete WP:CSD:A7. Gwernol 13:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Gamereplays.org

Unwikified article that is a target of vandalism with notabillity concerns. NormR 12:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator -- NMChico24 04:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Romanes

Delete - Vanity -- FlareNUKE 02:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Forget it, I know this is vanity, no reason to AFD. Please delete this. -- FlareNUKE 02:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was already speedy deleted. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 00:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Trendsettersthestore

  • 'Delete - Advertisement, fails WP:WEB as not top 100000 in alexa.com|this article's entry. - Patstuart 00:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Previously deleted spam. It's gone. So is the user. - Lucky 6.9 00:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
























































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

The result was Delete per failure of WP:WEB. -- Nishkid64 19:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

HubPages

Company launched in August 2006, likely fails WP:CORP WP:WEB. Alexa ranking of 21,062. Hús ö nd 00:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 00:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • what kind of Alexa ranking would the site have to have to merit entry? -- Polskajason 00:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Alexa ranking doesn't imply notability or non-notability, but a relatively high ranking (i.e. low notability) can hint at a non-notable website. What really has to happen is that the site satisfies WP:V and WP:WEB. — Dark Shikari talk/ contribs 00:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Alvin6226 talk 02:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. — Khoi khoi 02:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Not a speedy. MER-C 13:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Kevin 17:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now. I would vote keep if it had been around longer and had been well established. UberCryxic 01:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep . There is historical significance with Hubpages in that it is the first company to launch on the Google Adsense API
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Fantastico De Luxe

Nominated for speedy deletion as "spam" by IP user, but I believe that was just a fake excuse. Nonetheless, I'm nominating the article for deletion to determine if this article is really necessary. I'm not familiar with this, but I just did a simple Google test and saw that this appears to be somewhat notable (~75,000 hits also). -- Nishkid64 00:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Tarret 00:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It is by no means a major piece of software but it is a common web hosting feature. I'm not sure there would be enough information for a proper article, but the same applies to CPanel. Such scripts could easily be lumped together in a single article. metaspheres 00:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Tarret. MER-C 04:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to cPanel, which it is a plugin for. Zetawoof( ζ) 10:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Tarret. Further, the references used in the article are all forum posts. Kevin 17:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- Nishkid64 19:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Vanilla Bicycles

Delete. Article is an advertisement. Prod tag removed by author. ... discospinster talk 00:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom and wikipedia is not for advertising. Hello32020 00:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete does not meet WP:CORP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosobra ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete per above. — Khoi khoi 02:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - spammy. MER-C 04:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - though prod might have been more appropriate, I have to agree with the nom and above. - Harmil 04:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as WP:ADVERT for non-notable business. -- Satori Son 05:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. 9200 Google hits, and I found two reviews which seem to pass the criteria of WP:Corp (The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.). I agree the article did read like an advert and lacked citation of notability which is why I tagged it originally. I've now cleaned the article up. —  Tivedshambo ( talk to me/ look at me/ ignore me) —  08:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and Satori Son. Even after the cleanup, the article is little more than an advertisement for a relatively obscure company. Kevin 17:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per all above. UberCryxic 01:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom,. -- ArmadilloFromHell 01:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Cantina, Tel Aviv

Some sort of Israeli bar or restaurant. Some claims of notability, but there's no sources verifying the claim that this place hosted the finals of Kokhav Nolad, or the listed notable guests have been there, so this article fails WP:V. External links for the article are in Hebrew. NeoChaosX [ talk | contribs 00:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Personally, I don't think "some (potentially) famous people ate here last summer" qualifies as notable. Delete -- MarcoTolo 01:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A bar or a restaurant in which famous people dine or eat is non notable. A bar opened by a famous is notable-- 203.109.224.204 01:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Possibly delete A bar/restaurant in which the famous dine or eat can be notable precisely because they do (see e.g. The Ivy), but I'm not convinced in this case that Cantina is notable. Emeraude 11:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Dweller 11:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. - Mailer  D iablo 12:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Abramelin (band)

Nothing in the article asserts notability per WP:MUSIC - Nv8200p talk 00:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Hello32020 00:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. — Khoi khoi 02:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 04:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep released two full-length albums on a notable label (repulse/ shock records) as well as toured Australia in support of Cradle of Filth twice. This must be, sufficient for WP:Album Spearhead 07:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep at this stage its weak Jeffklib 07:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Both albums released through Shock Records and debut re-issued by Repulse, which is very well-known in the metal scene. Their guitarist playes also in Akercocke and The Berzerker and former drummer was in Deströyer 666. I also see an 18-year career as a sign of notability. Prolog 09:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As per Spearhead and Prolog, meets the level for albums and tours, along with connection to other notable bands. Dace59 15:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Think outside the box 16:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Certainly not Non-notable -- N R S | T/ M\ B 16:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Read WP:OSTRICH while you're at it. PT ( s-s-s-s) 00:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete, per nom - Deathrocker 11:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Does not qualify for speedy delete. And the nom says the article doesn't assert notability. That is clearly wrong, as the article clearly states the notable record releases, tours, and notable musicians within the band. This AfD is pointless. PT ( s-s-s-s) 19:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per WP:MUSIC. -- Nishkid64 19:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Abrasion (band)

Nothing in the article asserts notability per WP:MUSIC. - Nv8200p talk 00:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was DELETE. You've got an unsigned comment at the bottom from an anon which I've discounted, and then reading the debate Kevin seems to agree that the information isn't all that valuable. Looks like a general consensus to delete to me. Hiding Talk 22:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

SLC Sport Results 2005

This article listing results from a sports season fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Contested prod. alphaChimp (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Alvin6226 talk 02:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment you might want to look at St Laurence's College for the other two entries. FrozenPurpleCube 02:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 04:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the information. While not necessarily academic, it does have value and could be useful to someone. I think the spirit of "indiscriminate collection of information" would be more applicable to "Aunt Millie's Chocolate Chip Cookie Recipe" or "Billboards In SLC's Stadium", rather than a compilation of information that could feasibly be in a sports almanac. Perhaps it would be worth merging with other years in a single "SLC Sport Results YYYY - YYYY" entry? Kevin 17:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    Comment. I really see absolutely no prescient value in Wikipedia serving as a repository for obscure and entirely irrelevant sports results. Let's be entirely clear about this. This is a college sports team. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac, particularly for non-professional sports, whether we like it or not. alphaChimp (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    Comment. While I don't argue that you and I may not see any value in this, that doesn't mean that everybody concurs. Let's say that a player from that team becomes a professional, and someone has the inclination to research the player's background. Or perhaps that school will win a playoff of some sort, making the information relevant. I think suggesting that information that could be in a sports almanac defines Wikipedia as such by its inclusion, is a bit of a longshot. Kevin 20:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I am a very big fan of sports related topics on Wikipedia, including almanac type articles (ie: List of NHL seasons), however game-by-game logs is a bit much. Resolute 00:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It was useful to me and it should stay.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 clear consensus - I'm restarting the AFDs due to extensive changes made to the article(s), and making two separate AFDs for the two remaining articles instead. The other subpages appear to have already been deleted. Cowman109 Talk 01:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The new AFDs are at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lords Reform (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lords Reform - History. Please re-evaluate the articles's candidacy for deletion there. Thank you. Cowman109 Talk 01:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Lords Reform

  • Note to closing admin -- I would urge that you close this AFD as "void" per User:Equendil's suggestion below. As this diff should show, the primary author has put in a lot of effort to address criticisms posted here and, as a result, the article has changed significantly since it was nominated for deletion. Since most of the delete votes were made before October 2, it is very likely that the editors were voting on a radically different version article and might not have voted delete if they had read the current article instead. If the new article is worthy of deletion, it can be re-nominated and we can get a consensus to delete based upon the new article.
Also note that the original nominator has withdrawn his nomination of the article for deletion.
  • Comment Ugh, and that's why articles should not be moved until after the AFD is finished. Too bad User:Haseler didn't read the AFD header text and follow the rules.
Nonetheless, it should be obvious that it is time to close this AFD as "void" and start over if anyone still feels that the current article at Lords Reform warrants deletion.
-- Richard 22:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Same argument applies to the subpages that were added to the nomination. It's very possible that some of the subpages will need to be deleted but, since the whole framework has been reworked, it's better to leave them in place for a short while and then let us revisit each subpage once the dust has settled. The major issue here is that the main article Lords Reform is gettting long and hard to read. Some subpages will need to be created but it's not clear at the moment which ones should go.
The primary author is still learning the ways of Wikipedia and is being mentored by a few Wikipedians including myself. He admits that the initial article was "crap" but I think you will agree that the current article is worthy of retention and simply needs improvement. I think this could be developed into an FA candidate eventually.

-- Richard 16:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Note -- I apologise for wasted everyone's time and getting so upset. I've put the contentious work on User:LordsReform where I, or anyone else who would like to help, can work on it. Having got some kind of initial framework, I'm now populating it with some facts, there are well over 1500 documents to check through (though most are very short, except for a dozen main ones), I'd like to see something "authorative" by End of October 2006. Any help, even someone who would pop in and give us a few hints on style etc. from time to time, would be appreciated!

Mike 09:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Fairly POV and unsourced. Seems to be original research. eaolson 01:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Per Fan-1967 below, I'm adding the following to this AfD:
Also adding:
-- Fan-1967 02:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Adding:
— NeoChaosX [ talk | contribs 21:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply


  • There is good and accurate stuff in all of these articels, but much that is opinionated and unsourced - a pity because much of it can be sourced. I would keep Lords Reform and look at whether others can be merged or tidied. Emeraude 11:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all except Lords Reform, and then we need to reconstruct that article from the ground up. Lords reform is a very encyclopaedic subject and deserves a proper article. David | Talk 13:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I am sick and tired of the hypocracy on Wikipedia. Of course an article about reform of the House of Lords is going to contain opinions and original research because the whole reform process consists of a series of debates about opinions. These pages have not been on a day and I was up to 3am yesterday working to get them into some sort of order before you vultures started picking at the carcass. Where is the tolerance that Wikipedia tells everyone about?

Having set out a template, I was just about to start going through the 1000 different responses to the consultations. I have complained in the past that there is no means (as far as I am aware) to create a trial version and invite comments.

The issue of Lords reform is incredibly complex and given the huge number of views it simply is not possible to explain the issue in one page. I know even less about Wikipedia except its pretended policy of "welcoming everyone" which it does not.

How can some of you be serious. 1000 different people spent days, if not weeks putting together their consultation responses, hundreds of MPs over decades if not centuries have put in huge amounts of time, it is one of the highest profile issues in the UK, and all you can say is "delete it". I'd have some respect for what you said if one of you had actually offered to help make the article more acceptable.Mike Haseler

Comment You misunderstand. It's original research and opinions because they're exclusively your opinions and research. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source and should collect the opinions and research of others (with references) into a comprehensive whole. Also, "tolerance" does not mean we sit back and let you do whatever you want. If you want us to establish a compromise position with you, then you shall have to engage us in debate. I would've though you'd know that given your expertise in politics. Sockatume 13:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Furthermore, there are plenty of established ways to present trial articles for comment. The most obvious would be to put the article together in your namespace and then find the appropriate forum, via the Community Portal, to ask for comments. Sockatume 13:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

*Delete. Interesting and significant issue, but the articles are all original research written in patently unencylopedic style. Wikipedia is not a textbook! Sockatume 13:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Transwiki. Thinking about it, surely Wikibooks has a politics textbook which would benefit from this? Sockatume 13:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The comment that "there are plenty of ways to trial it" is news to me.... but then my only other real experience of Wikipedia when when a bunch of thugs jumped on me last time when I started an article on "incrementalism". I ask myself, is it worth carrying on editing these pages or will they be deleted however informative I make them? At the moment I'm inclined to ignore some of the less informed comments and try to make something on it, but if I'm wrong then please email me now because I've got plenty of other things I could do with my time!

Mike Haseler

Comment. Well, if you don't join the community, you can't expect to find out about these things. Being productive on the Wikipedia is about more than producing a lot of material - engaging with the other editors, particularly over controvertial articles, is incredibly important. Acting as though the Wikipedia "Edit This Page" button is a videogame and your goal is to get your version of the article in place is not effective. You should be spending a considerable proportion of your time debating the direction of articles on Talk pages and User Talk pages. Sockatume 14:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment.This is not a controversal article, as far as I'm aware there have only been three contributors and none of them have disagreed. You are making a controversy where there is none. And I take great exception to your comment: using "Edit This Page" button is a videogame. In fact I haven't a clue what you are talking about! I will restate my position. The Lords is one of the oldest institutions in the World. Reform of the Lords is one of the highest profile issues for the UK government. I apologise that I am not an expert at Wikipedia, indeed, I would love people more informed than me to add to the page, but if this subject can't be included in the encylopedia section of Wiki, then what is the point of it? Mike Haseler (And How does everyone else get that user-time stamp?
Comment Is there anyone willing to talk to me offline rather than engage in a slanging match here? Mike Haseler
Comment As an article which is providing informaton on the process of reform; a reform that is largely dictated by the opinions of those involved, it is inevitable that much of it will be reporting of opinions. I have had the dubious pleasure of reading many of the contributions and talking to quite a few MPs and Lords involved, I am will try to provide information on the range of opinions. I am trying to represent these as fairly and neutrally as possible (although regretably I've had to copy and paste some stuff to at least get a start) so for the meanwhilst, some of it is quite obviously my own opinion of the situation, but unless there is something there to edit, how can others make their contribution and so arrive at a mutually agreed consenus?
Comment. And I take great exception to your comment: using "Edit This Page" button is a videogame. In fact I haven't a clue what you are talking about! That's surprising considering I elaborated upon the point in the following sentence. To reiterate: at this stage you aren't making an effort to react to our criticisms (it doesn't read like an encyclopedia article, for example) beyond the blanket statement that this is an important issue. It is important when facing a conflict of opinion on the Wikipedia that you sit down and discuss it thoroughly with the other editors. Judging from your previous comments (the sense of being "jumped on" when starting a new article, and the "me against he world" tone you've taken here), this is something you were unaware of.
We agree that it's an important issue, hence the concensus to keep the central article. However the issue is not presented in a thoroughly referenced, encyclopedic manner. It is written like a collection of sections from a textbook or perhaps primer on the subject. It reads like somebody's original research and commentary, in other words. Sockatume 18:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all, Wikipedia is not a soapbox/a webhost/a publisher of original research and so on and so on.. -- Charlesknight 23:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

A Marker

Can I thank the person who added the comments to the article - that was very helpfull. If anyone has tried to contact me, I've not received it, if no one has bothered to respond to my request for help and advice .... all I can say is I hope you all choke on the carcass of this article! ImpeachMe 19:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Sockatume, I tried to email you. I got to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sockatume where's the "how to contact mr X?" I've never in my life every encountered such as hostile community as Wikipedia. Please forgive if I'm sounding grumpy, there is nothing so infuriating as having half finished work torn to shreads because it .... isn't finished. And then sitting here wondering whether it is both bothering to finish it. And now all I'm doing is talking to myself like some madman! ImpeachMe 19:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I have just received an email from an expert in this area, whose input would be extremely valuable. To summaris, they've seen the "this site will be deleted" and have decided to use their time more profitably ... thankyou very much! ImpeachMe 22:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Topic worthy of an article As someone who worked on this article some time ago, I can only say that I tried to include a neutral summary of some of the history and the issues involved in reform. I certainly referred to the Parliament Act 1911. As I was providing background for an article which I take to be mostly about the attempts of the Blair government to reform the House of Lords, I did not go into a lot of detail anout the history but I tried to be reasonably comprehensive. I think that the constitutional crisis leading up to the Parliament Act 1911 is an important historical topic but not central to the contemporary issues.

When I looked at Haseler's work on the main Lords Reform article yesterday I was impressed by it. I did not see the problems described in the comments above.

In summary I think the issue of Lords reform is an important topic in current British politics. There ought to be an article about it, setting out enough history for the non specialist to grasp what is being argued about. The options for reform which have been proposed should be summarised.

I suggest rather than just sweeping away all that has been done before (good, bad or indifferent as it may be), it would be helpful if those who object point to the specific passages they consider to infringe the policies on Neutral POV, lack of sourcing and original research etc. These points can then be examined in detail and if the complaint is found justified the existing text can be corrected so it does comply with applicable policies. I am willing to assist with such an effort. -- Gary J 23:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I see some of the historical information about pre-1977 reforms I inserted originally, has been moved from the main article since I saw it yesterday. It is fair to say that is not in itself a complete treatment of the history, nor is it sourced. It was designed to be a section of a larger whole not an independent article. I presume Haseler was going to get around to expanding it later, but perhaps it will assist the community if I do some work on it, to see if something can be produced which is acceptable. -- Gary J 00:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Some specific examples for Lords Reform - Democratic Appointments:
  1. "Democratically Appointed Lords is a proposal to Reform the UK House of Lords..." Proposed by whom? Is Wikipedia the only place this proposal has been put forth? If so, it's original research.
  2. "With a jury of 15 and perhaps 10 permanent staff, the running costs would be around £2.5 million per year for the jury." Where did this number come from? Is it valid?
  • For Lords Refrom - Allotment:
  1. Again, where did the proposal come from? Who is doing the proposing?
  2. "In democracy the people are supreme and the politicians are there to serve the people. By voting for politicians we pick the House of Commons on merit and by its nature this makes it literally undermocratic. An upper chamber does not need to have a mandate to govern, and therefore selection by lot is the best way to make it democratic." This is POV. The best way? If this is unambiguously the best way, why are other proposals being considered?
  3. I also just noticed that there is a typo in the article title. "Refrom" instead of "Reform"
  • Lords Reform - Roles
  1. This whole article is very clearly original research.
  2. Explanations by analogy (which is most of the article) are inherently inexact, and not particularly encyclopedic.
eaolson 19:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all dreadful — Mets501 ( talk) 19:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • On the points about the varioius proposals. They are not single proposals but intended to be summaries of the range of proposal that have been verifyably put forward. All you need to do is read all the proposals on the department of constitution web site, read all the speaches made in parliament. The problem is that the average person doesn't know where to look. If they want to know what proposals have been put forward, they need a summary and that I expect to find in Wikipedia. Mike 20:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Eaolson Thanks for the comments - they were mostly helpful and in the main I accept them and have made some changes (but I'm struggling, and I'm supposed to be working next week). For details see the comments on the talk pages for each of page. I've requested help in several places, and so far your comments are the only help we have received! Mike 21:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Lords Reform but delete all the subpages. In my opinion, "badly written" is not grounds for deletion, but rather a reason for revising the page. Lords Reform is a topic that certainly merits a Wikipedia article. The many subpages, however, are duplicative, largely original research, and simply unnecessary. -- Russ (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I feel so bad voting delete but such a good intention for an article is dripping in POV. This article is unquestionably worthy of an article but this is not the way to do it. doktorb words deeds 16:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Someone is taking the micky In a few days, I might have had the time to get this article ready for some comment, giving me a relaxed 5 days responding to any criticisms. I can't do what is required in the time - there literally isn't time - Well done! I give up! Mike 18:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Lords reform is a perfectly sensible topic to write about, and there is plenty of third party comment to use as sources without delving into original research, but this seems to be a rather ambitious programme! It may be easier to try to write one article at a time, and split off sections into subarticles when they get long enough. I think the current content in the sub-articles should be merged into the parent article, and perhaps Reform of the House of Lords would be a better title. Having said that, I'm not sure I would start from here... -- ALoan (Talk) 19:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Close this AfD as void. The main article is not nominated anymore, various subpages have been added, several apparently deleted as per the author's request, initial comments do not reflect the status of this AfD anymore ... I believe the process has derailed here. I suggest an admin closes this AfD as void. Individual subpages can be relisted individually if necessary. Equendil Talk 19:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Seconded. Lankiveil 12:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC). reply
    • Comment Why not just kill off the remaining subpages right now? Haseler's already removed most of the content from the surviving pages, there's no need to renominate them individually if he doesn't want them any more. NeoChaosX [ talk | contribs 21:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • DELETE. The lords reform article is a mess, it's not written in a wikipedia-like tone or manual of style or guide to layout or well, it's basically a whole jumble of mess that looks like someone vandalized. Also per IslaySolomon, Opabinia regalis, Sandstein and physicq210 It's DEFINITE DELETE!!! I found the article after stumbling onto three empty articles when stub sorting: Lords Reform - Proposals; Lords Reform - Aims; Lords Reform - Roles which was emptied by User:LordsReform. I don't know if it constitutes as blanking or vandalism since it was (after digging around) I suppose was for a rewrite of the Lords reform series. But it is unwikipedia-like to leave articles like that with improper redirect. Which I think the three articles doesn't even worthy the redirect. (per redirect policy) Also, I would like to rais the issue of User talk:LordsReform's purpose of moving the article onto his/her userpage as it is an irregular wikipedia practice. Also, could someone cleanup this afd? Feureau 22:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Help is much appreciated! Mike 11:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
      • It is NOT irregular Wikipedia practice to move an article to User space. In fact, the action Userfy is a recommendation that shows up from time to time in AFD debates. In this case, the author User:Haseler was advised to move articles that were "not ready for primetime" to User space. So, he created a separate user account User:LordsReform and moved the articles there. The creation of a separate user account for this purpose is not ideal. It would have been better to move the articles to subpages of User:Haseler but Haseler, being a new Wikipedian, misinterpreted the suggestion. He is working on a new article in User:LordsReform/New which he has created as a sandbox. -- Richard 22:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per Russ above. Subpages should go though. Lankiveil 05:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC). reply
    • Comment, to clarify, the main article does need cleanup, but I don't see why it's not worthy of an article. POV and poor formatting is not grounds for deletion, as far as I am aware. Lankiveil 12:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC). reply
  • Strong Keep Topic is encyclopedic. I can't tell what the original article looked like but the current article shows a lot of promise. It needs cleanup, wikifying and sourcing but all that can be fixed with time. Article creator seems to be a relatively new Wikipedian with good intentions but in need of some coaching. I volunteer. -- Richard 06:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep. -- Nishkid64 19:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Showoff (band)

Article does not assert notability per WP:MUSIC - Nv8200p talk 01:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Alvin6226 talk 02:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 04:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep considering the notability of MTV and AMG as verifiable sources, they are considered notable per WP:MUSIC. However, I'm not personally convinced that being listed on those sites makes a group inherently "notable". Kevin 17:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep WP:Music, meets notablilty requirement. "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." and "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." Chris Envy worked with Fall Out Boy. Showoff has also been cited on MTV, [1] and has been signed to Pacific Ridge Records. Valoem talk 19:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Read WP:OSTRICH while you're at it. PT ( s-s-s-s) 00:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - seems notable enough Spearhead 21:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- Nishkid64 19:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

A Murder of Angels, While You Sleep, In the Air

Article does not assert notability per WP:MUSIC - Nv8200p talk 01:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Non-notable myspace band du jour -- NMChico24 03:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and also delete While You Sleep and In the Air The band's article and the articles for their albums assert a grand total of zero notability. -- Kicking222 03:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per lack of notability. (And if you haven't noticed yet, the person who closed this AfD was not me, but an impostor).-- Konst. able 03:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC.-- Dakota 03:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and please take a second look at the A Murder of Angels article. I added under "References" an interview with one of the band members and two reviews of the band's albums. -- TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 04:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    • None of those come from reliable sources. How do they confer notability? -- Kicking222 04:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I don't know if reviews really count much or if the websites that did the reviews are significant. The interview barely mentions the Murder of Angels project. Still does not seem like much to me. -Sorry Nv8200p talk 04:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Non-notable. RickReinckens 04:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and also delete the category Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 05:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete All as insufficiently notable per WP:MUSIC, and no "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy" as required by WP:V. -- Satori Son 05:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete All per nom. Kevin 17:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • keep seems to meet WP:Music to me by having released 2 albums Spearhead 21:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • According to WP:MUSIC: Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). The record label does not seem to meet this criteria. -- NMChico24 21:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- Nishkid64 19:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Aconite Thrill

Article does not assert notability per WP:MUSIC - Nv8200p talk 02:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 04:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Kevin 17:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • keep seems to ahve released 2 albums... and thus meets wp:music Spearhead 21:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Actually, WP:MUSIC states "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." The record label for those two albums, Mighty Atom Records, does not seem to meet this criteria, thus the band here does not meet WP:MUSIC. -- NMChico24 21:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Cedric Ced

Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. No sources given to establish notability. [Check Google hits] doesn't show any relevant results in the first few pages. "Lil Ced" search shows a musician by that name, but with an album released in 1997 (subject of the article was born in 1992). "Cedric Jermaine Brazle" returned nothing. Prod tag (and prod2) removed. ... discospinster talk 02:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per above. Vanity. MER-C 02:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — Khoi khoi 02:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment - just noticed it's been redirected to Lil' Cedric -- plange 03:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Which is even worse than the first article. MER-C 04:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Seems to me to be unvorthy to exist in an encyclopediæ → A z a Toth 16:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per all above. UberCryxic 01:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

An-My Le

Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines plange 02:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. MER-C 04:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Gulshen Ahmed

Possible violation of WP:BLP -- has unsourced negative information on a living person plange 02:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • I removed the unsourced negative text and added the sources template. Keep the remaining because he was the person in charge of a state within a significant country. I think that meets appropriate notablity guidelines.
  • Comment - sounds good - my vote is now Keep -- plange 04:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Encyclopedia Project

Not notable. With "'Encyclopedia Project' Moon" I get 1,000 yahoo hits including this wikipedia article and mirrors. Uses metawiki type technology. Thus, it fails WP:WEB. Arbusto 02:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I'm unable to find any sources online not from the Unification Church so it also misses WP:V. JoshuaZ 04:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep. Not sure how it could possibly be unverifiable - it's there on the web [2]. You can see it. What more do you want? Notable: well it doesn't meet the WP:WEB guidelines, but for some reason I'm tempted to keep it anyway. The Land 14:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I relisted to get more opinions. Arbusto 03:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete per {{ db-web}}, no claim to notability, so tagged. Sandstein 07:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB criteria. -- Ter e nce Ong ( T | C) 08:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- Nishkid64 19:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Bargain hunter

Spam garden. Spam since the very beginning, I don't think it's worth redirect or rewrite. Hús ö nd 02:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - If the name for such sites was unique and in use as a neologism that might be looked up, I can see reason to keep, but without listing the sites themselves, but this just looks like a way to list websites that deal in bargains. -- plange 03:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - spam target and per nom. MER-C 04:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, and failing WP:V. -- AbsolutDan (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:SPAM. --Slgr @ndson ( page - messages - contribs) 04:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • DeleteI agree with the deletion, there's no rhyme or reason who goes on the list, and it's all external links. I know there are some legit sites on there, and some with their own wiki pages as well, but I just don't see much need for this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.240.104.120 ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete Advertising spam, an unmaintainable list, Wikipedia is not: a directory, an indiscrimate collection of information. -- IslaySolomon 06:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but delete the external links. Emeraude 11:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, or rename and rework. Perhaps move into a subsection of an article on internet shopping? Cheap as chips. Sockatume 13:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Spamgasmic 205.157.110.11 22:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per nom. Cedars 00:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Steel 19:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Riskopoly

A board game somebody made up. There is no evidence of notability or external marketing, and no reliable sources. Google is no help. Crystallina 03:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy keep because the nominator explicitly wants an article merger of what xe sees to be duplicate articles, not a deletion. Article merger does not involve deletion at any stage or any requirement for administrator intervention. When you see duplicate articles, your first port of call should not be AFD. Uncle G 08:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

ANSI C

Duplicates information in C programming language without adding anything not already found there. Fuels a misconception that "ANSI C" is some kind of C dialect, as opposed to just being another name for standard C. Suggest replacing with a redirect to C programming language. (See Talk:ANSI C.) Quuxplusone 03:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • So you know, you don't need AfD to (merge and) redirect. This desperately needs cleanup but I'd support keeping it as a separate article specifically on the standard, or redirecting it to a new article on C variants. The main article is long enough already. Opabinia regalis 04:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted CSD A7 and recreation of previously-deleted article. Has no incoming links other than from her husband (which I will now delink) but I'll put a redirect there anyway. kingboyk 21:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Sibi Blazic

Doesn't meet notability guidelines. Just don't see how spouses of famous people warrant an article. Has copyvio pic as well plange 03:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect She's certainly not notable on her own, but there's certainly no reason to keep her name from redirecting to Bale's article. The copyvio picture certainly will be deleted, but that's a whole different story. -- Kicking222 04:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per above. MER-C 04:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per above, speedy image as copyvio too Computerjoe 's talk 19:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted by Xaosflux (nn web) - Yomangani talk 17:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Conscrew

Doesn't appear to meet notability requirements. -- plange 03:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC) plange 03:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Not even assertion of notability. GrahameS 05:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete under the newly expanded CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 12:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- Nishkid64 19:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Galactic Market

Non-notable, browser game related website. – Matthew A. Lockhart ( talk) 03:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment My bad, reason as Kicking222 said below. – Matthew A. Lockhart ( talk) 15:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Jeez, it's not even a browser game- it's a web site devoted to selling in-game items for a single browser game. Now that, my friends, is non-notable. -- Kicking222 04:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. --> So sayeth M e t h n o r Sayeth back| Other sayethings
  • Speedy delete under the newly expanded CSD A7. Asserts non-notability, only had 3000 members. MER-C 12:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, also no notability asserted. It's a trading site for a fan-created videogame, which in two and a half years has managed 15,000 trades between 3000 members. This may well be wanted on a Star Wars Combine site or Wiki, but it's way off the scale for a WP article. QuagmireDog 15:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No Alexa rank Computerjoe 's talk 19:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. No speedy since this is a likely future G4 candidate. Danny Lilithborne 22:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Niels 00:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, voted as a member of the game which it affects - it is just a single website. Article's author has also voted for deletion. Sherurcij ( Speaker for the Dead) 18:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per the above comments. RFerreira 22:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete It's been said. dump it. P eople Powered 01:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- Nishkid64 19:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Final Fantasy Summons/ List of final fantasy summons

I'm pretty sure we've been over this before but I don't have any previous discussion links handy at the moment. Basically, the article is way too detailed and therefore fails WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, all relevant information to include has been discussed to death and can be found at Final Fantasy magic#Summon Magic already. Axem Titanium 04:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, Delete quite inacorrate and should never be created again! Plus many names of the summons creatures are spelled wrong. ShadowKinght (Talk)
  • Keep. I believe it's a collection of information that arbitrates the franchise as a whole. As it currently stands much of the same information is repeated several times over in different articles, but placing the information together as one article would seem much more accessible. - Emhilradim 06:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as original research. It's a nice read, except when it's wrong. For example, the Japanese elemental philosophy has five elements, not four. ColourBurst 06:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I have merged the related List of final fantasy summons into this AFD. My reason for deletion was "Unneeded list, Wikipedia is neither a game guide nor an indiscriminate list of information." MER-C 07:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete both per Wikipedia not being either a game guide or a indiscriminate collection of information. NeoChaosX [ talk | contribs 18:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Final Fantasy Summons as original research. For example, the terminology adopted by this article ("aeris genju" and so forth) appears to be completely new, as witness precisely 0 Google hits for any of the classifications used here. Perhaps there's a Final-Fantasy wiki that would welcome an article like this?
    Weak delete List of final fantasy summons as a game-guide-esque list that seems to exist primarily as a repository for very minor trivia about very minor characters in various games. — Haeleth Talk 19:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
"Aeris Genju" translates to Wind-type Phantom Beast. Likewise Geo Genju is Earth-type Phantom Beast. Phantom beasts are the recurring mythic creatures, the most common being Efreet and Shiva. - Emhilradim 04:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment But where, either in the series or in third party reliable sources, is the phrase "genju" or "Phantom Beast" ever used to describe all series of Final Fantasy summons? It seems like something fans (or just this set of fans) coined. ColourBurst 15:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was to Delete the article.


George Schuyler/Rewrite

subpage in main space ( Disallowed uses section of Wikipedia:Subpages); no links; article exists in Main Ling.Nut 04:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - neglected draft. MER-C 05:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - housekeeping. Yomangani talk 16:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel . Bryant 04:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

King Wutugu

Person may or may not be historical figure (is figure in historical book written centuries ago . . . ), the information here is not notable, the character/person is possibly minor MPW 04:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, requires cleanup. However, the Romance of the Three Kingdoms is a highly noteworthy book, allegedly based on history, though hardly a reliable historical source. The article needs to mention that the incidents of King Wutugu's life may be subjects of some exaggeration. But even if Wutugu was a fictional character, he is a notable one. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Unless he is a major character or real person, there doesn't seem to be much need for an independent article. K e rowyn Leave a note 02:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Fairly minor character, but the Romance is an important enough literary work that I think his impact on its plot merits a page. Shimeru 07:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Romance of the Three Kingdoms is significant, as are its characters. Wutugu is not one of the primary characters, certainly, but he is mentioned in far more than passing. Analogy arguments are weak in AFD, of course, but we have articles for characters of similar depth from Shakespeare et al, so I consider WP:BIAS to give this the final nudge toward survival. Serpent's Choice 05:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Changing my nomination for deletion. Seems there is a lot of knowledge here from these people about this character. Maybe some of you could edit the page so the next reader doesn't do the same thing I did and try to delete it because it did not say anything notable about the character? or impact on plot:) -- MPW 16:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Page was speedy deleted by User:Geni under G7 Computerjoe 's talk 19:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Kambojas/rewrite

subpage in main space Disallowed uses; few or no links; article exists in Main -- Ling.Nut 04:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - neglected draft. MER-C 05:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note - This was an attempt to clean up the main article (take a look at it's state about 1 year ago and see the mess). Anyway, events over took this approach and some clean up was done without a major rewrite. I think this can be speedy deleted, under G7 if nothing else (I'm the only significnt author). I have added the appropreate template so get on with it. Andreww 17:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Hispanics and religion

This article is content from other articles about Hispanic religions, mixed with such editorial opinion as "several Protestant denominations (particularly Evangelical ones) have vigorously proselytized in Hispanic communities." I would say "merge," but again, the content is already in the other articles present in the "Latinos and Hispanics in the United States" family of articles. (It is for these reasons that Hispanics and Politics is also up for deletion.) Delete as entirely unsourced POV or redundant content. JDoorj a m Talk 05:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. After looking at the article, it seems that there is a lot of POV going on, and many of the external links go to suspiciously similar sites for translation services. None of the external links appear to provide a basis for the article. The subject matter itself isn't of much value on its own, since it already exists in other articles. Kevin 18:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and Kevin. Danny Lilithborne 22:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete POV, unverifiable, sources refer to the Hispanics in the United States thus not even conforming to the article itself. Simply no. -- Hús ö nd 23:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep. For all the same reasons the article Hispanics and Politics (vfd) will stay on Wikipedia.-- JuanMuslim 1m 01:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Your main reason for keeping Hispanics and Politics (which by the way should have been deleted and is likely to be relisted in the near future) was "the article is basically a cut and paste work off the main article on Hispanics". I find it hard to comprehend why would redundancy serve as a reason for keeping an article. How come you consider that such odd justifications for keeping the hispanic politics article should apply here? The reasons provided for deletion between the two do not even entirely conform.-- Hús ö nd 02:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Michael Binetti

He likes to ride the bus? Not a good reason for a page. Wolfchild 05:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete without prejudice against recreation if he wins. Bearcat 05:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete, candidates for a city council with no other assertion of notability don't need pages. If he wins, maybe this can be recreated, but he fails notability as of now. Picaroon9288 22:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Congestion control/Rewrite

subpage in main space Disallowed uses; few or no links; article exists in Main -- Ling.Nut 05:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - neglected draft. MER-C 05:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I wish we could userfy but it's not clear who to userfy to. If the author doesn't step forward, delete. Alba 16:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I would suggest moving it to the talkspace, but this draft is indeed neglected, with no meaningful expansion since October 2005. That's a shame because the main article definetly could use work, but if no one's gonna work on this, there's really no point in having a rewrite subpage.-- danntm T C 22:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Why not ask Mozzerati, the last nonanonymous contributor, if moving it to his/her talkspace is OK? Michael Kinyon 16:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Kevin Richardson (politician)

This is just an ad for an otherwise unknown political candidate Wolfchild 05:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete without prejudice against recreation if he should win. Bearcat 05:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete If he wins, put it back. - Richfife 07:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete If he wins and does something significant, put it back. - Teanth 19:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete Add external link on main election page like other candidates. Delete this page. - merlinds33 09:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Mr. Lefty ( talk) 16:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

List of changes in edited albums

It would be pretty much impossible to get this list anywhere close to complete. Otherwise this seems like an indiscriminate collection of information to me, not particularly encyclopedic. GrahameS 05:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 05:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Far too broad a topic, could carry into thousands of examples. Might also violate WP:NOR. This information is better placed in the articles on the individual albums. A good article on the editing of albums is possible, covering the topic and using a few notable examples (i.e. the 2 Live Crew situation). 23skidoo 06:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment - If you mean what I think you mean, we already have this at Clean version and Radio edit. GrahameS 06:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per above, this info should be organized per album in the articles for each album, not in one big lump. If necessary, a category of "Albums that have been edited" could be created so people could browse. - Richfife 07:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 22:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to the individual albums. -- kingboyk 23:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge because a flat-out deletion of all of this information seems a bit harsh. (NOTE: I did contribute to this article, but only slightly.) Sir Lemming 16:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to individual albums, because this is indeed too broad of a topic now that I think about it. I can't imagine how huge this page would get if it were anywhere close to comprehensive. This stuff is better suited for footnotes on individual album or artist entires, in my opinion. Busta Uppa 17:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep because this is a current event and is definitely notable. (Page has been properly renamed.) If it dies down in a few weeks, anyone can feel free to merge it back into Mark Foley with consensus. Ashi b aka tock 17:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Congressional page sex scandal (2006)

There is no reason to believe that any congressmen/women, other than Mark Foley, was involved, and the topic is already adequately covered in that article. Delete. (If kept, because no actual sexual conduct is alleged to have occurred between Foley and the pages, rename to something like "Congressional page explicit messages scandal." -- Nlu ( talk) 05:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy keep The associated press, as noted in the article, quotes three top Republican leaders who knew about Foley's actions in 2005. [3] Arbusto 05:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Roll Call reports "at least" 4 Republican leaders, and it was purposely withheld from Democrats. [4] Meanwhile Congress has approved an investigation. Also the article has only been up for two hours. Arbusto 05:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Given the number of confirmations and what will almost certainly be a media frenzy, there's no reason to think that this won't go beyond Mark Foley. Heck, even if it eventually turned out that no one knew about it (which has been pretty well disproven) it's still going to affect other members of Congress. - Senori 06:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)i> reply
  • STRONG Keep: With the new information that top Republicans knew and ignored/covered up this event, this is the single most important American political story since Clinton's impeachment. Preston 06:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: This isn't going away, its newsworthy, and important. Vertigo700 06:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per Arbusto, this seems to warrant its own article. Nlu's suggestion of a name change might be worth considering. I'm p r e t t y sure this isn't "the single most important American political story since Clinton's impeachment." though. -- IslaySolomon 07:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Maybe rename to "Congressional page scandal (2006)". -- Arbusto 07:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. A political event with major and mainstream media coverage, and which has led to the resignation of a member of congress and a major stir in the 2006 midterm house election. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, qualifies as speedy keep. This is explosive. I think "sex scandal" is fine as most people agree that cybersex is, well, sex. (It's all in your head, right?) Sorry I moved it during the AFD. -- Dhartung | Talk 11:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • <rolls eyes> Delete. One (1) congressman having trouble keeping it in his pants (virtually, at least) does not a full-blown sex scandal make. Put those lurid details into Mark Foley, and don't bother calling it a (general) sex scandal until it draws in others or until someone uncovers the Jeff Gannon/Mark Foley/<Insert politician's name here> orgy pix. -- Calton | Talk 12:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep you have freaking got to be kidding me, AFD'ing this. There's probably not a paper on the planet that isn't covering this. A separate article is required since the news coverage is much broader than Foley; it's focusing on the leadership response. Think Catholic bishops. Change "sex" to "sexual harassment" though, unless he actually .... Derex 12:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Rename or delete. Wikipedia articles should exist under a title that the average user would be reasonably expected to search for. Nobody is going to come here and run a search on "2006 Congressional page sex scandal" or anything along those lines. At the very least, this title is a WP:NOT violation; Wikipedia is a not a crystal ball, and as of this point there's no evidence anyone is going to be taken down by this besides Mark Foley. -- Aaron 13:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • STRONG Keep. I have to wonder why this was even nominated. I can see the argument for re-naming, however, although since sex was clearly discussed, it is sexual in nature. Moncrief 15:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable event. -- CFIF ☎ ⋐ 15:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep for every reason mentioned above. -- tomf688 ( talk - email) 16:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep, consider renaming: since the name seems to be the only actual point of contention. There is no question of this being notable and verifiable. I would be concerned about partisan attempts to keep this under Mark Foley and thus avoid potential political damage to the Republican House leadership, but the WikiFairy reminds me to assume good faith. At any rate, there's no way this qualifies for outright deletion. Alba 16:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Calton. Wikipedia is not (no. 6) for breaking news. Pan Dan 16:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted (in effect) by reversion to the original disambiguation page. Zetawoof( ζ) 10:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Progeny

Completely nonnotable band, having an album "slated for release" and a tour not confirmed yet isn't good enough. Bordering on speedy. GrahameS 06:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating article on their bass player.
  • Speedy Delete Both Progeny as " an article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)" and Keven Hammonds-McArthur as "an article about a person that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)". It's also crystal balling (their first album is yet to be released), a vanity page and they fail WP:BAND. Also Delete Progeny Discography, which seems to be something of a contradiction in terms and invites readers to visit their myspace "to listen to some of the tracks". Wikipedia is not a web host. -- IslaySolomon 06:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete the bass player. I just reverted progeny to its previous state as a disambig page. Opabinia regalis 06:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete the bass player. Speedy close as to Progeny because the nomination is moot. Tagged as such. MER-C 07:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Sun - Moon Spear Blade

Article about a single weapon of a single character in a video game, article was repeatedly tagged for speedy due to lack on context earlier but creator kept removing it and added the context, though this context is not notable at all. –– Lid( Talk) 06:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, no evidence that this a real weapon. Editor continues to remove the AfD tag & has been warned repeatedly. ~ trialsanderrors 06:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and trials. -- Kicking222 14:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete wow. Danny Lilithborne 22:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, only claim to any notability is that it is used by a Mortal Kombat character, which isn't much anyhow. Looking at the article, I still can't decide if it's an entirely fictitious weapon or not and whether it's a polearm or a sword. WP:NN and WP:V. QuagmireDog 12:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as recreated content. Page protected. Nandesuka 15:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Speed Demon Community

This is a vanity (and orphaned) article. Its sole purpose appears to be an excuse to provide an external link on Wikipedia to the SDC discussion forum. It has also been deleted five times previously, and the song remains the same. — Twisted86 - Talk - at 06:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Very low google hits [5] [6]. Alexa ranking of 388,969 [7]. Fails WP:WEB. -- IslaySolomon 06:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per IslaySolomon. master2841( User | Talk) 06:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as repost. Tagged as such. MER-C 06:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - could the deleting admin salt this page? Thanks. MER-C 07:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete rewritten stub. W.marsh 13:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The Art of Reasoning

This is basically a table of contents for a current textbook. Probably falls under the category of Wikipedia is not a dump for indiscriminate knowledge? Nothing in here I probably couldn't get off of Amazon, and doesn't seem notable. MPW 07:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete as copyvio. Tagged as such. MER-C 07:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Speedy delete A8 does not apply after 48 hours. Removing. ColourBurst 07:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep, noted book by a noted author from a non-vanity press. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 11:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (not speedy) as copyvio. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete without predjudice. The article is copyvio and can't be kept in its present form. No editor has seen fit to clean it up during the AfD. It should be deleted but I am happy for it to be recreated, per Bdj's arguments, with encyclopaedic, 'clean' material. BlueValour 22:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Stubbed. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 23:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply
      • The problem now is that there is way too insufficient material for a separate article; the two external links can be added to the suthor's article. I do not believe in splintering information across a series of small articles; it is inefficient both for the editors and readers. Articles should grow organically then split when required. In the case of this book it should only be split out from the author's article when the material on it starts to overbalance the host article. BlueValour 02:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and maybe redirect title to author David Kelley page. Searching Google, I couldn't find any info on the book alone that would merit its own article. Also looking at Wikipedia, I didn't see any similar type articles on a text book for comparison. Agne 06:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Ci&T

This is an advert, written by the subjects, who have aleady removes one prod tag. All the links go their own sites. WP:notability says:"Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service." Chris 07:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete all. W.marsh 13:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Famous Telugu Brahmins

Reminder: New Comments go at the bottom, and sign your message by ending it with four tilde characters: ~~~~.

This list is not an encyclopedia article, and is contextless, as it has no criteria for inclusion - it's just a list of names, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There may be a problem with POV, as well. The article is more than likely beyond cleanup, as it's fundamentally the same as Famous Kapus. Core des at talk! 07:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • PLEASE Delete List of Famous Kammas, Rajus and Brahmins These articles actually list famous people in each caste among people of Indian (Asian) origin who speak Telugu... Think a list which lists famous Telugu people makes sense rather then break them down by CASTE which means nothing outside that state... Not really informational and given the nature of Wikipedia can be manipulated to include anyone deemed important by a reader... There was another page listing Famous Kapus which is essentially another caste that was recently deleted... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.43.35 ( talk)
  • Do not delete List of Famous Kammas This article provides wealth of information about Kammas who achieved something in Life. Do not delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.165.151.178 ( talk)
  • Famous Telugu Brahmins should not be deleted When one can have a article listing the names of all nobel laureates, names of presidents of united states of america, etc etc... why cant one have a article which lists the names of all famous telugu brahmins, who have excelled in their respective fields, in my opinion wikipedia should include all such articles which are informatory(though the information may be useful only for few people), this article might be a valuble resource for some one who is keen about knowing more about his community and people who made the community proud.
    • in my opinion wikipedia should include all such articles which are informatory

      Did you miss the people above you pointing out that Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate list of information? NeoChaosX [ talk | contribs 18:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

    • The inclusion criteria for lists of nobel laureates and presidents of the United States are not fame. They are being a nobel laureate and being the President of the United States, respectively. Wikipedia is not a forum for caste-vanity. It is an encyclopaedia, and it is neutral. A list of people must have some objective, neutral, criterion for its contents. Uncle G 11:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all, Personally I can't see how this can ever be NPOV, famous in this case is far too subjective. It has plenty of WP:OR throughout and this is a model example for Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.-- Nilfanion ( talk) 18:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment - If they dont have a wikilink, they should be removed. Bakaman Bakatalk 23:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC). reply

Do not delete List of Famous Kammas The article is a valuable source of information about many Kamma persons, achievers, intellectuals etc. As long as there is no expression of animosity towards others, it is OK to reatin the article. It may need minor changes such as deletion of "not so famous" people.

  • Keep List of Famous Kammas I agree it needs some cleanup. Other than that, it's pretty well done.-- Milki 21:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: AFD header was removed from primary nominated article by User:Lookuman at 14:03 (UTC) 3 October. I have just now restored it. GRBerry 02:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all as lists with no criteria for inclusion that constitute original research. Adequate criteria for inclusion and clear citations could salvage some of these under WP:LISTS, primarily as a development list, but none of these merit keeping. In their current form, Categories are superior. GRBerry 02:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Deletion List' If Pages like Kamma and Bramhins have been nominated for deletion then i guess this also should be nominated for Deletion why was this left out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Famous_Reddys — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.70.235 ( talk • contribs)

  • Please Do not Delete List Of Famous Kammas When we are discussing about a particular caste from a particular state or region, whats wrong with listing the prominent or well known people belonging to that caste? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.86 ( talk)
    • Please be careful editing. You accidentally deleted the header of this discussion. Also, new comments should always go at the bottom or at the bottom of sub-thread if threaded, not at the top. GRBerry 03:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • DO NOT DELETE THE LIST OF FAMOUS BRAHMINS I do not find any reason as to why wikipedia should delete the list of famous brahmins, the page is informative and none of such kind exists any where else, this is the only platform where people can contribute and the list containing the names of famous brahmins can be updated, in case it is decided to delete this page then pages containing the list of american presidents, list containing the names of nobel prize winners, etc. should also be deleted. I put forth the above argument not just for the sake of argument but to indicate that when such lists exist why cant this list be allowed??? Lookuman 20:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookuman ( talk • contribs) reply
    Note: This is user's third edit. utcursch | talk 07:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Please Delete The Lists Of All Castes These pages are dedicated for various castes in india who are trying use wikipedia as a medium to publicize their achievements and a very bad caste momentum in India. I think wikipedia is being totally screwed up with these bloody articles from India. I pity wikipedia.
  • Delete all per nominator, although the same information might work well as a category. Seems like there's sockpuppets on both sides of this one, and I hope they're realise they're only hurting their viewpoint, rather than helping it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral at this point but bordering on a Weak Delete. I would be curious as to the views of our Indian Wikipedians on this one. Looking at these lists, I don't recognize any of the names but that is just a reflection of my own systematic bias. The few names with Wiki-links are generally informative and the benefit of a list is that encourage articles to be created for other members of the list. At the same time, the concept of a "Famous [caste members]" seems daunting and unmanagable. While there is obviously not a comparison to a US caste, but I can't really imagine seeing an article like Famous Middle-Class Americians or Famous Rednecks on Wikipedia either. I am also concern with the lack of sources for all the articles to verify what makes them "famous". Agne 06:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Plus, there's also lack of sources for what makes them Telugu Brahmins. utcursch | talk 07:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge. If someone feels the redirect isn't useful, just delete it, the list was split from the main article in the first place. - Bobet 09:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply

List of Verticordia Species

Was nominated for speedy deletion, but the content may hold some value if deemed appropriate. Bringing here instead. No vote from myself. -- Longhair\ talk 07:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • The content clearly belongs in Verticordia, where there is more than enough room for it. Uncle G 11:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD:A7 Gwernol 13:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

ForumDigger

Failure of WP:WEB Mike 07:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Tiny web directory; no claim of notability, and no current Alexa ranking. Zetawoof( ζ) 10:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete failure of WP:WEB. Hello32020 11:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete under the newly expanded CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 12:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 13:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Youmail

Spam for a non notable product offered by a non notable company Nuttah68 08:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Why is this even at AFD? MER-C 08:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - presume the nomintator brought it here because the advert tag was regularly removed by the creator and an anon - it was never proded, but I think it would have been removed just a quickly.-- Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 12:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I mean, why does spam like this have to go through a five day deletion debate? MER-C 13:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete - as a failure to meet the product criteria in WP:CORP and does not cite reliable sources.-- Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 12:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Do Not Delete - Maybe the article just needs to be updated? I know that it's owned by a company out of New Zealand called Zeacom, that's been around for more than a decade - they're in like 20 countries. I'm using it and it's very much a reliable product/company... regarding reliable sources, they were just in the New Zealand Herald last Monday. Not sure who these people are who are bashing the article - perhaps they could do some research and update the article?! I'm new to wikis but starting to contribute on subjects that are close to me. As a user, I think this should stay. posted by: Kelly, kellyeboyle@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.140.162 ( talk • contribs)

Do Not Delete - Yes, I posted this article and I don't think it should be deleted. Zeacom (whole owner of Youmail) is absolutely a notable firm - in existence 11 years, with 2000 business running this software and more than 60,000 end users in 21 countries, offices in Irvine California, Atlanta Georgia, Auckland New Zealand, Sydney and Melbourne Australia and Brighton, UK. If I've made a mistake of some sort in my posting, please help me correct it but please don't delete it. This is NOT an advertisement, nor is it intended to be. It is merely a statement of fact. And if I do say so, when reading there is no use of persuasiveness or selling at all. There isn't even a reference to the site! Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Brickley.

Delete Reads like an advertisement, no quotes from reliable sources, lacks notability. I think this qualifies for speedy delete under WP:CSD G11. If it becomes a substantial company, and they have a better article, they could resubmit later. EdJohnston 04:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Katie Shanahan

A biographical article about a non-notable person. There's just enough assertion of notability to make it not really a db-bio CSD. (Dull procedural note: for some odd reason, this article was created with the name "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Shanahan", from which I've moved it into the article namespace; voters who cast similarly recursive votes will receive extra credit.) Finlay McWalter | Talk 08:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as Vanity "She also goes by her online handle Kt Shy," And low and behold the user who created the article is Ktshy. I'd also be okay with Userfy as well.EnsRedShirt 10:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment one other thing the only edits that Ktshy has done are on this article, which was created in April..EnsRedShirt 10:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete without userfication; the user isn't active on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not a web host. The only claims of notability are some sort of involvement with a few minor kids' cartoons, which don't appear to be important enough to show up on searches of Google and IMDB, and a small webcomic. This doesn't really add up to much, I'm afraid. Zetawoof( ζ) 10:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:VANITY and WP:NOT as said above. Hello32020 11:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete vain vanity in vain. Danny Lilithborne 22:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel . Bryant 04:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Cornwall Apartments

Contested prod about a non-notable building. MER-C 09:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • A national landmark seems fairly significant to me, and it should be verifiable, so this is definitely information we ought to keep around. It's just a little short right now, so maybe its own article isn't the best place for it. Either keep or merge with Denver, Colorado. JYolkowski // talk 13:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep if there's a policy on keeping National Historica Landmarks, though I'm concerned that the article is a copyvio of [8] (One out of two sentences is an exact copy). FrozenPurpleCube 14:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I've rewritten those sentences to remove any possible copyvio material. JYolkowski // talk 15:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
      • This is an historic and beloved building in Denver. Either keep or merge with Denver, Colorado.
  • Speedy Keep. This should not have been here in the first place. Vegaswikian 02:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy redirect to National Capital Marathon. Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

National Captial Marathon

Incorrect spelling of title NorthernThunder 11:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Speedy deletion enochlau ( talk) 15:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Tfc Robert Gavell

This page is incomprehensible, has no context, no sources or references. What is it about? Standards of grammar also very poor, so could be improved, but still would not make the article meaningful. Emeraude 10:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy Delete per a7—"May be considered by some as an American Hero" is not an assertion of notability, nor is being a police officer. Tagged as such.-- Fuhghettaboutit 13:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. kingboyk 12:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The Best Of Spice Girls

This page is pure spam. There is no announcement of a best of. No confirmation that the album will be or has been released in Europe. The release dates stated in the article are completely made up. The list of producers includes names - such as R. Kelly - that the group have never worked with, and the tracklisting is completely made up. Pure vandalism from start to finish. The user that created the article has no sources at all. The article has no merit whatsoever. Rimmers 11:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I speedied this a while ago at The Best of the Spice Girls, so a speedy again would be preferred. That is unless someone can prove this thing exists. — Xezbeth 11:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    • They cant prove it exists - because its a completely made up article lol. Ive just checked the users talk page, it seems he/she likes to make up stuff and vandalise Wiki...the user is Js2Jo Rimmers 11:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per aboce. MER-C 12:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 13:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Turntable Timmy

Nonnotable book/cartoon project NawlinWiki 12:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete. W.marsh 15:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Remembrall Live

Podcast. Non-notable. Felix Felicis 12:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete under the newly expanded CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 12:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

List of record producers

This really isn't a sensible topic for a list. There's just too many for it to be complete and a manageable size, and most readers I suspect won't want to read line after line of "person x produced albums by x y and z". Categories and a search engine are far more effective for readers. kingboyk 12:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Speedy deleted by W.marsh ( talk · contribs). Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Joseph C. Green

Vanity. Does not meet WP:V or WP:MUSIC. - Nv8200p talk 12:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete - rumors of having an album in 2007 is not an assertion of notability. Tagged as such. MER-C 12:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

DeveLinux

Non-notable Linux distro. Contested prod. MER-C 12:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete there's a plethora of minor linux distros at List_of_Linux_distributions, many of which have articles, but some of which probably don't deserve them. Still, what's worst about this page is it's clearly a copy and paste job from the website. FrozenPurpleCube 17:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and, of course, delink at List of Linux distributions. If this isn't going to be anything but a copy of the webpage, then the webpage link in the list's entry is sufficient. (Incidentally, the prod contester, who added more copy-and-paste from the website, has been indef blocked for vandalism.) Michael Kinyon 09:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and/or no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

College-Ready Math-Science School

Articles about schools that fail to assert the notability of the subject. All are contested prods. Also nominated are Bosworth Commuity College and Clapham School. MER-C 12:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Strong keep the nominator was warned about prodding schools. NormR 12:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
User just got blocked for vandalism. MER-C 13:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, the articles should be verifiable and this this is a very unhelpful grouping of articles for deletion (a community college in England and an elementary school in America?). JYolkowski // talk 13:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. These schools are notable. -- TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 17:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Schools are generally not notable. Cedars 00:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This is an odd grouping, but I'd say strong delete on the header article (regardless of your position on school articles, how can one be notable when it doesn't even exist yet?), and delete on the others due to lack of notability. Opabinia regalis 01:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Correction: it's just the building that doesn't exist yet. Still not a notable school. Opabinia regalis 00:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete All as insufficiently notable and lacking credible, third-party sources as required by WP:V. I agree these probably should have been nominated separately, however. -- Satori Son 04:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, schools assert notability, and some cleanup is needed. -- Ter e nce Ong ( T | C) 07:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This may be a sad example of how people don't bother actually reading the articles under question. As Opabinia notes, this school doesn't exist yet. Hence, WP:NOT, viz. crystal ball. nn per the lengthy debate that remains unresolved at WP:SCHOOL. (vote amended) Eusebeus 09:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Nominating these schools together makes no sense at all since they don't seem to have anything in common. Despite the confusion of some of the delete voters, the schools do exist and the school year has started - hence if that is the basis of discussion there is nothing to debate. Needs expansion and more references. -- JJay 16:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Bosworth Commuity College and delete the other two. Arbusto 23:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep/Rename Bosworth Commuity College. The other two can be merged into their local community page(s). — RJH ( talk) 15:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep them all -- these have little to do with each other; a community college, a private school, and a charter school? Why not nominate apples and oranges while we're at it. Silensor 20:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, redo AfD with seperate listings, there clearly will be no consensus for this ackward set of articles. -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Mass nominations are pointless and unhelpful in achieving consensus. RFerreira 22:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and remember mass noms are in poor taste and generally blow up in your face.   ALKIVAR ™ 02:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Just wanted to say that grouped nominations are often appropriate (and NOT in "poor taste") when the subjects in question clearly all have the same level of notability (eg. Starcraft units, albums by a particular artist, etc. - would YOU want to nominate every character in non-notable arbitrary webcomic for deletion separately?). These probably shouldn't have been grouped together as clearly some schools can be notable and others may not even pass WP:V. Wickethewok 15:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all per Silensor and Alkivar. Though Wickethewok is correct that mass nominations can be appropriate in some situations ("often" is debatable), they are not appropriate in the case of schools. -- Myles Long 16:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all, minding that the three of these schools are unrelated. Bahn Mi 00:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Bosworth Commuity College and Delete the other two per Arbusto. Are keep votes because of a mass nomination really valid? Vegaswikian 02:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Alumni House

Student residence with no claim to fame - Nv8200p talk 13:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Don't Delete. This is a useful source for the history of a campus building at UWO. Many other residences at UWO are on wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.168.41 ( talk • contribs)
  • Comment. The fact that other articles are potential candidates for deletion does not mean this one should stay up. Dormitories need to have very long histories to be considered notable. Besides, there's only 1 cite, and it's not even referenced. Delete. What are the other residences for UWO, by the way? ColourBurst 18:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Dormitories are not inherently notable and are often bad article ideas. No claim that this alumni house listed on a Historic Register, and no sources showing media coverage, etc., that might provide other bases for importance. Possibly some material could be merged into University of Western Ontario.-- Fuhghettaboutit 14:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Seems to me that requirement of being in a Historic Register are biased towards U.S. establishments (UWO is a university in Canada). I believe there's an equivalent for Canadian sites, but I can't find it right now. ColourBurst 18:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above.-- Hús ö nd 23:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Cedars 01:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Incredibly non notable. IrishGuy talk 03:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fl owerparty☀ 23:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Nadege hottier

Does not meet WP:BIO - Nv8200p talk 13:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Completely unsourced. MER-C 13:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

HQ9+

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 13:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Keep. Non-notable joke language. After some more googling I have become convinced that the language is indeed notable. — Tobias Bergemann 17:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC) 13:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Probably the most notable joke esolang; the notability is precisely because it was a joke. This was kept in the overturned AfD (unlike most of the languages which were deleted). -- ais523 14:33, 2 October 2006 ( U T C)
  • Keep as for ais523. -- Cyclopia 23:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Obfuscated Weird Language

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 13:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Article not expanded, so delete votes carried. (aeropagitica) 23:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

P programming language

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 13:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 09:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply

ZT (programming language)

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 13:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete all except: The PayPal Wars, Eric M. Jackson, The Stanford Review, Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine, and Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under my Bed. The result for these articles is no consensus, suggest re-nomination of those individually to obtain clearer consensus on those specific articles. Petros471 15:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

World Ahead Publishing

Non-notable. Lead article of a walled garden of spamvertisement articles created and then abandoned by the IP address 64.81.83.193 in August 2005, who has never been back to Wikipedia since [9]. Most of the cites in the article are misleading attempts to assert notability. Suggest deletion of this article and all related articles in the walled garden which I'm about to list below. Aaron 14:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: Per badlydrawnjeff's comments below, I'd like to make clear that I am asserting all of the articles below also fail notability on their own terms, above and beyond the walled garden/spamvertisement problem. (I will provide details for any individual article upon request.) This is the entire problem of why walled gardens are bad for Wikipedia: It allows people to mistakenly fall into circular reasoning traps when it comes to AfDs (e.g. "Keep Candice E. Jackson, she's notable!" "For what?" "For writing Their Lives!" "But why is Their Lives notable?" Because it was written by Candice E. Jackson, and she's got an article!"). (Please note I'm not accusing badlydrawnjeff of circular reasoning; I consider his vote 100% legit. It was just his comments that led me to think I didn't make a clear enough nominating statement.) -- Aaron 16:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • That's fine, and I want to assert that I didn't think your comments were directed at me before I read your last note. I do think many (most?) of these meet our standards, but some do not. Just like I wouldn't want to see the obvious ones (These Lives, Help! Mom!) deleted because some of the minor ones might not meet it, the minor ones shouldn't just be kept because of the high notability of two of them. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 16:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Also nominating for deletion, none of which are notable and seem to exist only to reinforce the false notability of the original article:
Candice_E._Jackson
Eric M. Jackson (third nomination)
Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine (second nomination)
Thank You, President Bush
Norman Book
The Stanford Review
Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under my Bed
Katherine Debrecht
The PayPal Wars

-- Aaron 14:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Agreed. Delete the lot. Emeraude 21:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: And here come the SPAs, right on schedule. -- Aaron 23:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I personally know that many of these articles are legitimate, and include information worth keeping on Wikipedia. Please don't delete! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.118.223 ( talk • contribs) 13:52, October 1, 2006

— 128.12.118.223 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

These articles chronicle important issues in our current society. Any decision to delete would not be in keeping with the first Amendment of the constitution. There are many articles that relate to a seemingly small subject, but these articles are rightly retained by Wikipedia for the purpose of making that information known to the public. Do not delete!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadna13 ( talk • contribs) 19:18, October 1, 2006)

— Kadna13 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep all for now. The publisher is certainly notable, due to the books on this list - specifically "Help, Mom!" and "The Paypal Wars." However, a discussion could be useful on some of the other articles. As they're all related to the publisher, keep all for the time being. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 11:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • To expand a bit, "Help, Mom!," "The Paypal Wars" and "These Lives" have all recieved noteworthy independent media coverage. Their authors, therefore, would also be worthy. I'm not sure if the rest of the list falls in, but I again suggest individual AfDs for the few that may be questionable. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 12:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the lot per nom. I think this publisher may become notable in the future, but not quite now. At this point it looks like a moderate presence in a niche market. At best, I think all the articles should be merged into one. - Kubigula ( ave) 14:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I said delete before and Kadna13's comment above confirms me in this. I'm not American, but I do know the First Amendment and that it starts with the words "Congress shall not...". Wikipedia is not Congress, so delete away. Emeraude 17:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The Stanford Review is the second most-often published student publication from the Stanford Undergraduate Student Body. There are Wikipedia pages for the Dartmouth Review, the Cal Patriot, The Harvard Salient, and other such publications that are produced by undergraduates around the country just like The Review. None of them should be marked for deletion, and neither should the Review. And as for me being an SPA, I'm sorry but I am a new member of the group and as a college student don't currently have time to edit a lot of articles. I plan to do so in the future. Please Do not delete the Stanford Review from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.118.219 ( talk • contribs) 14:26, October 2, 2006

— Possible single purpose account: 128.12.118.219 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

  • Delete all except Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under my Bed, which has some small notoriety -- mostly for its amusement value -- as per nom, who has my thanks for finishing a process I intended to start months ago. -- Calton | Talk 01:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete please -- extremely non-notable. BuckRose 04:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all. The publisher is notable both for its books and for the fact it is the publisher of WND Books; it is therefore a significant company in an important part of the publishing industry. The books themselves are notable titles about important social and political issues, and they have all been highly visible in the media and the marketplace. The indvidual Wiki articles are extensively referenced using multiple independent media sources -- including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Publishers Weekly, NewsMax, US News & World Report, Forbes, Washington Post, etc. If highly visible books about controversial topics do not belong on Wikipedia, it raises the disconcerting question as to whether we need to start deleting Wiki entries for books like King & King, Rainbow Fish, Bush's Brain, The Boy Who Cried Fabulous, and State of Denial, too. If it is a book that received media coverage, sparked debate, and facilitated the exchange of ideas, it shouldn't be censored regardless of its political point of view. -- Turkey2020 22:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC) — Turkey2020 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Comment: 1) One look at my user page should be enough evidence that political motivations had nothing to do with my nominations. I nominated them because they're a Walled garden of vanispamcruft. 2) At least half of the "extensive references" in these articles were added by - surprise! - Turkey2020 in the last 48 hours, after my nomination [10], and most of the rest, which were unpersuasive, were added by him earlier because, well: 3) Turkey2020 is an SPA. Except for his very first edit - a keep vote on a long-settled AfD - he has never made a single edit to Wikipedia that isn't to one of the articles that are the subject of this AfD. 4) His "deleting X means we must also delete Y" argument is, of course, fallacious and is listed as a classic "argument to avoid" at WP:ILIKEIT/"What about article X?". 5) I will AGF and simply note that his comment about WND Books is misleading; the publisher has signed some sort of deal to take over that imprint in 2007, but as for now it's part of another company. And WND Books doesn't even have its own article, just a paragraph inside WorldNetDaily. -- Aaron 22:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: 1) Aaron seems to imply that entries he nominates for deletion shouldn't have references or additional information added in an attempt to improve them. 2) When it is pointed out that the articles he wants to delete have long lists of sources (including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Publishers Weekly, NewsMax, US News & World Report, Forbes, Washington Post, etc. etc.) which contradict his non-notable claim, Aaron does not defend his original hypothesis but instead dismissively uses "extensive references" in quotes as if that means the references can therefore be ignored. 3) Aaron calls into question the credibility of who makes edits but not the edits themselves. 4) Aaron ignores valid attempts at benchmarking other articles. 5) Aaron claims my point about WND Books is "misleading" for some reason because the books do not hit store shelves for a couple of months; such reasoning is convoluted, and the fact that the publisher won the contract ipso facto further contradicts Aaron's claim of non-notability. Conclusion: None of the points Aaron makes demonstrate the claim on non-notability; this claim is contradicted by numerous verifiable references to independent media sources. -- Turkey2020 00:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Other than one point, I will let Turkey2020's actions, edit record and statements speak for themselves: The generally accepted standard for good faith editing of articles in AfD is to simply make the edits and then come to the AfD and post a note to the effect of, "I've made an attempt to improve this article/these articles, and I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at them now and see if they're any better before making a vote. Thanks." (Or, alternatively, to do the reverse: Post that you intend to edit and then carry out those edits and come back to let the AfD participants know that you're done.) Instead, T2020 made the edits quietly and then came in here to post a "keep all" vote using his comments to imply that all the articles were already in the state they're in now (not that his changes have done anything to address the concerns I raised in the nomination; IMHO some of them have been made worse), and that my nom was thus making fraudulent claims. Are those the actions of a good faith editor? You make the call. -- Aaron 00:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all except Paypal Wars. Apparently it won some award. If the award does not create notability (not all awards do), delete Paypal Wars as well. It is worth noting that these articles are related to the Rod D. Martin and TheVanguard.Org articles, which were total vanispamcruft. Also I am agnostic on the question of the Stanford Review, which is after all a legit publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.9.65 ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep it but at some conditions like more developpement to the entry and adding the neutrality of this article is disputed and I'm agree with Turkey2020 on one point, if we have an entry about Bush's Brain, why not for Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under my Bed? And to my eyes, this book critic more the current "Social liberals" then the "classic liberals" or "economic liberals" or libertarians. -- Sd-100 October 5 2006, 19:25 Eastern time zone
  • Comment as regards World Ahead Publishing, I suggest that WP:CORP should provide a pretty good basis for a decision. Greenshed 21:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all except Paypal Wars (and by extension Eric Jackson) per 68.51.9.65, as EJ/PP Wars appears to satisfy WP:BIO. Although contemplated keep on Thank you President Bush due to its lineup of contributors, its appears to be purely destined for partisan causes and almost certainly Vanity for Dubya. Its very low Amazon rank (in the 494 thousandsths) is telling me this is obviously a red card. The political parties are skilled at setting up front organisations to channel campaign finance, and it appears it would come as no surprise that they are all helping each other here to get their causes noticed. For Stanford Review, I vote mergeto Stanford University unless/until its notability independent of the University can be proven. Ohconfucius 06:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Articles can be rewritten in whole or in part in a Sandbox, not the article space. (aeropagitica) 23:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Gothic Metal/Rewrite

subpage in main space ( Disallowed uses, article exists in Main. I tried to decipher what what going on in Talk:Gothic metal. Technically I should have put Merge tags on it, but let's be realistic. Frankly, I think this relatively large subpage will sit in Main space forever, unmerged, because there is no clear sense of direction for merging. Delete or userfy ASAP, as it is gathering edits. -- Ling.Nut 13:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination by now-blocked user. Duja 07:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Mirko Norac

This article is about an insignificant military person known to outer world only through the crime he commited. Not a single encyclopaedia, military journal, mainstream media, military institution, or historian ever expressed any interest in him. The article is written along with the ruling nationalist agenda aimed to relativize the crime he commited.

All his military 'achievemnts' are recognized by the people who were directly responsible for the crimes against civilians (Janko Bobetko, Franjo Tudjman). Actually, this man (Norac) is uneducated and primitive person - a hero of the people who are at the same mental hevel as him. I hardly could imagine any interest of an avereage educated reader of Wikipedia - in that man.

All together - following the same reason - we could have entries about a bunch of people praised for the crime they commited in the Burundi, Iraq, or Afganistan wars. Credibility and dignity of Wikipedia shall be ultimately protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mario.radin ( talk • contribs)

  • Keep - notability established: first general of the Croatian Army to be found guilty of war crimes by a Croatian court; also note that the user who proposed AfD did it only after he vandalised the page several times -- User:Dijxtra 14:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Your nomination seems to amount to a claim he's not notable, and you claim "mainstream media" hasn't expressed any interest in him. Yet the New York Times [11] have, as have L'Humanité [12], Der Tagesspiegel [13], and the BBC [14], all mainstream media. Apart from that you claim the subject is "primitive" and the article biased - these aren't grounds for deletion. So keep. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Please avoid giving false references as yo did here!!!!-- Velebit 00:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The fact that Wikipedia is suppose to be unique is the main reason the article should be kept. Why delete anything as long as the article follows the rules for submission. I agree with Finlay McWalter in-part too in that if anyone thinks the article's relativizing, praising, primitive or biased they should change it.
I agree with User:Dijxtra. Do you want to be manipulated by vandalizer? As for Unsigned's comments, in all due respect, you speak of poor education on the part of the contributor, but your text sating, "...and primitive person" maybe should read, "...and a primitive person" and "...the same mental hevel" maybe should read, "...the same mental level." Perhaps it was accidental. If it's correct or acceptable English I apologize.
As about the vandalizer - the very author of this article about Norac twice vandalized my contribution to the Talk page. Bad thing for Wikipedia is that the User:Dijxtra is an administrator.-- Velebit 00:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
That's what we're suppose to be here for though. We're not suppose to censor people. Don't delete it. If anything change it. But definitely keep it. DavidWJohnson 16:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep High-ranking convicted war criminals are encyclopedically notable. The article could use some cleanup however (e.g. weasel words problems, some poor English) Bwithh 17:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep notable and informaive. `' mikka (t) 19:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete The article follow strict and primitive nationalistic agenda aimed to whitewash the image a petty war criminal. As it mentioned before, if we allow this article here the integrity and credibility of Wikipedia will be gravely compromised. High-ranked by the men who are war criminals too-- Velebit 00:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete It is funny thing to even read this article. Telling people about youngest ever colonel of Croatian Army and not telling the fact that the Croatian president Tudjman - and his superior in some way - was a man despised by the world leaders (nobody attended his funeral) and considered as a war criminal too - is a fraud! It is fraud not to tell that Norac's superior and commander-in-chief Janko Bobetko was an indicted war criminal who avoided the ICTY dying before getting chance to be handed over to the ICTY. To put it differently - what is the real value of this rapid advancement of a half-literete man in the ranks of some army??? It is fraud to say that he was duke of Sinjska alka and not to tell that the Zagreb diplomatic corps publicly annonced their disgust by the fact that this (Norac) man was honoured that way and refused to participate in this commemorative and solemn event. I am asking all those writing Keep why they did it so?
    • Why don't you edit the article, then? `' mikka (t) 18:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Bwithh, Finlay McWalter. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. 38K+ GHits and deals with an important event. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 13:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep per all above. It will need heavy copyediting, however, among other things. UberCryxic 15:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete Utter garbage and heavy bias-- Perkovic Ante 17:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep POV-problems can be fixed. The most important point is that this man is notable enough. — Khoi khoi 18:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Enough of the Anglo-centric worldview. Just because some hicks in the US haven't heard of this bastard doesn't mean he's not notable. -- estavisti 08:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete The article is still a garbage. A bastard is a bastard - not a notable!!! Not a single serious encyclopaedia has a Norac entry!!! Please, do not degrade Wikipedia!!!
  • Strong Keep Tsk, tsk, tsk. Revisionism at its finest. Perhaps we should also remove the article on Mladić as well? I mean, he hasn't even stood trial, let alone been convicted. Agree with Dijxtra. Хајдук Еру ( Talk || Cont) 21:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - the nomination for deletion is weak, and I believe in bad faith. Just because his notability is for war crimes doesn't make it any less of a topic for an encyclopedia. "All together - following the same reason - we could have entries about a bunch of people praised for the crime they commited in the Burundi, Iraq, or Afganistan wars. Credibility and dignity of Wikipedia shall be ultimately protected." Then following the nominator's logic, we should delete William Calley, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. because each is an "uneducated and primitive person - a hero of the people who are at the same mental hevel as him." In Calley's case, that is absolutely the only thing he is notable for. Thanks for your concern about keeping the dignity of wikipedia at its oh-so-lofty levels, as I'm sure that is your primary concern, but the disingenuous edit/deletion wars between various Balkan region ethnic groups, Turks and Armenians, Indians and Pakistanis, Arabs and Israelis, Republicans and Democrats, pro-Iraq War people and anti-Iraq War people, and Mets fans and Yankees fans are really wearing thin. If you don't think the info is neutral or correct, change it with verifiable facts.-- Nobunaga24 04:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

San tan pride

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

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Smod

Article gives no indication of satisfiying WP:SOFTWARE Whispering( talk/ c) 14:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Delete - article is a hotbed for FAQing and the like, which Wikipedia isn't. Deserves a paragraph or two in a Half Life 2 Modifications list of something, no more. HawkerTyphoon 18:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • More Information Searching for Smod gives 162 videos on youtube. [15]-- Planetary 00:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per HawkerTyphoon. -- Pizzahut2 15:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails to produce reliable sources when Googling. None provided either. Wickethewok 22:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Alan Au 21:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC) -- Alan Au 21:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. -- Steel 11:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

A-tree

This article was shamelessly self-promoting. Clearly some gang wanted to increase their notoriety by being on Wiki. I tried cleaning up the article, but really it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therin83 ( talk • contribs)

"Increase their notoriety by being on Wiki"? They can't be very hard then. Delete, for reasons above. Emeraude 21:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete. Naming members of the gang is defamatory. None of the statements are sourced. Raffles mk 21:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Dave Glover (personality)

Does not meet WP:BIO - Nv8200p talk 15:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • delete per nom Spearhead 21:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete multi-talented, exuberant, but nn. Eusebeus 13:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. - Mailer  D iablo 16:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Rukas

This seems to be something of a walled garden, a series of self-referencing articles with no other incoming links. Google doesn't have much to say on the matter either. Created by User:Rukas. I believe the record label article may overinflate its own importance somewhat; whilst bluelinked artists are mentioned there's no evidence supplied of them actually releasing any significant albums. One of these was tagged for speedy whilst I was preparing my nomination, and they may well be speediable. You decide. -- kingboyk 15:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Article and linked articles are all edited by this person and are heavily vanity and likely POV. -- Chris (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all. `' mikka (t) 18:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete obvious vanity. Danny Lilithborne 23:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all. I remember tagging one of these for speedy deletion. Kill them all. --- RockMFR 03:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Snuggle (website)

Fails WP:WEB, appears to be vanity. -- Chris (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

StreetHop.com

This article is connected with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rukas but I'm listing it seperately because it makes grander claims to notability (claims 27,000 members). However, for a supposedly super-influential site it has a very small footprint: no incoming links of any consequence, an Alexa rank of 452,225, and not much on Google. Note to closing admin: If the article is deleted, please delete the redirects pointing to it too. kingboyk 15:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merged in to Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show and deleted. (aeropagitica) 22:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Drive-by media

This neologism doesn't qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia, because WP:NEO says that "To support the use of (or 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." While I can find sources (for example in Lexis-Nexis) that use the term, I can find no sources that discuss the term as WP:NEO requires. The article itself cites no sources that are about the term, except a quote from Rush himself. And when the only source that discusses a neologism is the popularizer of that neologism, as in this case, then--by analogy with our other notability guidelines such as WP:BIO which demand sources independent of the subject of the article--I think the neologism should fail WP:NEO, until sources independent of the popularizer deem the term notable enough to discuss it.

(Note: A while back I myself, as an anon using IP's beginning with 152, added my own mundane observations about this term to this article. I realize now that those contributions constitute original research, and trivial OR at that. I also added the Rush quote and edited the lead.) Pan Dan 15:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • merge into Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show after merciless trimming of original research. The phrase gotsome buzz, but the nominator is correct, the article is not valid yet. `' mikka (t) 18:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. - Lex 00:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and delete per mikka. I have heard and seen this neologism used outside of the Rush Limbaugh Show, but not to anywhere near the extent WP:NEO requires. Maybe someday, but not quite yet. -- Aaron 02:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and Delete, per Mikka. -- Idont Havaname ( Talk) 23:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus so keep for now. (aeropagitica) 22:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Robbers on High Street

Does not meet requirements of WP:MUSIC. - Nv8200p talk 15:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - The record releases clearly meet WP:MUSIC. This AfD is pointless. PT ( s-s-s-s) 23:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - does not meet any of the criteria of WP:MUSIC. The closest it comes to is the soundtrack item, but to quote from the guideline, "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.)"-- Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 00:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete That record label is not a major record label. Also per Gay Cdn. T REX speak 01:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, [16] shows two albums for sale on Amazon.com, published by New Line (the music arm of New Line Cinema). In my eyes that does pass WP:MUSIC, and for a company originally set-up to release Original Sound Tracks from their parent company's films to take on an act like this must mean that there's something about them. QuagmireDog 13:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - perhaps we are disagreeing on the definition of "released two or more albums" as the two listed on both Amazon and in the article itself are an album (Tree City) and an EP (Fine Lines). For me an EP is not an album.-- Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
To me an EP is a short album in the same way a 50 or 30 minute film is a short film - same thing just less of it. That's my interpretation of it, and I'm not saying that you're wrong but by the same token I still stand by my own opinion. There seems to be a very fine line in this case between keep and delete, I'd rather give this one a go and look at it again in 6 months to see if citations and news of a new album appear, than consign it to deletion with a stack of NN bands who aren't even signed. QuagmireDog 16:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel . Bryant 04:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Hikari Ota's If I Were Prime Minister... Secretary Tanaka

nn tv show Google 21hits.-- Antonight 16:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Antonight ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. reply

  • Keep - the google test is a particularly poor metric of notability when non-english (and especially non-latin) subjects are concerned. The NYT story cited in the article is reasonable evidence of notability. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Titw 16:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable show. The Google test fares poorly with Japanese-language topics anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Actually, the Google test works just fine, since Google is multilingual. There are over 80,000 results for the show's actual (Japanese) title -- a very different picture from that painted by the nominator. — Haeleth Talk 20:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable television show. That a possible single-purpose account once edited the article is irrelevant. Fg2 00:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
No, you misunderstand. The "single purpose account" is leveled toward the AFD nominator, meaning to sugest that the AFD nomination in itself is Bad Faith nomination. Shinhan 05:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Obviously. Not only was it mentioned and praised in The New York Times, Wikipedia is not a resource that exists only in the English world, where important events that occur on the other side of the world are ignored. I find it hard to believe that the nominator even read the article, and honestly I'm suspicious of the nominators intentions.  freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ  05:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep. as per WP:SNOW. Shinhan 05:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per NYT, and other comments above. Neier 05:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep as bad faith nom. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon jo e 17:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep but expand and cite sources. (aeropagitica) 22:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Nozomu Sahashi

nn people, Google 551hits and 693hits.-- Antonight 16:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Antonight ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. reply

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Titw 16:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom-- Jusjih 17:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep as head of a very major company. Desperately needs expansion though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Maybe merge to an article on the company itself, if suitable information for expansion is hard to come by? — Haeleth Talk 20:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Founder/president of an important company is noteworthy. Information added by possible single-purpose account has been removed. Fg2 00:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Also, edits by single-purpose accounts are not cause for deletion. Fg2 00:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable.  freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ  05:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as definitely notable. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon jo e 17:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, too early to tell. If it is not cleaned up, it may stand for deletion again in the future. -- nae' blis 23:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Pixrat.com

non-notable website-- U911 16:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: U911 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. reply

  • Keep: I guess the fact that respectable blogs like Techcrunch or DownloadSquad (of Weblogsinc group) have blogged about Pixrat speaks about its notability and so have the multiple bloggers, with authority, from various countries who have written about Pixrat. I think it is catering to a particular niche of online image/picture collectors. The site seem to have users who use it on regular basis and that too heavily. - Rajaryanmalhotra 16:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Why discriminate?: Wiki entries for simple bookmarking sites such as digg and delicious exist. Being a picture bookmarking site, it very much makes sense to retain this entry. - WikiUsr 18:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep per WP:BITE, WP:AGF, and concerns that this is a bad-faith nomination. This article wasn't even in existence for an entire day, before it was sent to AfD. Give the thing a chance to breathe. Yes, it's written by a new user who's using a more "advertising" tone than he should, but the article is well-sourced, and in my opinion, a good effort by a potentially valuable Wikipedian, who should be encouraged to stay and write in a more encyclopedic tone, rather than just having his article deleted out from under him. -- Elonka 20:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment to the people who are talking about referencing blogs and good sourcing, blogs are not a reliable source, because anybody can create a blog and upload material. However, the Indian newspaper qualifies as a reliable source. We just need one more article. ColourBurst 15:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quuxplusone 03:43, 22 January 2007 (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 Speedily deleted by Geni (a3 - No content whatsoever) - Yomangani talk 23:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

NigeriaONE.com

nn websites.-- U911 16:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: U911 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. reply

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 09:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Nakedbus.com

non-notable website/company.-- U911 16:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: U911 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. reply

  • A company that started trading two days ago is bound to be non-notable, especially if you're not in the country of operation. However, if Nakedbus (lousy name, but that's irrelevant) is following the pattern of Megabus in the UK it is doing something of note, if it succeeds. Page needs redesigning, proper links etc, but I'm not sure it is a candidate for deletion, yet. Emeraude 21:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Notability is not subjective and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Notability is not a matter of personal judgements made by Wikipedians, such as the above. And keeping an article because the subject might be encyclopaedia-worthy in the future is very close to "Keep the article on this worthy company so that it gets some free advertising from Wikipedia.". Wikipedia is based upon what is right now, not upon guesswork as to what might be; requires that subjects be fully documented outside of Wikipedia before thay have articles; and most definitely is not a soapbox or an advertising billboard for worthy causes. Uncle G 11:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The only things that document this company are reprints of its launch press releases from a few days ago, such as this. The WP:CORP criteria are not satisfied. Delete. Uncle G 11:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. If the author had cited sources for the article in the first place then it would not have needed to come to AfD at all. (aeropagitica) 21:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Walk the Plank (theatre company)

I created this article earlier today and it was at once speedied and shoveled into the incinerator without discussion. So I re-created it and at once AfD'ed it as the only way that I could see to get it discussed properly. Walk the Plank (theatre company) is quite well known in Britain and has existed since 1992 or earlier. OK, so perhaps it is not notable to some because it (as far as I know) has never played in America. This theater company exists and is NOT a hoax. I have no connection with the company, so the page is not ad-spam. It is more notable than many of the hundreds of routine pop music groups and their songs and albums that clutter Wikipedia. Anthony Appleyard 16:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Well, comparing the page to "clutter" doesn't really impress... but, regardless, can you provide references in the article that would meet WP:N and WP:V? Specifically, although we don't have guidelines for theatre groups, I'd suggest taking a look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) and WP:MUSIC. thanks. bikeable (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- found lotsa stuff on google. "Walk the Plank has the UK's only touring theatre ship, the ‘Fitzcarraldo’, which is moored at Canning Dock in Liverpool" etc. Suggest the editor(s) invest time building a case for credibility in a sandbox page in their user space before creating the page in Main space.-- Ling.Nut 17:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    • A better approach would be to cite sources from the very first edit onwards. This article cites zero sources to demonstrate that what the nominator says is actually true. As this article stands, it is speedily deletable under the "author requests deletion" criterion, since xe xyrself has nominated it for deletion. Nominating one's own articles for deletion isn't the way to demonstrate that the satisfy notability criteria. Writing the articles properly is. Please learn to cite sources. Then you won't get into these difficulties in the first place. Uncle G 12:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Seto-Kaiba.com

non-notable website-- U911 16:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: U911 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. reply

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Titw 16:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom-- Jusjih 17:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, appears not to meet WP:WEB. In particular, the claims for notability laid out in the article, such as member numbers, are not verifiable. Additionally, most of the article is taken up with contextless trivia that probably make sense to members of the site, but are incomprehensible to general readers, and it seems unlikely that they have sufficient importance for it to be worth adding all the context that would be necessary for this article even to make sense. — Haeleth Talk 20:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete That sounds vague enough to be the Blue Eyes White Dragon! Danny Lilithborne 23:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted by Uncle G as a copy/paste from the company web site (and, thus, a copyright violation). Zetawoof( ζ) 22:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Mir & A Company

non-notable company-- U911 16:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: U911 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. reply

  • Delete per nom-- Jusjih 17:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 21:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Vanier Improv Company

non-notable company-- U911 16:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: U911 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. reply

  • Delete per nom-- Jusjih 16:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - 38 Google Hits, more importantly individual campus clubs are usually not notable, this one included. -- Chabuk 14:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per nom. WarriorScribe 17:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as a copyright violation of a copyrighted ("© Copyright 2005. Gemini Computer Systems Ltd. All Rights Reserved.") non-GFDL web page. Uncle G 12:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Gemini Systems (Gemini Computer Systems Ltd)

nn company-- U911 16:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom-- Jusjih 16:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This article is full of peacock terms such as "leading", "innovative", and "years of hands on experience". Those set alarm bells ringing immediately, indicating that this isn't an encyclopaedia article but a puff piece, or something that is using solely puff piece(s) as its source(s). (The article cites no sources at all, of course.) Searching, I can find nothing about this company that shows that the WP:CORP criteria are satsified. This is not the Gemini Systems that is related to the NYSE, by the way. Delete. Uncle G 12:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I've found the source. The article is an advertisement because it is copied word-for-word, with only changes from first person to third person, from this advertisement. Copyright Judo applied. Uncle G 12:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Blank email

Unsourced, unverifiable dictdef of the term "blank email" as slang for a threat. I've found no google hits with the claimed meaning. Rick Block ( talk) 16:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. I've never heard of this usage of a blank email, and I don't think anyone ever has. -- Kicking222 16:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. If "blank email" was really a threat, then this article wouldn't be the first result from Googling "blank email" threat. Pan Dan 16:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A blank email is far more likely to be a mistake or software glitch than a "threat". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nonverifiable content. `' mikka (t) 18:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete silly. Danny Lilithborne 23:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It's not a slang term, empty messages are not threats, and this article is original research from top to bottom. Delete. Uncle G 12:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - the concept of a blank email as some kind of threat is ludicrous. More likely a mailer malfunction, list testing, or the result of aggressive blocking software filtering all content. Ace of Risk 13:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Absurd dicdef.-- Nilfanion ( talk) 15:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per the above comments. RFerreira 22:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

War on Terrorism/Rewrite

subpage in main space ( Disallowed uses; article exists in Main; Merge complete -- Ling.Nut 17:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Delete all. (aeropagitica) 20:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC) === The Gasman, The Hourglass (comics), Derek O'Neil, Captain Liberty, The Sentinels of Liberty, [[Ultra Girl (gasman comics)]] === reply

  • del an "undeground printed independently" (read: nonnotable, nonverifiable), unreferenced comics inhabiting Category:The Gasman Universe. The articles most probably written by the author. Full of fantasy and original research. Numerous google hits for "gasman" are mostly about other gasmans. `' mikka (t) 17:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete author's only edits are to these articles. This smells like another Asad Aleem-esque hoax. Danny Lilithborne 23:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete with prejudice. Per the history section of the first article these are not published comics by any means. They have no publisher, no printer, and no distribution. They are printed on a computer printer by their creator and thus offered in a "limited distribution." No independant sourcing, no coverage in the comic community, no mention in underground comics discussions. Some material of this nature can become meaningful when its creator achieves wider fame; this is not of that nature. Fails WP:RS, fails WP:V, fails WP:NOT for things made up in school (or on your home printer). Serpent's Choice 04:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy del pure blatant 100% advertising cut, which is abuse of wikipedia. `' mikka (t) 18:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Boss Sauce

Advertisement for one of many brands of hot sauce. Does not appear to be especially notable. FreplySpang 17:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Support for deletion. Actually suggesting speedy deletion because the spammer keeps removing the deletion tag. Simon A. 17:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - Actually that was an uninvolved editor who removed the AFD tag [17] - I assume it was a simple mistake. The article creator removed the PROD tag, which is permitted. FreplySpang 17:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Furthermore, this article is written in a POV and biased style. However, I must also point out that a google search shows quite a number of hits for this article. No doubt, this article is verifiable but it must be noted that it does not meet NPOV standards, which is one of the key policies of Wikipedia. If this article gets a major re-write, we should keep it as the product is quite notable. But for now, it should be deleted. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 17:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - Quite a number of hits for the phrase "boss sauce," but many of them do not refer to this commercial product. For instance, in the first screenful, I see a competitor (the Sauce Boss), an unrelated recipe, a CD entitled "Sauce Boss", a MySpace user named "Boss Sauce", another competitor who sells his own "Boss Sauce".... FreplySpang 17:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete Vanity. Creator posted numerous times he's from the company. Userpie 18:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless it is rewritten substantially. It's currently nothing but an advertisement. Heimstern Läufer 17:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article is nothing more than spam. shotwell 17:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as per WP:BIO - main claim for this article is as an electoral candidate; article itself admits that the subject garnered 1% of the vote, so doesn't satisfy the guidelines above; "..Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature.". (aeropagitica) 20:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

James Arey

Not notable either for his journalistic efforts or for his badly failed local government candidacy. Please delete. The Land 17:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep. Apparently started as a vanity entry, but appears an ok article now with at least one legitimate link to it from more important article. Local media personalities who've made minor dabbles in politics are generally not something we need articles on, but when they're properly formatted and referenced like this one, IMO they're mostly harmless, and of some possible use to someone doing research. -- Infrogmation 01:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

SummitJournal.com

Website advert Nehwyn 17:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 07:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notabilty, only 410 Google hits. Reads like an advert, with little to salvage. —  Tivedshambo ( talk to me/ look at me/ ignore me) —  20:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was del per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Knox. `' mikka (t) 18:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Jim Knox's Wild Zoofari

Per suggestion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Knox. Does not appear to be verifiable: A Google search turns up very few hits other than the WP article and mirrors thereof. Is not mentioned on the website for PBS Kids' GO!, even though the article says it will air there. Heimstern Läufer 17:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Delete as fancruft. Of little encyclopedic value, more suited to a personal website/blog than WP. (aeropagitica) 20:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

2006 Smackdown Results

No context, very little usable information Martin Hinks 18:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • weak keep. The context is Smackdown. The original author abandoned this trivia article, but it does require heavy cleanup. I will link it into several Smackdown articles, and if it will not improve during the vote, I will change my opinion to delete . `' mikka (t) 18:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as fancruft, monthly TNA iMPACT! result pages were deleted for the same reason. TJ Spyke 21:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per TJ Spyke. -- Oakster (Talk) 07:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per TJ Spyke-- bd ( talk to me) ( watch me) 23:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per TJ Spyke. JPG-GR 07:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per SilentJay. -- (Talk)I will work on this artical so that it won't have to be delteted. I have most of the Results on my comp 18:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per nom. No value, can quickly get out of hand (how long has Smackdown been on the air? And do we do this for "Raw" and all of the other wrestling shows, too?) and of no scholarly value. - WarriorScribe 17:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Celebrinerd

Article on Neologism used in one article in Time Magazine to describe Ken Jennings and apparently thereafter mentioned in Jennings' blog. Article notes an abundance of Google hits but the low unique count of 71 [18] is more telling . Wikipedia is not a dictionary and WP:NEO is now guideline. At best this should be sent to Wiktionary. My original prod went uncontested and the article was recreated today.-- Fuhghettaboutit 18:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as neologism. ... discospinster talk 18:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as I prodded for nomination's exact reasons and post-prod was turned into this AfD. ju66l3r 19:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. To closing admin--given that this is a recreation, if consensus is to delete, consider deleting and protecting.-- Fuhghettaboutit 21:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as neologism. Andy Saund e rs 01:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Don Paul

First Deletion Reason: Fails notability outside of the Walled Garden of conspiracy-theory blog sites. Wikipedia requires sourcing to sources meeting the reputability requirements of WP:RS. This article fails to cite to a single reliable source. Violates WP:BIO and WP:Notability. A Google search of Paul’s work “Waking up from our Nightmare: The 9/11 Crimes in New York City” failed to yield a single reputable source in all 11 pages of returns. A Google search of Don Paul and the word “Fascist”, which would pick up his other work, fails to return a single reputable source in the first 25 pages of returns reviewed. Morton devonshire 18:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Oh, so in order to meet the qualifications set forth for notability, an article must reference sources beholden to corporate media? Such circular reasoning simply goes beyond the pale, especially given the way whitewashing campaigns have so overused this tactic. Your words clearly reveal the evident motivation behind the nomination, yet another example of the broader campaign that is threatening to undermine the Wiki's credibility. Ombudsman 03:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Please read WP:RS. Note that many conspiracy related things have made it into reliable sources. This person has not. When this person does, he will be put in. And in fact, the insistence on WP:RS and WP:N etc. is precisely the things that let Wikipedia have any credibility whatsoever. Also, please stay civil. JoshuaZ 04:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
You're skirting Don Paul's many accomplishments in many other areas long before 9/11 ever happened. Don't try to pretend that the AfD isn't being built around the notion of discrediting well established icons that have made their mark long before the internet arose. Don is a legend in running circles, just ask veteran editors Mark Winitz, over at California Track and Running News, or Bob Cooper, at Runner's World. His extensive work on behalf of charitable groups is likewise quite noteworthy, from San Francisco to New Orleans. He is quite well known in the San Francisco Bay Area music scene, and his poetry earned him a prestigious Stegner Fellowship at Stanford University, the youngest ever to receive the award. [19] Simply as a polymath he deserves an article, or for any of the many disciplines he has mastered, such as when he went under the US and World record in the 50 kilometer ultramarathon, which (in contradiction to a comment below) was certainly covered in the mainstream New York media between 1980 and 1982 (including the NY Times). It certainly has been mentioned plenty of times in the media, usually every time Don produced another stunning performance, right up until his recent retirement from running. This AfD is way over the top. (added cites 10/4/06) Ombudsman 04:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
So give us sources that back up any of these claims. Give us sources. None of us have been able to find almost any mentions of this person. If you can find the sources that back up these claims he will be kept. Furthermore, your repeated accusations aren't helping matters. I (and I suspect most people currently favoring deletion) would be more than willing to keep the article if you gave back up for this. JoshuaZ 04:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Look, it isn't an accusation to state as a fact that most of the criticism heaped on Don Paul's noteworthiness (already piled below) has been built around attempts at discreditation of his work (i.e., in the 9/11 Truth Movement). A minor exception below is the claim that Don Paul doesn't even meet noteworthiness standards for athletes, and that is just plain silly. Maybe you should read the article by Winitz that is already linked in the external links section, "Paul--a notable competitor on the national and California racing scenes for two-and-a-half decades--recently retired from racing." For another thing, Steven E. Jones credits WTC7.net, a website built by Paul and Jim Hoffman, with having piqued his curiosity about the physics behind the collapse of the three WTC buildings during the 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium. Ombudsman 04:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Ok, so you now have enough sources to maybe justify an article about him as an athlete with maybe a tiny note about his 9/11 related stuff. However, a single source doesn't make him notable as an athlete either. From WP:BIO- "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activites that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles. Third party verification from a reliable source outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized as performing at the highest level." and he seems to maybe meet that criterion. So you have enough to write an article about him as an athlete and note the other stuff. JoshuaZ 05:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Oh. More hurdles. Just keep moving the flaming hula hoops. Fist the article is dismantled, then more tactics fail, and now a chance to thank you for your outright admission of the true purpose of the concerted serial attacks on the article. Whitewashing is whitewashing by any other name. Citations can be found all day, all over the place (outside the discredited walled garden aka the corporate media), concerning Don Paul's notability, that issue is just another red herring. All the citations needed were in the external links section all along, but the delete votes below simply wanted to believe the mistaken assertions used to justify suppression. There is absolutely no question of notability with regard to the Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center, because along with Jim Hoffman, Paul helped bring the matter to the forefront of discussions about the glaring holes in the 'official theory' of 9/11 proffered by those darlings of the corporate media, the totally discredited 9/11 omission commission. Ombudsman 02:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
We might be more inclined to listen to you if you gave us reasonably main stream sources, didn't rant about the "discredited walled garden aka the corporate media" and other issues. Either he meets WP:BIO and has enough to write an article with reliable sources or he doesn't. Continued uncited assertsions and accusations of "suppression" won't convince anyone. JoshuaZ 17:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom -- Tbeatty 18:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • strong keep: This AfD appears to be yet another distracting attempt at sustaining the scorched Earth campaign to cleanse the Wiki of any and all rational accounts of WTC issues. Don Paul is quite noteworthy as both an athlete and as a scholar, much less for his involvement in the 9/11 Truth Movement. It is getting to the point where the campaign to purge rationality from the Wiki's 9/11 articles needs to be addressed at a broader level, as the ongoing scorched Earth tactics being used have long since passed the threshold of mere annoyance. Instead of an intelligent discourse on what really happened, this campaign seems designed to ensure that discussion, much less editing, never gets past the most essential basics of events surrounding 9/11. There is nothing too hard about understanding that aluminum sheathed jets floating into heavily reinforced giant skyscrapers represent the equivalent of a nerf football impacting a brick wall. WTC 7 collapsed in its footprint without even the distraction of that red herring. Of course, without that, there is not one credible excuse being put forth to excuse the collapse of the building, aside from the entirely unrebutted controlled demolition explanation, which Don Paul has inconveniently helped place dead center in the controversies surrounding 9/11. For that alone, his bio should stand, his athletic and artistic achievements notwithstanding. It is obvious that the omission commission was stacked with panelists burdened by serious conflict of interest problems, but that doesn't seem to deter those engaged in the efforts to suppress rationality from the discussion here at the Wiki, who instead chirp 'conspiracy theory', until hoarse, at the drop of a hat. But even more amazing is the way that the suppression of debate has kept other basic facts from being recognized as the facts essential for rational discourse. The official 9/11 omission commission insinuation that mere carbon chain fuels, which are quite combustible at temperatures in the mid 400s (and unstable by their very nature), could even have begun to come close to the quadruple digit temperatures, necessary to melt the structural steel alloys of the WTC buildings, is a total farce. The scorched Earth campaign to suppress the ideas set forth by Don Paul, Jim Hoffman, et al, is little more than the product of a sad campaign to empty the Wiki of rational content that would provide insights into the actual reality of 9/11. Ombudsman 19:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Ombudsman ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the article that is the subject of this AfD. reply
There are numerous articles on what really happened on 9/11. They have plenty of space for any additional factual information. Wikipedia is not a blog however, so don't expect too much discourse on what might have happened. -- Tbeatty 21:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm about to apply a personal test. I don't know how it will turn out. The issue here is not what happened on 9/11, but whether Don Paul is notable. I'm going to do a search of The New York Times and see whether it has ever mentioned him. If it has, in the context of his being a well-known 9/11 theorist, I'll vote keep. This is not to suggest that everyone ever named in The New York Times merits an article, nor that mention in the New York Times should be a requirement, but it's a good barometer of national notability, and in the case of 9/11 theories a New York paper would certainly be expected to cover anything remotely relevant. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Search for "Don Paul" in The New York Times from 1/1/2000 to 9/29/3006 produces nine hits, none to this Don Paul. Seven are to the motion picture "The Road to El Dorado" and visual effects director Don Paul, surely someone else. September 9, 2002: "Frankie Albert, a Pioneering Quarterback, Is Dead at 82," mentions "Don Paul, a Los Angeles Rams linebacker who was among the many defenders frustrated by Albert's deception, likened him to Fran Tarkenton." Not the same person. January 8, 2000: "Tom Fears, N.F.L. End and Coach, Dies at 77" mentions "As a former teammate, Don Paul, told The Los Angeles Times..." This is also likely the Rams linebacker. I can't believe that an important 9/11 theorist would not have been mentioned at all by The New York Times, if only in passing. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Incidentally, the New York Times has run numerous articles on 9/11 conspiracy theories. An example of a conspiracy theorist mentioned by them would include James W. Walter, subject of an entire article, Nov. 8, 2004: "A 9/11 Cover-Up? One Man's Ads Say So." Dpbsmith (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per nom and Dpbsmith. Also, does anyone know if the section entitled "Roads scholar" in the article is meant to be funny? We don't generally put puns in articles. Also, note that he doesn't meet the criteria for an athlete either. JoshuaZ 00:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination, Dpbsmith, and JoshuaZ. Crockspot 00:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and Dpbsmith. -- Aude ( talk) 01:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment on this: Yes, i know. They have already deleted most already. Let them, change your vote to delete. Heck, afd the rest that is not already deleted, it is already established C-Class porn stars are more welcomed than people from the 911TM. I mean, they delete the no-Plane at pentagon article, but keep this, this and this. Hey, i mean, why would you need to keep Don Paul, when you have Bambi Woods, Angella Faith and the rest of the bunch? Man, they even can squeze in Category:Hentai stubs, but God forbid we include one of the most popular and well known figures in the multi million people large 911TM, i mean, he only gets 14k hits, what is that compared to Angella Faith's 16k? Hey, delete this guy, we need more room for porn.-- Striver 03:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I'd vote to delete them as well. Put them up.-- Tbeatty 04:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
If you think any of them should be deleted, put them up for deletion. JoshuaZ 04:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Give me a good source citation to a nice mainstream source that says he's an important 9/11 theorist and I'll change my vote. I believe such a citation will have more influence in this discussion than expressing your opinions about Wikipedia articles. I spent as much time as I felt was necessary for "due diligence" and it looks to me like he's not important. But I'm open to change. If you can find a citable source showing he's a prominent talking head in network TV documentaries, or has appeared on Larry King, or Rush Limbaugh, or has gotten more than a passing mention in the increasing number of books devoted to 9/11, I'll listen. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Bro, how many New York times articles do you see about Rusty trombones? Once the movement has been notable, it is up to the movement itself to define what is notable. Sex is notable, people in the sex-industry use the disgusting term Rusty trombone, hence, it is notable. Same to Pokemon, or any other cruft. Do you see Dark Sidius in New York Times? No, but you will find Star Wars. But this principle does not apply to 911TM, you just deleted TerroStorm with 300k hits.-- Striver 15:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I wouldn't apply a New York Times hit count as my personal test on Rusty trombone because of their famous "ear," "All the news that's fit to print." However, I know of no reason why 9/11 material would be filtered out by that policy. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Striver, google testing is not as useful for web-related topics, and no, movements do not get to define what is notable within them by itself. (Again, if you want to AfD various sex stuff, go ahead) as for Darth Sidius, he was mentioned in multiple NYT articles including one a while back that discussed political symbolism of the character. Not an especially convincing example (if you wanted to get rid of stuff from the Star Wars Expanded Universe you might have a point- again AfD it if you feel that way). JoshuaZ 16:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Don't take offence, but i view that suggestion as "go ahead and get yourself accussed of WP:POINT". I am utterly un-convinced of your argument, and would be very surpised if an afd of those articles would be succesfull. Anyway, i have had enough of this topic.-- Striver 17:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Oh, btw, i am still waiting for Lanczos tensor and Petrov classification to get NYT coverage... Hey, they should be deleted, right? I mean, its own comunity is not supposed to define what it claims is notable, right? -- Striver 17:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
You are being ridiculous. Obviously not every group should be treated the same way. Math or science are reputable areas already with wide coverage and thus can to a large extent self-determine notability (note that even then for articles like the one in question- people- they have some difficulty with just that- see WP:PROF) this is less the case for fringe topics and regardless of what you think of the 9/11 truth movement, they are a fringe and thus their community does not get automatically to decide notability- to put it another way, for something to be notable in a barely notable fringe it needs to be noticed by someone outside the fringe whereas if somethgin is from a mroe or less mainstream area of study it is reasonable to look for notability within that area. As to your comment about WP:POINT it would only be a point violation if you were doing it to prove a point as such. If you a) genuinely think that these articles shouldn't be here, you are more than entitled to nominate them for AfD. Finally, please note that many of the 9/11 conspiracy related articls have stayed on Wiki and have survived deletion or not even been nominated. Some of them meet WP:N and some do not. In this case, there is less than compelling evidence that Don Paul does. JoshuaZ 18:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I am going to make what I think is an appropriate test for Lanczos tensor. Again, this is my personal test for this particular topic. I'm going to search for it on Google Books. If I don't find a reasonable number of reasonably relevant hits I will nominate it for deletion. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Found one highly relevant hit here, in "The Introduction to 2-Spinors in General Relativity." This seems to me to be good confirmation that this is an important concept in the theory of relativity. I'll leave the analysis of a similar search for "Don Paul" to the reader, as it is such a common name that it is very hard to disentangle them, but if you can find a book citing him as an important runner or 9/11 theorist I'll reconsider my vote. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
For the record, the New York Times doesn't discuss the Lanczos tensor, but it does have a story, March 7, 1936, p. 10, "Einstein Refutes Attack on Theory, in which a letter by Einstein and N. Rosen mention that "Professor C. Lanczos of Purdue University has independently recognized the error in Silberstein's paper," which to me confirms the notability of Lanczos and his status with regard to the theory of relativity. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per all the above, and so we get more room for porn (though only well-sourced, notable porn) in Wikipedia's ever-expanding servers. — Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 04:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • strong keep - per ombudsman. Don Paul is noteworthy as an athlete, a scholar, and a 9/11 Truth Movement researcher. And I don't think we need more room for porn on here. bov 18:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Could you supply some references for Don Paul being noteworthy in these fields? I was willing to spend a little time trying to dig up evidence for his notability, and I couldn't find any. Those who say he's notable really should be able to present something other than an unsupported assertion. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • comment - His notability as a runner is referenced here in California Track & Running News:
Best Marks: Interview with Don Paul
By Mark Winitz
March/April 2006
California Track & Running News
http://www.caltrack.com/features/donpaulinterviewMarApr06.html
"Paul--a notable competitor on the national and California racing scenes for two-and-a-half decades--recently retired from racing." bov 20:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and others. Wikipedia needs more porn and less 9/11 denying. -- Peephole 08:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and Dpbsmith. CWC (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Dpbsmith above Tom Harrison Talk 13:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete If this author has written over 20 books, why no bibliography so we can judge their notability? Cruft, plain and simple.-- Rosicrucian 15:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, Dpbsmith's research and JoshuaZ. -- Aaron 18:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as a non-notable student/public-access effort with no claims as to notability. (aeropagitica) 20:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

NKTV

Apparently a student-run television program. No claims of notability. Only relevant ghits [20] are a myspace page, and there are no ghits for "North Kitsap Television". (NKTV alone gets a lot, but none are for this). Can't even tell if this is local access TV, something just shown at one school, or it's actually being broadcast - I seriously doubt the claim that it's a "corporation". Prod removed w/ no comment. Jamoche 18:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Article doesn't assert notability beyond the school program, the word "corporation" notwithstanding. -- Roninbk t c # 02:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Don't Delete. Local Access TV shows are very common in High Schools these days. Even if it isn't very popular I don't think that is a good reason for deletion. - Quickshot757 03:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Not many local school-related items survive AfD. You have to show a pretty high level of notability, (plus be able to verifiably prove your claims,) to keep this kind of article in Wikipedia -- Roninbk t c # 19:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Don't Delete. Not only is this one of the highest ranked and watched local access shows in all of Washington State, but its relevance is unquestionable as it is written, filmed and edited at a higher quality than most television shows - Dr. VanNostrand 5:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete. I personally work on this show, and it is one of the highest rated shows in our state. Yes, it is a high school show, but its production quality is higher than most shows on television. I volunteer my services there, along with many other people who have worked for larger production companies. I worked on shows such as, Northern Exposure, and adaptaion of The Fugitive for television. With an entry on wikipedia, letting other students and high schools know about such a widely recieved and popular show in Washington, could inspire them to create their versions of the basic show idea. And who could argue against giving kids some immortality, some national recognition for something, that in my professional opinion, is as good as or even better than most shows on TV today in production quality, writing quality, and acting.- Prefonberry 7:20 3 October 2006
    • Funny, I live in Seattle, and I haven't heard of this show. I didn't know this was on local access television, I don't know what channel it's on, or even what time it's on. Oh and by the way, those three bits of information would be fairly useful to have documented within the article... -- Roninbk t c e # 08:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Oh, and vandalizing user pages doesn't win AfD's. Just so you know. -- Roninbk t c e # 05:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete. Meet several criteria. Vegaswikian 02:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Jeremy Greenway

Lengthy vanity article on a singer with no proper releases (self-released album, popular on Myspace...). The sole claim to meeting WP:MUSIC is that "the uptempo lead-off track (...) made a college radio Top 40 list in Sweden", which is 1. tenuous at best (which college radio?) and 2. unsourced and unverified. ~ trialsanderrors 18:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I didn't realize there were such strict parameters for an artist's inclusion - that he has to be signed to a label (don't you think that's kind of silly? There are lots of highly-respected artists who only perform live and release their own cds and merit a spot on here). I'm afraid I don't know the name of the radio station he got airplay on because I never asked him. I'm just a diehard who was trying to document his accomplishments, because people ask me where they can learn more about him. My apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.193.167.47 ( talk • contribs)

  • Comment. Releasing albums on a notable label is just one of the criteria for inclusion, not a requirement. You can see the whole notability guideline criteria here. Prolog 19:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Steel 09:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Im in ur base killin ur d00dz

nn internet meme Will ( Glaciers melting in the dead of night) 18:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • NeutralWeak delete. "Im in ur _____, _____ing ur _____" might be notable, but the article would have to be moved to "in ur stuff," the most commonly used name for all forms of this meme. Is it notable? Maybe. The YTMND wiki has an article on this... another reason not to have one here. I've seen it used outside YTMND on many imageboards, and it seems to be widely recognized, but it certainly isn't as notable as the most famous, such as AYBABTU/etc. So I'll stay neutral on this. — Dark Shikari talk/ contribs 20:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, as the article shows no evidence that it has had non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources, which means it doesn't meet WP:WEB. NeoChaosX [ talk | contribs 20:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • As I changed my vote above, I'll add my reasoning. The article itself is worthless, but the meme might be notable. However, its hardly salvagable, so I'll vote to delete it for that reason. — Dark Shikari talk/ contribs 20:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the SA forums are prolific meme generators; this isn't one of the top ones. Opabinia regalis 21:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • im in ur wiki, deletin ur artiklez: Insignificant meme, nothing about it that can really be reliably sourced. Warpstar Rider 21:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, not even close to notable. Fails WP:V. Recury 22:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete first I ever heard of this was in the Flash Tub. Then again, I don't play these kinds of games; however, all the votes above seem convincing. Danny Lilithborne 23:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete as per nom. Another staggeringly insignificant "meme" without evidence of notability. YTMND/SA whatever etc. are memetic diarrhea factories Bwithh 01:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete Internet crap. -- Don't mess with Scott. 04:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non notable meme. Soulresin 04:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete another bad meme...-- Nilfanion ( talk) 15:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete NN meme. And the article is a bit speculative and I can't remember seeing this meme discussed in press or anything. Also, the article doesn't explain the role of Lyttle Lytton Contest paragraph winner 2006 (which is in that article). =) -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 16:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Okay, now I've read the article throughoutly and peeked at the history. My pondered conclusion is that it basically reads as "okay, let's start an article about this funny phrase I've read often." Other people go "Hmm, it may have something to do with this thing and that thing. And it may have started there. And here's some variations I've heard." While I'm probably the laxest end what comes to demanding sources for anything, and I'm not in favour of deleting articles solely for being "unverifiable", but I think this is a bad way of starting an article and only leads to sourceless speculation. Right now, there's basically no way to vounch this phrase is used widely, or even what its orgins were. That's the problem. It's no use listing what "may" be the source if all you can do is state "may", "may", "may"! What I think happened is this: People started, for some reason, imitate the Lyttle Lytton winner's phrase, cause it's funny. Then someone started an article: "Oh, said by one gamer to another", one says. "Probably originated in Counterstrike or Starcraft", says another. Or is it other way? We don't know. There's no research, even journalistic one, done exploring that thing! Please, let's not base articles entirely on conjecture (and quite obviously pulled-out-of-your-hat conjecture at that). And sorry for going on tangent like this. I don't try to offend anyone. I'm just saying this is not how articles are made. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 16:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep notable internet memes, but suggest a name change per above. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 11:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep ... I've seen this mentioned often enough w/o being able to figure out the origin. — Hobart 22:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per precedent in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Im in ur base and lack of verifiability from reliable sources. SomethingAwful, being a bulletin board, does not qualify as a primary or secondary source for a definitive account of this meme, nor as a source for establishing this meme's currency. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Rum and Monkey

Fails WP:WEB, and possibly the new WP:CSD A7. alphaChimp (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment if this Afd is passed as delete, presumably Ben Werdmuller would be ripe for a db-bio. -- Dweller 12:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, so default keep for now. (aeropagitica) 20:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

9rules Network

Non-notable blogging site fails WP:WEB (not CSD:A7 because of small assertion of notability). alphaChimp (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • From Wikipedia guidelines for Notable sites WP:WEB: "The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation." 9rules.com won community site of the year at SXSWi 2006. SXSWi 2006 Winners Page It meets the guideline.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.179.35 ( talk • contribs)
    First edits. Computerjoe 's talk 20:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Okay, I do have a POV as I'm a member (and indeed community leader) on this website, but it has not only won that award but has a Alexa rank in the top 10k [21]. Computerjoe 's talk 20:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

List of pop culture references in School Rumble

per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References in Samurai Jack (second nomination) Gofd0 19:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, entirely WP:OR, but even if it wasn't, it's still too trivial and crufty for inclusion anywhere on Wikipedia. Recury 22:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Recury. Danny Lilithborne 23:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- SD22 01:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per the above and the precedent cited. Everything is full of cultural references - it's a natural part of the artistic process. A similar article could be written for every manga, every anime, every novel, every movie, every sitcom... there is nothing particularly unusual about these, making it hard to argue that they are important enough to list in an encyclopedia. — Haeleth Talk 10:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as WP:OR and for baiting WP:NOT (an indiscriminate collection of information). Articles such as these function as pools of fancruft, they tell the average reader nothing accept that pop-culture references happen (will anyone need to be picked up from the floor after learning this?) and indeed have happened in this particular whatever. Fan sites or a fan wiki are where these things belong, not encouraging more of the same on WP. QuagmireDog 18:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was thanks to Uncle G, I now know this is a real fictional persona. Grand master ka 18:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Unknown Hinson

Okay, this is an odd request, I know. I believe that this guy is notable; however, virtually every piece of information in the article is an obvious hoax or joke, as stated in my prod, and the author seems to have no intention of making it into an encyclopedia article. I think this should go right now until someone is willing to write an encyclopedia article on this topic. It seems beyond cleanup, because I don't think any of this content is really that usable. Grand master ka 19:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - You have written YOURSELF that this is a notable subject, the article just needs cleanup. AfD is NOT cleanup. The effort you put into creating this AfD could have been spent trying to do a re-write yourself. PT ( s-s-s-s) 23:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Please re-read my nomination statement. I don't know much of anything about the guy, but I know there's nothing salvageable from this. Grand master ka 00:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Grandmasterka has a point, to an extent. This article presents fiction as fact. Unknown Hinson is a comic persona, just as Tony Clifton was for Andy Kaufman. Uncle G 12:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks! That's what I needed to hear, rather than a really rude and uninformed comment. I had no idea. Grand master ka 18:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus so a default keep for now. (aeropagitica) 20:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Alix Rosenthal

Non-notable local politician that doesn't meet WP:BIO as far as I can tell. The article also reads like a campaign flyer. Thought about Speedy A7, but brought it here instead. ju66l3r 19:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • To the contrary, the article meets the proposed WP:C&E standards for candidates and elections. I dispute the allegation that the article "reads like a campaign flyer." Its tone and word usage is neutral; it merely states facts: her background, experience, where she lives, and her endorsements, which, again, meets WP:C&E. It reads more like a voter information guide than anything else. If anyone finds that a particular word or phrase in the article, as it is written now, indicates bias, please cite those words or phrases. This article is relevant at least until after the election is held on November 7, 2006. -- Waterthedog 21:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: It does not meet the WP:C&E proposition. The proposition states: "articles on elections should be written before articles on individual candidates. Only if and when there is enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article on a candidate should one be written." This isn't an article on the election (because that's not notable either), the information is not independent (as the sole source of the article is her campaign website), and it's barely verifiable as per the comment below given the lack of much info by Lexis-Nexis. ju66l3r 21:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Lexis-Nexis search confirms nom's suspicion of failing WP:BIO. Pan Dan 21:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. In response to the comment above, I have done two things to conform to the WP:C&E proposition: (1) I created an article for the San Francisco, California 2006 election; (2) I edited the article on Alix Rosenthal to conform to the "independent, verifiable information" rule in the the WP:C&E proposition by taking out any information that is not in the San Francisco Department of Election voter pamphlet, which is now cited in the article, with one exception: her endorsements; however, these can be verified on the websites of the endorsing organizations, all of which are cited. This local election is noteworthy because it is an election for the legislative body of a major city; this is on par with an election for mayor. There are articles on Wikipedia on the local elections for similar legislative bodies of cities like Portland, Oregon. Likewise, there is an article on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and with the exception of two members, articles on each member of that the Board. I don't see why candidates who run against them in elections cannot have articles, as well. -- Waterthedog 03:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment:These improvements lessen the problem but since WP:C&E is still only a proposition at this point, I will not rescend my AfD nomination, allowing the community and administrator to decide the article's ultimate fate. While your assertion of notability due to seated members having notability is compelling, Wikipedia article creation/edits should not be used to make a point. Also, simply because others are doing it doesn't make it acceptable policy either (and those articles may end up finding their own way to the AfD pages). One reason why candidate pages are more difficult to consider as notable/worthy is to consider the fact that anyone can become a candidate (barring technicalities for signing up). That's hardly notable, but winning the election is certainly notable (and thus why seated officials might have a page but candidates running against them might not). I hope that addresses some of your concerns for why this page may still go (although the election page looks very good and may stay). ju66l3r 17:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Campaign ad disguised as an article (Look! It even has a list of endorsements!) for a local politician who doesn't appear to well-known even locally. If and when she gets elected and does something notorious (and being on the SF Board of Supervisors gives plenty of scope for that), she can get an article, but she's not even close to rating one now. -- Calton | Talk 06:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment:This article states facts about the candidate. Again, anyone who claims that this article is an ad in disguise or is in any way biased, please point out the words or phrases that give that appearance. Endorsements are verifiable facts and should not be deemed promotional content. Endorsements typically appear in nonpartisan voter guides, and they can further or hinder a candidate's success. An endorsement from an organization with which a voter disagrees, for example, is a reason for that voter not to vote for a candidate. Inclusion of endorsements conforms with the WP:C&E proposition. Although running for local public office does not confer notability by itself, when combined with a growing body of independent, verifiable information -- and yes, endorsements are a part of that -- notability emerges. And that's consistent with the WP:C&E proposition. Further, a Google search of this candidate yields about 12,600 results, and given that this particular name combination is not all that common, it's likely that most of these results refer to her. To say that a local political candidate can only attain notability after winning the election is just as inaccurate as saying that simply running for local public office confers notability. -- Waterthedog 18:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Calton. Eusebeus 13:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Anyone who feels this article should be deleted, please address the points that I raised above in my comment to Calton. -- Waterthedog 18:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Pizza shoppe

Company advert Nehwyn 19:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - spam. No assertion of notability. MER-C 07:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Spam-- Nilfanion ( talk) 15:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Futek advanced sensor technology

Company advert Nehwyn 19:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm a bit confused of why this is considered "spam". I am the original author and work for this company and so I would welcome any feedback on how to improve this entry to avoid this. User:navidmg, 13:52, 1 October 2006 (PST)

That's kind of the point, isn'it? It is an entry written by some who works for the company, to spread the word about the company. That's what the Yellow Pages are for... this is is an encyclopaedia! -- Nehwyn 22:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Wouldn't this rule apply equally to all companies then that have wiki profiles? User: navidmg, 15:30, 1 October 2006 (PST)
No, only to those companies that do not meet the WP:CORP criteria. -- Nehwyn 22:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
So if our company satisfies the first point listed for "Criteria for companies and corporations", how would be proceed to point this out. Do I need to list the publications? Thank you again for explaining this procedure. User: navidmg, 07:27: 2 October 2006 (PST)

You just write into the article sentences that demonstrate that any of those criteria are met, and put a provable, outside reference at the end. -- Nehwyn 14:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus to delete, merge possible of course. W.marsh 13:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Cao Boi

Page was created only because he was a Survivor. He hasn't done anything notable on the show, and their pages shouldn't be made unless they are winner or have done something notable outside the show. Also, the article name is not even his real name. TeckWiz is 12 yrs old Talk Contribs # of Edits 20:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete non-notable. -- Gogo Dodo 01:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and Redirect to Survivor Cook IslandsEnsRedShirt 06:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom this is "survivor hype". Stubbleboy 00:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The article mentions he is a world record holder. Would that meet the notability criteria?
  • Weak Keep: (1) Per WP:BIO, An Bui has been the subject of multiple non-trivial media stories. WP:BIO is unclear on the notability guidelines for reality stars, but I think he makes it. (2) Category:Survivor is full of similarly notable contestants, which suggests that he meets notability criteria. (3) Assuming he's notable, naming his article "Cao Boi" with a redirect from his real name is correct. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) (Per the example given by the guideline, we have a Pelé page, not an Edson Arantes do Nascimento page). Bui already has media coverage; my advice would be to tag the article for clean-up and revisit at the end of the season. TheronJ 20:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm going to sift through the Survivor category in a few minutes and nominate all the other ones with no notability. TeckWiz is 12 yrs old Talk Contribs # of Edits 12:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • What's your standard for reality contestant notability? Can you write something up for WP:BIO? Thanks, TheronJ 12:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I just finished going through the Survivor category and found over 20 that I think aren't notable enough, and will AFD. Basically, I think if they're not a winner, and have not done anything outside of the show major, then they're not notable. Also, compare it to the Amazing Race. Only one or two people has their own article a season. That's 1-2 out of 22. Survivor is usually 15-16 out of 16.
  • Keep contestents on Survivor. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 22:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete None notable person. Survivor Hype.-- M8v2 00:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and Redirect to Survivor: Cook Islands per other deleted non-noteworthy reality show contestants. Ohconfucius 07:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep The obsession among some wikipedians with deleting reality contestant biography articles en masse is both disturbing and truly puzzling. These shows are watched by millions of people, and their casts are known by their first names by millions, at least for a few months. Instead of deleting reality contestant articles, I would argue that an effort should be made to improve them and even add them for some contestants who SHOULD have pages and don't. Several participants on Survivor: All-Stars, for example, do not have pages, and all of them should. Kathy Vavrick-O'Brien, who finished third in her season and became wildly popular, is a prime example. For those of you who are seemingly obsessed with removing reality articles, I would suggest that you find something more worthwhile to worry about. Just because YOU don't think that somebody is notable doesn't make them non-notable. I would argue that reality contestants are notable simply for the fact that so many millions of people can refer to them by their first names. I would suggest that the trend to delete reality articles and refer to "Survivor hype" reflects more than a hint of bias against this form of entertainment. Thus, such deletions are by definition non-NPOV. MahlerFan 14:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted as article didn't assert the notability of the company, WP:CORP refers. (aeropagitica) 20:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Pabian & Russell

Wikipedia is not a directory. Not notable. No links to this page. Emeraude 20:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 07:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Luna Santin 07:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Deformables

Non notable, fails WP:WEB. A Flash cartoon with 5 distinct Google hits (for title plus author, since title is common word in other languages)... Fram 19:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete, subject doesn't meet guidelines in WP:WEB. Equendil Talk 19:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply

AfD notice was removed by author of article, and page then moved to The Deformables: notice now readded. Fram 20:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete does not meet WP:WEB. -- Charlesknight 23:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete - CSD A7. I don't see an assertion of notability in that article. Tagged as such. MER-C 07:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    Tag removed. Let it run through here. -- Ligulem 10:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merged appropriate information in to Royal High School and deleted. (aeropagitica) 20:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The Royal High School

This page is a stub and an artical for the school already exists. See Royal High School. Broxi 20:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Royal High School article covers this. Emeraude 21:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect these articles are the same thing. DRK 21:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and do not redirect The redirect would probably be speedyable as an unlikely typo and would serve no purpose. This article is a duplicate. -- NMChico24 21:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to Royal High School, this does not necessitate an AfD discussion. 71.146.80.214 22:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect, no need for AfD. bbx 01:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Seems uncontroversial. Why was a merge vote not done for this. Should never have got to an AfD. JASpencer 14:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect is the obvious course of action here. Silensor 20:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect per the above comments. RFerreira 22:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merege/Redirect as a likely potential typo. Alansohn 05:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/Redirect per the above. -- Myles Long 16:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/Redirect   ALKIVAR ™ 19:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect as a likely search term. Bahn Mi 00:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Redirect as a likely search term. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

ASU Web Devil

Delete - a webportal for a school department - need I say anymore? Charlesknight 21:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I cleaned it up.... pointlessly... definitely delete as nonnotable. DRK 21:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Almost a speedy. MER-C 07:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, whats the point of this article?-- Nilfanion ( talk) 15:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. (aeropagitica) 20:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Trucker bomb

First sentence could perhaps make a Dictionary of Slang entry, but this is not an encyclopaedia article. Nothing links to it. Delete Emeraude 21:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was withdrawn (and why didn't anyone else do this in the past nearly 4 days this has been withdrawn). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Squidtastic Voyage

This SpongeBob SquarePants episode should be deleted because I've done a search on Google and it only gives one relative link. Google says that this episode is on that German webpage, but I've searched there and it wasn't there at all, so this should be considered nonsense. Squirepants101 21:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I want to withdraw the proposal for deletion because I found a source of this episode. Right here. Squirepants101 00:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Speedily deleted by Finlay McWalter (db-bio, no assertion of notability, 2nd delete) - Yomangani talk 23:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

John Hurteau

founder of a unsourced politcal party. He obviously created this page him self. If i cant create my autobiography then neither can he Dormantfascist 22:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC) And it has already been speedy deleted [22] ( Dormantfascist 22:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)) reply

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

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Terranism

wikipedia is not a place for things made up in school/pub one day Dormantfascist 22:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Freechoice TV

Advert about an online TV that will launch in 2007 Nehwyn 22:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Note: The author has modified the article so that it now states the TV website has been launched today (October 1), but there is no URL, and no relevant hits on Google. Apart from the crystal ball criterion, I'd say this is also a case of non-notability. Nehwyn 09:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, Crystal balling. There is a website, but doesn't seem to be anything notable about it either.-- Nilfanion ( talk) 15:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The Smoke Room

Website advert Nehwyn 22:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Any links have been taken out now so that it cannot be considered an advert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesmokeroom ( talk • contribs)

  • Comment Sure it can. "...established itself as a nucleus of talented artists" and "have attracted a leftfield and edgy audience" are advert speak through and through. Danny Lilithborne 09:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Ok, I see your point. I don't want this to be an advert, just want it in here as a point of reference. Any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesmokeroom ( talk • contribs)

Only one: demonstrate that the WP:WEB criteria are met! Nehwyn 10:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
All points taken on board and agreed. I will re-do it and see if you feel it is suitable. Any better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesmokeroom ( talk • contribs)
Sure. You have a few days before the deletion debates closes. Nehwyn 10:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I have re-edited. Is this now suitable? Thanks

  • Delete. No longer spammy, but it still describes a nonnotable website founded only two months ago, with no Alexa ranking. The first page of a Google search shows that there are also at least three other unrelated websites, and a book, called "The Smoke Room". NawlinWiki 11:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete unchanged since afd started, so if anyone wants to improve the machine translated output, that should still be possible. W.marsh 13:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Marea (band)

Tagged for speedy but not a speedy candidate, notability asserted. Hard to verify, needs a closer look. Guy 23:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - the Spanish wikipedia article says they're signed to RCA, the Spanish language MTV has a biography on them [23] and confirms that at least three of their albums were released by major labels. So it looks like they satisfy WP:MUSIC. Googlers beware - "marea" simply means "tide", so google for the album titles instead. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Don't we, incidentially, have a "this article need attention of an en-es bilingual person" tag/cat? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but tag with cleanup for copyedit and for attention from an en-es bilingual person. -- GunnarRene 02:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, it's a babelfished article from the Spanish wikipedia, and as such, nothing is lost if it's deleted (except some confusion if one reads the article). If someone wants to write a real article about the band that makes some sense, that one can be kept. - Bobet 09:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It seems that the band is on the borderline of being notable, but it's a terrible article. The text we have now is not even usable as a stub. Delete now, but resubmit if someone can do a proper article. Because of the current quality, as the last reviewer says, little would be lost if it is deleted. We do expect to see some *evidence* of notability in the article itself, not just in the assertion of a reviewer. There is no reference provided in the article besides a link to the band's own web site. EdJohnston 04:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Philosophy of unconditional love

Vanity article about non-notable web page created by the author of the Wiki article. Banno 23:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • keep bottom line, it IS a thing/concept..it DOES exist...case closed, end of story
The above entry is from 64.12.122.198 ( talk · contribs), an AOL IP. I request that it be discounted. Not to mention that the reason given would mean that anything could be included in the Wiki. Banno 07:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete that is the message the universe cries out to me (as per WP:WEB and because it's OR) -- Charlesknight 23:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this is real mystic and all, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Danny Lilithborne 00:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, strong doubts that the cited published sources actually talk about this (doubts that could be addressed by quotes from them that use this term). Gazpacho 11:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, concerning the issues presented by Banno as grounds for deletion in the article discussion page:

1. The Wikipedia is not a soapbox Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox; the pages is self-promotion and advocacy.

Rebuttal: No invitation nor mention is made concerning the author of the article to visit any website or support any idea. Thus, it is not SELF-promotion. Furthermore, no invitation is made by the author to visit, support, and/or agree to the OneLuv Philosophy or to visit http://www.one-luv.com. The author and the web-page are listed as references and cited (as required by WikiPedia) in the same manner as all other references.

The argument presented above is irrelevant. The sole purpose of this article is to attempt to draw attention to an otherwise non-notable website. Note that a reverse search on Google for http://www.one-luv.com/ or its sub-pages returned no entries. The page is self-promotion, regardless of how the links to oneluv are presented. Banno
Let's remember that the name of the article is "philosophy of unconditional love"... NOT oneluv philosophy. Oneluv philosophy is a source for the philosophy of unconditional love. All the citations in the article are required by WikiPedia to properly reference a source. Jpmorris2006 23:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

From Wikipedia:Verifiability:

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.

Banno 09:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

2. The article meets the criteria for vanity. Specifically, it contains material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or one of the close family members or associates of the author.

Rebuttal: Again, no mention is made of the author of the article within the article, its references, or subsets. Moreover, no mention is made of OneLuv Philosophy or its author except in the form of properly referenced material as required by WikiPedia. Furthermore, the author of OneLuv Philosophy (accused of attempting to "promote is his personal notoriety") uses a pseudonym specifically to avoid notoriety.

There are a half-dozen or so references to MichaelJaye ( talk · contribs) in the article. Count 'em. Banno
All references included in the article are citations required by WikiPedia to give proper credit to a source. No one, as of yet, has stated those citations were put in place improperly. If so, make your argument. Jpmorris2006 23:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
None of those references meets the criteria set out at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, as a suitable source for the material presented in the article. Banno 09:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

3. The article is not notable. There are no independent reliable sources cited to show that this is a topic worthy of inclusion.

Rebuttal: Essentially, “we experience this primary force, this primary movement of existence, this primary act of creation, as the emotion we call love…When we use the term love here, we’re speaking of unconditional love (Kaufman, 2002).” This is a quote from Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev the first one to prepose a rudimentary philosophy of unconditonal love. The reference for this quote is: Kaufman, Steven (2002). "Unified Reality Theory: The Evolution of Existence into Experience". Milwaukee, WI: Destiny Toad Press. ppg 185,311... an independent and reliable source.

Furthermore, Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev is listed on WikiPedia as an accepted article. In that article, the author states: "His (Dr. Kozyrev's) nearly unified theory and aspects thereof, such as the durational/physical aspects of time itself and cause-effect systems, have never been experimentally disproven to this day. The awesome implications of his work..."

Within Wikipedia, itself, Dr. Kozyrev is listed and accepted as scientist whose works have "awesome implications" and whose identifications "have never been experimentally disproven". Such as source is both reliable and independent... and he was the first to assert a philosophy of unconditonal love.

Again, this misses the point. The article lists no third parties that even discuss the oneluv site or philosophy. An incidental use of the same term by Kaufman simply does not count. Banno
He uses the term "unconditional love", not "the philosophy of unconditional love." And he is by no means the first to describe such a concept, which has been part of Christian philosophy for centuries. What you would have to show (as I said on the article talk page) is that this article describes a philosophical school, the ideas and adherents of which have been recognized by someone other than yourself as a school. Gazpacho 23:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Again, the name of the article is "philosophy of unconditional love" NOT OneLuv Philosophy... a highly reputable scientist stating that existence exists as unconditional love is both philosophical and significant... i.e. metaphysics: the origin and nature of existence.

Furthermore, the fact that the concept has been a part of Christian philosophy for centuries is more proof toward the fact that it is a viable, acceptable school of thought. Jpmorris2006 23:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I will repeat the criticism: there are no independent reliable sources cited to show that this is a topic worthy of inclusion. Especially damming in this regard is the complete absence of links to the key resource, the one love web site. Banno 09:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

4. Similarly, the sources are unreliable and unverifiable.

Rebuttal: Again, reliable and verifiable sources have been referenced in the article:

  • Jaye, Michael (2006, 09 26). The Philosophy of Unconditional Love. Retrieved September 26, 2006, from One-Luv Philosophy Web site: http://www.one-luv.com
  • The Neo-Tech/Zonpower Home Page
  • Wilcock, David, “The Divine Cosmos”, Divine Cosmos, n.d. [Book on-line, temp]; available from http://www.divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=6&id=20&Itemid=36; Internet; accessed 15 august 2006.
  • Wolf, Fred A. (1988). "Parallel Universes: The Search for Other Worlds New York, NY: Touchstone. ppg 69-70.
  • Kaufman, Steven (2002). "Unified Reality Theory: The Evolution of Existence into Experience". Milwaukee, WI: Destiny Toad Press. ppg 185,311.
  • Radin, Dean, "Entangled Minds: Extrasensory Experiences in a Quantum Reality". New York, NY: Pocket Books. pg 231.
  • Talbot, Michael, "The Holographic Universe". New York, NY: HarperCollins, ppg 1, 47, 59.
  • Jaynes, Julian, "The Origin of Consciousness in the Break Down of the Bicameral Mind". New York, NY: First Mariner. pg 55.

Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_unconditional_love"

Furthermore, much of the article contains links to other articles within WikiPedia, itself.

Most of these links and references are incidental, in that they do not mention the specific one love philosophy. The remainder are written by the author of the article. None of these meet the criteria set out at WP:WEB Banno
  • Again, we're talking about the philosophy of unconditional love NOT OneLuv Philosophy. Jpmorris2006 23:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Thus, the grounds for deletion of this article are ungrounded and unsubstantiated.

It appears the editors of Wikipedia are dishonestly allowing their own personal beliefs to influence the content of Wikipedia as evidenced by the sarcastic remarks of one voter:

"Delete that is the message the universe cries out to me (as per WP:WEB and because it's OR) -- Charlesknight 23:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)"... reply

And, further evidenced by the condescending remarks of another editor:

"...But I will continue to object to linking this page from the main Philosophy article, which is about the academic discipline and not new age stuff such as this. Banno 21:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)"

Because such editors do not understand and/or agree with the assertions properly expressed in the article, they seem to be attempting to dismiss it as "unacceptable for Wikipedia". Yet, as shown above, the grounds for which they've made such claims are baseless. The article has and does operate within the guidelines expressed by those editors, themselves.

Anyone who has passed philosophy 101 would be able to drive a bus through the holes in the metaphysics presented in this article. Take it to any of the serious philosophy forums and see what they say. Banno 11:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Yet, continued attempts to delete the article have been made. Thus, it is quite clear that because the article conflicts with the editors' personal beliefs, they are attempting to dishonestly remove it and its value from Wikipedia to satisfy their own personal cravings for "rigteousness" and pseudo self-esteems.

Actually, as an admin I might have deleted it as patent nonsense, and I doubt anyone would have noticed. Instead I will let it go through the due process; and ignore the personal attack implicit in your comment. Banno 11:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

However, such dishonest editors are not without redemption. Upon seeing and understanding the full scope of facts as presented here, each editor has the ability to undo his/her dishonesties and choose an honest path. Upon seeing the full scope of facts, each editor has the inherent right to change his/her vote to reflect a Neutral Point of View... NOT one's own skewed personal beliefs or views.

Jpmorris2006 20:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply


First off - calling other editors liars is not really the best way to try and get people to change their mind. Secondly while some of the sources quoted in that article are good (leaving aside the crank websites), the synthesis of them presented within that article is OR by a non-notable figure on a non-notable website. Can you point towards an article or a book that reviews or discusses the theory (NOT the sources but the emerging theory) as presented on that webpage? -- Charlesknight 21:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Let's see... on the philosophy page, you as editors do your best to present the concept of "philosophy" to people who want to know more. While, you're not perfect... you do your best. You're not notable, nor do you own any notable sites on philosophy (if you do, by chance, it means nothing to wikipedia... that's not the point of it)

I do my best to try to present the philosophy of unconditional love to people who want to learn more. I'm no perfect, but I do my best. I'm NOT notable nor do I own a notable website about it. But, I don't have to be... I'm an editor NOT a source. Jpmorris2006 23:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't actually see anything approaching an answer to my question in there. Let's try again - do you have a non-notable source which discusses the theory as presented on that webpage? Because you answer just seems to say "yes it's entirely non-notable" -- Charlesknight 07:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Second point - could you clarify something for me? your comment is the only one on the webpage - you talk about how wonderful the system is and how you have been putting it into practice for two months, however according to WHOIS, the site only came into existance ten days ago (the hit count says it's had 114 visits - 5 are mine so it fails WP:WEB as well). Can you clear up my confusion? -- Charlesknight 21:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I said this before... he had an old website called http://www.mjaye.com that it was on before this new one. Check out WHOIS on that one... it's been up since October 2005. Jpmorris2006 23:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Finally, I've read over the edits that the author of OneLuv Philosophy made to the page. They don't try to pump HIS philosophy. They simple clarify the philosophy of unconditional love... two different things! Jpmorris2006 23:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

  • KEEP Exactly which part of energy do you deleters not understand? ~Kiwini
    User's first edit. Gazpacho 07:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The references on the oneluv website and in the article do not adequately support either the ideas in the article or the claim that the 'philosophy of unconditional love' is an established theory. If this is an established theory, then one would expect that there would be places where these ideas are considered critically. In an (admittedly cursory) search I failed to find any. Anarchia 09:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete. Anarchia points out, above, that the references do not seem to establish that this thing is a legitimate theory. Well, just let me clarify that even if it were a legitimate theory, it is still not acceptable as it stands, because "the philoeophy of..." means that it needs to be an established academic discipline!! It is not!! Any claims to the contrary are preposterously misleading and false!! You cannot simply write an article and say "the philosophy of doodoo" is that branch of philosophy which studies the multifarious aspects of human waste, the form, the color, the criteria of individuation (where does the crap end and where does it begin). Well, you CAN, (0: but it does NOT belong on a serious encyclopedia. -- Francesco Franco 09:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I can find no mention of this theory within the academic literature - however if someone has a reference they would like me to check I'm quite happy to take a look. -- Charlesknight 10:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Ok, all in all, here's the situation. There are basically two relevent references here. One is to the webpage of someone named Jaye. It is not a book, an article in a serious journal, a magazine....It is just a webpage with his original research on it. Umm....my 14-year-old niece is working on a similar project. The other is to another webpage which does not really discuss "philosophy of unconditional love", but some related theories about some mysterious energy and the ether that permeates the universe. If this article stays, then I will create a blog this afternoon and post some original ideas about counterfactual hate and the origins of time and will request an article on Wikipedia. -- Francesco Franco 10:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I agree. If this article were permitted to stay on the Wiki, we might as well drop any pretence of developing a serious encyclopedia. Looking forward to reading your Niece's work... Banno 11:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I find it interesting how "expert" editors who battle to be taken seriously use childish attacks and non sequiturs to make their points:

"Umm....my 14-year-old niece is working on a simialr project... "the philosophy of doodoo" is that branch of philophy which studies the multaifarious aspects of human waste, the form, the color, the criteroa of individuation (where does the crap and where does it begin)..."

Such attacks (riddled with misspellings and grammatical errors) make no point and serve no purpose... and only point out the childish nature of such editors. Furthermore, with such editors as the "experts" of Wikipedia, "we might as well drop any pretence of developing a serious encyclopedia".

Aristotle identified that the most important "cause" of any existent is its final cause -- its purpose. What is the final cause of such editors? What purpose do they serve? Do they exist to help and coach new editors to create valuable articles... or, do they exist to attack and drain value from new editors in order to pump their egos and boost their pseudo self-esteems?

Let the facts of the case reveal themselves...

Jpmorris2006 13:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Let the facts on my userpage reveal themselves to your superior wisdom. To paraphrase Nietzsche: "Here are my contributions, where are yours?" Is this it? -- Francesco Franco 13:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Furthermore, if you look at that same page and/or discuss the issue with people who are familar with me on this project, you would find that I reject (indeed, I'm beginning to vehemently resent) the appelation of "expert". I am NOT. But I am a relatively experienced Wikipedian and my contributions shall speak for themselves. Therefore, I can only strongly advise you to learn the basic rules: WP:OR, WP:Reliable, WP:Verify, WP:WEB, etc.. Hint: you've gotten off to a bad start. Try working on Alexius Meinong or something like that. -- Francesco Franco 13:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Non-notable psychoceramica. Cheers, Sam Clark 13:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm offended that Jpmorris2006 didn't get offended at my snarkiness. Danny Lilithborne 02:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless there is evidence of notability (e.g. inclusion in an academic curriculum or recommended reading list at an accredited college or university; book review in a major publication); citation by someone whose work meets those criteria. - Jmabel | Talk 21:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Keep---As the author states, this is in the beginning stages of development...the beginning of the study of "Philosophy of Unconditional Love." Every conclusion has a beginning idea, that leads to a hypothosis, which is in turned studied and either proven true or not true. As stated previously on this page, some studies have been noted back to early Christian philosopy and more recently by the authors cited by Jaye. In all of the comments on this page about why to delete this there are not any legitimate reasons. It seems as if those opposed to this article do not understand the definition of philosophy and what it means to think outside the box to research an unfamiliar area. I have read all of the information on this website and on the author's website and I feel that is well researched. This is not a self-promoting article and the author is not try to gain anything personal on this website. This article needs to remain on the website and should not be discriminated against because it is a touchy subject. Looking forward to more from this author...JKalea

As the author states, this is in the beginning stages of development ah so you agree that it fails WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball- many thanks to that new user for making a case for deleting. -- Charlesknight 06:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
70.160.162.211 ( talk · contribs), who signed themselves above as JKalea, is indeed a new user; this, like the other entries voting to keep the article, is another first post. So I guess that we can forgive JKalea for not understanding that the Wiki is not a place to publish original research. It does not mater one jot if the philosophy of unconditional love is indeed the answer to the question of life, the universe and everything. It cannot be placed on the Wiki until it meets the basic requirements of verifiability, reliability and notability. Again, the argument should be discounted. Banno 08:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merged in to Old Firm. (aeropagitica) 20:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

List Of Players Who Have Played For Both Sides of the Old Firm

A list of three, which is unlikely to grow very much - in a hundred years time, might be six...

Come on, it's quicker (and neater) to write "Kenny Miller is one of very few players to have crossed the famous Old Firm divide since the war, the others being Alfie Conn and Mo Johnston.

rather than

"Kenny Miller is one of very few players to have crossed the famous Old Firm divide since the war (see List Of Players Who Have Played For Both Sides of the Old Firm) Camillus (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy Delete has absolutely no context for the non-sports fan (such as myself). Danny Lilithborne 00:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - 3 players isn't enough for a useful list. Ac@osr 09:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no context. This list could be more than adequately replaced with a sentence in Old Firm; like the nominator suggests.-- Nilfanion ( talk) 15:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Camillus (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect into Old Firm as a subsection (see North London derby for a comparable example). Qwghlm 21:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, I'd like to scream out "listcruft extreme!" but I won't. I'll restrict myself to only scream out "replace with sentence in existing derby article!". – Elisson • Talk 21:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per Qwghlm though I'd not be averse to an unlikely keep. Highly notable but admittedly short. MLA 13:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into the article Old Firm. Firstly, allow me to state that the above mentioned article deals exclusively with Rangers and Celtic. The number of players who have played in both clubs is about less than ten (correct me if I am wrong about this information). Nevertheless, this is a very notable subject to research in and the information is verifiable. However, the main problem with this article currently is that it lacks content and it would be impossible to expand this article further (unless the number of players involved in both these clubs increases tremendously in the future). Thus, it is not right to delete this article outright and the most reasonable course of action to take is to merge the contents of this article into Old Firm. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 01:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Steel 11:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Ted Jesus Christ GOD

Biographical article that fails the guidelines in WP:BIO, WP:RS, possibly WP:HOAX, etc. Google test turns up roughly 587 hits, which is extremely low considering that this is claimed to be an Internet meme. Crystallina 23:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Strong delete - For reasons listed above. mirageinred 23:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong not delete - For new reasons listed below and extensive sources added to original article. How about a recommend for improvement and/or other templates? Jeremy Bright 00:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Granted, you make several good points.

Ted is neither a household name nor remotely as popular as other internet memes, like Chuck Norris, Mr. T, or David Hasselhoff. However, I first submit his YouTube channel [24] as evidence upon his behalf, and additionally argue erroneously and irreverently that if I myself had 587 actual returns on Google, I would feel like an internet meme.

Additionally, and more likely to be of any persuasion, I admit that my little article on Ted is in no way authoritive or complete. However, I do think Ted holds just as much weight as the Longniddry railway station and its article [25]. Yet, Longriddry railway station receives a stub alert and invites Wikipedians to improve it and make it better, while mine is, after epochs of hard keyboard labor and toil, proposed for deletion in under two minutes. And I know how important Neomphalida are, and why they deserve their own Wikipedian article, I'm just proposing that maybe, since Ted is (probably) just as famous - if not more so - as Neomphalida [26] are, that he be allowed to remain. Believe me, if I had any information which I could use to flesh out Longniddry railway station's article, I would hasten to add it, but alas I do not. Instead, I am merely trying to add yet another article on a person who can be, on some not insignificant level, considered a "religious (potentially weirdo cultist schizophrenic?) figure".

I know, it's that eternal argument about Wikipedian censorship, but I'm willing to argue that Ted Jesus Christ GOD is just as worthy of a short Wikipedian article of approximately 10kb in size as anyone else already listed on Wikipedia's article of people who have claimed to be Jesus Christ (which I did not add, may I add) [27].

Maybe it's time for Ted to finally have his own 15kb article? He's listed on several already. I for one consider him to be just as valuable to Wikipedia as Matayoshi Jesus [28].

I'm just thankful that my article on Australian Green Tree Ants is still going strong.

Your humble servant,

Jeremy Bright 00:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Jeremy Bright ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the article that is the subject of this AfD. reply

It's not really censorship as much as the fact that Neomphalida, Matayoshi Jesus, etc. have been documented in external sources, while the subject of this article has not. (Answers.com is a Wikipedia mirror and doesn't really count.) All of this is taken from WP:RS (reliable sources). Crystallina 00:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply


TJCG himself in an open letter about his life and his short autobiography, confirming most of the article: [29]

TJCG on his goals, 40 days and 40 nights experience, and Satan's temptation with his saving by angels, which also demonstrates his writing style and details his theology, all on one page. Granted, hard to read, but chocked full of (way too much) information. Chapter 1 of 37 (as of today). [30]

Third party review of TJCG [31]. But I guess that doesn't matter. You can browse the other two, I'll cite them and others as sources now to appease any and all moderators.

Jeremy Bright 00:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I thought you'd like to know that I fleshed out the article with extensive sources from Ted himself, virtually corroborating every statement. Sorry I neglected to do it before. Still working on it. Take a look if you want. Jeremy Bright 00:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Sorry, Geocities sites and official sites don't cut it. Danny Lilithborne 00:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I thought that it was okay to use self-published sources as long as its in conjunction with an article on the same person. Such as Ted's website for a Wikipedian article on Ted.
From WP:RS:

Self-published sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it, and where the material is one of the following:
relevant to the person's notability, or, if the material is self-published by a group or organisation, relevant to the notability of that group or organisation or not contentious, such as basic biographical information. All information of a self-published nature should be looked at with a critical eye

Jeremy Bright 01:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

About self-published articles as sources: Please take it in context. WP:RS goes on to say:
it should also be:
  • not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing;
  • about the subject only, and does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
  • subject to verification by other sources.
Self-published material should always be reported as the POV of the publisher, and not as general fact, until such time as there is independent corroboration of that material. The reputation of the self-publisher is a guide to whether the material rises to the level of notability at all.
In general, if a self-published source is reliable, then other reliable sources will cite it, until then, it should be avoided.
Hope this helps. Mapetite526 21:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete due to lack of notability and lack of reliable sources. I concede that the article is surprisingly well written. However Wikipedia policies don't leave much uncertainty about what to do here. EdJohnston 04:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 13:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Self (sociology)

This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Relevant policies include No original research and Verifiability. Tagged with a "complete rewrite needed" template nine months ago; no rewrite followed. blameless 23:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete it's a well-written essay, but it's still an essay. Terms like "society" and "identity" have different meanings in sociology, but I don't see why we need separate articles for each one. Danny Lilithborne 00:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as abandoned essay without hope of references. -- GunnarRene 02:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Comment It seems we have a volunteer that may be able to make this a relevant article. I still don't know whether or not it nees its own article, but I'm making my opinion a neutral one. -- GunnarRene 08:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, I have problems with the article... but I think this topic deserves a page and I would not want this AfD to bar it from recreation with real content. gren グレン 05:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - and move the essay to the talk page, replacing it on the article page with a stub. The essay may come in handy in providing avenues of research for the article, and there's no reason not to retain the essay in the history of the article - after all, it was displayed for many months. I have around 15,000 edits under my belt, and could easily write the stub if no one else wants to. -- The Transhumanist 06:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • New stub/rewrite completed. Most of it was compiled from material presented elsewhere on Wikipedia, and has standard Wikipedia article structure, which should make it easier for others to refine and build upon. Let me know what you think. -- The Transhumanist 09:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, without prejudice for or against a possible merge. It's now a different kind of article. But it needs to reference reliable sources about what the self is in sociology, and how it is different from the self in psychology and philosophy. I don't want to prejudice for or against a possible merge though. -- GunnarRene 11:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I see references to neuroscience and psychology. What does this have to do with sociology? I've done a little bit of research, and I'm not convinced that self is a key concept in sociology. blameless 17:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Transhumanist rewrite. It is definitely in better shape now to maybe becoming a worthwhile Wikipedia article. Agne 06:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 12:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

M.I.L.K

This now-defunct South Korean group does not qualify any of the guidelines listed in Wikipedia:Notability (music). The page does not indicate that the so-called "notable songs" have charted. Also, they have only released on album on one major record label, one album short. mirageinred 23:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Does not appear to assert notability for meeting WP:MUSIC. Vegaswikian 02:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Hard to gsearch, but notability is not ascerted in the article... so not a tough decision. Themindset 00:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Earl of Lerwick

To quote the article:

The title Earl of Lerwick" was created in 1987 in the Peerage of Scotland for Martin Lotherey. He purchased the name purely as a symbol of his wealth, the title has no significance in royal circles and does not give the beholder the honour of parading their coats of arms for the parading monarch At the moment, the Earlship is held by George, Earl of Lerwick, originating in the central belt of Scotland, and was renewed on 25/09/2006.
George, First Earl of Lerwick, claimed the title recently after aquiring it in internet auction, and although he has the considerable authority of using the name therin with credit card, bank statements, and all other identification it cannot be used to buy property and has no royal significance.

I believe this is a hoax, but even if it is not, it certainly fails WP:BIO so far as either "Earl" is concerned. Whichever is the case, "Earl of Lerwick" produces zero ghits and zero gbooks hits and thus the article is not verifiable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as hoax as per nom. If this was genuine (although it sounds highly dubious), a notice about this would have appeared in the London Gazette and/or the Edinburgh Gazette - the official journals of record where awards and honours such as UK peerages are required to be listed ( see the search functions at [32]). Bwithh 00:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)" reply
  • Delete, either a hoax or a description of a sad (but unencyclopedic) fraud. Wikipedia's coverage of the Peerage of Scotland should be limited to those legitimate titles recognised by the Lord Lyon King of Arms, not delusions bought off eBay. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I want to know how many people bid on it, and how serious they were. Or maybe not. And why settle for a spurious earldom? I'd hold out for marquess at the least. — OtherDave 13:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: speedy keep due to bad faith nom by new user, possible single purpose account/vandal. PT ( s-s-s-s) 00:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

This keep closure was endorsed by deletion review because the 4th nomination was very recent. The closer was a non-admin with a conflict of interest, however, so his accusation of bad faith is stricken. Xoloz 15:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (5th nomination)

Does not follow encyclopedic format

  • Delete: Please let this nomination stand. Bad faith? I dont think so because the last two were too quickly deleted and we did not have a good count because of it. It was said most people at first keep, and later people who see this page delete. I think the page was too quickly deleted before people really read the arguements. If you don't agree fine, but thats what I see happend.

My reason for delete is that Gore III is not a public figure, and is only on here because of his arrests or his accident. He has never been mentioned on the news otherwise, and will never be heard from again unless he gets arrested again. He would not be in a 'real' encyclopedia. Thank you.-- JoeWang2 00:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. - Mailer  D iablo 16:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

San tan pride

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_September_30&oldid=1116878470"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE