Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 13 August 15 >

Purge server cache























































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

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

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

Paghman Saadat

Paghman Saadat (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

POV forking: appears to have been written to promote the Idries Shah school of sufism, while avoiding the status dispute on the page about him. User:Jedermann 15:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls• strikes 00:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as nonsense vanity. — Centrx→ talk • 15:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Jim Samuel

Hoax (among other things, note date of birth), no Google hits Dsreyn 14:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Not Allowed

This page is "Wikipedia" Garbage data. Our company has contacted Wiki representatives in Florida and this reference has been sited as simple harassment. There is no reason for this reference and should NOT be considered reliable information.

  • Delete either its self-authored and violates WP:VANITY or its not and is copyvio from [Not Allowedl]. In either case its spam. Dlyons493 Talk 11:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, selfvertising. NawlinWiki 14:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

the authour of the article had INVITED "graham" to show examples of BETTER articles _ but "graham" has chosen to make this a personal issue? we have NO idea what his agenda is. "graham" has REFUSED to send any EXAMPLES of the "the perfect article" for a BIO on this site. Can someone else show us a CONSTRUCTIVE, credible example? Go read Bill Bernbachs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Bernbach) article or Jay Chiat's... (on this site) Are those VANITY? OR are they BIOS of successful people - you've NEVER heard of or have no interest in hearing of? there are THOUSANDS that DO have interest in this information. ( User:Not Allowed 00:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)) reply

Have a look at Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_great_article and Wikipedia:Featured_articles Dlyons493 Talk 00:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply

now THATS a sound, straight forward reference comment. (it) no presumptions, no personal bias (apparently) .. and no bizarre jealousy. Merci, Dlyons493! we'll check it out. ( User:Not Allowed 01:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)) Please do not accuse the nominator or any other users of having an "agenda", "personal bias" or "bizarre jealousy". reply

  • Delete as a violation of WP:BIO and WP:VANITY, as well as fairly obvious advertising. Srose (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Inappropriate tone; written like an advertisement rather than an encyclopedia article. WP:VANITY is not grounds for deletion, but it sure as heck doesn't help either. Kickaha Ota 17:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I get only 79 google hits on his name, and most of them are things like letters and reviews that he has posted. There is a mention of him in the ad industry mag "'boards", but it is a one sentence "Not Allowed." sort of thing. Brianyoumans 18:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

















































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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by User:ClockworkSoul per G4. -- Arnzy (whats up?) 03:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Rules of Make Believe

This is the second time this article has been nominated for deletion. It was originally deleted here, and was then protected from recreation due to repeated recreations, including changing the guidlines then claiming that it fit. But it's back. Previously, the website, seen here had an Alexa rank of 2.5 million, it is now off the radar with no rank and 90 Google hits. Its sole claim of notability is that it was once mentioned in a "Tech News" (CNET?) article in 2002. This is meaningless, it's like being mentioned in a local paper, and I doubt that the story was centred on this webcomic. (note that the reviews linked are not from professional sources, but in fact reader reviews) This is less notable than the Philip Sandifer incident and no way near as popular as Encyclopedia Dramatica. We should be applying the same standards to webcomics as we do to usual websites. - Hahnch e n 00:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by ClockworkSoul. — NM Chico 24 03:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

San Renard

This is the 3rd nomination for this article. It has been deleted twice before at here and here. If this discussion concludes as a delete, I strongly suggest it be protected from recreation. It might not be vanity, but somehow, I think the way this article professes the subject's deep love of his girlfriend in spite of the great difficulties due to distance, hint at it. Also it mentions of the authors' lack of "passion for fame and attention". Let's help this non-notable internet noncelebrity (just read the article and see what important notable things he's done) achieve this by deleting this article. - Hahnch e n 00:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. (speedy if it is a repost) Yomangani talk 00:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy G4 if it is indeed similar to either of the originally deleted articles. Delete otherwise as failing WP:BIO. -- Kinu t/ c 00:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete — per Kinu. SynergeticMaggot 00:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy per above. Sorry Guy 01:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete -- Whpq 01:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete tagged as such — NM Chico 24 01:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete. Dinosaur puppy 02:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy G4 and protect for bad penny. clearly contravenes WP:VAIN Ohconfucius 03:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete and protect per above. -- Arnzy (whats up?) 03:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango 123 23:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Scroll Dynasty

Another webcomic on the Comic Genesis free web host, found here. "Scroll Dynasty" manages to attract 30 Google hits and is not mentioned in Comic Genesis' Alexa Report. (even if it were, it probably wouldn't be notable, verifiable or popular anyway). There's nothing between this an a myspace personal. - Hahnch e n 00:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Stage Select: When Masters Attack

Mega man fan fiction webcomic, found here. A search for "Stage Select" "When Masters Attack" generates 50 Google hits, none from which could be classified as a good source and an Alexa rank of 1 million. This is not a website worth noting in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a web directory for the same reasons its not a phone book. - Hahnch e n 00:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Swashbuckle

On my universtiy student paper, runs 2 comics. They're not notable, were the comics on your college paper notable? I doubt it. They're not going to become any more notable if they're put onto Angelfire and branded a webcomic, are they? Heck, is anything on Angelfire notable? - Hahnch e n 00:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

AltNuMet

The following page has been existence since December 2005, and the top of the page notes "This is a temporary page to host a rough draft of the merger of articles Alternative Metal and Nu Metal". However, in almost a year nothing has been merged, and seems to be nothing more than a waste of space. Some would also dispute that nu metal and alternative metal are two seperate genres, and a merger wouldn't be justified. Dmiles21 00:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Smerge and delete — Thats if the merge hasnt already been done. SynergeticMaggot 01:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Articles for alt metal and nu metal should be separate. If there's anything new here that should be merged to the separate articles, that should be done. But there's no reason to have a single article about two different genres. — NM Chico 24 02:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — mboverload @ 04:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete If the merge doesn't work, should delete this article anyways. Daniel's page ☎ 06:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete — Looks like it's gotten forgotten. ShaunES 07:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, I agree. — Khoikhoi 07:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I agree too, and "rough drafts" should be in user sandboxes or on talk pages, not on the article namespace. Martinp23 10:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • What's a draft doing in the main namespace? I also object to the article title, but that's a different story. Are alternative metal and nu metal really interchangeable terms? Well, delete if the merge is complete, I guess. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 13:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Abandoned effort. StuffOfInterest 13:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This page is abandoned. -- Neo139 22:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Rp Land

Non-notable web forums, prod removed. Unfortunately, we don't have a CSD for nn-websites, so it can't be speedied. -- Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

wat does that mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sithlord4 ( talk • contribs)

Sorry, a lot of jargon in there. Basically, the subject of the article isn't well-known enough to be included in Wikipedia (see WP:WEB for inclusion criteria for websites), and it's not able to be speedily deleted, so we have to go through this process. -- Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete admits its non-notable in the first sentence.-- Crossmr 00:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete typical forum vanity, even includes a member list (!!!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — per nom and above. SynergeticMaggot 00:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete... hosted on Invision boards, enough said. Fails WP:WEB. Even includes the obligatory 1337 p05t3rz list. Barely coherent article. -- Kinu t/ c 01:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - self-admitted as not passing WP:WEB -- Whpq 01:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Does {{db-group}} apply to internet forums? -- Wafulz 01:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete I found that the Sithlord4 who asked about jargon in there was the creator of this article and an admin on RP Land. This now is also a vanity article that also has WP:WEB issues. This was prodded, but the aforementioned Sithlord deprodded it, leading to this AfD. His contributions are all related to Rp Land, except for the Mystic Ruins edit. He also once blanked a page (see his talk), but his contribs don't say so. TrackerTV ( CW| Castform| Green Valley) 01:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment - as the user who caught the blanking, I can assure you that his contribs do say so. It's his second edit to this very page, in fact. There's probably a better template to have used than the vanilla "don't blank pages" boilerplate, but that was the only one I could find at the time. BigHaz 07:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Nom withdrew. SynergeticMaggot 06:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Politics of Wallonia

Article should be merged back into Wallonia. Article starts with a self-reference. TrackerTV ( CW| Castform| Green Valley) 00:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Withdraw nom Article has now been heavily expanded. I think this article is much better than the one that existed when the article was nominated for deletion. TrackerTV ( CW| Castform| Green Valley) 14:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Back-merge anything that meets inclusion standards into the Wallonia article. While informative articles about politics by country are acceptable, information about the political structures of individual states, provinces, districts, etc. is best served by adding to their respective articles. -- Kinu t/ c 01:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • No vote: The article now looks significantly better, and is in the spirit of the other sub-country politics articles mentioned below, in that a better distinction is made as to the politics of Wallonia both within and distinct from the country itself. -- Kinu t/ c 18:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge back to main article anything that needs merging. -- Whpq 01:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge anything useful per above. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Somebody could merge this into Wallonia by Meets and inclusion. Daniel's page ☎ 06:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per above. Martinp23 10:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, no need to compress articles. There's a lot that can be said about this topic. The idea to merge this is strongly biased, confer Politics of Abkhazia, Politics of British Columbia, Politics of Assam, Politics of Toowoomba, Queensland and so forth. Any state that has a separate (which is in this case very separate) government, with its own parliament and secretaries, deserves its own Politics article. I agree that this may not be obvious if you don't know the topic, so here's my telling you. The article just needs decent cleanup and considerable expansion. -- Thunderhead 13:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • KeepStrong Keep. Granted this article has much room for expansion and wikification, but that is no grounds for deletion or merging. The politics of Wallonia differ greatly from the politics of Belgium's other half, Flanders, as exemplified in this article in The Economist. Ardent † ∈ 13:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge back into Wallonia, if there's enough for an article after that, recreate it. Carmen Chamelion 15:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per all of above. -- CPAScott 15:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There is strong precedent for this sort of article, I removed the self-referential opening, the article just needs clean-up and expansion. ONUnicorn 19:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as now expanded (and will be expanded further); note that the article was considerably revised since the above opinions were posted so that merge may no longer be a valid option. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, vastly improved. -- Dhartung | Talk 20:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge and redirect into Central African Republic. Baseball,Baby! balls• strikes 00:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Civil unrest in the Central African Republic

Article should be merged back into Central African Republic. Article is very small, linkless, found through Random Article. TrackerTV ( CW| Castform| Green Valley) 00:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Merge and redirect — To a desirable location. SynergeticMaggot 01:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Macktheknifeau 05:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and Redirect Merge and redirect into desirable location. (Per SynergeticMaggot). Daniel's page ☎ 06:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge back though there is the potential for a similarly-titled article to exist, just this isn't it. MLA 09:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect or expand hugely. Martinp23 10:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Agree with Martinp23 — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 13:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Smerge if not expanded. Looks like an article created solely for Portal:Current events posting. -- Dhartung | Talk 20:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply


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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Communications in Kazakhstan

WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. TrackerTV ( CW| Castform| Green Valley) 00:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Neutral. To call these facts indiscriminate seems like nationalistic bias not allowed by WP:NPOV. The information should remain on Wikipedia on one page or another, maybe in the Kazakhstan page, maybe on this page. But it is not indiscriminate. SliceNYC 00:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - there's an entire category Category:Communications by country for these article. -- Whpq 01:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect — To Kazakhstan. SynergeticMaggot 01:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, part of a series. Gazpacho 02:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Gazpacho. Dinosaur puppy 03:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. Wryspy 04:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Someone could merge this into Kazakhstan. Daniel's page ☎ 06:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Kazakhstan. By itself, a "communications" article is a fine subject for an article, and an individual article is great if we can get plenty of content on it, but this article amounts to a table of information. While encyclopedic, such an item is more useful in the context of a main article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Kazakhstan. NCurse work 08:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I have taken it out again as lists of facts look ugly in main articles. Piccadilly 10:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment this information isn't quite indiscriminate, it's almost certainly a copy and paste from the CIA World Factbook as IIRC it mirrors exactly the format used there. MLA 09:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Very strong keep, improve and do not merge. Every country has such an article. They were all created by a bot and many have been vastly improved since they were started. That this one hasn't been improved yet is merely a manifestation of systemic bias, but we should keep waiting. Calling this indiscriminate is utter nonsense. Piccadilly 10:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and rewrite as noted by MLA, this information is a direct copy-paste job from the CIA world factbook in 2001, and as such the information, as well as being copied verbatim, is hugely out of date (3 years is quite a long time in communications infrastructure life). It needs updating, rewriting and merging. 81.159.65.145 10:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Martinp23 10:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) no signed in reply
  • Keep ...because of the "by country" category reference. I'm more concerned about the utility of Category:Communications in Kazakhstan. StuffOfInterest 13:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep per Piccadilly. Each country has or ought to have such an article. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep because of its current terrible state. However, this is redeemable. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Hmmm On the one hand, this information would mean a lot more if it were on the same pages with other countries, for comparison's sake. On the other hand, merging all of the countries onto one page would make a huge, huge page that is difficult to navigate. Let's not kill off good information, but is there maybe a better way to display it? Jacqui ★ 21:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as part of a series. — dima / sb. tk/ 21:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as part of a series. Either way, it is not necessary to discuss merges in this forum. Yamaguchi先生 08:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Barbara and Jenna Bush

Unneeded, just like a Plusle and Minun page would be. The two subjects are strongly related, and one could take the time to go to Barbara Bush or Jenna Bush anyway. TrackerTV ( CW| Castform| Green Valley) 00:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. SliceNYC 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — Waste of space. No need for redirect either. SynergeticMaggot 00:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - spurious article -- Whpq 01:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: since the contents of the two articles were once here before being spun off, does this page need to exist, if nothing else, for the history, per the GFDL? -- Kinu t/ c 01:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as redundant. -- Arnzy (whats up?) 03:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — Redundant mboverload @ 04:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as redundant. Nothing to merge, redirect would be fruitless. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No longer needed now that Barbara and Jenna each have their own articles. If the GFDL requires that the history be kept, turn it into a redirect to Bush family, but only if needed by GFDL. -- Metropolitan90 04:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete redundant. Daniel's page ☎ 06:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, redundant. -- RattleMan 06:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — Redundant. ShaunES 07:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as (you guessed it) redundant. — Khoikhoi 07:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above ( Neostinker 10:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)) reply
  • Delete redundant Martinp23 10:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, redundant – they have their own article, bless their little bootses! — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 13:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Very redundant. StuffOfInterest 13:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete certainly redundant. Consider redirect only if people think users will actually search for "Barbara and Jenna Bush" collectively instead of just "Barbara Bush" or "Jenna Bush" alone. My guess? Will never be typed into the search box, and thus no redirect necessary. -- CPAScott 15:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I doubt that it's going to be of any help. (Wondering why everyone is using the word redundant when you could just say unnecessary and still get the same meaning =]). -- Nishkid64 16:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Dev920 17:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep, did anyone saying delete actually READ the page? It's a disambiguation page pointing at the two seperate articles. Whoever first created articles on the "first twins" created ONE article, which was then (rightfully) split into one on each sister. As is unfortunately true of most twins, a great many people think of them collectively, and when looking for information on them would natrually do a collective search. Checking the "What links here" gives us 53 pages including (tellingly, if you ask me) Wikipedia:Top 10 Google hits, A-K and Wikipedia:Popular pages. To delete this disambiguation page would be a mistake, leaving stranded anyone looking for information about the Bush twins. At the VERY LEAST it should become a redirect pointing at SOMETHING where people can find what they are looking for. Otherwise it would be left open for the creation of redundant articles. (P.S. Redunant and unnecessary aren't exactly the same). ONUnicorn 20:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Bush family per ONUnicorn. This is a search term that will get a good bit of use. Jacqui ★ 21:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per ONUnicorn - -- Ageo020 00:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, should never have been created as one article in the first place. The edit history should be saved, so make it a redirect to Bush family, rather than either one of them. Bush twins is a redirect here, btw. -- Dhartung | Talk 20:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Richard 08:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy redirect to a Bush family page or something. Deletion is not an option by the GFDL. Ardric47 23:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This reminds me, I think it is high time we broke out the Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen article into seperate pages. They're not infants any more; they've each made significant achievements on their own, and are now on top of a multi-billion dollar empire thanks to their numerous product lines marketed by Wal-Mart. GW can only dream that his daughters will ever achieve such success. RFerreira 21:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Nterface

Advertising, nn software, article created by User:Nterfacejason. I PRODded, but Nterfacejason removed the PROD, so I bring it here. User:Zoe| (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete — vainity. SynergeticMaggot 00:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - the advertising for the company was slapped onto an existing article. I've removed the addition of the company spam. -- Whpq 01:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • There's nothing in the article which explains its notability. How many users does it have? Has it been cited in major publications? User:Zoe| (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Technology is no more notable than the company. User:Nterfacejason.
  • Delete per nom. Wryspy 04:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Vanity, and advertisement is strongly prohibited in Wikipedia by Wikipedia policies. Daniel's page ☎ 06:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not assertation of notability
  • Delete non-notable Dlyons493 Talk 11:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Doesn't stand as notable in itself. Probably warrants some additional explanation in the QuakeNet article. StuffOfInterest 13:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no reliable sources WilyD 13:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete impossible to verify and too small in scope. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 20:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 00:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Gay rights in Brazil

Delete or at least merge with something, this one-sentence vanity article adds nothing on its own. Complete self-serving trash. Courtney Akins 01:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep the article is a pretty poor stub at the moment, but should remain for expansion: there is plenty to be said on the subject, and Wiki has a series of "Gay Rights in [Country X]" which is intended to be comprehensive. It's certainly not "vanity" as it doesn't promote any non-notable person or organization. It's just skimpy in its present form. DanB DanD 02:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Ok, but fair enough, lets merge into Human rights in Brazil for now then split the article off on its own once its hit "critical mass." Courtney Akins 02:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • That's self-contradictory. Delete and merge is illegal under the GFDL. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Courtney, you're the nominator, we already know you want to delete it. DanB DanD 02:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Also, I have to say that the "complete self-serving trash" comment strikes me as a tad inappropriate. I would urge the nominator to strike that and reword it to sound a bit more in keeping with wikiquette. — NM Chico 24 03:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and merge Not sure what to merge into though. I guess the suggestion above makes sense. -- Wafulz 02:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep being focussed on laws and constitutions, the article is neither trash nor vanity(!). Just as valid as Gay rights in Canada or Same-sex marriage in California. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Human rights in Brazil. Once the information because extensive, then recreate the article. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and Expand The article is a stub, but there are tons of stubs on Wikipedia. The only reason to delete a stub is if there's no possibility to expand the article, or if the article's subject obviously doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. I think just about anyone would argue that this subject can definitely be expanded, and a quick search will turn up many related articles for other countries. As for belonging here, the subject of gay rights is unarguably a large and devisive issue for many countries. Brazil is one of the largest countries in the world, and the largest of its continent, so the issue of gay rights there is most certainly a notable issue. That being said, this article definitely needs a lot of work. — NM Chico 24 02:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per Zscout370. -- Corporal Punishment 03:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand, part of a series, one man's trash is another man's article waiting to be expanded. Please explain "self-serving". Courtney's characterizations are disturbing, in that not only is it more than one sentence, has nothing at all about it that can be called vanity, and is well-sourced. User:Zoe| (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per NMChico24 and Zoe. This stub has clear possibility for expansion and is actually very well sourced in its own right right now. Merging it as a wait-and-see isn't the best way to approach this, as it involves shuffling content over and then shuffling it back when the (inevitable) expansion occurs, while removing valid categorisation in the meantime. Ziggurat 03:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand per above. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The subject is article-worthy. It simply needs to be expanded by a knowledgable editor. Rohirok 04:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand. Merging this article to Human rights in Brazil would not eliminate any repetition or make Wikipedia easier to navigate. It would only mess up existing organization by removing the useful "Gay Rights in South America" navigation bar and taking the article out of the "Gay Rights by Country" category. -- Celithemis 04:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this stub per nom. Wryspy 04:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, all countries should have an article like this. Everyking 07:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand, I agree, this is an encyclopedia-worthy topic, and other countries probably need specific articles of this nature. -- The Anome 12:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand. Gay rights is different from human rights and this is a valid encyclopedia topic. -- Ter e nce Ong ( Chat | Contribs) 12:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Valid stub which is part of a series. StuffOfInterest 13:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - stub is not a valid criterion for deletion, page is linked to by several other pages, has great potential for expansion, et al. WilyD 13:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep - obviously expandable, a topic of wide interest, seeing it belongs to Category:Gay rights by country. Historical information would be welcome, and a discussion of cultural attitudes in the various regions of Brazil also valuable, as well as what mood prevails in those municipalities where anti-gay discrimination is not banned by local statutes; but stubbiness is not a grounds for deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Human rights in Brazil. -- Gray Porpoise 14:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Given the discussion above about the detrimental effects of a merge versus just adding a stub notice to this, could you give a little explanation as to why this is preferable? Ziggurat 20:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and Expand into Human rights in Brazil. -- Nishkid64 16:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and Expand or Merge into Human rights in Brazil. Notable subject. jgp T C 16:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Human rights in Brazil. -- Will Mak 050389 16:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Just because the article is naff doesn't mean it should be deleted - it's still noteworthy. Dev920 17:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect Human rights in Brazil -- for now. It's clear the small amount of information here doesn't yet need its own page; however, the noted use of "Gay Rights in X" (where X=country) means a redirect is appropriate. Hopefully there will come a time when the content on gay rights in Brazil is much larger, and then that information could be moved back to Gay rights in Brazil. Jacqui ★ 21:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Celithemis -- Icarus ( Hi!) 02:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment This may be a bad-faith nomination because an article the nominator created was nominated for deletion for, among other things, appearing to be vanity. -- Icarus ( Hi!) 03:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Should be easy to expand to half the size of Human rights in Brazil, numerous parallel articles exist. I do think this is a suspect bad faith nom per Icarus. -- Dhartung | Talk 20:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep not the best start, but anyone is free to edit it. Carlossuarez46 06:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect into Human rights in Brazil -- Richard 08:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge into Human rights in Brazil. I do hope that this wasn't a bad faith nomination. Yamaguchi先生 08:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Tyla Juliette Schwartz

Fails WP:BIO. No significant press coverage here. Not-notable, Delete. TerriersFan 01:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Not nearly notable enough to earn the article; there are thousands of contestants that have reached round three. -- Wafulz 02:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NN. Ohconfucius 04:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Leuko 04:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete — {{ db-bio}} - Glen 05:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO, and WP:NN Daniel's page ☎ 06:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. — Khoikhoi 07:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - as someone who doesn't watch the show, what does "round three" entail? -- badlydrawnjeff talk 11:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Belongs in a list of contestants, not in an article of its own StuffOfInterest 13:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn. Should be on the list of contestants, but a separate article is not needed. -- Nishkid64 16:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator. No objection to having her on a list of contestants though. RFerreira 21:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Sally Yoshino

The article does not meet the guidelines of WP:BIO. Therefore, delete. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 01:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep. She appears to be notable in her "field", and most JAV actresses are hard-pressed to meet WP:PORN BIO as it is now. 51,000 Ghits, 315 unique. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Unless her name is more common than I think, she seems to get enough referencs to warrant an article. StuffOfInterest 13:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 13:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment 198,000 G-Hits on her Japanese name. Neier 13:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete Doesn't meet WP:PORN BIO (hence "delete") but Coredesat's comments are interesting (hence "weak") -- CPAScott 15:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep. It doesn't necessarily meet WP:PORN BIO but I think this article deserves to stay per the number of Google hits. -- Nishkid64 16:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep per Coredesat as well. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 20:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Vehement Delete Her pantaloons are unclean! -- Xrblsnggt 02:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment she's Japanese, PORN BIO is biased towards North American pornstars. 132.205.93.86 03:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep If any JAV actress is notable, she is. - Wickning1 15:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Yoshino is a notable Japanese model. Yamaguchi先生 08:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Bridge To Turkey Fund

no evidence of notability-- Crossmr 01:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Hey all. I am the author of this article and a member of BTF. I work hard to raise funds for poor kids' education. I am not native Turkish speaker but doing Ph.D. in Economics. Now, can anybody tell me what is wrong with using the web site materials? "Turkiye" means "Turkey" in Turkish. Please take my article out of delete process. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogulsev ( talk • contribs)
    WP:NOT wikipedia is not a free webhost or vehicle for advertising.-- Crossmr 06:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, rewrite, rename to "Bridge to Turkiye Fund." The author spelled the name wrong, and the article is basically copied from here. The operation is international in scope, which meets criteria proposed under WP:ORG. -- Wafulz 02:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    I could agree to, rename, rewrite, cite IF someone does it, but I'm not for keeping articles on speculation of improvement.Retracted see below. With no idependent references it fails. If it is copied directly from the site, then its a likely copyvio.-- Crossmr 02:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non-notable charity. Based on search under correct name, I can't find anything that would qualify as independent coverage from reliable sources. Fan-1967 02:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete My results and conclusion are similar to those of Fan-1967. — NM Chico 24 03:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — 19 "unqiue" google hits. My pot dealer has more online presense. mboverload @ 04:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. -- Vary | Talk 18:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Christianese

WP:ISNOT, a dictionary, publisher of original thought, or a directory. This is a list of words Blessed, Fellowship, Mission, Ministry, and others without references. Each of these words has an article which defines it already. Car54 01:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Whois] [1] [2] aaaaand...here are two books about it: [3] [4] DanB DanD 02:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Weakest Keep On the surface appears to be a silly neologism, and I'm still not convinced it has much importance. It does appear to be utilised by a lot of different websites, though, and DanB DanD was able to site further usage. — NM Chico 24 03:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Documents a distinctive and culturally-relevant jargon. Rohirok 04:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of 'distinctive "jargon"' Wryspy 04:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Polari? Engrish? Cockney rhyming slang? Lunfardo? Slang#See_also? DanB DanD 05:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. This article is more than a mere list of words with definitions. True, it lists examples, but it also discusses religious culture associated with the jargon, sociological implications and influence on popular culture. Also see the counterexamples to your arguments listed by DanB DanD above. Rohirok 17:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Very weak keep, as DanB DanD has cited outside usage – but I think the whole idea's pretty silly. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 13:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Neologism StuffOfInterest 13:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per references by DanB DanD, but remove OR elements of the list. Staecker 13:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep defintely a distinctive jargon. Carter 19:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • No one's going to use this search term, and frankly I feel the neologism "Christianese" has a very distinct POV. That said, there are certainly words used specifically by certain religious sects. Why not merge that information to articles (or sub-articles?) about those particular religions? Jacqui ★ 21:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • If you think it's a slur on Christians, it isn't. As a matter of fact, the word is itself Christianese: it arose among evangelicals who feared their proselytizing was ineffective because they "speak a different language" from the people they're talking to. Anyway, the titles of many articles--the names of advocacy organizations and so on--express a PoV. DanB DanD 06:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Wryspy, sources notwithstanding. It's a neologism. Gazpacho 02:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this article needs to die for our sins. -- Xrblsnggt 02:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete wikipedia is not a dictionary. Think about this as if this were a language. Chinese, a language of several dialects in China, has an article that redirects to the elements of that culture, the people, etc. It does not simply list words and meanings. Yet, this is worse because it defines english words, and english words that already have articles in a Christian category. C56C 08:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, good solid article, but lose the lexicon. -- Visviva 10:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but rename. "Christianese" is used most often in a POV sense or a humorous one, but the article is (apparently) broader. Something like List of Christian terminology or List of words and phrases in Christianity.-- Dhartung | Talk 21:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - needs work and closer sourcing but definitely encyclopaedic. BlueValour 03:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Neologism, and a couple books do not convince me that it's a widely used one. Isomorphic 05:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:ISNOT a lexicon. Nickieee 07:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Here is an example [5] from the Church Marketing Sucks blog. It's more than a neologism. The entry needs a clean up/destubbing, but it belongs in Wikipedia and with the name Christianese. Carter 16:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC) (reitterating previous vote to Keep) reply
  • Keep This article isn't limited to a lexicon, it explains the cultural contexts as well. Borisblue 00:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn - keep. Kimchi.sg 23:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Xcellent

Stub, NN thoroughbred TrackerTV ( CW| Castform| Green Valley) 01:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete — Does not look like the horse won anything major... deletion is probably the best option —— Eagle ( ask me for help) 02:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
How would you know? If you don't know the horse, don't comment. Wallie 20:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Once the horse wins a couple of major titles and gets some real coverage, then perhaps an article would be appropriate. — NM Chico 24 04:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — As a kiwi I can confirm this is nn - Glen 04:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete In this case, Deleting is best option because this doesn't look like horses won the anything major. Daniel's page ☎ 06:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Glen. — Khoikhoi 07:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – it came third; I thought horse-racing was a first-or-nothing sport? Thus, non-notable. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 13:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Horse vanity. StuffOfInterest 13:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep New Zealand Famous horse. Comment: There is a japanese article ( エクセレント) on this subject.-- Galopin 13:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Michael 19:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete far too local in scope, and non-notable even within its community. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 20:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Sorry. The horse IS notable within its community. Wallie 21:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep. Let me address some of the above opinions advocating for deletion.

  • “Non-notable” and “not won anything major”: Xcellent is the winner of the New Zealand Derby, which is New Zealand's most prestigious three year old race. The horse is notable for this alone, and deserving of an article. But the horse has also won the Kelt Capital Stakes which is New Zealand's richest thoroughbred horse race. And the horse has won a total of four Group 1 races from just 9 races contested.

I wonder if the horse had been a Kentucky Derby or Epsom Derby winner if it would be up for deletion. I think not.

  • User:Riana_dzasta “it came third” - It ran third in the 2005 Melbourne Cup behind Makybe Diva – which was the only horse in its 125 year history to win THREE Melbourne Cups, and is one of Australia’s greatest ever staying mares.
  • User:Glenn – you may be a kiwi, but you are sadly lacking in your knowledge of New Zealand thoroughbred racing.
  • User:Galopin who is a Japanese wikipedian and a very knowledgeable horse racing contributor recognises Xcellent as a notable New Zealand racehorse.

I wonder if any of the people calling for deletion bothered to Google “horse Xcellent”. If they did they would have got 33,000 hits. Not-Notable? The horse certainly was the subject of a enormous interest from the Australian racing public when it crossed the Tasman Sea for the 2005 Melbourne Spring Racing Carnival.

I small number of wikipedians are making great efforts to increase the number of articles on thoroughbred racing around the world and their efforts will not be helped if we have to constantly defend articles on our chosen subject. The article is a stub, and needs expanding, but I strongly believe that it should not be deleted. - Cuddy Wifter 02:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per Cuddy Wifter. -- Kusunose 13:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Withdraw nom I am not a kiwi, and I did not know that it won some prestigious races for its country. I now want to keep the article. TrackerTV ( CW| Castform| Green Valley) 14:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Who would want to delete this anyway? The horse is well known internationally. Probably the same person who wanted to delete the article All Blacks. Why not go ahead and delete Dancing Brave and Ruffian while you're about it. Wallie 20:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Maralyn Ramsay, Countess of Dalhousie

subject is the wife of the Earl of Dalhousie and approximately 690th in line to the British throne, and possibly something in the Imperial Russian house ;-). Ohconfucius 01:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO. ghits almost entirely pull Wikipedia and mirrors. Has this person actually done anything notable besides being born/married into incredibly diluted royalty? — NM Chico 24 04:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Sorry, but I think King Ralph was higher in the succession line. StuffOfInterest 13:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I'd like to see more references, but aside from that, I believe that the noble title automatically infers notability. Being within the top thousand of the royal class (pardon the pun) counts.  ;) -- Elonka 08:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. as WP:NOT Burke's Peerage; Elonka's rationale leaves me unconvinced. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. If the decision is to delete, my recommendation is that the information at least be merged into James Hubert Ramsay, 17th Earl of Dalhousie, or the previous Earl, Simon Ramsay, 16th Earl of Dalhousie, since it appears that there is already precedent to have a bio on each of the Earls, per Earl of Dalhousie (even if their wives are not seen worthy of bios). However, I still believe that Maralyn Ramsay satisfies the notability requirement on her own because of her other blood connections (including being in line to the throne by her own right, not just that of her husband). This may even be a case where the wife is more notable than the husband, though I'll admit that I'm not currently conversant enough on the details of these two individuals to make that determination myself (except it is telling that a Wikipedia article on the wife appeared before an article on the husband). -- Elonka 21:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There is information given here which is potentially useful to the reader who comes across the entry. - Kittybrewster 21:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • It seems to me that there was a reasonable rationale for including UK peers by default so long as they could sit in the House of Lords, not that most of them cared to do so. That made them more or less comparable with Senators in the US/France/&c. However, that's no longer the case. That doesn't retroactively make them nn, but it does mean that there is a good deal less reason to include peers and their families now than there was a decade ago. In this specific case it does seem odd to have an article on the wife rather than the husband, who probably qualified in that he was a peer in the period when they could sit in the upper chamber. My own view is that neither of them is of any great importance, probably less important than local council leaders, most of whom we delete without much fuss at AFD. I used to rent an apartment from a Count, and had French lessons from the grandson of Duke; I suspect that they'd be amazed to learn that their ancestry made them notable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Note that we have generally considered Irish peers since 1801 and Scottish peers between 1707 and 1958 as automatically notable, despite the fact that, like today's hereditary peers, they only served in the house of lords if they were elected as representative peers. john k 10:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I feel that peeresses are fair game, especially when combined with two peeress cousins and a spot in the line of succession to the British throne, as well as descent from the Russian Imperial Family. There are a few very notable connections with this lady. Charles 00:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. as per Charles (above). The page may be of interest to someone. JRawle ( Talk) 00:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. A peeress is certainly more noteworthy than a minor cadet member of the ducal family of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, e.g. Prince Adrian of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, who survived an AfD last month. Noel S McFerran 01:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. nn, yes someone may be interested in her, but there's no indication that she's done anything but marry and procreate -- something that several billion other people have done -- the fact that she is distantly related to some famous people does not make her notable. Carlossuarez46 06:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep., I think. I think any peer or peeress has generally been considered to qualify as a priori notable. I'm not sure that being descended from the Electress Sophia makes you notable on its own, although there really aren't that many such people - a few thousand, perhaps? john k 15:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. A peeress is notable. Just because nobles and geneology is not interesting to some people does not mean other people are interested in it as well. Morhange 18:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into an as-yet-uncreated article about her husband. Ardric47 23:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As a Ramsay, I don't think she is sufficiently notable for an individual page; therefore, I suggest retaining the information currently provided and merging that information into an appropriate article. Adraeus 04:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not notable, at all. MatthewFenton ( talk • contribs) 10:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - hey she's even closer to the throne - 660th now :-) If her title had been in her own right that would be fine but she has it as the wife of a peer and nothing seemingly achieved to make her notable in her own right. BlueValour 04:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - she seems to present at Clan events such as Games etc. and further research might find her as a patron of an organisation(?) Craigy ( talk) 21:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

What a Teen Year

Previously prod'ed and deleted uncontested, but recreated, which requires a full AFD. Basically, an allegedly planned series on Disney, with no sources except an unverified TV rumor site entry [6], created by the same author. Google comes up with nothing except that site and Wikipedia. May or may not be a total hoax, but certainly unverifiable. Author has been involved in a number of such unverifiable articles in the past. Fan-1967 02:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • We AFD'ed and prod'ed a whole bunch of these back in July, as well as some others from the same author that were more obvious hoaxes. Recreating this one may have been author's way of sticking his foot back in the water to see if he could get away with it. Fan-1967 05:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • That entry shows as having been created on that site by a user named "MCcoupe7", while this article was created by User:MCcoupe7. And a check of the schedule shows no such program aired last night. Gee, what a surprise! Fan-1967 20:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete crystal balling in its current state, and provides no useful info. If someone chooses to recreate it with useful and up-to-date content, they may. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 20:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete crystal ballin'. — Khoikhoi 22:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. RandyWang ( chat me up/ fix me up) 09:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This Bitch Jtervin 12:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. — dima / sb. tk/ 21:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator. It is too bad we haven't hard coded some way to require base references before accepting a new article. RFerreira 21:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Wouldn't necessarily help, in a case like this, where another site allows unverified information, and then an article here cites that other hoax entry as a source. Even TV.com and IMDB have been known to have hoax info. Fan-1967 21:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Devilball

Non-notable, very few ghits (except WP mirrors). WP is not for things made up in one school (or vacation) day. Article was de-prod'd with no edit summary by Devilball ( talk · contribs · count) — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 02:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment - Yes, I am aware of that. However, I have also seen it noted in many nominations whether or not there was a prod and if it had been contested, and it was, so I included the info to save other editors the time of checking the article history. I believe the other reasons I listed were quite valid. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 17:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 20:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. — Khoikhoi 22:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator, as much as I hate that "made up in school one day" saying. It sounds lame. RFerreira 21:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete all. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Ulf Bauscher, Berthold Bauscher, Franka Bauscher, Lorenz Bauscher

the subject's entry in wiki is by virtue of his being approx 128th in line to the British throne as a direct descendant of Queen Victoria. Not other claim to notability. I also nominate his younger brother, Berthold Bauscher, and Berthold's children Franka and Lorenz Bauscher Ohconfucius 02:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete All Is it really necessary for this site to chronicle the geneology for every person with the slightest hint of royal blood? A recently reported study indicates that the common ancestor for every person currently on the planet probably lived less than 3,000 years ago. So we might just as well chronicle the royal lineage of everyone. — NM Chico 24 04:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the lot, as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — All of them - Being born is not notable. Having an important ancestor is not. Peripitus (Talk) 11:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Unless they have done something notable, they should probably exist as a note in a line of succession article. StuffOfInterest 13:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all. Verifiable. In Wikipedia's fashion of thoroughness, we could as well have articles on the first 200/250 people in line for the British throne. -- Thunderhead 13:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    Changed my opinion to merge into a single article for all people in the line of succession that details more how and why they're in that line. That would handle the relevant information in a better way than separate articles. -- Thunderhead 11:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Line of succession to the British Throne, for everybody under #100 in line with no independent claim of notability. NawlinWiki 14:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect - Per NawlinWiki. Someone may come searching for information and it wouldn't hurt to lead them to the list. - Aksi_great ( talk - review me) 14:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and Peripitus. WP:NOT the Almanach de Gotha and not a genealogical database. These don't fail WP:BIO, they don't even bother trying. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. We have the list Line of succession to the British Throne, not every entry on every list deserves an article; that's often why we have lists. Carlossuarez46 06:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep- being in the line of succession to the throne is notable. Astrotrain 21:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Completely unknown, even in Germany. °ڊ° Alexander 20:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete creating a redirect is asking for somebody to re-create the article. Claims that somebody is in the line of succession to the British throne beyond the first 39 places on the British monarchy website are not verifiable and original research. Is there any evidence that this person is a Protestant, which they have to be to be in the line of succession? PatGallacher 14:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Line of succession to the British Throne per NawlinWiki. Anything past the 100 mark is just ridiculous unless they have some achievements outside of being in line to the throne. RFerreira 21:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and/or redirect, verifiable but it seems that this information would be best handled in a single article. JYolkowski // talk 23:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all - no nobility and no notability. BlueValour 04:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

SasuNaru

Naruto fancruft. Articles about any fan pairing, yaoi or not, really do not belong on Wikipedia. NeoChaosX ( talk | contribs) 02:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of anime & manga deletions. NeoChaosX ( talk | contribs) 02:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, I could have sworn I redirected this once upon a time. Then again, I think the one I did had an X and was written terribly. In either case, how is this in any way notable, relevant, or the least bit worth mentioning? – Someguy0830 ( Talk | contribs) 03:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. No. Just... no. And here's me thinking I'd never use the term 'fancruft'. Shiroi Hane 03:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Head, meet desk. Fanfiction/fan-pairings/fan-anything that isn't noteworthy doesn't belong here.-- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fan Slash fiction pairing is not notable enough. ColourBurst 05:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, crufty. Sorry, Shiroi Hane! — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 13:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per above. StuffOfInterest 13:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, slashfanficruft. If I had to cite a policy, I'd say... WP:V and WP:OR? -- Kinu t/ c 15:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to a Naruto community article or some sort. If one does not exist, delete per lack of context. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 20:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as fanficcruft. I think this pairing is quite popular amongst a certain sort of fan, but I agree with the nom. If anyone can find anything vaguely resembling a WP:RS, trim and merge to a suitable Naruto-related article instead (if one can be found). - makomk 20:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. — Khoikhoi 22:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This entry makes my heart bleed in numerous ways. _dk 10:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

My First MUN

Article was prodded and deleted 17 July but recreated. Accordingly, it's a contested prod. The subject of the article is a non-notable student event, a regional Model United Nations held in Northern Virginia as a warm-up before other Model UNs. — C.Fred ( talk) 02:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete unencyclopedic.-- Peta 03:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as a non-notable event. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Coredesat. I have participated in a dozen of these things; I'm not going to create articles on all them. Or am I? — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Way too low level. StuffOfInterest 13:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, WP:NOT a list of every non-notable regional student competition. -- Kinu t/ c 15:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn. — Khoikhoi 22:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. A university-hosted, nationwide, annual MUN would be notable. An MFMUN is just a practice. I've done 'em before. -- M @ r ē ino 23:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

List of TNA X Division Champions by age

Originally tagged as a speedy, but this isn't quite a candidate. It is however, quite non-notable. – Clockwork Soul 02:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete This information can already be found in the parent article. It seems unnecessary to have an article sorting the title holders by age. — NM Chico 24 04:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as redundant. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It is interesting, and this type of list exists for other titles as well. TJ Spyke 04:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Haha, TNA. I'm sorry... Delete per NMChico24. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Redundant. StuffOfInterest 13:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Also protect the page (if it does get deleted). I remember seeing this page before August 2 (when it was started), and it got deleted then too. RobJ1981 18:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete other wrestling pages don't have this and only the oldest/youngest parts really matter. --- Lid 21:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Edit: actually some other pages do have this, though I don't see why. --- Lid 21:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete doesn't seem that notable to me, but if there are other lists like this then post links and I might change my vote, though I think I agree with Lid that only the oldest/youngest are really relevant (and that is on the title's entry, presumably) -- Davetron5000 21:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
List of WWE world champions by age and List of ECW World Heavyweight Champions by age. TJ Spyke 21:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Well, those are also scheduled for deletion. Wouldn't it be simpler to just put a birthdate or age column in the table on the championship's entry ypage? -- Davetron5000 14:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as redundant. — Khoikhoi 22:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
How is it redunant? This is the only page where all the champions are listed rather than just the oldest and youngest. TJ Spyke 22:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I think all the age articles should be removed. What's the point of useless trivia? I can understand list of champions by length, because that's somewhat notable.. But age? Give me a break. What's next, champions by height? weight? It's redundant because there is lists of champions already, and there doesn't need to be a near identical list (with the exception of some small detail like age). RobJ1981 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Why not? It's a solid categorisation. King fish erswift 10:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as redundant. BlueValour 04:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 06:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Riley Mason

Information supplied (which isn't much) is inaccutate Throw 02:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete although I must say I got a chuckle out of the phrase "She is reputable for her anal" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete Fails CSD:A7. Outside of CSD, fails WP:BIO. — NM Chico 24 04:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete per CSD-A7, no assertion of notability. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Bellerive Elementary School

Non-notable elementary school. Editor who removed prod cited WP:SCHOOLS—which includes a list of criteria to establish a school's importance, none of which are asserted in this article. Accordingly, delete as non-notable organization. — C.Fred ( talk) 02:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep or merge, important part of education in its local community, no need to betray users who wish to find out about it. Kappa 03:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
"Wikipedia is neither a directory nor a phonebook." There's nothing in this article right now beyond a directory listing. — C.Fred ( talk) 03:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm sure Kappa needs to be reminded of the arguments against schools. Gazpacho 03:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete NN Elementary School in a Big City. -- Corporal Punishment 03:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Another school undistinguishable from hundreds of others... Valrith 03:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete — Die mboverload @ 04:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete contentless article about a non-notable group. Again. Opabinia regalis 04:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — NN I only got 138 hits on MSN... which had more then google. —— Eagle ( ask me for help) 04:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Here we go again with the school thing. Does anyone remember going to their 15th elementary school reunion? — NM Chico 24 04:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per NMChico24. No content, and nothing to assert the school's notability per WP:SCHOOLS (yes, I know it's proposed). Wikipedia is not a directory. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • These break my ♥, but delete per nom. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Valuable topic. Prodding schools when they are known to be controversial is intolerable misconduct. Piccadilly 10:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no evidence of any notability. And I doubt if anyone is going to feel betrayed. Prodding schools may be fairly pointless but it's not misconduct. Dlyons493 Talk 11:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not notable school. Viridae Talk 13:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete NN. StuffOfInterest 13:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, non-notable school. -- Ter e nce Ong ( Chat | Contribs) 13:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, i'll expand it. Carmen Chamelion 15:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Parkway School District. — RJH ( talk) 17:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, though needs explanding. Dev920 17:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • While schools are notable, this one doesn't have much said about it here, so why not merge and redirect any missing information to Parkway School District? Jacqui ★ 21:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Oy gavault, delete delete delete! -- Kicking222 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Parkway SD. NN school. -- e ivind t @ c 22:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete definately nn. — Khoikhoi 22:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. If there are any school articles that should be deleted, it's articles like this. Articles like this, in the form of "Springfield Elementary is an elementary school in Springfield", serve no purpose and are almost totally uninformative. szyslak ( t, c, e) 23:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete by WP:SCHOOLS , school has to be a post-secondary school. -- Ageo020 00:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep this is another article which should be expanded rather than deleted. Silensor 07:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above and per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. GBYork 12:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as article is only a directory entry plus links to external sites, and WP:NOT policy requires us not to be a directory nor a repository of weblinks. GRBerry 14:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • keep please schools are important it needs expanding not erasing Yuckfoo 17:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
So expand it then! Carmen above tried - doen't look like she had much success. I suspect that's because there's not much to say. Dlyons493 Talk 17:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
There is plenty of verifiable information available about this school, please feel free to assist me in my expansion of this article. Silensor 18:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment big improvement, well done! I still wouldn't keep it myself, but it's good to see someone actually expanding it rather than voting keep and doing nothing :-). Dlyons493 Talk
It's irresponsible to encourage people waste their time expanding articles when the topic is allegedly "non-notable". Kappa 15:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - verifiable and notable. -- Myles Long 18:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. non notable school. — dima / sb. tk/ 21:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete another nn school. Carlossuarez46 06:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Notable school recognized by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program. Bahn Mi 00:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep notability isnt policy... verifiability is.   ALKIVAR ™ 06:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the ongoing guideline discussion at WP:SCHOOL, notability of the school is verifiably conveyed. Yamaguchi先生 08:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, meets content policies. Notable per last 500 discussions of the question. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This school is not quite yet 50 years old, but it does meet the qualifications 1 and 3 of WP:SCHOOL with multiple non-trivial works covering the subject and significant awards and commendations. Give the horse a rest, its been beaten enough. RFerreira 21:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 07:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Joseph E. O'Doherty

  • Delete: Article does not assert the importance of the individual, in accordance with WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Only listed as author low on the list on a couple of articles. Does not seem to have individually done anything noteworthy. Leuko 02:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Peta 03:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete interesting research, but seems to be of little note. Top ghits include wikipedia mirrors. — NM Chico 24 04:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge or Redirect into a related article. -- GoOdCoNtEnT 04:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete — {{ db-bio}} - Glen 05:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per above. Daniel's page ☎ 06:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Credema 06:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete by ClockworkSoul as copyvio. — NM Chico 24 04:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Dingmans Campground

Originally posted as a speedy because "not notable, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". I tend to agree, but that's not a speedy. – Clockwork Soul 03:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: With the exception of the descriptions of each campsite, the rest of the article is a copyvio from http://www.dingmanscampground.com/ ... — ERcheck ( talk) 03:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Whoops, when I put {{delete}}, I thought it was for a deletion proposal. Yea, thanks for the fix Clockworksoul. Delete. Hurricanehink ( talk) 03:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I have tagged it as copyvio and listed it there. Daniel Case 03:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - not notable spam. Leuko 04:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I will speedy as a copyvio. – Clockwork Soul 04:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by User:Neutrality  -- kenb215 03:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Nail the casket shut

nn company, first person, advertising. Was PRODded. As I was about to add a prod2 to it, I got an edit conflict as the article's creator removed the PROD. User:Zoe| (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete vanity. Gazpacho 03:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as prod'er. Article is a first person account of trying to start the company, which is not doing well. Nowhere close to WP:CORP. -- Fan-1967 03:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 15:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Victoria Luise Prinzessin von Preussen

former Prussian princess without dynastic rights and 144th in line to the British throne Ohconfucius 03:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Incidentally, there is no such rule. There isn't (at least three days ago) even such a guideline. WilyD 13:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete all. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Ileana Snyder, Nicholas Snyder, Alexandra Snyder, Constanza Snyder

subject is 105th in line to the British throne, no other appernt claims to notability. I also nominate her children Nicholas Snyder, Alexandra Snyder, Constanza Snyder Ohconfucius 03:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 06:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Pirates of the Caribbean Online

A game that doesn't exist yet. The website just redirects to Disney's Pirates website, which is mostly advertising for the movie. User:Zoe| (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The website clearly directs to the MMORPG page and not the movie. The game is in development and just because it isn't released to the public does not mean it doesn't exist. -- Zeno McDohl (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, with no prejudice against writing an article when the game does exist. No beta, no newsletter, no notability as yet. -- nae' blis 03:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Personally, I'd say an official website, some screenshots, news and so on deems it to be notable at the least. -- Zeno McDohl (talk) 04:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Newsletter updates HAVE been published, including one this month. The article was incorrect in that regard, I updated it. -- Vandelay 12:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Abstain. - the article's undergone some improvements in sourcing, but I still think it's preliminary. Not enough to block a speedy keep though, if Zoe withdraws. -- nae' blis 21:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is/will be an official game release related to a blockbuster movie franchise. Certainly notable, even if unreleased. Rohirok 04:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is legit. I had already heard about the game. Wryspy 04:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as above. Macktheknifeau 05:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Crystalballism doesn't apply to a game that's almost certainly going to be released, and has verifiable sources. ColourBurst 06:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang ( chat me up/ fix me up) 08:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. If you look at the crystal ball policy, this clearly crosses the threshold into keepability. Information is well-sourced from official sources and/or press, and it would be notable once released. Captainktainer * Talk 09:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Well sources, and it is a game to be released. Havok (T/ C/ c) 10:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Wikipedia has an entire (and fairly large) category of articles devoted to "Computer and video games under development". It has a similarly large category called "2007 computer and video games". (Refer to the bottom of the article to see the links). This deserves to stay as much as any of the others in those categories. -- Vandelay 12:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Far enough along that it will happen and isn't just speculation. StuffOfInterest 13:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above -- Peephole 16:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • 'Keep as per above. Dev920 17:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- Ariad o ss 18:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep plenty of useful content, here. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 20:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - WP:SNOW? -- PresN 20:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • No, but we could speedy if Zoe withdraws and nae'blis comes around. Keep. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 10:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Major product, sufficiently notable, even pre-release. -- Elonka 08:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per User:Vandelay. — dima / sb. tk/ 21:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Windows Vista doesn't exist yet in the same way. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per ColourBurst and many others. And yes, WP:SNOW does apply. However, I can't close it now. 1ne 05:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Portable air conditioner

Contended merge to Air conditioning where the information in the article is already present. Current article is a duplicate, has an unencyclopedic tone and is an unnecessary fork. Delete -- Peta 03:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Merge per nom. As pretty much the exact same info is in the the parent article, Delete. Leuko 04:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Whatever is in the Air conditioning article is a copy of what was here, and not the other way around.-- AAAAA 10:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I see no compelling reason to merge anything here. From the Department of Redundancy Department. — NM Chico 24 04:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. This is not a dictionary of every possible item on earth. Wryspy 04:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per all the above. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP. Whatever is in the Air conditioning article is a copy of what was here, and not the other way around. I believe Portable ir onditioners are a special type of air conditioners that deserve their own article.-- AAAAA 10:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Merge is an inappropriate suggestion - the airconditioner article is already too long. WilyD 13:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete redundant with Air conditioner; not a likely search term. Tom Harrison Talk 13:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Redundant StuffOfInterest 13:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per redundancy. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 20:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. — Khoikhoi 22:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. — dima / sb. tk/ 21:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect all. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Cathrine Ferner Johansen, Madeleine Ferner Johansen, Sebastian Ferner Johansen

subject is approx 76th in line to the British throne and also distant pretender to the Norwegian throne. I also nominate for deletion the pages of her children Madeleine Ferner Johansen, Sebastian Ferner Johansen. No apparent notability outside their distant claims to the throne(s). Ohconfucius 03:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Very Weak Delete — Almost no hits in search engines, but if anyone can show an ounce of notability I'm opening to changing my vote mboverload @ 04:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete tangential royalty is not notable in and of itself. Delete the kids too. Wait, that sounds kind of sinister. Opabinia regalis 04:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete All See comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulf Bauscher — NM Chico 24 04:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I keep having to stop myself writing Off with their heads Dlyons493 Talk 11:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all, so what if they are in the line of succession to the British throne, they are mainly non-notable people. -- Ter e nce Ong ( Chat | Contribs) 12:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Enough already! Perhaps this should have been done as one big AfD. Maybe leave a redirect behind ot the line of succession article but even that doesn't seem worth the effort. StuffOfInterest 13:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- I would Redirect to Line of succession to the British Throne everybody under #100 in line with no independent claim of notability. NawlinWiki 14:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Line of succession to the British Throne. 76th in line is no claim to notability. But redirect wouldn't hurt. - Aksi_great ( talk - review me) 14:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Aksi_great. The figures have no other claims of notability, and redirects are cheap. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 21:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect but to Princess Astrid of Norway, their links to the Norwegian throne is closer then to the British. -- e ivind t @ c 22:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Princess Astrid of Norway, nearest notable family member is where they belong. Content will need to be merged in (ie, a whole line). LinaMishima 23:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per other articles nominated by same user -- Roleplayer 02:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn Matthew Fenton ( Talk | Contribs) 11:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep- Astrotrain 12:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as previous, if 39th is far as Brenda's website goes ( here) why should we go further ? WP:NOT a genealogy database or Burke's Peerage. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per my comments on the earlier batches of pseudo-distant-royal-ish-folks. Carlossuarez46 06:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep verifiable grandchildren of monarchs (this seems reasonable, right?); merge the children into Cathrine's article. Ardric47 22:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment—Perhaps some people "voted" based on their position in the British line of succession. That information is overshadowed by their relations to the Norwegian royal family. Ardric47 22:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Cathy; Delete Maddy and Seb - Cathy is close enough to the Norwegian throne. Theothers are not. BlueValour 04:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Aski. Nickieee 07:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per LinaMishima. -- Angelbo 04:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete all. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Elisabeth Ferner Beckman, Benjamin Ferner Beckman, Benedikte Ferner

subject is approx 80th in line to the british throne and something in the Norwegian house. I also nominate for deletion the page on her son, Benjamin Ferner Beckman, and als o that of her sister Benedikte Ferner. Ohconfucius 03:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

She got married and divorced and is now living with Aage Hvinden. She ran a restaurant for a couple of years. Doesn't add up to notability IMHO. Dlyons493 Talk
  • Keep verifiable grandchildren of monarchs (this seems reasonable, right?); merge Benjamin into Elisabeth's article. Ardric47 22:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment—Perhaps some people "voted" based on their position in the British line of succession. That information is overshadowed by their relations to the Norwegian royal family. Ardric47 22:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Liz; Delete Ben and Bene - Liz is close enough to the Norwegian throne. The others are not. BlueValour 04:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep as royals. Nickieee 07:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as vandalism by creator with intent to deceive. Kimchi.sg 07:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Night Of A 1000 Cats: Been Alive

More hoaxing by the author of Blanca Murillo. There is nothing to indicate that any such movie exists. The title itself is nonsense. User:Zoe| (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Lack of credible sources. Leuko 04:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Total lack of sources. There was a 1972 Mexican horror movie ( [7]) released in English as Night Of A 1000 Cats (I've reverted that article to verifiable information only). No plans seem to exist for any remake or sequel to the remake. Fan-1967 04:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no WP:RS indicating that this project exists. -- Kinu t/ c 04:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete 'nother unreferenced crystal ball article — NM Chico 24 04:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Wryspy 04:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Kimchi.sg 06:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Coaxial warp drive

Was originally tagged as a speedy, but doesn't fit criteria. Original reason was patent nonsense (which it isn't), but it does look like some rather obscure Trekcruft. Notability? – Clockwork Soul 03:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete as copyvio of http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Coaxial_warp_drive. -- nae' blis 03:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete copy-vio Leuko 04:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as Memory-Alpha content is not GFDL-friendly. Alternatively, delete as Trekcruft. -- Kinu t/ c 04:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as a recent copyvio. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I'd support a speedy delete, but technically A8 covers commercial content (do Google ad banners count?). It was featured in a _single episode_ of Voyager, however, so it'd still be deleted. ColourBurst 04:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • However, it looks like A8 was designed with WP:SNOW in mind, so I'll tag it anyway. ColourBurst 04:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Wryspy 04:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/Speedy Delete Duality between fancruft and copyvio as memory-alpha is creative commons and not GFDL. -- Kevin_b_er 05:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete per nom. Macktheknifeau 05:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as vandalism - even the creator said it on the talk page: "the imdb doesnt know anything". Kimchi.sg 07:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Martin Hernandez

imdb never heard of this 13 year old actor, nor of any of the movies he is supposedly in or scheduled to be in. User:Zoe| (talk) 03:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 14:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Bill_Jensen

Article is a Vanity Page. Does not contain noteworthy information for inclusion in an encyclopedia Brad 03:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete as vandalism. Kimchi.sg 07:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Etras e Monali'sa

More of the hoaxing by the editor of Brother & Sister and Blanca Murillo and Martin Hernandez. imdb never heard of this movie. User:Zoe| (talk) 03:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Egregious hoax. The idea of a movie by Luc Besson not being on IMDB is ludicrous. Author needs to be blocked. Fan-1967 03:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and reprimand hoaxer per above. -- Kinu t/ c 04:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, as a hoax, possibly speedy as vandalism. Block the author. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Wryspy 04:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as hoax. -- Metropolitan90 05:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as vandalism. Kimchi.sg 07:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Blanca Murillo, Brother & Sister

There is no such actress listed at imdb, nor is the supposed movie she stars in listed. The article was written by an editor who has created several other hoaxish articles. User:Zoe| (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete both, no verifiability, suspected hoax. And check out that MS Paint-job "movie poster"... -- Kinu t/ c 04:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete More hoaxes. Unverifiable. Fan-1967 04:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this hoax per nom. Wryspy 04:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as hoax. -- Metropolitan90 05:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (no consensus). Not the easiest of decisions here with 12d/5k which is frequently sufficiently strong for consensus, but I have registered that there have been significant attempts at improving the article during the course of the discussion. One of the arguments presented (unverifiability) appears to have been countered and I gather that a Google search which someone referred to does give some independent media mentions, e.g. this one. I am uncertain about notability here, but I will call this a no consensus based on new evidence surfacing over the course of the discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Starving Jesus

Originally tagged as a speedy for "patent nonsense", but it's not. It does, however, seem to be very difficult to verify. – Clockwork Soul 03:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete unsourced, unverifiable, non-notable, crystal-ballism, take your pick. Opabinia regalis 04:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as unverifiable with reliable sources. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Opabinia regalis, surely we'll be the first to write about it when something exciting happens to these reckless fellas. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Searches actually turn up quite a bit regarding this one. Article does need some serious work. StuffOfInterest 14:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I am more than willing to take any advice I can get. Also, I am searching high and low for a good Wikkipedia Text Editor. Derek C 15:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Opabinia regalis. Rohirok 17:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete with Opabinia regalis's gracious homework. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 17:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. WP:NOR. Lazybum 18:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Still seems like nonsense to me. KnightLago 21:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nonsense. — Khoikhoi 22:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Opabinia regalis -- Wildnox 22:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I have now added more refrences, an ISBN number and fixed the xxxchurch wiki link. This is in fact a real book written by a popular ministry which has been featured on ABC News. ABC NEWS Story Derek Cormier 23:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn book with a "human interest" angle, very cute, very today, very yesterday tomorrow. Carlossuarez46 06:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Derek Cormier's new refs. xxxchurch is well known enough for their book to be notable, at least in some Christian circles. Book is selling on Zambooie [ [8]], perhaps it's an indie pub? It would explain why it isn't in as many references. SuperJerms 16:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn book BlueValour 04:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep I've just wikified the article, so its in better shape now, and I've tagged it for cleanup. With Derek's references, it can be considered notable enough, and there are other less referenced book articles out there. -- Draicone (talk) 06:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Question This article still needs some clean up, but after reading Wikipedia:Notability (books) I believe this article clearly meets those proposed guidlines. How do I get the tag removed? Derek Cormier 02:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as vandalism. Kimchi.sg 08:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Mexican Awards

Considering that this article was created by an editor with a history of creating fake movie articles, and that one of the winners { Martin Hernandez) apparently doesn't really exist, this entire article is suspect. Are there really such awards? No sources. User:Zoe| (talk) 03:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Hoax. Gave an award to a kid who doesn't exist for a movie that doesn't exist. Fan-1967 03:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Appears to be a hoax. Leuko 04:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, suspected WP:HOAX. -- Kinu t/ c 04:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: Also check out the related Category:Mexican_award_winner; the valid articles that have been tagged with this category need to be edited accordingly. -- Kinu t/ c 04:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Looks like we've got them all cleaned out. Only award winner left in the category is Martin Hernandez. Fan-1967 05:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for a trifecta of hoaxery per Fan-1967. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete based on hoax history. Wryspy 04:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as hoax. -- Metropolitan90 05:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete hoax. Macktheknifeau 05:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Dromana Primary School

Non-notable school, no evidence of satisfying WP:SCHOOLS. Valrith 03:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete - With almost no information in the article, it does not seem to satify WP:SCHOOLS Leuko 04:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete contentless article about a non-notable group. Again. Not even a link to the school's website. Opabinia regalis 04:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for no content. Does not contain any assertion of notability per WP:SCHOOLS. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete primary schools are not inherently notable. — NM Chico 24 04:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • </3 Delete, seems to have been written by a student who likes his school. Which is good. But not for Wikipedia. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Stop wasting time. The number of school articles blossomed regardless, so all you are achieving is to hobble wikipedia and enage in conflict for the sake of it. Piccadilly 10:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Dromana is hardly notable let alone its primary school. Piccadilly precendent is not binding and since since schools consistently rarely show notability beyond being schools they will continue to come up in AFD. Viridae Talk 12:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete NN. StuffOfInterest 14:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, NN. No assertion of notability made, and no information here beyond what would be found in a directory listing. — C.Fred ( talk) 15:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Dromana, Victoria. WP:SCHOOLS is still under discussion and so using it as a deletion criteria is absurd. — RJH ( talk) 17:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep crap article, but can be expanded. Dev920 17:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no assertion of notability, and I'm willing to bet none will ever be found. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 20:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • 'Merge (for now) to Dromana, Victoria per RJH. Jacqui ★ 21:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Dromana, Victoria. Hasn't received any mentions in the media so difficult to expand. Capitalistroadster 21:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 21:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as a directory entry and since this is a primary school I don't see this grow beyond this while at the same time citing reputable sources. -- Koffieyahoo 01:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep there is no reason this article cannot be expanded. Silensor 07:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above statement and per Piccadilly's statement above. GBYork 12:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a directory entry violating the WP:NOT policy against directory entries. GRBerry 14:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the fact that people say it can be expanded, but don't actually expand it, suggests to me that that there are no verifiable sources. If and when some are found, the article can be recreated. Dlyons493 Talk 15:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • No, it just suggests that it isn't their obligation to do so. Millions of needed edits are not made for all sorts of reasons, including the amount of time that is wasted due to school deletionism. Calsicol 17:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Non-notable. -- Roisterer 16:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • keep please this is important to the community Yuckfoo 17:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 06:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and improve. Calsicol 17:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep notability isnt policy... verifiability is.   ALKIVAR ™ 06:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep since the school was founded in 1861, we should be able to provide coverage. Failing that, merge into Dromana, Victoria. Yamaguchi先生 08:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom James68 15:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. 150 year old schools are of course notable. Bahn Mi 00:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, meets content policies. See Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep for a series of responses to notability concerns. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (or merge with Dromana, Victoria), should be sufficiently verifiable. For those who cited WP:SCHOOLS, they should note that (1) this school does meet the criteria since it's over 50 years old, (2) this is currently just a proposal, not a guideline or a criteria and (3) it doesn't mention any criteria under which articles should be deleted unless they don't meet Wikipedia's content policies, and no evidence has been presented that this school doesn't. JYolkowski // talk 21:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- verifiable stub. Allow for growth. - Longhair 11:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory. Nandesuka 16:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, verifiable school. This is one of my semi-local schools, so I'm willing to help edit it. I just noticed that the principal information is incorrect. Ray Robertson is the current acting principal, Ray Hocking left last year. Going now to correct. Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 18:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, verifiable and established school. Also old enough to have plenty of potential for expansion so merge is not appropriate. Kappa 19:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Cory Phillips

  • Delete. Self-promotional (see creator's username and record company), debut album comes out this fall, not famous yet. We are not a promotional vehicle. -- nae' blis 03:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Artist's label created the page, yes. But, as far as the debut album coming out this fall, I didn't know that such promotional information is prohibited, and to prevent the page from being deleted, the info was changed. To counter your suggestion that including a listing of Cory Phillips is somehow inappropriate because he is not famous yet to your specification, phillips is a very popular live musician in Los Angeles. And what difference does it make whether or not there is a commercial music product for sale to validate him to you? Does participation in the capitalist system only validate a public figure on Wikipedia? I did not think so. Thermalrecords 06:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Participation in the "capitalist system" isn't strictly necessary, but the bar for inclusion for most people is much higher without a major label/produced well-selling record. See WP:MUSIC for some of the suggestions: was he featured in multiple non-trivial published works (such as LA papers, music trade magazines of record, etc)? Was he ever in a notable band prior to his current "supergroup" (or was anyone else)? Has he won a major music award or competition, and do you have proof as it is reported in the press? Is he the most prominent representative of a notable style of music, and has this been reported as such? You have options, and you have at least four days to make your case...thanks for trimming the article already of the promotional material, and welcome to Wikipedia! Cheers, and as noted below, if his record takes off and he does become more famous this fall, it's intensely likely a fan will come and write an article for you! -- nae' blis 12:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Promo; WP:NOT a crystal ball ("Fates willing, the release will see success sufficient to garner the interest of a major label"). Daniel Case 03:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - self promotional, not notable. Leuko 04:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Not notable to who? Cory Phillips and his nine-piece band are notable to a lot of people in Los Angeles who regularly pay money to see them perform. Thermalrecords 06:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • See nae'blis's response above. Notability is fairly well-defined here. Daniel Case 13:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, suspected WP:VANITY, no WP:RS indicating subject meets WP:MUSIC. -- Kinu t/ c 04:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Point taken. Understand this to be the first attempt at creating a wikipedia page. It has been edited to include just the facts. Thermalrecords 06:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — Real bands don't need a myspace profile mboverload @ 04:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Probably not true; lots of "real" bands take advantage of MySpace's music-embedding features; "Itzkoff also observes that MySpace’s much-celebrated music section is heavily weighted in favor of record labels rather than breakthrough musicians" -- nae' blis 04:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Wryspy 04:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete — {{ db-bio}} - Glen 05:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete Promo. WP:NOT soapbox. Ohconfucius 09:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Harsh words, mboverload! I tend to agree... but then we have things like this. As for Mr Phillips, delete, promo, get out there and get famous(er), we'll write the article for you. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete NN, vanity, and probably a few other reasons. StuffOfInterest 14:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, not notable yet. NawlinWiki 14:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn. — Khoikhoi 22:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete .... for now... looking at the amount of cross-site self promotion, I expect an entry back in here fairly soon, once he/they've busted their butts on a national tour (probably the easiest way to meet WP:MUSIC while furthering one's career, or looked at from another perspective, the easiest way to destroy a band. :-) ) Good luck to Cory and Thermal! Ronabop 03:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete — Mets501 ( talk) 13:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Bad Kid

I'm not even sure this Halo insult that has "just recently started to get popular" even deserves consideration as a transwiki. Daniel Case 03:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy Delete — The article practically admits it's a completely non-notable nelogism mboverload @ 04:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete. I don't even see how it's insulting. – NeoChaosX ( talk | contribs) 04:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, neologism, possible attempt to astroturf a protologism. -- Kinu t/ c 04:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Leuko 04:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Can we speedy delete this under WP:SNOW? ColourBurst 04:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete — as nonsense - Glen 04:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) - Glen 04:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete, patent nonsense. At the very least a non-notable neologism. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Wryspy 04:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete — Speedy Delete as Patent nonsense, non-notable neologism. ShaunES 07:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Samantha Anderson

Doesn't get close to meeting WP:PORNBIO. Delete. BlueValour 03:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. This is Samantha 38G, the subject of another article that was deleted. I can't tell if this is a re-creation, but she still doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:PORN BIO. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. We delete these porn upstarts daily, don't we? Wryspy 04:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, although her 'incredibly massive breasts' might tip the balance in her favour. Or not. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete her article and that of her primary school. Dlyons493 Talk 11:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. NN StuffOfInterest 14:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 20:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. — Khoikhoi 22:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Namesake Entertainment

Delete - does not seem to be notable per WP:CORP, only hits in Google is company's own website, no independent mention. Leuko 03:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep Delete. They're in the IMdB [9]. However, while we tend to accept any performer with IMdB credits, does merely being in the IMdB make a production company notable? Daniel Case 04:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: Per WP:CORP, "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." The listing in IMDB is trivial, because all it does is list the movies which the company has been associated with. Also, that is one published work, where WP:CORP requires "multiple." Leuko 04:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Question answered; changing my vote. Daniel Case 04:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I know the above user already changed his vote, but I simply wanted to point out that IMDb is in no way a measure of significance, and that people are not even remotely guaranteed they have a WP article because they have an IMDb entry. I have an entry (for donating to The 1 Second Film)), while a friend of mine starred in an actual movie. Neither of us has a WP page, nor do either of us (but especially not me) deserve them... nor do people who played corpses on CSI or spoke one line in a film. -- Kicking222 21:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and subsequent information. Wryspy 04:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per all above; no reliable sources indicating that this production house meets WP:CORP. -- Kinu t/ c 05:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per all above... nn company producing nn films. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete NN. StuffOfInterest 14:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn. — Khoikhoi 22:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete by Neutrality, [10].-- Kchase T 04:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Bikini Round-Up

This article has seen it all: speedy deletion declined, and is a contested prod. It's a one sentence article about a non-notable porn film with no citations whatsoever. MER-C 04:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete It's a non-notable HBO TV movie. TJ Spyke 04:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, non-notable TV movie...and there is no "M" rating for TV shows or movies. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete this and Zentriert ins Antlitz (linked from this article, but not in the nomination for some reason) as CSD A7 - no assertion of band's notability. Kimchi.sg 08:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

E.M.I.T.R

Patent nonsense, no context. Speedy delete A1 TrackerTV ( CW| Castform| Green Valley) 04:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Speedy delete — ERcheck ( talk) 04:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

My book

This could be the title of so many pages that end up here. This one in particular cannot be an encyclopedic article. Ever. Daniel Case 04:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete It's basically just a blank page. TJ Spyke 04:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete page is empty, article name has nothing to do with content and, can not be salvaged. -- Gogo Dodo 04:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete. Original research from a confused newcomer. Rohirok 04:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as empty or possible G4. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Wryspy 04:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus to delete, merge to Marine Park possible. W.marsh 18:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Marine Park Race Attack

Minor news item from 2005 of no lasting significance, delete -- Peta 04:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Wryspy 04:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete We're not wikinews, and this doesn't seem like an event that, at this moment, will hold bearing on the future. Nom's wording of 'no lasting signifigance' is a good way to put it, as right now it doesn't hold major signifigance. Kevin_b_er 05:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. These things have a way of resurfacing by way of people on the losing side trying to get even later. The article serves as a useful reminder of problems that won't go away. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 09:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – Q: can't articles like these be trimmed and merged into Ethnic violence? There must be more like this floating around. Just an idea. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Not sure where, but there must be another article which can host this single paragraph with a few reference links. StuffOfInterest 14:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is local news. Mention of the attack might be appropriate in an article dealing with race relations or crime in the region, but this doesn't merit its own article in an encyclopedia. Rohirok 17:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I hope someone improves the article.-- Tess Tickle 18:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Rohirok. We're not Wikinews. Mention the attack in some other article about the region, but it doesn't need its own. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 22:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per TruthbringerToronto. 1ne 06:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Local news of no encycloepdic or historical significance. GRBerry 14:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Marine Park. -- Visviva 02:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Yank sox 04:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Les Tapies

Previous version was a lengthy copyvio and tagged as such, so the author removed the copyrighted text (good) and turned the article into a nanostub about an unspecified "program" program with no distinguishable notability. Opabinia regalis 04:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I'm fuzzy on if a 'program' at a school can qualify for speedy delete on A7, but it doesn't appear to be all that great anyways, nor does it appear to assert its signifigance or importance. What's special about it? It appears to be an international summer program, one of probably many around the world. -- Kevin_b_er 06:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The article is better now. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 09:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unnotable school program. Eusebeus 13:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable and of no interest. - Corporal Tunnel 14:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete almost speediable. ~ trialsanderrors 00:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Great White North Hamburger

This is unverifiable ( WP:V). There are no sources cited and there are zero Google hits outside of Wikipedia for "Great White North Hamburger". Sandstein 04:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as WP:NFT (eh?) — NM Chico 24 05:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, if anything can possibly be cited, then this is just a hamburger served at a golf club. WP:NOT the menu for every location on the planet. -- Kinu t/ c 05:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, unverifiable. -- The Anome 12:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete with homemade dill sauce. WilyD 13:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Eh, take off of Wikipedia. NawlinWiki 14:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per above. StuffOfInterest 14:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, obvious, non-notable recipe. Smerdis of Tlön 14:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, ad for a non-notable burger. It's probably good, but that's not relevant here. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 22:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I agree. — Khoikhoi 22:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, but move to Wikibooks cookbook as an alternate hamburger recipe. It does sound interesting, but not appropriate for here. Jzeitler 15:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator, but I must say a hamburger sounds good right about now. RFerreira 21:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Prodego talk 13:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

ModTheSims2

I love the site, I visit it often, and I've participated on the forums. However, it's does not meet the notability requirements for wikipedia.

It fails two important guidelines. WP:WEB and WP:VAIN The site was created and heavily edited by the site creator who goes by the nickname Delphi. The site was featured in two mass-media publication, however, the seem part of the excluded content of WEB #1: "Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores."

The site also has a high Alexa rank. However, web ranking is not a criteria for inclusion in the wikipedia and shouldn't be considered. Also, a detailed search query of google shows that 90,000+ of the unique google hits belong to the page itself. [11]. A vanilla search of the site's name reveals that there are only 635 unique web entries.

The article is also somewhat of a link farm that may also be a violation of WP:EL.

It's a very good resource and should be referenced in the main Sims2 article. So, I say Delete, redirect to The Sims 2, and include in external links. -- Kunzite 05:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment — I'm not sure about this one; it doesn't smell like vanity to me, despite getting created/edited by the site creator and even if it was, "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of assertion of importance is".
On the WEB thing... I'm not sure. ShaunES 07:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I've clean up some of the article, removed some elements that would read as vanity or advertisments. Havok (T/ C/ c) 10:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • How exactly does it pass WP:V? How does it pass WP:WEB? "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Where are the reliable third party sources? The two sources given are "Trivial coverage...that simply report the internet address... [or contain] a brief summar[ies] of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses"? -- Kunzite 11:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I would think that since it has been featured on G4TV's Attack of the Show and in Rolling Stone Magazine it is good enough. Maybe not for you, but it's still a third party reference of notability of the site. And in no place does it say in the policy about how it should be featured by the third party. When said sources recognize it, it is automatically notable. "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Both of those are credible, and are reputable. Havok (T/ C/ c) 11:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • First off, the article doesn't even cite the sources, it just mentions that the site was mentioned in these publications. Secondly, there's WP:WEB, which contains the guidelines on which sources are acceptable for web sites. Wikipedia is also not a web directory. -- Kunzite 11:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I think the policy which you try to justify this articles deltion with says "Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guide or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally shouldn't list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules etc. (although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable)." Which talks about what not to put in said article, this article is just as viable as Something Awful, Newgrounds and 4chan to give you a few. Havok (T/ C/ c) 13:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Nope. WP:WEB is the standard. Modthesims2 does not pass it. I think out of the examples you have given, two are most likely notable. (They get multiple, seemingly, non-trivial hits when I do LexisNexis searches.) 4chan doesn't, it's pretty much noted on the talk page, and it really should be nominated it for deletion. Modthesims2 gets no LexisNexis hits. Please explain to me how the Rolling Stone is non-trivial. If it were a two-page spread on the site.. I'd give it to you, I'd withdraw the nomination. It's a one sentence line about movie characters that were popular at the time the article was made who happened to make an appearance on the site. How is that notable for a wikipedia article? I'll end with the quote from the 4chan talk page -- Kunzite 03:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • They have still been mentioned on Attack of the Show. Which is more then can be said for other websites featured on Wikipedia. Havok (T/ C/ c) 07:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The TV show is still just a trivial mention. This deletion is about modthesims2:not about all of the other websites around wikipedia that need to be removed or whatnot. There is a lot of clean-up work to be done at wikipedia. -- Kunzite 12:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

These quotes are straight from Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is an official and founding policy of Wikipedia.

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
"Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources."
"The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic."


  • Keep Attack of the Show + Rolling Stone = Notable. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I dug up the Rolling Stone quote: "With the Oscars fast approaching, Brokeback fever spreads to the Web: America's favorite cowboys get pixetated as character mods for the Sims 2 video game, (modthesims2.com)" This is not even about the site, it's about Brokeback Mountain. Totally trivial. -- Kunzite 14:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I'd rather keep a marginal than delete a notable. StuffOfInterest 14:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete\uninstall this article. The Rolling Stone mention was about a movie, and happened to mention the website address. No coverage of the actual website which is required to satisfy WP:WEB. I Tivo "Attack of the Show", and remember this episode. They mentioned this site in passing, it was not featured or given more that 30 seconds of air time. I have a computer mod that was mentioned on TechTV's (pre-G4) 'The Screen Savers' longer than that; and it was mentioned in various computer mod magazines...should that get an article as well? No. -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 15:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment If you feel it's notable, and you can established that notability then go right ahead. The fact that Attack of the Show mentioned it, is good enough. I can give you a list of sites that havn't been talked about on AotS if you want. Meaning, it's notable. Havok (T/ C/ c) 15:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom-- Peephole 16:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as above. However, it would be nice if the Sims 2 article had a section listing the various modder sites such as this one, and describing the modder community in more detail. But in itself, this article subject is trivial to anyone who doesn't play the game. 207.34.120.71 16:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 16:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep not a very good article, but not hopeless. Notable enough. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 20:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Needs a good firm rewriting, but those references make it notable. -- PresN 20:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Have you even reviewed the references? Could you explain to me how they meet WP:WEB? What makes those two references non trivial? -- Kunzite 00:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and cleanup per PresN. RandyWang ( chat me up/ fix me up) 23:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above, the above-mentioned sources make it notable enough. As said needs some cleanup to look less like an advertisement. -- SevereTireDamage 13:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wikipedia is a general-knowledge encyclopedia. While it does not have the same physical limitations as a printed encyclopedia, it isn't the universal vault of all obscure fan knowledge. While MTS2 is certainly not obscure in the Simming community, I'm not sure it's something of benefit to the general reading public. In addition, when the article was created by the website owner and approx. 25% of the edits were made by him, with another 25% or so being made by editors whose only contributions are in this article (realizing, of course, that some of these are may have been made by people who have since registered), I do wonder about WP:VAIN. While this is somewhat to be expected of an article of this nature, the only main namespace article linking to this one (other than redirects) is the The Sims 2 article. As far as the Rolling Stones, etc., reference is concerned, I agree that a single off-handed mention does not constitute notability - it constitutes fortuitous coincidence. Out of curiosity, does anyone know if there was any significant increase in the hit count for MTS2 immediately following this mention? -- Carl ( talk| contribs) 03:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Even if it was created as WP:VAIN, I would say that that isn't a problem anymore. Even if it was mentioned in a sentence in Rolling Stones, it is better then most websites featured on Wikipedia. Also, it was linked to from Attack of the Show. Might have been for a brief moment, but again, it's more then most. Havok (T/ C/ c) 06:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I do refer to the comment above: yes there are a lot of articles that need to be considered for deletion. However, this deletion is about MTS2: not the hundreds of other poorly-sourced, iffy articles on websites which need to be examined. "There are articles with more trivial sources than this one" is not a valid argument for keeping. Given the time and attention of dedicated editors and (hopefully) a new focus on quality over quantity by the wikipedia foundation, I hope they will be evaluated in due time and with due process. -- Kunzite 12:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • A line must be drawn; when a site has been mentioned in two very reliable sources, it deservs a mention. I myself am an inclusionist (but I am sure you are aware of that fact). If articles are deleted on the grounds that they are "poorly-sourced", "iffy articles" etc. and are just deleted without having the chance to be buildt upon and improved. It's going to be very hard to get anything up on WP. This site is huge, it has been mentioned, and it deserves an article, period. Havok (T/ C/ c) 12:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It should be "hard" to "get stuff up" on wikipedia (i.e. there should be standards); especially when it's a fansite. Collocating and merging such things will not harm wikipedia. If the site's included in a link in the main Sims 2 article, there would be nothing lost. The problem is that you a mistaking two mentions of a URL in the mass media as "sources". Have you read the sentence in Rolling Stone that you're calling a source? It's not even about the site; it's about Brokeback Mountain. The TV "source" is equally trivial. Read WP:WEB which states the inclusion guidelines for media sources. You're also mistaken in your assertation that just because a "site is huge" that it deserves an article. A site's traffic does not matter. That's not mentioned anywhere in any inclusion guideline. -- Kunzite 18:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • A single sentance in the magazine is concidered a trivial source. The article must be a full length feature on just the site, so the Rollingstone article has been voided as a source. What is next? One mention in passing (which since I have the show tivoed, I can tell you it was about the same coverage the Rollingstone article had) on a TV show. Not Multiple sources. One very shakey one and one that doesn't qualify per wikipedia's own policy. It fails a major wikipedia pillar... WP:V. It fails to follow the guideline of WP:WEB as well (multiple sources) -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 23:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Redirect per nom. The cited sources seem fairly trivial in their mention of the article's subject. - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 12:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Swampass

(Contested prod) Wikipedia is not an urban dictionary. — ERcheck ( talk) 05:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as a neologism with little in the way of verifiability that I was able to track down. (I tagged this as a speedy, but the author removed the tag and commented, so I didn't bother redoing it.) Tony Fox (arf!) 05:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Move to Wiktionary. Leuko 05:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:NFT. Ridiculous, unverifiable neologism. This same article has been speedied twice before under the name Swamp ass and twice again under Swamp Ass. Suggest page protection for all three articles should this AFD result in deletion. — NM Chico 24 05:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per NMChico24... unverifiable neologism, probably made up you-know-where. -- Kinu t/ c 05:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:NEO. No transwiki here, I don't think it's for neologisms. Asshat, cited by author as an example, is actually only a redirection page to Asshole. ColourBurst 05:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Actually, wiktionary will accept neologisms, however they still need to be verifiable. BS is still BS, no matter which project it's posted to. — NM Chico 24 05:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as before, crappy article. Gazpacho 07:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per NMChico24 -- Mr Stephen 11:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NFT policy. -- The Anome 12:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Neologism. StuffOfInterest 14:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, non-notable neologism. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 22:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. — Khoikhoi 22:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not notable, poorly written. Jaedza 06:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Gary Burn

young australian actor who had a role in Home and Away, and who scored 52 Ghits with "Gary Burn" + actor. Prpopsd deletion per WP:NN Ohconfucius

  • Delete nn. tv show sucks too. Macktheknifeau 05:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete totally NN: the first legitimate Google hit on him is (guess what?) this WP article itself. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 20:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. While a search of an Australia and New Zealand database comes up with plenty of hits for Gary Burn, there is little related to this actor. However, should his acting career continue, we can have an article when there is more verifiable information available. Capitalistroadster 22:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 22:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. As yet, non-notable. -- Roisterer 16:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Declan O'Brien

  • Delete. Non-notable, fails WP:BIO, no independent reviews of work, only 1 relevant GHit (IMDB listing) Leuko 05:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. You can expand stubs and he's runs a company. Sinewaves23 15:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I agree with Sinewaves, and although the version marked with AfD before wasn't at all notable, it now has great deal of information to prove otherwise now. DrWho42 17:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • 'Keep Dude's a film producer. Good enough for me. Dev920 18:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep based upon the expansion of this article from stub to start. Yamaguchi先生 08:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

ZilCorp

No evidence provided that this company meets the WP:CORP guidelines, delete. --- Peta

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

List of Political Documentaries

Originally placed on CSD by User:Musaabdulrashid, but "This is an attempt to create a useless list of information that is notably displayed elseware" does not fit into any of the CSD categories, and so taking to AfD. I actually support this deletion as it'd probably be better off as a category. ColourBurst 05:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Yet another endless list. Categories are much more appropriate for this sort of thing, especially given its scope. — NM Chico 24 05:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as the person who nominated it for csd 15 minuets ago-- Musaabdulrashid 05:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete, listcruft, and improper title case is the icing on the cake. -- Kinu t/ c 05:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I prefer categories for this sort of thing. Mr Stephen 11:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - lists are much more useful than categories in a lot of ways, and Political documentary is an encyclopaedic topic. WilyD 13:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Lists are inherantly bad. Any political documentary, even one made in one school day, could be listed in this article.-- Musaabdulrashid 00:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:LIST would disagree, but it's probly the case that any featured list nominated here with "nn listcruft" would get deleted. WilyD 11:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as potentially infinite. Use the category instead. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 22:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete If this had meaningful criteria for inclusion, it would have promise. It actually has some content about the documentaries, making it more valuable than the category. However, with no criteria for inclusion, it is potentially infinite and listcruft. GRBerry 15:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • That is, of course, not actually true. Entries still have to get past WP:V, so the potential is not infinite, nor is there any real potential for "listcruft". WP:LIST also covers reasons for having lists, which is more than just discussing the contents of the list. WilyD 15:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Geoff McIntosh

subject is not notable per vanity piece by non notable person WP:VAIN 56Ghits for "Geoff McIntosh" + binary. Article is suspected autobiography, as info is unverifiable ( User:GeeMac per WP:V and WP:AUTO Ohconfucius 05:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - reads like an autobiography, not particularly notable. Leuko 08:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, WP:NOT a resume host site. NawlinWiki 14:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per above. 11kowrom 19:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Peta 05:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a public resume repository. Dsreyn 16:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Gerald Vernon-Jackson

proposed deletion of entry for Local councillor for Portsmouth CC, former Deputy leader of West berks council and former candidate for European parliament for the South-east, for not passing the bar of notability. Ohconfucius 05:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, city officials tend not to meet WP:BIO. -- Kinu t/ c 05:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. A coucil leader such as Gerald Vernon-Jackson has more power than an ordinary councillor, and is hence more notable. I added some references. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 07:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete According to point number two in WP:BIO: Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This is a city council member/leader. As a political figure, they do not hold a statewide/provincewide office. -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 15:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment. The next point in WP:BIO is "Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage". Gerald Vernon-Jackson qualifies on this point. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 22:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment The links given in the article don't cut it, unfortunately. The BBC article is not about him (it just quotes him), and the Yahoo link seems to be minutes of council proceedings, which aren't press coverage. If you eliminate all that, you're left with local news, which is not "significant press coverage". -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 23:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Convertec Business Solutions

Text makes no assertion of company's importance. Company website doesn't even work. User has only posted links and articles related to company. Garrepi 05:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Delete and redirect to Coining. Srikeit ( Talk | Email) 06:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Coiner

Delete per WP:NEO Brian G ( Talk) 05:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • So it isn't a word? Remove it from Wikipedia. EVERYWHERE. Zanadark 06:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ( T | C | @) 19:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn neologism about creating more nn neologisms... ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • We can't deny the existence of a word that is used throughout human history. Why don't we document it's existence. Zana Dark 20:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Watch out for sockpuppets. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 22:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete If this article were to be remade, detailing assumptive historical meaning of coiner, someone who made coins, it could be quite interesting. As of now, however, it is attempting to promote a neologism. LinaMishima 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I see all this talk and no EDITING happenning. Is this place collaborative or over-critical? Zana Dark 23:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Our coverage at the disambiguation articles Coining and Coin (disambiguation) is perfectly adequate, and this article is merely a simple duplicate of it. Redirect to either. Uncle G 00:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Coining per Uncle G. Fan-1967 00:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Question - Is it common to redirect to diambiguation pages? I'm not sure that I've seen that except for plurals. -- Brian G ( Talk) 01:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Redirecting an -er to an -ing is about the same thing as redirecting between singular and plural. Fan-1967 13:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

All I see here, is "If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests." Let's work together find a common solution. Zana Dark 02:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

See Also: Chewbacca Defense Zana Dark 07:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to Coining — By the way, Zana, you seem to be the one using Chewbacca Defense here. We are working together to find a solution. That's the point of sessions such as this. Ryu Kaze 14:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Is there a reason this is even being discussed? Delete. - Corporal Tunnel 14:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect Creative, though. Gimmetrow 17:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I think you guys might want to look at this before you argue with me anymore: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/coining

Žena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» 03:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 08:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Nick pearson

Looks like a vanity article (created by User:Nick Pearson) Anons have been edit warring over this page as vanity or not. It has been deprodded at least once. This particular Nick Pearson appears to be completely overshadowed by an actor and also an olympic athelete, each of the same name. While it lasts, I encorage you to read his blog entry where he states such lovely things as:

"So my plea to you. Join Wikipedia, as it takes only a few moments, and post a comment on the discussion pages about how this page should stay on the website, not because it isn't self-serving or shamelessly promoting a radio show that no-one outside of Bathurst and Orange can listen to, but because people deserve to know as to the absolutely marvellous nature that is me."

I think the author well justifies that the page is vanity and that they themselves have self-justified themselves as not meeting WP:BIO. -- Kevin_b_er 05:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete As non-notable biography. Werdna talk criticism 06:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete per nom. NN person and he even admitted it's a vanity page. TJ Spyke 06:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete as per nom, Don't leave it around for his blog-minions to flood the page. Canadian-Bacon (contribs) 06:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. -- Graham 07:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete per A7. Leuko 08:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Comparison of instant messaging clients. Yank sox 18:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

List_of_instant_messaging_clients

  • Delete a list is not an ojective decsion because the list serves as a stub like the example of the software split. It should be expanded with a concise comparison based upon usage statistics, and its role in modern business.The multiprotocol list is useful for research. The point that 2bit software/freeware is added wrecklessly can be addressed by a requirement that the new entry must have 2-5 verifiable outside links (ie: sorceforge), and that their entry is placed inot talk before it is added. I thinks this is a better solution than deletion.

This page serves no purpose other than to allow non-notable two-bit apps to appear alongside notable ones. It's a pointless list and you don't learn anything. Andymarczak 06:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Eberron Mod

Unofficial mod, the game it is modding isn't even out yet, plus even the website establishes no notability with forums with no more than a dozen posts on it. Completely insignificant especially when you consider most announced mods never appear. Ben W Bell talk 07:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. --jam es (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Christopher Hinz

Consesnus sought for this rather obscure writer of Sci-fi books: 2 books ('Ash Ock' and 'anachronisms') out of print; Paratwa ranked #675,513; Liege killers ranked #867,362 per Amazon.

Apparently won the Compton Crook Award (Baltimore SF society) for best first novel and nominated (but not apparently shortlisted for the John W. Campbell Award for best new writer according to Fictionwise. Rather NN, from what I can tell. Ohconfucius 07:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Tamil Slangs

Wikipedia is not an slag dictionary, and if it was these terms would go on the tamil encyclopedia. If any of these terms notable (for illustrating the structure of the language for instance) they can be merged with Tamil language somehow-- Musaabdulrashid 07:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Slang is an important part of colloquial language. They do not illustrate in any way the structure of the language. But that does not take away from its importance. Slangs reflect the people who use them and their way of interaction. The only way I can see of connecting it with Tamil language is by providing a link from the latter.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avan gopi ( talk • contribs) 00:24, August 14, 2006 (UTC).

  • Delete. I can't see how this list isn't either original research or pulled from an existing source. Slang terms that are independently notable ( lingam, for example) might make a good addition to the Tamil language article. -- Graham 08:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as nom and a list of slag from any one language is completely unnessesary.-- Musaabdulrashid 09:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. We're not Wiktionary. Wasn't something like this already deleted? -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 22:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Tamil Language Doctor Bruno 03:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless rewritten to cover the general topic of Tamil slang. Lists of words do not generally belong on Wikipedia. -- Visviva 20:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Preston Hellings F.C.

Non-notable Sunday league football (soccer) team from a small village; there are thousands of such teams, all of which compete below what is considered serious competition. Established consensus on WikiProject Football is that only teams from levels 1-10 of the English football league system are considered inherently notable and this team falls a long way short. Qwghlm 07:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as nominator. Qwghlm 07:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. – Elisson • Talk 12:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (they're not very good, either -- 4-18 last season). NawlinWiki 14:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Similarly, is the league itself worth an article? -- Kinu t/ c 15:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. - Pal 18:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --jam es (talk) 03:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Charlie Kadau

subject is not known outside of his involvemet with MAD magazine, scores 638Ghits. Ohconfucius 07:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Many people, and probably a disproportionate number of Wikipedia editors, are fascinated by MAD magazine. I think he's notable. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 08:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Involved with MAD magazine as a comedy writer and longtime associate editor for MAD Magazine? Notable. -- HResearcher 15:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Why does he need to be notable outside of his involvement with MAD magazine? Isn't that like saying that Barry Bonds needs notability outside of baseball? Dsreyn 15:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy redirected to Cowards Bend the Knee. Kimchi.sg 14:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Cowards bend at the knees (film)

This seems to be a wikipedia entry for the film " Cowards Bend the Knee" rather then "Cowards bend at the knees" the article isn't written in proper form, has several spelling errors, and there is already an entry for the article under the film's proper name.

Reason the page should be deleted Andrzejbanas 07:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 00:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Asma Kəsmə

this entry is challenged on the basis of WP:V or WP:HOAX. This listing for an Azerbaijani dance which forms part of the wedding ritual asserts notability based on its claim of being one of the oldest dances in the context of wedding ceremonies. Dances are an integral part of the wedding rituals in almost every culture, and this claim, therefore, needs to be properly demonstrated. Ohconfucius 07:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) See page bottom. Ohconfucius reply

  • Comment - where the hoax issue is concerned, the words are certainly cognate to the relevant Turkish infinitives ("asmak" and "kesmek"), so nobody's trying to pull the wool over our eyes by sneaking an obscenity in, since Azeri's close enough to Turkish for the words not to have changed enough. As for whether such a dance exists, I'll leave that to someone with slightly more knowledge in that field or abilities in that language. BigHaz 10:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The text comes straight from this web page: آذربایجان رقص لری /Azerbaijani dances. That holds also for several others, all listed under List of folk dances sorted by origin#Azerbaijan, such as Abayı and Asta Qarabağı. I do not think this is copyvio, as the page states near its beginning: "We are sending English translation of dances to Wikipedia". I think for now it is enough to keep the {{ verify}} tag. -- Lambiam Talk 16:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment my challenge is on the premise of its claim to be "It is one of the oldest dances which is current in marriage". Apologies if it was misunderstood: I was not challenging the existence of the dance, nor that it has a very long history. An assertion to notability of the dance such as "It is a folkloric dance which dates back to the Xth century" would appear sufficient in this regard. With respect, I would content that the source of the translated document itself needs to be subject to the same credibility test. Ohconfucius 05:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I was reasonably certain that that was what you were getting at. My comment about the language issue was to save anyone else the trouble of thinking "I wonder if we've inadvertently got an article with an offensive title?" BigHaz 05:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, we have lots of dances on WP and even Category:Dance. If Azeris do the dance at their weddings, that's notable enough for WP. If you want to take issue with the claim of "oldest" AfD is not the place to hash that out. I think the nomination based on verifiability and hoax is no longer operative. Carlossuarez46 06:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • comment point taken. I withdraw the AfD nomination. case closed. I beg for someone to fill out the stub. Ohconfucius 06:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Argoed High School

there appears to be nothing notable about this welsh secondary school. Ohconfucius 08:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

In all fairness, it's not that disruptive, and they don't have much of a point. WilyD 23:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep — WP:SCHOOL does not yet set a bar for deletion and there is no parent article to merge into. 550+ student high schools are unlikely to ever be judged as non-notable Peripitus (Talk) 11:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not notable, no paticuarly special achievements to warrant inclusion. Viridae Talk 12:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I think all high schools should be kept. NawlinWiki 14:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - common law dictates that high schools are notable. WilyD 14:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • What exactly do you mean by common law? Precedent is not binding in AFD. Viridae Talk 14:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Precendent isn't binding upon AfD, but it is the rational I'm advancing here, yes. It's a very well established precendent that secondary schools are inherently worthy of articles - and as long as they get past WP:V, I'm not really aware of a criterion anywhere which is binding upon AfD, or even an official-like guideline. WilyD 14:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
        • The guideline is at WP:SCHOOL, although it's among the most ignored guidelines here. -- Graham 17:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
          • WP:SCHOOL is a proposed guideline, not a guideline. It wouldn't be binding even if it was a guideline, which it isn't. WilyD 17:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. While the article is not extensive, it does provide some background on the school. Plus, there is verifiable information, with a reference to a newspaper article (albeit a local) included. This school article clears the hurdle. — C.Fred ( talk) 15:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep — At least until WP:SCHOOLS is agreed upon and we have some common guidelines. This school meets my personal criteria for notability. Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 17:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as is customary. Gazpacho 17:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It is a high school and WP:SCHOOL -- Ageo020 00:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Since Argoed High School is a high school, this nomination was a waste of everyone's time. Edison 02:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Notable high school. Carioca 04:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as a notable secondary school, this nomination is a waste of time indeed. Silensor 07:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- per RJH's statement. GBYork 13:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As the article contains no assertion of notability. Having articles on all schools violates the WP:NOT policy against being an indiscriminate collection of information. GRBerry 15:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment surely you realise that isn't true. There's no requirement for an assertion of notability, and WP:NOT doesn't forbid an article on every highschool any more than it forbids an article on every country. WilyD 15:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment ....or every person, every public convenience, blah blah blah. Carlossuarez46 06:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Comment true, WP:NOT doesn't really forbid an article on every person, though WP:V and WP:BIO do. WilyD 11:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 06:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep notability isnt policy... verifiability is.   ALKIVAR ™ 06:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep based upon my belief that secondary level educational institutions and above are notable. Yamaguchi先生 08:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep both. --jam es (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Science Fiction Studies

The notability of this journal and co-nominee is challenged per WP:NN. It is the news journal of the Science Fiction Society of DePauw University, and the article apparently fails to assert its notability.

I also nominate Andrew M. Butler for deletion. The subject here is a college lecturer of Sci-fi at Canterbury Christ Church University and is sometimes writer in a number of SF journals, including SFS. Ohconfucius 08:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep both. I have added a list of his publications,a nd I think that the article now demonstrates that he is notable. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 09:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep both. Notable refereed academic journal and notable author. — Viriditas | Talk 08:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Andrew M. Butler I've not yet investigated the journal fully, so I'm declining comment on it for now. However Andrew M. Butler has been nominated for a Hugo award, which clearly establishes him as a leading author in such matters, in my opinion LinaMishima 23:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, appears to be a reputable, established peer-reviewed publication. Not sure what the basis for this AfD is. Oh, and in the future please list separate AfDs separately. -- Visviva 13:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

EDiets.com

Spam, not edited since it was posted on June 23 Nuttah68 08:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as per nom. Rewrite as per Glen Dlyons493 Talk 11:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Rob (Talk) 11:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, spamvertising. Keep per GIen, below, but article could use some cleanup. NawlinWiki 15:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC) NawlinWiki 14:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep — Let me start by saying that I've been in the nutrition industry for 10 years so this is kinda my thing. Ediets.com easily meets WP:WEB criteria for notability, that is "The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation", at http://www.ediets.com/company/pressroom/awards.cfm you'll see its won "Forbes.com's Spring 2005 "Best of the Web" and a "Forbes Favorite" in the Diet and Nutrition category." for the third year, ""Standard of Excellence" WebAward in the 2004 WebAward Competition, which are produced by the Web Marketing Association", "PC Magazine selected eDiets.com its "Editors' Choice", "Nielsen//NetRatings has ranked eDiets.com as the #1 Most Trafficked Health, Fitness & Nutrition Site World Wide" etc. The company is publicly listed on the NASDAQ, and has an Alexa ranking of approx 3000. Hope this helps - Glen 14:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the topic but refer to copyright problems. The subject of the article is notable, and I think it deserves an article. As noted above, though, it is a copyvio. — C.Fred ( talk) 15:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment I cant believe I missed that (Ive tagged two other AfD candidates in the last hour or two for the exact same reason). I've blanked the article and tagged copyvio. I will try to sit down this morning and write at least a stub that isnt a commercial. I've left the AfD tag on the article, just in case for some reason it's found to survive deletion - then this AfD will remain relavant. - Glen 15:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep with rewrite to fix copyright problems. Leuko 19:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Glen's rewrite. As an aside, I humbly express my utter shock that this article was only written in June... As the most popular dieting website (according to my sources), I cannot believe it wasn't created a long time ago. Srose (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep with the new stub per GIen. Nickieee 07:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Rewritten

I have rewritten the article (just as a stub but it's a start) - it is located at Talk:EDiets.com/Temp. - GIen 16:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 00:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Druthers

Contested prod. Non notable local business that fails WP:CORP

  • Keep. This place was awesome and since I found out that there is one still in existance I'm planning an hour & a half road trip to go to the Campbellsville one! Druther's/Burger Queen Rocks!!! User: londonhistory 11:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Nuttah68 08:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Merge and Redirect to Dairy Queen. Catchpole 09:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This was not a local business, but a regional chain. Though it was absorbed into Dairy Queen, it was a distinct company from DQ, so merge and redirect is not appropriate. Article does need to be verified, however. Rohirok 17:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I remember this chain and it's slogan "I'd ruther go to Druthers". Gazpacho 01:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Not non-notable. They eventually faded away but they were a pretty well known fast food chain during the 1980s - one of the second string chains about comparable to Whataburger or Burger Chef. Dragomiloff 02:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above comments and continue to provide reliable sources. Yamaguchi先生 08:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Advertising Intern

the subject is not a recognised profession, and will share characteristics of the skill-sets for advertising with the employment characteristics of internship. Interns in almost every domain are basically inexperienced workers, thus multiplication of separate listings is not warranted. WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information. In the case of this article, it also appears to be a school project for User:Cndylanders, thus WP:VAIN. Ohconfucius 08:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - doesn't contribute anything that couldn't be found in Internship or Advertising articles. GrahameS 17:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Michael 19:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Leuko 19:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, I do not see how internship in a specific profession needs its own article.-- danntm T C 20:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Peta 05:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • "'Delete'" -- Jenne this article appears to have been written solely to lead users to an outlink produced by an ad agency in Houston, Texas.
  • Agree Delete for reason WP:VAIN. Mallanox 10:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply

You are all correct. I have no problem with deletion. It was my first attempt at contribution. Thank you for your input.-- Cndylanders 16:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - per nom. GBYork 00:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Alexandra Zhang

the subject is a film actress who has had several roles in film. However, many of the parts are unnamed, and none of the roles appear to have any prominence. Would appear to fail WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 09:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, non-notable actress (or rather, extra) per WP:BIO. Very few reliable sources indicating these roles; only relevant results appear to be copied from IMDb itself. -- Kinu t/ c 15:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn. Leuko 19:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Phoenix Hacker 20:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Agree, Delete. Mallanox 12:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete. For crying out loud, she is an extra, not an actress. Half of her roles are "uncredited". RFerreira 21:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of secondary characters from Futurama. --jam es (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Vice Presidential Action Rangers

This was only ever in one part of one episode of one TV show. It's clearly not notable enough. Philip Stevens 09:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Keep. Baseball,Baby! balls• strikes 00:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Factory 81

Contains one line of "information", doesn't comply with WP:Music Dmiles21 09:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete this version as clear cut copyvio. This discussion however indicates that there's no consensus to not include an article on this person, however, so in other words, creating it as a non-copy-and-paste of a news story should be okay. W.marsh 18:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Omar Shaick

Non-notable junior boxing champion: Google returns only 72 hits, and I can find no indication of notability. Prod removed by third party. RandyWang ( chat me up/ fix me up) 09:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Junior boxing champions are notable. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 10:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. Even junior boxing champions that have received zero media attention? Likewise, Omar has competed - at his highpoint - at the national (Australian) level, which does not satisfy WP:BIO's requirement that the sportsperson have competed at the highest level of their competition (ie, international). Since he's made no significant or lasting impact to his field, and has received absolutely no recognition from third parties, there's not much reason to include his article here. RandyWang ( chat me up/ fix me up) 11:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I see RandyWang's point perfectly, but what makes Omar notable is this – he is a Muslim boxer in a predominantly white field, and his religion is at odds with his impending success. There has actually been a fair amount of controversy in boxing circles in the past few days about the guy [my Google search got 401 hits for "omar shaick" boxing, by the way – what terms did you use?] I don't see any reason why there should be an article about him, unless this gets big. He isn't notable as a boxer, yet. He's notable for his refusal to get tested, and his religion. I'm going to abstain from voting on this one [after all that!!!] — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 12:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. Aren't you meant to be on enforced WikiBreak? :) You're right though, I seem to have used the wrong search terms: I get 479 for simply "Omar Shaick," but that still doesn't seem enough to demonstrate notability. As far as I can tell, the only significant thing he's done is refuse a drug test, but that's not really a particularly notable thing. RandyWang ( chat me up/ fix me up) 23:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment I found out how to bypass it :) I still stand by my previous comment, though – I think he's at least slightly notable due to the fact that it's not just a normal refusal to get tested, it's for religious reasons. It's interesting how many articles on the web about the controversy display such blatant anti-Islamicism and racism [note: no bias here... I've been raised Hindu. OK, maybe a little :)]. That said, unless this hits the fan (which I doubt it will), there's not much need for a proper article about him. Aaargh, that sounds confusing! In summary – he is slightly notable (notorious?), but right now we don't need an article about him. Weak delete — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 01:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (athletes) I do not see any of these being met by this particular boxer. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Right now the article is a copy-vio of the site listed as an external link. Wickethewok 13:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but delete as copyvio. JYolkowski // talk 23:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. Ey? Keep and delete? What would you like done, exactly? RandyWang ( chat me up/ fix me up) 21:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • It means that what I would like to see is this discussion closed as keep, but the page deleted through the procedure at WP:CP assuming it is in fact a copyvio. Such a verdict would cause recreations to be treated differently than a discussion closed as delete. JYolkowski // talk 22:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Rather, list on WP:CP as it is a copyvio. :)-- Tdxi an g Jimbo's 40th Birthday! 09:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Okay didn't realise I would cause controversy over this. As the person who originally added the article I'm not going to vote. I have zero interest in boxing, never heard of the guy, but then again I can probably name about 2 or 3 boxers in the world. When I saw the article on the ABC News site I thaught that it was interesting enough to see what WP had to say. When I realised he had no article I thaught I'd add it. I more or less (if I remember correctly) wikified the news article. If this is a copyvio (copyright violation, I'm assuming) I appologise. I knew the article couldn't be just that story, but as I knew nothing else about him, I figured someone who did (and actually cares about boxing) could add more info. If it gets deleted for any reason, I won't lose any sleep over it, I really did add it in good faith. AussieDingo1983 11:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Don't worry, nobody was assuming you did it in goodbad (whoops) faith. This page exists to determine whether the article should be included in any form, not because of the way you sourced your information. :) RandyWang ( chat me up/ fix me up) 13:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

God (Beatles)

Fictional album of no great note. kingboyk 10:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. It's just a list of songs the lads did solo post-Beatles, fancrufted into an album. (Yes, I did just verb "fancruft.") Non-notable and confusing. -- Merope 14:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is the Holy Grail of WP:MUSIC -- a non-notable Beatles album! -- M @ r ē ino 23:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Huxwell Manwachi

Being tudent union president at the University of Zambia appears to be his only real claim to fame. Has he done more? Andrew Levine 10:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • It appears he may have caused a huge stir, if the article is to be believed. Unfortunately, Zambia's online presence is minimal, and the article cannot be substantiated. 0hits on the Zambian 8Ghits, of which 5 wiki. delete Ohconfucius 06:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Questionable notability and no sources. JPD ( talk) 11:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Center for Range Voting

Delete. Hoax. Vanity. Non-notability per WP:ORG. The center for range voting is not more than a website by Warren Smith. Yellowbeard 11:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Michael 19:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above, does not seem to meet WP:WEB. Leuko 19:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. Ohconfucius 06:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Not notable. GBYork 13:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I don't believe this is a hoax, but it is completely non-notable per WP:ORG et al.-- Satori Son 15:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination even if not a hoax. Yamaguchi先生 08:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Selam Ahderom (second nomination)

Previously deleted but content recreated. Earlier AfD is here. Same argument as before, viz nn academic, possible vanity page. Eusebeus 05:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. African academics are underrepresented in Wikipedia. I think that, as an academic in Uganda, he is notable. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 11:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment- Every Ugandan academic is notable? I think not. J Milburn 13:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per TruthbringerToronto. -- Jeff3000 13:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Gets a reasonable number of Google Scholar hits http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=author%3ASelam T. Ahderom&btnG=Search Wouldn't meet WP:PROF in US/EU, but a keep would help towards reduction of systemic bias. Dlyons493 Talk 14:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (sadly). I created this article as part of a series on Bahai Counsellors. Sadly the precedent has been set that CBCs are not notable enough for their retention - even the list has been deleted from the main page on CBCs. That's Baha'is for you! AndrewRT - Talk 18:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Precedent schmecedent, Baha'is can be notable too. -- Visviva 19:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. He is not a notable academic, merely a lecturer at a university. If there is anything to make him notable, it is for being a Bahá'í Counselor, which does not equate notability unless the Counselor is also notable in his own right. We do not need to keep articles about people who do not meet WP:PROF as a means to reduce systemic bias. Uganda has quite a few noteworthy academics with published works. -- Ezeu 22:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Changing to Keep given the addition of published papers. -- Ezeu 06:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Ezeu. Happening to live in another country doesn't make a non-notable academic any more notable per WP:PROF (which is technically misnomer, since this individual is not even a professor, but a lecturer). To say so is not systemic bias. -- Kinu t/ c 05:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. As often happens with articles nominated for AfD, the article has been improved. I added three of his publications, and more can be found at http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Selam+Ahderom I also added a link to Eta Kappa Nu, the electrical and computer engineering honor society. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 06:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I am familiar with Ahderom's research and publications on computer generated holographic optical router. It is original and significant, and its methods novel and certainly qualifies notable per WP:PROF -- Optiv 14:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

The Ramayana: A True Reading

Clear POV fork of Ramayana. OR and only argument presented -- Samir धर्म 11:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Samir धर्म 11:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, original research/POV. NawlinWiki 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, unsourced POV fork, suspected original research. -- Kinu t/ c 15:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete. To those who may not have known the South India Phenomenon, the facts are
  1. Pulavar Kulandhai's book was initially banned by Madras Government, but the ban was revoked by the Tamil Nadu Government and today excerpts from the work are given in the Government Text Books as a chapter for Class X Tamil Subject. The book is same as Ramayana except for few variation - Ravana as Hero and Rama as Villain and Rama as Aryan and Ravana as Dravidian. Hence that book is totally verifiable and is not a original research. (Please see the History of TamilNadu to know what is Madras Government and what is Tamil Nadu Government)
  2. Few other facts are lifted from works of Periyar
  3. Few other facts have been taken from the articles written by Hindu Fundamentals against Periyar's views
The creator of the article has tried to give the points praising and opposing the epic. If some one can write an article for the Book (Ravana Kaaviyam), that can perhaps be included. Or another article may be Views on Ramayana or better key points from this can be added to the main article on Ramayana itself Doctor Bruno 04:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete - A cesspool of anti-Hindu garbage. Bakaman Bakatalk 16:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Conformist Rebellion

This has to be original research. ~~ N ( t/ c) 11:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I removed the PROD as it did come up with a few google hits, and wondered if a better article could be written with this title. Probably not though, and I don't think existing article should stay (per nom). Petros471 11:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The facts that the article states that this concept was invented by Ian Nordstrom, that the article was created and mostly written by MrNordstrom ( talk · contribs) (who states on xyr user page that xe is "the leader of the Conformist Rebellion"), and that that editor states that xe "disliked most of the students in his school and other schools in Washington, although he lives in Washington", lead inevitably to the conclusion that this is original research, an idea that someone made up in school one day, and decided to publish on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. The place for this is the creator's own web site, not Wikipedia. Yes, there are occasional mentions of "conformist rebellion" here and there, but they are mainly like this web page, which has remained empty for four years. There is no source material for an encyclopaedia article on this subject, and Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing such source material. Delete. Uncle G 14:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Uncle G. The Conformist Rebellion was a movement created in December 2005 by Ian Nordstrom. This movement represented the ideas that teenagers have continually rebelled against everything mainstream until no one followed the mainstream. This clear, lucid, and likeable prose shows that what follows is original research. Best wishes to Mr. Nordstrom, and hope that he continues to contribute. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This appears to be a small movement within one particular school (or possibly slightly larger but still objectively tiny area). Heck, I'd love for this to catch on and become notable as a youth subculture (the "I want to be a non-conformist—exactly like everyone else!" attitude of most deserves to be mocked, and harshly) but at this point, that is sadly not so. -- Icarus ( Hi!) 16:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Definitely OR, a google search for "Ian nordstrom" only returns mirrors of this article that have any relevance. GrahameS 17:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Global Personal Initiatives

Blatant advertisement, copyvio status uncertain - original site appears to have been "hacked". Erath 11:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as per nom. From Cache of the page, I'd say it has been copied and pasted into wikipedia, but since the original site has gone offline, the only other references google finds to the organisation are at wikipedia. Note if this article is deleted so should it's entry from this page be removed. 70.68.92.25 13:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • The above comment was related by me. Sorry, I didn't realise my session had expired. Ardent † ∈ 13:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete as spam. Strong Delete per below. Leuko 19:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as advertising. Kickaha Ota 19:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC) On second thought, WP:CSD states that advertising/spam is not a valid speedy deletion criteria. So let's make that a strong delete instead, with the hope of an early WP:SNOW closing if someone does not rapidly improve the article. Kickaha Ota 19:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Free Alf Stuart

A Completely NN organisation about a fictional character, possible hoax. Mentions books and songs that google does not know, and the organisation links only to message boards. J Milburn 12:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

NiceOne

Yet another web directory which asserts notability but provides no evidence of so. Alexa ranking of 467,820 [12]. Not likely to be the biggest of class at that level. StuffOfInterest 12:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. Please note there is also (now) a redirect called " Niceone" which should be deleted if this article is deleted. Content was originally a copy of the listed article. -- StuffOfInterest 12:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:WEB Leuko 19:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- per nom. GBYork 13:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Haakon 21:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Crimson highway

This page appears to be vanity of a non-notable band. I have attempted numerous searches and been unable to come up with any related press. Ardent † ∈ 12:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Leuko 19:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as a non-English subject I'll give it the benefit of doubt.
    • Comment I'd like to note that in my search for press I also searched the Brazilian MTV site for the skol rock appearance that the article claims. I couldn't find it. Ardent † ∈ 02:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Gazpacho 04:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Nom withdrew. SynergeticMaggot 06:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply

James Browning (Texas politician)

Does not seem to be about a Texas Politician, some of the claims it makes seem to be fraudulent, and it is written in a very bad style. Google turns up a lot, but few of them seem to be this person, I believe. No vote from me right now. Article has been completely rewritten and I now vote 'keep.' J Milburn 12:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

*Delete - A ten year old headlining OzFest? Andymarczak 13:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) *Keep as per Detective TruthbringerToronto. Andymarczak 06:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Delete This was a red link on a disambig page since January this year. See this edit. Unfortunately, mirror sites fill some google hits. Also, no references- very weak delete. JungleCat talk/ contrib 18:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: Change my vote. Single hoax edit by new user. Can't always WP:AGF Not sure about the disambig page entry. It's been there awhile. JungleCat talk/ contrib 18:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Article corrected by TruthbringerToronto. JungleCat talk/ contrib 12:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Could we start over on this one? I replaced the hoax text with information from a number of sources on the real Texas politician by this name. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 00:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and rename to James Nathan Browning after rewrite. Nice work. :) -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 01:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the rewrite version by User:TruthbringerToronto and agree with User:Coredesat that it should be rename with the politician's middle name. The rewrite James Browning is notable. -- 4.226.57.136 03:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: Might want to check that these links [13] don’t have any conflicts. If I get a chance and some free time, I might check these. Also, thanks TruthbringerToronto for the article replacement. JungleCat talk/ contrib 12:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Capture the Flag (Half-Life 2 mod)

Non-notable software mod with no sources, claims of notabilities, proof that its verifiable, etc... Delete as such. Wickethewok 13:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete or Rewrite. It's really unencyclopaedic at the moment, but as far as I know, Valve did some form of publicity thing by challenging the developers of the mod to a game of it, and included the mod in their news updates. Still, I'm not even sure if that's enough for notability. The current version of this page is horrendous, though. -- Angry Lawyer 16:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 17:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • DeletePer nom -- Peephole 19:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, mods aren't notable. Recury 20:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Mods can be notable, but this article doesn't show notablility. -- PresN 20:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per PresN. RandyWang ( chat me up/ fix me up) 23:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but Rewrite It has been established in presN that mods are indeed notable. However, this article needs a rewrite. Nothing will be done on wikipedia however of any note if articles are deleted in their infancy. This particular mod has been commended by VaLVE, the creators of the Half-Life series of games and in some media sources. Immediate lack of such mention and the format of the article are grounds for a rewrite, not an immediate deletion. The following link gives a basic idea. http://www.steampowered.com/Steam/Marketing/January27.2006/ -- Palehorse864 06:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.48.159.136 ( talk • contribs) reply
  • Comment I don't know much about Half-Life 2, but besides that Valve played a game with them and promoted their mod, does having their mod being selected for distribution over STEAM with other selected mods and commercial products make the mod notable? [14] Or is any mod that reached a certain development stage allowed to be pushed through STEAM? I would guess there would have to be some kind of professional level cream-of-the-crop selection going on there. -- SevereTireDamage 09:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I dunno, I can't seem to find any third party articles about it. Just message boards and such mostly. Can anyone find any third party reliable sources that show the relevance of this particular mod? Wickethewok 13:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • weak delete This article doesn't read like an encyclopedia entry. It explains what the mod is a mostly comprehensible way, but does not explain why it's important. If this can be added, keep, otherwise, dellete. Ace of Sevens 18:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Rewrite This could be an alright stub or even full article if it was written more as a factual reference and not as a simple guide I vote delete or full rewrite as per WP:NOT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magosis ( talk • contribs) 20:35, 20 August 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Yank sox 17:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Cheridonna Alexander

WP:BIO . nothing against nudism, but....subject occasionally gives lectures at college, reached several hundred nudists with Prodigy, and has appeared several times on TV - doesn't appear to be notable Ohconfucius 05:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete or complete rewrite in a hurry Article lacks sources, fails to assert notability and POV, and could not pass WP:BIO. Ifit can't be brought to suitable standards, it has to go. -- Svartalf 16:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, — Mets501 ( talk) 13:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above, possibly speedy as there doesn't seem to be a real assertion of notability. JPD ( talk) 11:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Svartalf and WP:V. -- Satori Son 16:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as non-notable. — Michael Hays 16:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDY DELETE as patent nonsense. (it was a painful wall of text that began "The Serozza were founded on January 18, 2002 by a group of people claiming the same descent. These people decided to start a tribe, a nomadic tribe not of a country, but of the Earth.", with no sources) ~~ N ( t/ c) 13:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

The Serozza

Non notable (no hits on google), possibly fictional (?) royal family. - Ladybirdintheuk 13:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I changed the nomination to speedy- it's straight up nonsense and not worth debating. Richardjames444 13:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --jam es (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Eric "Ty" Hodges

Doubt subject meets WP:BIO 500 g-hits. Verfiability problem in that there are no cited sources.  :) Dlohcierekim 13:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Have added IMDB source [15], which shows him in a recurring role on Even Stevens, and with appearances in several other notable films and TV shows. NawlinWiki 14:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, length of credits list at IMDB seems to satisfy WP:BIO. — C.Fred ( talk) 15:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep - Length of credits list in IMDB probably because each individual appearance in a TV episode is listed. Leuko 19:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Thanks to all. I probably was wrong to list the thing, but wasn't sure. If no one finds a compelling reason to delete, I should withdraw the AfD. Will look at this again when I'm not at work. Cheers.  :) Dlohcierekim 01:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Xoloz 18:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Raj Bhakta

Article had an AfD tag, but no page created so I'm listing it. I can see why it was tagged considering WP:NOT a soapbox - this article seems to have been created and is being maintained for the sole purpose of promoting Raj Bhakta and his congressional campaign. Delete, maybe insert a paragraph about him into Apprentice 2 Candidates article and redirect it to that page - Paulus89 14:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, combination of Apprentice appearance, nomination by major party for US Congress, plus various newsworthy stumbles in his campaign (mentioned in article) make him notable. NawlinWiki 15:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, abuse of wikipedia as entry is being maintained by paid employee of political campaign which regularly deletes information not favorable to the campaign including references to Mr. Bhakta's DUIs until others cried foul, deletion of references to articles from the Hill and the Philadelphia Inquirer unfavorable to the candidate, use of spam blogging to intimidate Wikipedians making comments. Page is nothing more than a thinly veiled piece of campaign literature. Bruceberry 11:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Response Article should be watched closely, and if editors are removing pertinent info in bad faith, they should be warned/blocked. When I read the article today, though, it didn't strike me as campaign propaganda (maybe because the DUI and false-accusation stuff was in it). NawlinWiki 15:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. The conduct of certain editors doesn't change the fact that the subject of the article meets criteria for notability on account of his TV appearance on The Apprentice and his campaign. The article is certainly long enough to stand alone. I agree with NawlinWiki that the way to deal with it is to warn the editors. — C.Fred ( talk) 15:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - blocker spammers as needed. There are procedures in place for that. WilyD 16:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and deal with vandalism as appropriate. Leuko 19:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. He's a major-party candidate for federal office - certainly a more worthy reason to be in an encyclopedia than his earlier television exploits. The article seems to have a balanced look now, and I think enough editors are looking in on it to keep it that way. Coemgenus 21:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Figure is notable as a major-party candidate for federal office. Yamaguchi先生 08:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Alleged inconsistencies in Star Wars

While I'm hesitant to nominate an article for deletion when it has received more edits than many Featured Articles, I feel I have no choice in this case. It's completely original research, with the 'question and answer' format just an excuse to pack even more fancruft into an already unencyclopaedic article. The title itself is a weasel word; alleged by who? The article never says. This article is flagged with just about every warning template already, but the truth is that it's fundamentally a bad idea for an article. There may be some small amount of information that warrants merging into Star Wars, but consensus should first be established on the worthiness or otherwise of the article itself. Soo 13:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per the precedent set by the deletion of a similar article related to Star Trek: Enterprise. 23skidoo 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOV, Smacks of WP:OR, and falls short of WP:V. I did get a very good laugh out a post someone made, stating that in space ...you'd expand and eventually explode, because your skin and organs aren't tough enough to keep their shape under no pressure at all. Also, you'd freeze to death within minutes, as it's lower than -100C out there -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 15:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Actually, then it's definitely a violation of WP:OR or WP:RS, since neither of the above assertions are. WilyD 17:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 16:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per everyone. Recury 20:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as 100% unrefererenced OR. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 21:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, unsourced original research. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 22:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Most of this is sourcable (heck whole books have been written on this), so OR and RS are not issues. Someone just needs to go through and source it. JoshuaZ 01:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If the article is deleted, any information not already in the Wookiepedia article on the same subject should be copied there first. I haven't done a point-by-point comparison of the two, but my impression is that while the Wookiepedia article covers more issues, it doesn't have as much in-depth information about the ones listed here. -- Icarus ( Hi!) 01:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Hadn't thought of that, good idea. Soo 09:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Shovel and delete ... as above. This belongs in Wookiepedia. Ronabop 03:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Completely WP:OR. The ones that are worthwhile are already mentioned elsewhere, and others ("Vader knowing about Tatooine" stands out as an example) aren't exactly major continuity issues and probably shouldn't be here at all. BryanG (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Maclaine 15:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • i say keep it. i like it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.153.188.49 ( talk • contribs)
    • Fourth edit from this IP. Soo 16:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete bad precedent although imdb has tons of this stuff. On balance, that's probably where it belongs, not here. (more than 4th edit from me) Carlossuarez46 06:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There has been some research, from books, et cetera. I do not want to do this research. I am glad the writer did.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.232.196 ( talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Johnny Baracoa

Doesn't meet creiteria for a speedy but looks like its fails WP:BIO as well as WP:NOT crystal ball as well as it appears that it can only be original research. In short doesn't justify an article now but could be recreated once the subject has achieved some notability. Spartaz 13:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as nom -- Spartaz 13:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. The subject does not appear to be notable. Ohconfucius 05:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- per nom. GBYork 13:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Mad Mental Motor Missions

very non-notable, one or two hits on google. Was previously deleted via WP:PROD, but the author contested the deletion Kungfu Adam ( talk) 13:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Only mention in Google is the Wikipedia page, and this AfD. Leuko 19:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - a search on "M4" and "Shetland Islands" doesn't seem to turn up much of anything either. Pretty close to a vanity article. John Broughton 23:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - See above. 06:29, 16 August 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planetary ( talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Mersey reds

English 5-a-side football club; below notability threshold. NawlinWiki 13:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • I have added a link to the wikipedia pages about indoor football and futsal so this is just a link from those as an example of a 5 aside team also their is a link to the official league page is their anything else i can do to try and stop the page dfrom being deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean P ( talk • contribs) (article author)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, no context. Kimchi.sg 14:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Darvin and dagmar

Provides no discernible context, produces no Google hits. Was speedied as {{db-context}}, tag removed by author. Speedy delete -- Huon 13:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete. I think that sd tags can be restored if an author removes them. (And the remover should be warned with a {drmspeedy} on his/her talk page.) -- Merope 14:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Dr. Daniel J. Garguillio

page had been marked prod, potential Vanity and autobiography Doc ♬ talk 14:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I'm hesitant to decide whether it meets WP:BIO. The original author's username is DrGargoyle, so I think it is an autobiography. WP:VAIN says, "The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created. If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them." -- Gray Porpoise 14:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • delete looks too much like an ad for my tastes. - Steve Sanbeg 16:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Do Not Delete Article is honest, including both negative and positive information on the subject, hardly like an "ad" or autobiography (making it quite doubtful that the origin author is the same individual as the subject). Garguillio is well-known in the demonological/occult field and should be the subject of a Wikipedia article at the very least.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.27.2.44 (Talk) ( talk • contribs) 12:12, 14 August 2006
Comment the above unsigned remark appears to be from none other than the originator of the article DrGargoyle. Doc ♬ talk 17:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment the above unsigned user, removed my previous comment and moved his/her "vote" to the top of the list.
Comment the above user under another ip has removed the last comment and removed notices from the namespace article as well as vandalising my talk page. Doc ♬ talk 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Userfy and Delete. The article is not referenced and verified by a reliable source per WP:V. However, seeing his line of business of the occult, it would seem impossible. Notwithstanding, he does not appear to be at all notable per WP:NN "Dr Gargoyle" scores 1850 Ghits, and "Daniel J. Garguillio" scores 46 Ghits. Other than wiki, there are only a few self-placed profiles and forum chats on the subject. "Daniel Garguillio" scores 0 Ghits.
In addition, Dr Gargolye should familiarise himself with wikiquette. He may not have been aware of the convention of placing messages at the bottom of a page, but I would say that the first message to Doc's talk was intimidatory, although he has since apologised. However, removiing tags like "unreferenced" or "NPOV" without having put the article right can be considered vandalism. Retaliation by changing comments on this page without proper notification (transparency) is also vandalism and unacceptable Ohconfucius 05:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment The appology is accepted, and the vandalism has hopefully now stopped. There is both a message at the top of my talk page and a template to put new messages at the bottom of the page. Thanks for your input. Doc ♬ talk 14:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- per nom. GBYork 13:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete While in theory a biographical article should be verifiable, this one has been around unverified for a month and a half. No prejudice against recreation of an article that is not a autobiography or vanity article and is in fact verified from reliable sources, including use of independent reliable sources to establish notability for a biography. GRBerry 15:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not verifiably important. Medtopic 17:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. In the interests of WP:BIO, any unsourced biographies should be redirected to the Panic! at the Disco article and then expanded out as proper references can be provided. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Brendon Urie

Unnotable singer of Panic! at the Disco. Fails all notability criterias, and article doesn't state why person deserves an article. And that other band members have articles is not a criteria for it to be kept. Hence, should be deleted (and possibly merged into band article). Same goes for the remainder of the group, which I am also nominating:

-- HarryCane 14:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy keep for all, appears to be bad-faith nomination. NawlinWiki 14:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Band has hit 1mil+ on album sales, fueling upsurge in personal attachment of Brendon to band P!atD in mag and online media. Article in current form just not well developed, suggest re-nominating after a good cleanup and filling in blanks Hackajar 15:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

:Delete Jon Walker or Merge to Panic! at the Disco does not meet notability criteria. -- digital_m e( Talk• Contribs) 15:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

FYI, this is page for Brendon, not Jon. (Don't know how to mention in nice way with only text, sorry if sounds rude) Hackajar 15:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
All of the articles link to this AfD, so I assume that this is just one big AfD for all of them.
Yeah I saw that and added a Jon Walker below (maybe you can migrate this converstation down there (as you started it), I don't want to get hand slapped by HarryCane for moving your Jon comments Hackajar 16:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

:Keep meets the notability criteria laid out at WP:BAND. -- digital_m e( Talk• Contribs) 15:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Comments: About the bad-faith nom, that's not the case at all. I'm actually a pretty big fan of the band, just don't think the band articles qualify for notability. This is a combined Afd for all the aritcles mentioned in the nomination (as proposed on WP:AFD), so there's no need for an extra section for each seperate article. And lastly, the criterias from WP:BAND apply, yes. But only to the band, not its individual members. That's a major difference which many of the articles' editors don't seem to realize, as they are recreted/made redirects/recreated/etc. every now and again. Especially since the articles don't state their notability, it would be reason alone to delete them. -- HarryCane 17:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Alright, I think that merging them all would be an acceptable solution.-- digital_m e( Talk• Contribs) 17:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment. Being a verifiable member of a major, notable band seems like an assertion of notability to me. I see nothing in WP:BAND to dispute this. Irongargoyle 17:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Brandon Flowers of The_Killers_(band) along with all other band mates of that band have pages. I picked this band as example because a.) they are both from Las Vegas b.) they are both rock bands c.) they both started gaining popularity between 2004-present d.) Killers wiki page and associated articles is example of well organized band on wikipedia. Hackajar 14:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Yet, as I also said in the nom: The fact that other band members have pages does not justify the necessity of the Panic! at the Disco articles. And those striking similarities between the bands... well. Just because somebody is in a Las Vegas rock band does not make him notable for a Wikipedia article. -- HarryCane 14:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
In that case please address two concerns I have 1.) What has another band (we can take my example of Killers) done to get forked pages, that P!atD has not. You can also provide an example of a successful AfD for band member page. Then point out what worked for that band and bring it here. 2.) Opening AfD with "The fact that other band members have pages does not justify the necessity of the Panic! at the Disco articles" as a means to circumvent WP:BAND requriments tested before seems to be 'Framing the debate' and intentionally attempting to crimple any argument to support sub-pages, such as individual band member pages. How can you justify that statement as not an attempt of 'framing the debate'? Hackajar 14:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm not framing the debate, I'm merely pointing out that every Wikipedia article has to stand for itself. Each article must state why the subject is notable. Referencing other articles in the sense of "If this guy gets an article, so should I!", is not a valid criteria for notability on Wikipedia. That's the whole point I was trying to make with the statement you quoted, you see. I hope this clears up the concerns. -- HarryCane 19:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all. Change in band members has drawn press coverage and considerable controversy. I would say these are all notable (and verifiable). Irongargoyle 17:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all - Being a member of a majorly notable band makes you notable. -- PresN 20:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Panic! at the Disco
  • This comment was added by 70.161.99.170, not logged in user Hackajar 13:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Keep them, fans of this band want to know their members. Since panic is now big-status, it makes sense to have a page for the band members.

  • This comment was added by 68.38.68.244, not logged in user! If you want this to count please login and re-submit your request! Hackajar 15:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I am assuming that these past two comments were not changes in your votes Hackajar, the way they are worded and signed makes them a bit confusing. Irongargoyle 16:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Irongargoyle, yes, this was just to clear up "Above comments are not signed, and were place here by IP address, not user". Usually comments by IP addresses are not weighted same in AfD's as they could just be sock puppets for someone else ;) Hackajar 16:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Hackajar, you can simply use {{subst:unsigned|68.38.68.244}} to avoid all confusion. :) -- HarryCane 19:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all, obviously worthwhile members. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 11:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect Brent Wilson & Spencer Smith to Panic! at the Disco as both articles fail WP:V miserably. No predjudice against recreation of articles at the namespace (or keeping them) if someone wants to take the time to actually source these articles. Keep Ryan Ross & Jon Walker. At this point, they meet WP:BIO and the articles are adequately sourced.-- Isotope23 14:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. I have done my best to reference all the band member pages. There is plenty of verifiable information out there for people who would like to add more. Irongargoyle 22:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Keep all They are a highly successful band. If their pages are deleted, then they will just be re-added as time goes on —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captainjames ( talk • contribs) .
  • Merge and redirect all to the Panic! at the Disco page until sources are provided, fails verifiability policies as stated above. Yamaguchi先生 08:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep all, they are all members of a very obviously notable band. -- musicpvm 20:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I have cleaned up Brendon page, added citations, and more information, removed bogus information, and asked for citations on two comments I cannot confirm. I have also tried to put article in Wiki Bio format as close as possible, and ask others help as I hit a brain block on how to go further. With this said, article is (IMHO) within Wiki Bio guidlines, meets WP:BAND, and has most citations referenced. Doing a google search (as suggested by Wikipedia:Notability_(people)) shows 109,000 English hits on Brendons name [16]. Finally, Google trends shows his name on an uptick [17] as compared to Brendon Flowers of The Killers (band) Fame. Hackajar 17:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Here's another chart with k-Fed [18]
  • Speedy Keep Like it or not, these guys have grown to a point where they meet WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Yank sox 20:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • keep all. panic! are one of the rising bands of the year, if not the biggest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.20.184.208 ( talk • contribs) .
  • Comment People should read this comment in regards to Notibility in general when dealing with AfD's. As it was suggested by the main AfD page. Hackajar 21:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, merge possible. W.marsh 18:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Sheffield University Theatre Company

Delete. This is a non-notable student theatre group. The result of the AfD discussion for similar student theatre groups has been delete. For instance, see here and here. Marc Shepherd 14:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. See also WP:MUS. -- Ssilvers 15:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete student groups are generally not notable Dlyons493 Talk 20:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge into an appropriate article on the university or its student life. Information is valuable to Wikipedia; group might or might not merit an article of its own. Fg2 06:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge into article on Drama Studio, University of Sheffield. Company is notable for its (internationally reknowned) alumni, in particular Stephen Daldry. Comparison with the two student theatre groups cited above is arguably not justified. Jaa02vts 00:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC) (Page's creator.) reply
  • Merge per above. Notable, but not two-article-notable. ~ trialsanderrors 01:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep - Drama Studio, University of Sheffield is an article on a building, and one in which only 40% of the productions appear to be associated with the university (much less suTCo), so it would not be the best recipient for this material. It could possibly be merged into the University article as per Fg2, but this can be done with a {merge} tag and discussion when someone actually takes up the task, and there seems to be no harm in keeping this as a stub article until that might happen - it doesn't seem to be a puffery attempt by suTCo fans. - David Oberst 07:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 19:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

MIT Musical Theatre Guild

Delete. This is a non-notable student theatre group. The result of the AfD discussion for similar student theatre groups has been delete. For instance, see here and here. Marc Shepherd 14:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. See also WP:MUS. -- Ssilvers 15:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge into an appropriate article on the university or its student life. Information is valuable to Wikipedia; group may or may not merit an article of its own. Fg2 06:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete NN group. Nickieee 07:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Visviva 02:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Appraise-It

Spam giving no detail on the NN product apart from where to buy it and links to vendors Nuttah68 14:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Tragedy on screen

This is a companion article to "Comedy on screen," which was proposed for deletion earlier with the result: delete. The list is non-notable, and is simply a few people's opinions of tragedies on screen, listing a few of the many, many screen tragedies that have been filmed. Marc Shepherd 14:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as listcruft, ORcruft, and a waste of space. Rather useless, really. -- M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ( T | C | @) 19:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete ICI (indiscriminate collection of information) ~ trialsanderrors 01:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete/create redirects. W.marsh 18:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Werepyre, Moglin, Mogleet

Three articles of uncited fancruft, can be merged with AdventureQuest if editors really want the information to stay. Peephole 14:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Speedy delete by User:Toddst1, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 23:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Jim Samuel

Jim Samuel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

This article is a complete hoax, fails WP:BIO and WP:N, this is obviously a fictional character as there are no google hits and the myspace is a dud.-- TrU Co -X 22:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Unsourced and unreferenced - clearly a hoax. Dreamspy ( talk) 23:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete The fact that nonsense like these needs to go through an afd to be deleted shows there are obvious flaws in the deletion system. -- Scorpion 0422 23:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Thundersley United F.C.

17th-level English football club; nonnotable per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#2nd_revised_proposal. NawlinWiki 14:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 15:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete 13 divisions below the professional level. Oldelpaso 18:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Simply not notable. - Pal 18:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom; no claim to notability. Qwghlm 18:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions.
  • Delete Does not appear to be a club playing at, or having played at, a sufficient level for which notability could be claimed or verified. -- Alias Flood 20:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. aLii 09:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Nandesuka 23:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

2010 Formula One season

Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball..while the 2010 season will almost certainly happen, nothing can be said about it that isn't wild speculation/original research GrahameS 14:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. As the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research (see "crystal ball" link above) is direct criteria why such articles should not be written this far in advance, so to does this criterion hold for a racing season four years from now. -- CPAScott 15:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as crystal balling. It can be recreated in a couple years. BoojiBoy 20:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We don't have similar articles for Nextel Cup or the Indy Racing League. Re-create in 2008 or so. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 22:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball, its a bit too early to forecast the 2010 season, especially considering how much the FIA likes to change up things.-- danntm T C 00:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep if the Bridgestone fact in the article is true, otherwise delete. The Bridgestone fact excludes it from the crystal ball criterion. -- Koffieyahoo 02:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. Probably there is nothing to tell about the 2028 presidential election and 2032 Olympics, but in F1 there are already discussion for next years (long term contracts). So if there are interesting news about future season, let keep it. But I think we need some experts to give opinion (or to add relevant content to article). Cate 14:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete - The tire fact is true, but is on the 2008 site, since the agreement starts in that year. The 2009 article exists, but with good reason as the Formula One Management has made announcements about 2009. I think that until they make news specific to 2010 (which could be next summer?) we probably don't need this one yet. -- Brian G ( Talk) 23:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment we have 2024 Summer Olympics, is F1 not doing anything 4 years ahead while the olympics are doing it 18 years ahead? The issue of deleting is not that important, because we will have this article sometime (assuming that F1, WP, the earth still exist); but those who believe that AfD's have precedent value can hang on to this one and speedy the recreation of the article for all eternity. Carlossuarez46 06:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Unlike nearer F1 years or other future sporting events there just isn't much to say about this one yet - as evidenced by the lack of content. I can't remember any announcements relating to 2010 having come out yet. If anyone's got something solid then fine, but I don't think there will be for a little while yet. -- 4u1e 07:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Besides the Bridgestone fact, article could include Grands Prix, teams and drivers that have contracts that go as far as 2010 and are thus semi-confirmed. The new engine development freeze was supposed to last until the end of the 2010 season, but it was changed to 2007-2009. This shows that there are rule changes made by FIA that go as far as 2010, and these can be published at any time. The article is not crystal balling and might prove useful. Prolog 00:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Oh good lord. Get rid of it. The humanity! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.180.24.50 ( talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. W.marsh 18:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Softether

Contested PROD. No clear assertion of notability, verifiability difficult to establish since the linked web page is written in Japanese, closed source product with no claimed advantages over OpenVPN. "Softether" does get a huge number of Google hits, quite a few in Japanese, if that matters. At first glance, even the ones in English are not very informative. Phr ( talk) 15:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Open to persuasion but it looks like a delete to me so far, as nominator. Phr ( talk) 15:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • delete doesn't claim notability, and not even available in English anymore. - Steve Sanbeg 15:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I have added an English reference. -- Kusunose 13:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Kusunose 17:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. SoftEther appears to be very popular in Japan and judging by a (rather limited number of) reviews/papers in English is considered to be a sort of national technological wonder. Perhaps the article needs to be reworked to focus on this fact. Researching products/services in VPN area inevitably results in SoftEther hits, so it's definitely a keep. Alex Pankratov 00:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I would've thought to delete it, except, assuming Alex Pankratov's comments are accurate, it has enough to establish notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by SneakyTodd ( talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Premier Manager. There really isn't anything to merge since it reads more like an ad blurb, but there's no real reason not to delete the history if someone feels they can improve the main article with it. - Bobet 19:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Premier Manager 2006/2007

Not notable. Reads like an ad for an unreleased game. Link on bottom of the page says it has not been released. User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 15:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

The software package has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself -- Nope.
The software is so well-known that its trademark has suffered from genericization -- Nope.
The software is among the core products of a notable software developer or vendor -- Nope.
The software is included in a major operating system distribution such as Debian or Fedora Core, and the maintainer of the distribution is independent from the software developer. -- Nope. -- CPAScott 15:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Thanks I should have thought of that. User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 02:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Common phrases based on stereotypes. – Rob ert 13:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Irish confetti

A somewhat notable slang term, I move to delete or transwiki to Wiktionary. Te ke 03:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, — Mets501 ( talk) 15:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per WilyD. No merge is necessary, as it's already listed there. -- Icarus ( Hi!) 15:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per above. Yomangani talk 17:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, it's generally a bad idea to write about anything that you have any kind of self interest in. When this reaches the proper level of "notability," it will be recreated and should remain an article. However, as of right now, it has yet to reach that level. Yank sox 17:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Bitweaver

Previously deleted via AFD. It was recreated, and I deleted it as a repost. The deletion was appealed, and the author contested it, so I thought another round of AFD would be fair. Neutral vote for me. Kungfu Adam ( talk) 15:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. No evidence of notability. -- Dweller 15:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I can not see how the article passes WP:V. Where are the Reputable, Independent, Third-Party sources (websites and personal blogs are not acceptable under wiki's policy for primary or secondary sources). I don't see how this passes any notablility. Last thing is if you repost an AfD, it is helpful if you also post a link to the old AfD. Since the old AfD was contested, please provide a link to that as well. -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 15:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, original AFD here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitweaver-- Kungfu Adam ( talk) 16:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The result of the old AfD was "Delete". The article was recreated immediately and deleted again with a {db-repost}. If the result here is Delete once again, then the title should be protected to keep us from having to do this every couple weeks.-- Satori Son 21:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete - it doesn't establish notability. A quick google suggests to me that it could do, but I'm not in the mood to do it, and if the author is keen enough on it to appeal the AFD, they should do it themselves. Yomangani talk 16:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, As mentioned in the previous delete history, bitweaver is mentioned in an interview with RedHat and Lulu founder Bob Young in this newsforge interview - search for Tiki (was around the time the product was renamed). Bitweaver also powers high profile and high traffic sites including viop-info.org and viovio.com. We have also updated the contents of the Bitweaver article. We hope our google backlinks as well as our alexa ratings are enough to count as notable. Please let us know if this is adequate, thanks -- Xingg 19:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: This article has been deleted twice in the past few weeks, and the current content still does not assert sufficient notability. Wikipedia:Notability (software) states that a software application is sufficiently notable if "The software has been verifiably the subject of non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software developer, such as a major media news piece, a book, a peer-reviewed scientific publication, or an article in a reputed technical magazine." (Although WP:SOFTWARE is a proposed guideline, the above requirement is essentially identical to the general requirements set forth in the Wikipedia:Notability essay and official policies such as WP:CORP and WP:WEB.) Note that the software must be the subject of the coverage, not just "mentioned in". When this software program achieves the required level of notability, I'm sure someone who is not an employee of the company will write an article about it.-- Satori Son 21:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Commment It seems as though an extremely unfair standard is being applied to this page when there are MANY other similar pages listed on Comparison of content management systems. This project has significantly more notability than most of the projects listed on this page. Why is this inequity being applied to us, and not the much poorer and very incomplete pages for applications listed on that page? Almost none of those pages meet these standards listed above. Also, there is no corporation, it is a community based project involving hundreds of people, and many dozens of developers, just like the very mediawiki software you are using right now. This page is similar to all the others listed on that page, howver we have worked very hard to make it high quality with balanced information for those seeking information on Content Management Systems. For those following the edits, there were some, er, over-zealous, members of our community contributing information, and Xingg and I have done our best to temper their enthusiasm and present a high quality page to offer information alongside the dozens of similar pages. If someone with edits in the open-source and content management system realm, please speak up. -- Spiderr 23:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The 'here are some equally bad pages' argument doesn't cut the mustard. Quoting examples of other pages that fail to meet standards is only a good way to get them listed for deletion too. A few external links or references on the article to show that Bitweaver mets the notability guidelines would probably save the article. Yomangani talk 23:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Well, while the interview mention is OK, the others aren't the most compelling proof of notability I've ever seen, but my point was: they need to go in the article. I think WP:SOFTWARE may have a built-in bias against open source projects, but at least have go at establishing notability IN the article. Yomangani talk 09:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I'll have to admit, after looking at the Comparison of content management systems article I can really understand the fustration of Xingg and Spiderr. What a mess! That article has links to literally dozens of articles on software programs much less notable than this one. I'm not saying we should keep this Bitweaver article, but it does appear that the notability guidelines are not being uniformly enforced. Maybe after the WP:SOFTWARE guidelines are confirmed as official policy we can do some real house cleaning. -- Satori Son 00:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The rules are being enforced whenever somebody has the time to enforce them. That this happens for one article sooner than for another does not constitute preferential treatment for the latter article. — xyzzy n 01:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Absolutely true! I agree wholeheartedly with xyzzy's comment and I certainly did not mean to imply otherwise. I was simply observing that I understand why the creators of this article must be confused and frustrated. If anything, this AfD should motivate all of us to help clean up the numerous software articles that do not meet the standards. -- Satori Son 02:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I don't understand why it is acceptable for individuals with apparently little topic knowledge to make the decision to "house clean" and wipeout an entire topic area. The people who have been building that page, including a few measly edits by me over the years, have spent a lot of time sorting data and fending spam to get a decent, definitive list of information together. Those of us who write and use this software find this list extremely valuable. Should the entire body of CMS knowledge be wiped clean - even though a year ago it was fine? I really would like to see some insightful commentary by those with real knowledge of this topic area. CMS web applications hardly existed 5 years ago, and now are overly abundant - the are the genesis of wikipedia itself. I think the pillars should be adhered to - all biased information should be removed, and we should ignore all rules. Most of these applications are written by geeks in basements like me, not large corporations. For all the WP this and WP that, this body of knowledge is at the center of changing our species. Wikipedia should have a definitive guide to this, since it is what wikipedia is in itself. What I find abhorrent are people with clubs who come in and knock over blocks that other people have been collecting over the years and shove "policy" in people's face. I now feel compelled to go re-read Animal Farm. I know all have the best intentions and want to improve quality, however deleting knowledge is not the best means to acheive this, especially when those shouting "delete it" have no topic knowledge. I make a third request for someone with real knowledge of the CMS space to offer some insight. -- Spiderr 05:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The assumption that nobody involved in the debate (with the exception of the supporters) has any knowledge of CMS is slightly rash. Aside from that, it is acceptable for the continuing existence this article to be challenged by non-experts because WP has guidelines and policies which they can apply without expert knowledge of the subject. The coverage of the CMS subject area on WP will be considerably better if the non-notable products are removed: as you say, there are a lot of systems coded by geeks in basements, but that doesn't entitle every geek in a basement to the right to an article. If the article can't establish notability then it is correct to conclude it isn't notable, expertise in the subject not withstanding. Yomangani talk 09:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Now I feel pretty stupid for sympathizing with Spiderr. I originally thought he was just frustrated about the appearance of spotty notability standards enforcement, but now I see his hostility springs from a complete and fundamental misunderstanding of what the Wikipedia project is. If only those people he mentions would have spent all that time and energy developing their own CMS directory website, instead of trying to hijack part of this one for their pet project. -- Satori Son 14:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC) I may have spoken too early, there. Many of the editors on that page have been working hard to keep it spam free. I think they're just a little overwhelmed, and I apologize if I sounded harsh. -- Satori Son 23:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Satori, I am sorry you are frustrated, and feel compelled to make such disparaging comments. In your 6 months of being here, I am skepitcal you have learned the true essence of wikipedia enough pass judgement on others. This kind of comment comes across as someone less interested in the usefulness of the information, and more interested is "rules and regulations and policies and debate", none of which help people like myself who greatly appreciate a source of information for something they use personally and professionally and helped build. I am sure there are areas about attorneys that I might not find useful, but I certainly don't feel it my place to go and judge the worthiness of the content, such as you do here. I would like to know why you think the vulnerability evaluations are insufficient. Your motives appear personal at this point, and thus your vote has devalued merit, in addition to your lack of knowledge about what qualifies as notability in this debate. I know you want to make wikipedia better, so instead of thumbing through pages and deleting accumulated knowledge, offering to make a *positive* contribution would be much more helpful. If I have misunderstood, I would appreciate clarification. -- Spiderr 20:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Wikipedia is very much not the place to accumulate knowledge. The purpose of the project is to document knowledge that is already accumulated elsewhere. If knowledge has been accumulating here that ought to have been accumulating elsewhere first, removing it serves Wikipedia's primary goal of being an encyclopedia (i.e., a tertiary information source). — Saxifrage ✎ 00:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, Spiderr, you have misunderstood somewhat. I am not at all frustrated because I do not take lively AfD debates or their outcomes personally (even if they may result in some uncivil comments from time to time). But thank you for your apology and concern. No hard feelings. -- Satori Son 18:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This is an encyclopedia, not a trade magazine. We have inclusion criteria that go beyond ‘CMS falls roughly within our scope and the vendor will pay us per word.’ Expertise in the topic is occasionally useful, but definitely not a requirement to note an article’s failure to meet the criteria. (By the way, we’re talking about the article, not about the CMS.) — xyzzy n 15:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment (Trying to help) Are there any verifiable stats on how many users this software has? -- Dweller 10:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - got fed up and edited it myself. I think the fact that it is notable enough to have been the subject of security alerts from well-known security advisors was the clincher (there's lots of them but I only referenced one, as I wasn't going to sort through them all to see which were unique). The involvement of Bob Young/Lulu could do with filling out though, as could information on the userbase as mentioned by Dweller. Yomangani talk 12:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- Per reasoning of Satori Son. The guidelines do not appear to be applied consistently. Housecleaning may be in order but treat all equally. GBYork 13:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC) per having read additional comments and reviewed article today. GBYork 11:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: That is a mischaracterization of my opinion and reasoning. I stand by my Delete opinion. Several of the other articles mentioned above are also now in the process of being reviewed for the very first time. -- Satori Son 13:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The entire body of currently verified content in the article is: ‘Bitweaver powers a large number of websites including high profile and high traffic sites such as viop-info.org and viovio.com, and is used extensively by Lulu. Interest in advancing the project has come from Bob Young, co-founder of Red Hat. In March 2006 it was discovered to have an HTML injection vulnerability.’ Unquantified assertion of notability and no context. — xyzzy n 15:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This is ridiculous. There are no unsubstantiated claims, and much of the article is technical specifications and capabilities, which are enitrely verifiable and [ verified]. Specification centric content is common for technical articles. Comments like this by people who apparently have little concern if this article exists are not are overly damaging and unjust. -- Spiderr 20:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • ‘Advanced’, ‘open source’, ‘feature rich code base’ etc. Everything must be cited, even specification-centric content. — xyzzy n 22:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Topic area knowledge appears crucial to this particular debate, and I have requested those with a vested interest to speak up. In both deletion debates, the hinging argument has been on notability, and both times, it has been mentioned that having multiple top tier application security site evaluations and notices about the software, as well as mention on Newsforge, a huge technical resource for software developers, was more than sufficient for it to have received enough notability. The two delete's from Santori and yzzy_n fail to address why that is insignificant notability. My consensus, based on their edits, is they have little to know first hand knowledge of what makes a "notable" web application. I have a vested interest, not only in this page, but all of the pages on list of content management systems. It is my desire for the community that BUILT that topic area to be the ones to determine it's future, not the self-appointed thought police who were never a part of building that knowledge. This whole thing feels spainfully orwellian. Yomangani did a fine job editing the pages to add more notability to address concerns-- Spiderr 20:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • ‘To speak up […] about why these pages are useful’ [19], to be precise. Regarding notability, it is the job of those who want the article kept to establish it; it is not the job of the others to prove there isn’t any. As for which community decides what happens to CMS articles, if you want to narrow it down, start your own CMS-oriented wiki. (Oh, and thanks for the ‘Orwellian’ label. It’s so original.) — xyzzy n 22:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • COMMENT Spiderr, to be honest, Wikipeida has rules, guidelines and standards that apply to all articles. It doesn't matter if an article has been here since wikipedia's inception or was just created a minute ago. The same rules apply. Regardless of what you 'believe', WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV need to apply to all articles. Those are rules you can't ignore.
Wikipedia's three content policies are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research and Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus
A few things to point out is We hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of published sources to enrich our articles, bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia. (from WP:OR) So while you can call in 'specialists' their opinions hold no more weight than that of any other user nor does it mean that only 'specialists' may decide what is or is not notable or if an article passes all of Wikipedia's standards.
This AfD is not about censoring anything as you are hinting to with your Animal Farm refs. This is about determining whether or not the subject of the article is notable, verifiable, and meets all of wikipedia's policies for inclusion in an article of it's own. Suppose I had a friend who wrote a book about wikilawyering. He wouldn't be notable enough for an article of his own, nor would his book be. However, if there was an article on that book about various aspects of wikicommunities, it might have a factoid that reads "Newbies often use repeated, outlandish proposals, often failing to convince the established members of the community. For example, wwwolf wrote a book "Wikilawyer for Hire" (2008, O'Ridley & Patrons), where he states (pp. 42-43) that melodramatic polemic is 'the oldest trick ever in Wikipedia AfD debates' and won't win you any friends." See? Facts can exist even when they don't have articles of their own. Hence, comparing this AfD to censorship, or even book burning (if I recall Animal Farm correctly) is silly to say the least.
Wikipedia is not a publisher of original information nor is it a free webhost either, as stated in policy. If the history of the website in question is available here but not on the site in question (or some other website that has researched the background of the site), then that is backwards. Wikipedia articles are to cite multiple, Reputable/Reliable, Independent, Third-Party sources who can present 'pre-chewed' pieces of information, and condense that information to something that tells the uninformed people with one glance on what this stuff is about. This article fails on all counts -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 21:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment The problem with the Newsource article interview is it is not focused on Bitweaver only. That makes it a 'trivial-source' per the stated Policies (read them if you disbelieve me). We do not have Multiple, Reliable, Independent, Third-Party sources that mention this software exclusively. We have an article with a passing reference, and a handful of security warnings from a software security website. Nothing that would denote a passing of WP:V. -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 22:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment In my opinion WP:V isn't really the issue here. Any claims about third parties that are made in the article are referenced and WP:V specifically allows self-published sources to be used in articles about themselves. As I see it notability is the problem, and it is important to remember that, despite earlier claims, WP:CORP and WP:WEB are only guidelines and not policies, and that WP:SOFTWARE is not even a guideline. As a proposed guideline it should be treated with a great deal of caution - a criterion that it puts forward may be the opinion of no more than a couple of people, and may be gone tomorrow. The wikilawyering by the article's supporters isn't helping, but I'd ask everybody to look at the article again and ask yourself whether you would nominate it for deletion if you came across it at random. I'm not arguing in favour of it because I fixed it up (I've fixed up articles and still argued for them to be deleted), but because I think the bar for notability here is being set too high when compared to other articles we've kept (kept after AFD, not kept because nobody has put them up for deletion yet). Yomangani talk 23:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment The only thing I want to point out is there are limits to what is acceptable as a self-published source (From WP:V) Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party news organizations or publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on a professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. Hence the reason I said this fails WP:V -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 13:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Comment But if you continue to the next paragraph: Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as:
          • It is relevant to the person's or organization's notability;
          • It is not contentious;
          • It is not unduly self-serving;
          • It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
          • There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.
I read that as in this case the Bitweaver site being an acceptable source for the article's claims. Yomangani talk 16:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Yomangani, I completely respect your opinion in this matter and thank you for keeping civil discourse when so many would fall into feeling this was a personal matter. Again thank you! To continue the debate, the reason I failed to mention this part is because I believe their personal website fails because it is unduly self-serving and with the comment about the "bitweaver vs 'the man': Will takes on NYC cronies" it involves claims about third parties and events not directly related to the subject. I am not seeing how their website is also relevant to their notability. I'll be happy to keep an open mind in this matter and welcome you to correct any errors in my thinking in this matter -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 16:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Ah, it appears that we have interpreted the policy in different ways - I looked at those rules as applying to the material directly used in the resulting article, whereas you seem to have applied them to the source material in general. Unfortunately, when looking again at the policy it doesn't seem clear (at least to me) which is correct, so I can't very well continue trying to convince you of my point when I could be wrong. Just for the record, I was never claiming that the material from the site established notability, just that it allowed the article to be exempt from the requirement for additional third party sources when refering to itself (and hence not failing WP:V or WP:OR). I stick by my Keep for the reasons I've already stated (and thank you also for engaging in a civil exchange). Yomangani talk 17:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Ah, now I understand where you are coming from as I wasn't clear on it before. So, Yes, I can see how you would be correct in that sense. Thank you for clearing this up! BTW: as a side note, I have given you a Civil Discourse Barnstar. Check your talk page. -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 17:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I second that Barnstar to Yomangani, and thanks to all who have remained civil during this sometimes heated debate. -- Satori Son 16:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Passing mentions in articles and interviews doesn't constitute multiple substantial independent publications, and so this doesn't meet our criteria for notability. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - and that goes for everything listed on List of content management systems - " By arguing over what should be kept/deleted, we lose information. We lose readers. We lose editors."-- Spiderr 05:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • That essay is about the stupidity of deleting and keeping mindlessly. Its argument is that non-notable articles should be merged, not kept or deleted. So, what are you suggesting this be merged with? — Saxifrage ✎ 07:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • That's an argument for deleting nothing. Ever. Great, we'll have an encylopedia full of vanity articles, nonsense and other gibberish. I'm off to write an article about my slightly gungy big toe nail. -- Dweller 09:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • CommentThis AfD is not about mindless deleting or inclusion. The problem with your arguement is that this AfD is about if the article passes all of WP's Standards. If it does, GREAT! If it can not be proven it does pass all the standards then it does not have a place on Wikipedia. So far, it does not pass two of the main pillars of Wikipedia... WP:V, WP:OR (Possibly WP:NPOV but perhaps it's just how I preceive the tone the article takes) -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 13:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I agree with Brian - if you can't make reasonable arguments based on the policies or guidelines, then your "Keep" is worthless in the face of the arguments to delete. Yomangani talk 16:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • My point in making this reference is not to promote the mergist philosophy, though I find it a useful approach, but to reiterate this well made point that all this fighting simply makes people frustrated and they leave. And this is particlularly true when critcism is offered without matching constructive feedback. This not a debate i started nor wish to be a part.-- Spiderr 12:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply

CommentI made some edits to attempt to address WP:V, WP:OS, and WP:NPOV, and address Yomangani's nicely laid out issues on the Talk page. If anyone has any has a constructive suggestions, please make a positive edit and add specific suggestions.-- Spiderr 12:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Spiderr, the article STILL is lacking proper sources. All that was done was a bit of rearranging. The links haven't been changed or added to, nothing has been done to satisfy any of posted reasons for deletion. -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 13:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Brian, Apparently we are not able to communicate well. The shifting sands of WP:this and WP:that, not to mention the "highly contentious" notability guidelines throughout this dialog, without making specific reference to the exact information at issue is very unhelpful. Yomangani has done a great job listing his issues on the Talk page so they can be addressed and that works very well. Please list very detailed criticisms of what you consider at issue on the Talk page, or better yet, please make a positive contribution to the article so it can meet your standards. Both of these actions require some time and effort on your part, however since you are advocating removal of knowledge, I certainly would appreciate some elbow grease to convince me this information should be removed, or as I said, i would love if you could lend a hand and bring it up to your own standards. Thanks -- Spiderr 16:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Some of the notability discussion is now way over my head. I strongly believe that editors shouldn't weigh in when they don't understand and I don't plan on proving myself a hypocrite. I've struck out my "delete" opinion above and am happy to leave resolution to those who can follow the tech jargon. In any case, I strongly commend the efforts of the editors fighting to keep this article and hope that they will contribute elsewhere to the Wikipedia project. We need people who will fight for issues without losing their rag. -- Dweller 17:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Spiderr, that isn't something I have to do. You are more than capable of reading all the reasons listed above without me having to rehash them for you. No, I don't wish to contribute to the article. The Authors of the article in question are the people whom have to prove to the rest of Wikipedia that the article should be kept...not the reverse. You're word twisting will not work here. The case has been proven and the closing administrator will see that the arguements for delete have not been addressed -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 17:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I was really trying to stay out of this since my participation seems to anger Spiderr so much, but I really have to back up Brian on this one. Wikipedia:Verifiability, under the "Burden of evidence" section, clearly states that "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Volunteer editors, whose financial interests are not tied to whether this article stays or goes, should not be browbeaten into doing the job of Bitweaver's marketing department. -- Satori Son 18:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete apparent vanispamcruftisement. Just zis Guy you know? 13:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • JzG - Thanks for your participation. I appreciate all the edits you have made on software technical articles. I would request a re-consideration of VSCA if you have time for a recap of how we got here. I am a leader in this project, though with 60 developers, and tens of thousands of downloads, this is not my personal project. After the initial AfD, community came and tried to improve the quality, however, their, er "over-exuberance" led to a rash of non NPOV edits. After a delete, it was quickly recreated by someone else with a copyvio. So, Xinggg and I tried to step in and avoid the "help" of the community, to make a fair, and complete article that would sit well along side articles of sibling applications so the uninformed can understand how these applications compare in design, functionality, and purpose 1, 2, 3, etc. In light the frequent unhelpful recent re-edits, we have done our best with what we feel is in the best interest of Wikipedia, and hopefully set a good tone and model for future edits. Thanks for your time. -- Spiderr 21:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • You appear to eb editing content in which you have a vested interest. That is a bad idea. Just zis Guy you know? 11:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - added more reference links. woo, listed on smarty.php.net now. -- Spiderr 05:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per Satori Son's reasoning. GBYork 11:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Is very useful software, people should know about it. Stalin.P҉G 01:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. alphaChimp laudare 03:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Doctor's Guide

This article is a non-notable, commercial website. Recommended for deletion under WP:WEB, wikipedia is not a web directory. ju66l3r 15:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. -- CPAScott 15:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 16:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as nom ReverendG 20:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- Infodg2006 17:59, 15 August (UTC) - this site is notable; please see following link for awards and recognition: http://www.pslgroup.com/awards.htm.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.211.65.202 ( talk • contribs)
    • Comment. This link for "awards" is hosted on the consulting group that publishes the website in question. Some of the award images (rehosted by pslgroup.com as opposed to linked to actual awarding bodies that might be verifiable) are for "awards" like "PHP Included"(?). Other awards are handed out like trinkets to multiple sites per day (USA Today "Hot Site" award). Others are not even given out any more and were likely awarded to the site over 10 years ago. I attempted to look up about half of the awards and could find few if any Ghits for the awards themselves (probably due to age of the award). The PSL group website also claims that Doctor's Guide receives over 1,000,000 hits per month, but Alexa doesn't even show enough traffic to track it at all. ju66l3r 03:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. per nom. — dima / sb. tk/ 21:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- Mnodonnell 16:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Doctor's Guide is notable within the physician community (and with nurses, pharmacists, and other healthcare professionals). It does show up on Alexa. reply
User's only edits are to this AfD Srose (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: My apologies. The site has so many root-level domains that link to it, I chose the wrong 3 to search for on Alexa. Looking at its Alexa data suggests any notability it had simply by being on the internet has disappeared since 2003. It still remain unnotable from the standpoint of an encyclopedia and not that of a web directory. ju66l3r 21:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is a non-notable, commercial website. It provides no independent sources. Srose (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - Independent sources added to listing. -- Mnodonnell 17:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - The "independent sources" are web directories. They do not say anything about the article and are not considered non-trivial works. Srose (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment/Keep - The content found on Doctor's Guide is peer-reviewed medical literature. Its the same stuff one would find at a medical library. If that's the criteria for "independent sources", then I would suggest the site is worthwhile. TSBrenner 17:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply

User's only edit is to this AfD ju66l3r 21:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: If containing peer-reviewed medical literature were enough to be notable on the web, then any website parsing the PubMed RSS feed would suddenly warrant an article here. Also realize that link provided by Srose for independent sources is for a source discussing the article's subject matter in question, not for what the site includes on it. Peer-reviewed medical literature discussing Doctor's Guide would actually be a potentially independent source. ju66l3r 21:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete (both). W.marsh 18:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

International Pencak Silat Federation

non-notable, reads like an advert for a martial arts academy. Also consider Pentjak Silat Anak Serak; not sure if that's nonsense, but clearly related to this. - Steve Sanbeg 15:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as one whacking big copyvio lifted from this site. -- Whpq 20:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment and for Pentjak Silat Anak Serak, the stuff is lifted from this site, another whacking big copyvio. These should have been submitted through the copyvio process instead of listing on AFD. -- Whpq 20:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both as copyvio. JPD ( talk) 11:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. It is unfortunate that so many people's first experience with Wikipedia is AfD. We have nothing against the show. It just does not meet the notability requirements we have for articles. Perhaps it will in a couple of years. If anyone is puzzled by the outcome: AfD is not a vote, though it may look like one. I'm sorry for the confusion. -- Kjkolb 19:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Israelisms

Questionable notability, reads like an advertisement Dsreyn 15:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I'm not sure what the notability requirements is for podcasts at this time, but with an Alexa rank for the website pushing 2,000,000 this can't be too close. StuffOfInterest 16:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Preserve Wouldn't the popularity of the show (in the form of a high Alexa ranking) prove the need for Wikipedia to be involved in giving information to others? DrumIntellect 22:32, 14 August 2006 (EST)
Comment. The Alexa ranking indicates that the show / site is NOT popular and has extremely low traffic (for comparison, Google.com has an Alexa ranking of 3). Wikipedia is not an advertising platform to "get the word out". Dsreyn 12:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment. Since you felt the need to add the big pink box lower down the page it seems that traffic is flowing to wikipedia. Therefore, I think it's fair to say that this is not an being used as an advertisement, but a way to share information - which is my understanding of what wikipedia is supposed to be about. I've learned a lot about the show and its creators by reading this page. I would hope that if given a chance there will be an episode by episode account - similar to what was done with many television shows. DrumIntellect 18:34, 18 August 2006 (EST)
Comment. The "big pink box" was added because of the flood of single purpose accounts that have been voting here. That's generally considered questionable, and is usually a sign that somebody is trying to "stuff the ballot box". Dsreyn 03:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment. The following message is now on the Israelisms web site:
IMPORTANT!
By the way....someone wants Israelisms taken out of Wikipedia. So PLEASE go to the Wikipedia Israelisms entry
and help Israelisms stay in there.
So this would seem to explain why so many SPA's have been "voting" here. Dsreyn 03:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Preserve This is a podcast that I am a fan of. I enjoyed learning more about the show from reading this. If it wasn't for this page I wouldn't have known what I now know about the page. Keep it for future listeners and fans. -chad, California — Possible single purpose account: 66.214.142.238 ( talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Preserve I am also a listener of this podcast and I am glad to have wikipedia offer more information about television, radio and podcasts that I may watch or listen. Please do not delete. As more listeners are added, they may want more information also. Thanks, -- Staceyferguson 13:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment. It is generally considered good form to indicate when you are a primary contributor / author of the article being proposed for deletion, as you are in this case. The same goes for User:DrumIntellect - I notice that both of you have no edits prior to August 5, and have virtually no edits other than this article. Dsreyn 13:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment. As much as I would like to take credit, I am not a primary contributor to this article. Most of my edits have been minor and grammatical in nature. DrumIntellect 18:34, 18 August 2006 (EST)
  • Preserve I am regular listener and also a member of the same podcasting network. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, but I have seen listings here for radio shows, so I would think that rules for a podcast would be similar. Also note, Israelisms has an active forum board, so this is more than just a podcast. As far as I know, Israelisms is the only podcast of its kind that provides a man (and woman) on the street perspective of current news events in Israel. I think it has value. The listing as it is currently written doesn't sound overly promotional to me. -- Mfogarty 15:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Mfogarty ( talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. reply
  • Preserve The Israelisms Podcast is unique in that it brings perspectives on Israel to the world in a way that is not available through mainstream media. My family and friends use the program as a starting point of discussion on political and moral issues. In that sense, it is an important Podcast. It seems like a user here has an issue with the listing being promotional, a grievance that may be better addressed by suggesting an edit, rather than a deletion. — Possible single purpose account: Sgersh ( talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.


  • Preserve Why on earth would you delete this page? This is a well-known entity. It is notable. It is not transient or temporary. Even if it was terrible (which it isn't) it does, in fact, exist and is public, and people might want to research this to find out more about it -- which are all pretty good critieria for having an entry on Wikipedia. -- Ron in Croton — Possible single purpose account: 64.115.214.26 ( talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.


  • What issue I have viewed the wikipedia entries for The Closer,Hell's Kitchen,JawBone Radio, and I fail to see any issue that would cause this article to be nominated for deletion Other than the Fact that the name for the entry is Israelisms. I have looked at all the guidelines about article deletion and find no disparity against said guidelines. I am not a contributor or a user therefore I have no biased opinion except for the facts that are spelled out by Wikipedia users. This is a new site - I see no issues with it compared to any other site except for someone's personal bias. It would benefit the administrators to look into all the other sites mentioned above before issuing their decree upon this article. -- John M. 21:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Gigasr ( talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. reply
  • This is a single purpose account. After all, I just created it. The longtime editors can ignore all new voices as "Single Purpose Account" all they want to, and ignore the fact that once upon a time, THEIR accounts could also have been tagged as "Single Purpose" but the fact remains -- just because this is the first time I have felt the need to say something doesn't mean that I am not a Wikipedia user. It simply means that this is the first time I have been aggravated enough to SAY something. It's clear that everyone arguing in favor of keeping the page are using "Single Purpose" accounts, and that they are Podcast listeners. What is not as clear are the motives of the "editors" who have seen fit to comment on the legitimacy of this page. Editors acting in good faith would actually address the questions raised by those here -- how is this page different than others referenced above that have not been challenged? How can the page be edited to make it more closely conform to Wikipedia policies? Ycartreel 03:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)ycartreel — Possible single purpose account: Ycartreel ( talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. reply


  • Preserve I hope that the AFD will please be tolerant of the posts listed here. I know there are a lot of first time contributors and others (myself included) are new contibutors. And, I know that the Israelisms web site asked for help in maintaining the article here in Wikipedia, but in all honesty - we are all amateurs in the Wikipedia process and are learning. Please know that the Israelisms site receives no funding for its podcast and we pay nothing to listen. And I know that the Israelisms article may not have a huge readership, but a small crowd is valuable too...yes? I would ask that the contributor who is asking for the deletion please help us instead to change the wording or make it a better article. In fact, I would ask that all who come here would please help us to do a better job. Thank you, -- Staceyferguson 11:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment. You already "voted" once previously... Dsreyn 14:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment. But, as is pointed out in the "the big pink box" we are not " voting" we are " discussing"... -- Staceyferguson 15:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Preserve I too am a first time contributor and have come here because, as a listener of the Israelisms podcast, I have been made aware of the fact that someone is challenging the right for Israelisms to have an entry in Wikipedia. It is not like this is the first podcast to have an entry. Two of podcasts I listen to - Extralife and Jawbone Radio - have entries and I have read all three entries again before making these comments and I really don't think that the Israelisms entry is any more an advertisement for their show than the other two. Therefore I really must question Dseryn's motives for singling Israelisms out. Alex-w 13:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Alex-w ( talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. reply
Comment. I didn't "single out" Israelisms; I stumbled across it while doing some disambiguation. However, your point about the other podcasts is a good one - perhaps those should be scrutinized also. And note that it's not always safe to assume that every existing Wikipedia entry establishes a precedent for others. Dsreyn 00:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete this article has done a better job than some at asserting notablity with the section Awards and Featured Articles, however I still think it fails WP:WEB. I also think that most of the article in Category:Podcasts should be deleted and should not be used as a precedent. Jon513 18:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply


  • No delete' Thanks for the comment Weak Delete: we agree 1 criteria has been met.Podcasting at best has been main stream for only about 18 months,[check Adam Curry's wiki]I say why kill off an entire growing industry,let alone one podcast out of 123 Category:Podcasts.The community has set this precedent not the One but the many. The Web! Tell me what's a webby award or a blogger award.These are Products created by those to foward their creations ie Blogging software,web site design etc. These also are niche awards for the few do they deserve a Wiki. This i can say the birthing pains of an industry are tough enough to overcome,But the narrow mindedness of a few over this one article is intolerable. Should we accept the rough guidelines a few recklessly use as their athority the wiki would count in the 10's of thousand and not the millions.Israelisms should no more be deleted than the first bloggers or the first web designer placed in this community. This is growing repository of fact and knowledge lets keep it that way-- John M. 20:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Gigasr ( talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. reply
It is ettique on wikipedia when you comment a second time (you commented above as "What issue") to mark the second statement "comment" and not "vote" twice Jon513 23:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Preserve Questionable notability for this deletion seems to be it is considered Advertising. Wikipedia defines advertising as "Advertising is the commercial promotion of goods, services, companies and ideas...". Israelisms is NOT a commercial enterprise or affliated with any commercial enterprise. Israelims does NOT promote goods or services. Therefore the Advertising basis cannot work. Dlutchner 23:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Dlutchner ( talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.. reply


  • Preserve There are many entries in Wikipedia for "pop culture" items that wouldn't be the subject of a traditional encyclopedia - I kind of thought this was the point of Wikipedia - it can be more current and responsive to new trends than a traditional encyclopedia. Yes the article could have some information added but what is already there is accurate and would be helpful to people who are looking for background information about the show. As others have said there are articles about other podcasts, radio shows, books, tv shows etc that are similar in style and content to this one and unless we're going to rid wikipedia of them all there is nothing to separate the Israelisms entry from those others. Oh and yes I have just created this account - I last contributed to Wikipedia a year ago and I don't remember the password I had then. But why should someone have to be interested in more than one wikipedia article in order to have what is considered a valid opinion? Why isn't the wikipedia community seeing this as an opportunity to engage a whole swag of new participants? How can an article that generates lots of 'single purpose accounts' be considered an article that there is no interest in (I'm reliably informed you cannot have your cake and eat it too) BSquaredInOz 03:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: BSquaredInOz ( talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.. reply


  • commentI believe enough has been said about this Article, I also see that it has been cleaned up in many ways, thanks to the newly found editors of the wikipedia.May you live long and edit in an unbias manor. Unlike some Eds please don't bite the Newbies.Its time to put this old dog to rest and send it to the Old Pages Pile,Oh Admin Oh Admin...-- John M. 22:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply


  • Preserve

Firstly I am a First Time Poster, but I would like you to consider my point of view. I did become aware of this discussion, through mention of the website, but I am here voicing my own opinion. This is not about winning a Vote.

Please consider keeping Israelisms, in your Wikie Encyclopedia. Their show may be controversial to some, due to their point of view, being Jewish.

Although their opinions, may not match other people's, Ideals, it is none the less valid, because it is the perspective of those living within Israel, today.

This makes them Unique, and I challenge anyone to find another Podcast, that compares to it. It is their Uniqueness, that should qualify them to be in your Wikie.

To what I am aware of, they at no time, try to attempt to sell anything, while I have been listening to them. It is seems more of a Political Show, that reflects what it is like to live in Israel today. I fear, that the questioning of Israelisms, in the Wikie, may be more about Censorship, than concern about Advertising. I enjoy listening to their show, because I get a Window into their world, that I could not obtain through other means, including the various News Broadcasts.

Thank You Rob of Phoenix AZ — Possible single purpose account: IchibanRob ( talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

  • Delete I can't find anything on Newsbank or Lexis-Nexis. If there were an article on the Hebrew Wikipedia, but as it is the article lacks reliable sources. ~ trialsanderrors 01:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
There is no reason why there should be an article on the hebrew wikipedia - the podcast is in english. Jon513 08:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was G4 speedy deleted. Fang Aili talk 19:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

BigFooty

Already been deleted by consensus once for non-notable and commercial. Previous AfD result was delete ( Archive is here) ju66l3r 15:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • speedy delete as recreated. - Steve Sanbeg 15:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as re-creation of deleted material -- Icarus ( Hi!) 15:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • {{db-repost}} tag added. Afd tag remains. (Is this proper protocol?) -- CPAScott 15:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Yes. However, deletion via CSD without closing AfD is not. I have placed a message on Fang Aili (the closing admin)'s page asking her to close the AfD. ColourBurst 19:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - yed I ignored the IP shenanigans . Blnguyen | rant-line 02:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Patrick M. McCabe

I can't find references to this author online, nor can I find this author's books in libraries or bookstores. Also, it appears the editors who create articles about McCabe, his characters and his stories make very few edits to Wikipedia not relating to this author. I'm not knowledgeable about contemporary Australian literature, so I would like someone to correct me if this figure is indeed notable. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Add Daniel McCabe to the list. Ansell 02:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Add People_You_See_On_Trains, another imagined story by this non-existent author. This user is entering multiple articles on non-existing subjects. This is presumably a joke on his "solipsist" user name. - Corporal Tunnel 16:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  ATTENTION!

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

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


  • Delete the lot!. Unverifiable probable hoaxes. Dlyons493 Talk 20:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I can't find any evidence of this author having any significance. Capitalistroadster 02:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all. Hoaxes due to their unverifiability. Ansell 02:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. 21 Ghits for "Patrick M. McCabe"of which 2 relevant - both from wiki. Not to be confused with an Irish writer Patrick McCabe. Note that the page Australian literature was modified by User:58.84.69.110 to link up that page to McCabe, with no other history of edits. Ohconfucius 04:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Don't Delete. As an Adelaide resident with interests in the short story world, I have indeed heard of McCabe. Admittedly he is not incredibly well-known, but this page is NOT a hoax. All facts and stories listed in this article are completely true. Solipsist3 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.80.185.196 ( talk • contribs) .
  • Don't Delete. Being an Adelaide resident, i often spend my time reading short stories by unknown authors, i find reading stories from fresh talent refreshing, Patrick M. McCabe is definitely one of the best new talets lately and many people i know have read his works. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.80.185.196 ( talk • contribs) .
  • Don't Delete* I have read both of the remarkable works by Patrick M. McCabe, 'The Journey' and 'People you meet on Trains', and i must say that the fact that some ignoramus would put this page up for deletion is an insult to those of us who actually have any knowledge of local literature. murrajm006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.80.185.196 ( talk • contribs) .
  • Further note from Solipsist3: I'm sorry, but I don't understand. If this was a hoax wouldn't it be a little more, well, funny?
    Note: multiple votes by same user. User: Solipsist3 is the creator and main editor of the article in question. User:murrajm006 does not exist, signature is forged. -- Canley 03:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Hoax or so non-notable as to be unverifiable. Add to that the deception attempted by the article creator and main editor and you have the makings of a good delete. ju66l3r 03:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Don't delete. I can verify that this author does exist. His work is not widly published and wouldn't appear on many search enjines. As for your book store may i suggest that you venture past your local K-Mart literature section, and into a more eductated book store —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.80.185.196 ( talk • contribs) .
  • Don't Delete. I just finished mentioning how glad I was that Wikipedia finally has an article on McCabe, my literary hero, in the discussion page. Now, to find that the page is threatened with deletion, I am utterly enraged! Why would you assume something is somehow unworthy of Wikipedia fame just because you haven't heard of it? McCabe is one of Adelaide's finest writers, and it is a great insult to the city and to this great man to remove this article. If I find that this article is deleted, I will never use Wikipedia again, and will ask all of my friends to do the same. Don't delete it, please! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.80.185.196 ( talk • contribs) .
  • Don't delete. Delete this clown. Patrick M. Mccabe is a hoax. I confridently confirm this with reference to the background research i executed on this character. His acclaimed works as an Australian short strory writer are lies to say the least. DELETE!! DELETE!! DELETE!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.80.185.196 ( talk • contribs) .
  • Comment: Six "Don't delete" recommendations from the same IP address, including one insulting the subject? This is looking less like ardent defence of the article, and more like straight out vandalism. -- Canley 06:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Don't delete I am the original creator of this article, and I would like to apologise for some of the above comments. I know it looks quite suspicious that all these messages were sent from the same IP address but there is a valid explanation. I am a high school student and a fan of the admittedly little-known author Patrick M. McCabe. I was a relative Wikipedia novice and was pleased to create this article and see it accepted by the Wikipedia community. When it was nominated for deletion, for reasons which I am still unsure of, I was upset and asked various school friends to help save my article from deletion by sending messages of support. I did not realise that apparently every computer in our extensive school network shares the same IP address. Also, as can be seen, some of my friends did not take my request seriously. Some insulted me; some insulted McCabe and others insulted other Wikipedia users. My apologies to any offended Wikipedia users. However, some friends did take this seriously and their points are legitimate ones, not to be dismissed simply because they came from the same IP address. I hope this dispels some of the suspicion my article has aroused. I assure you that Patrick M. McCabe is a real – albeit little-known – short story author. I would dispute the claim that he is too obscure to warrant an article, after all, even ‘Big Brother’ contestants seem to be worthy of Wikipedia articles. The article and related articles contain no lies or deception other than the natural bias that may have surfaced due to my being an admirer of McCabe.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.84.67.187 ( talk • contribs) .
    To put our predicament here simply, we have absolutely no way to know whether what you are saying is right... or wrong. There is no evidence of this person existing as an australian author that any of the contributors here could find, and most authors have their books reviewed in journals, or have them on amazon even. The fact that none of that exists means that the central " neutrality" policy that we are guided by here cannot be fulfilled because not enough people have put forward outsider comments on this person. Ansell 11:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't delete.Mr. Patrick M. McCabe is a beacon of success. I was fortunate enough to meet him at one of his very exclusive book signings in his home town. I think Patrick would find it greatly offensive his position on Wikipedia is facing deletion. Recommended to me by a friend, “People you see on trains” would have to be Patrick’s most famous short story, and personally my favourite. This is a request for Patrick to not be deleted from Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.80.185.196 ( talk • contribs) .
  • Don't delete. I have read Mr McCabes Stories, i believe that short story writers get to little publicity and this is due to articles like this being deleted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JunkFilter ( talk • contribs) .
    • This is the editors only contribution to Wikipedia. Ansell 02:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • everyone needs a first edit, that proves nothing, i have only just dicovered wikipedia myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiWebUser ( talk • contribs) .
  • Delete. The works of Patrick McCabe are unverifieable. His alleged works of art are imaginations of the mind, infact he is a demented little boy who takes delight in fooling other people. I would support the deletion of his article from wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.80.185.196 ( talk • contribs)
    • this guy is clealy just having a joke, he give no evidence of this and this should just be considered vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.80.185.196 ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete The "admittedly little-known author Patrick M. McCabe" has no place here until he is the much better known author Patrick M. McCabe, and the article writer knows this. Probable hoax, and whether it's true or not it utterly fails any test for notability. - Corporal Tunnel 14:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Baseball,Baby! balls• strikes 01:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

P-P-P-Powerbook

If a joke eBay auction is considered notable just because it got some fleeting media coverage, then everything that gets a little media coverage is notable. And that's just not so, according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines for notability. wikipediatrix 16:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Oh, whoops, you must have forgotten: There aren't any policies or guidelines for notability. 66.82.9.81 17:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)This post was made by -- Chris is me (user/review/talk) when he was unable to log in reply
"Oh whoops" yourself, you must have forgotten, for instance, WP:MUSIC which states in great big bold-face letters at the top: "This page is a notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia". There's an entire category for these policies and guidelines you claim don't exist. It's called Category:Wikipedia notability criteria. wikipediatrix 22:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
No, User:Some Random IP is right - WP:MUSIC is a guideline for music, not for notability. WP:N is neither a policy nor a guideline. WilyD 19:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Um, I know it's a guideline for music, what's your point? It's also about notability in music. Maybe you should remove the giant boldface phrase "notability criteria guideline" from WP:MUSIC then, and several other guidelines as well. And I didn't say anything about WP:N, that's something you brought up. wikipediatrix 20:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
My point is that its not a guideline for notability - it's a guideline for music. It establishes certain guidelines pretaining to music, and uses the term notability, but doesn't establish any guidelines about notability. There are no notability guidelines. It may be a somewhat semantic point, but the net result is that notability isn't important for P-P-P-Powerbook. WilyD 20:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
If it doesn't establish any guidelines about notability, why does it say "This page is a notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia"? Why does it go on to say "This page gives some rough guidelines which we might use to decide if a musical topic is notable"? And why does it have a column on the right listing many other articles, under the header "Notability guidelines"? Yes, you do indeed seem to be making an extremely semantic point, as does the anon IP. wikipediatrix 20:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The upshot of it is that notability is not, nor is it supposed to be, a grounds for deletion except in specific cases (i.e. where we need to combat spam). Which is why notability is not a criterion for deletion in a huge variety of fields, like math, science and so on. If you think WP:MUSIC is about notability, you've missed the point of it entirely. WilyD 21:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Now you've changed the subject and are arguing about something else entirely. Since you didn't address my point, just pretend I cut and pasted my above paragraph all over again. wikipediatrix 21:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I have addressed the point you're making, if you've missed it, you'll have to read my comments again. Notability is not a criterion for deletion. WilyD 21:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Also, this is (at least) the third nomination, not the second as advertised. WilyD 18:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. -- Nlu ( talk) 16:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. And what's wrong with keeping everything that gets a little media coverage? Its existance isn't hurting anyone. jgp T C 16:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
"Its existance [sic] isn't hurting anyone" isn't a Wikipedia-policy based observation. My Uncle Ned was on Fox News for winning a shopping spree in a workplace lottery. So you're saying he gets an article too?? wikipediatrix 16:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as lame as the internet meme is, it is pretty encyclopaedic. WilyD 17:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Hell, this is the finest example of the internet strikes back ever. Dev920 18:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WilyD. hateless 18:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Recury 19:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as one of the few notable internet memes. BoojiBoy 20:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, totally unnotable, no reliable sources, and nothing attesting to its notability outside of one little Internet forum. Brian Peppers is far more notable than this. Ashi b aka tock 21:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable at all. just a silly joke amd full of {{fact}}s Spearhead 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The facts are not a big deal - they're all covered in the references. WilyD 21:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as an accurate article covering one of the most notable Internet phenomena. Also perhaps one of the best examples to date of Internet vigilantism. Add sources. -- Czj 22:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Addition: Also, if anyone thinks this is NN forumcruft, I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree. Sure, it started on SomethingAwful, but it has since spread to just about every corner of the web. A Google search for "P-P-P-Powerbook" (in quotes) yields 24,800 results. If you want to count common misspellings of the term, "P-P-Powerbook" (one less "P") has 1,940 results, and "P-P-P-P-Powerbook" (one too many "P") has 4,450. -- Czj 22:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Important comment: FWIW, this is actually the third, not second, AfD nomination for this article. While it reached no consensus on the initial AfD last October, it survived by a long shot in April here. I wasn't aware of this until just now. I have moved the AfD page accordingly. -- Czj 00:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep It was an internet phenomenon at that time and it is relevant for the advance fee fraud and also escrow scams. -- Ageo020 00:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is an awesome story, and it deserves to be in this Wiki. Remember, this is an online encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.125.28 ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep This is one of the only online pranks I've ever heard of. -- Liface 21:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as probably one of the top 2 or 3 SomethingAwful-spawned pranks. Needs to establish importance, though. -- Dhartung | Talk 22:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Among internet vigilantes this is a classic. I heard about it long before I read it here.-- Esprit15d 21:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As mentioned above, searching for this meme in Google yields thousands of results. Ben 18:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I being the one who went through all of this, I would like to see it stay. I will edit the page and give it a little bit more detail to maybe make it a little bit more acceptable. Also, this wasn't just an internet prank, this was an operation that spanned from Seattle to London! A huge internet collaboration should be noted. Message me on AIM if you dissagree. MyNameIsJeph - I can add sources, I have the emails along with headers, and I have pictures of recipts and video from inside the shop. What else can I add?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.77.208 ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep and cleanup. Fairly notable Internet meme. AgentPeppermint 21:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. 1ne 03:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Group into new article First of all, this isn't a meme, and calling it that is a wild misuse of the term. That being said, it is a notable prank. Wouldn't it be better to create a single page along the lines of "Internet Pranks" or "Ebay Pranks" and file this in there? P-P-P-Powerbook can just redirect to that article along with all the other internet pranks that may not be notable enough to stand alone in an article. Vesperal 04:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • One problem with this proposal: This is not a prank. This guy almost got scammed and then turned it around on the scammer. The person had every real intention of just going on eBay and selling a Powerbook until he realized he was about to get bamboozled. This, my friend, is vigilante action.-- Esprit15d 12:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There is no reason for this to be deleted. Sven Erixon 13:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, for all the reasons above.
  • Keep, this is a useful report of how a fake scrow scam works. — Rotring 19:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Omgbbq

While a google search shows that this term does exist within certain internet forums and such, this violates Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, as there don't seem to be any reliable sources on this. If a reliable source can be found which merely defines the term, then we still couldn't keep this as Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but the definition could go to Wiktionary Xyzzyplugh 16:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep notable internet slang. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 16:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • "notable" doesn't address the fact that it violates WP:NOR and WP:V. Are you arguing that it doesn't violate these, or that these policies be abandoned in favor of notability? -- Xyzzyplugh 18:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • I'm not convinced it violates WP:NOR, and I have my suspicions that we could find some verifiable sources with a little effort, given its widespread use. I don't think deletion is the answer here. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 18:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
        • From WP:V, "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it". -- Xyzzyplugh 05:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
          • Yup, WP:V's number one flaw. If i'm able to do so before this concludes, I surely will. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 11:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
            • (I'm getting a bit off topic here, but it's something I'm interested in) How would wikipedia function properly if WP:V didn't work like this? If people had to prove that something was not verifiable in order to remove it, it seems to me this would be a disaster. I could write an article about Purple Candy Striped Unicorns from the planet Neptune, and claim my source was Ye Olde Booke of Little Known Animals, out of print since 1762, my copy of which was sadly destroyed years ago in a fire. And then say, "Try to PROVE the book and the unicorns don't exist!", which of course no one can do, as proving things don't exist tends to be impossible. While my example is silly, people believe in vast numbers of unproven and unprovable things, which we are fortunately able to keep out of wikipedia due to the current state of WP:V. -- Xyzzyplugh 13:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
              • It would work better than you think it would. In cases like this, we obviously know the term exists, and that there's some information, we're merely hamstrung by the somewhat archaic trappings of WP:V. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 00:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • merge into List_of_Internet_slang_phrases#O or transwiki to wiktionary. Either way it doesn't need an article in wikipedia. ju66l3r 16:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Kill. Dicdef. -- Angry Lawyer 16:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Neologism StuffOfInterest 16:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not nearly popular enough to deserve a WP entry, considering stuff like "rofl" or LMAO don't even have their own entry (not that they should). GrahameS 18:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • OMGBBQ Delete! Notable, I guess, but not as notable as say, LOL. Violates WP:NOR. -- M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ( T | C | @) 19:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Can you imagine a non-trivial, reliable source on this? Maybe Dateline could do a special on it or something, I would watch that. Recury 19:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:WTFOMGBBQ WilyD 20:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- Koffieyahoo 02:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:WINAD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:V and WP:NOR RN 21:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Smerge to List of internet slang per Uncle G. -- Dhartung | Talk 22:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Internet slang (See OMGWTFBBQ). No mergable information; reads like Urban Dictionary. -- jeffthe jiff 11:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WilyD, WP:V and WP:NOR. I know the term exists (heck, I've used it), but without sourcing, it doesn't belong here. I will reconsider my opinion if someone can find a reliable source for this.-- Isotope23 14:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 07:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Overheard in New York

non-notable blog. Getting mentioned in Slate isn't enough, I can name hundreds of other blogs that could make the same claim. wikipediatrix 16:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Strong Keep There is no question that this is a highly notable website that garners over 1.3 million hits on Google, won a Bloggie for 2006 Most Humorous Blog, and has spawned a book. -- Birdmessenger 16:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Just a few quick checks shows that this one meets notability with no problem. StuffOfInterest 16:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This site is popular. I've definitely read print articles about this site.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep ONY is a huge site, commonly-read and often blogged. It's been featured on NPR and in many other media outlets, and a bunch of the content was published in book form (as noted by Birdmessenger, above) by Chamberlain Brothers (an imprint of Penguin) earlier this year. Or late last year. One of those. - Corporal Tunnel 17:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per Birdmessenger. -- Lazybum 18:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above. Site has also inspired a few spinoffs (Overheard in the Office, Overheard at the Beach) and has inspired similar sites for other locales. Sertrel 21:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep The site has also been featured all over the mainstream media, including articles/programs in the NY Times, CNN, and many major newspapers, magazines, and TV channels, and was one of the Top 50 Web sites of the year (2005, maybe?) according to Time Magazine. A book version of the site was published by Penguin, one of the largest publishers in the USA. Also, according to Technorati, it is the widely linked-to humor blog on the Internet. -- CityWanderer
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge into Sydney Grammar School. Baseball,Baby! balls• strikes 18:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Sydney Grammar School Cadet Corps

It would appear to me that a school cadet corps is not sufficiently notable to warrant its own article, and I don't think there's enough there to merge. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 16:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 16:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into a section of the Sydney Grammar School losing details. Capitalistroadster 01:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per Capital. Gizza Chat © 03:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into the Sydney Grammar School article. ( JROBBO 03:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)) reply
  • Keep The school has "the oldest Air Force Cadets organisation in Australia, an Army Cadet Corps which pre-dates the existence of the Australian army" [20] We should be able to find enough sources to make this page viable on its own. Its not like the school isn't ancient enough on its own to put its "notability" out of the question. Ansell 08:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge not notable on their own, and sets a bad precedent. The JPS talk to me 10:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • In what way are you using the notability concept. They fulfill every policy (although the current page does not demonstrate this), why should they be forced to fulfil a further requirement. The precedent for long-standing cadet corps is not too far out from the common pool of human knowledge for me. Ansell 11:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joelito ( talk) 19:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Manatee meat

Article appears to be a complete hoax Wildthing61476 16:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Obviously it's not a complete hoax. The sentence that someone, somewhere hunted manatees is true. Everything else is the 4th attempt from the same user to recreate an article on this topic, with copyvio content collected off some websites. Seealso Talk:Manatee meat. Also discussion merged from here into Talk:Manatee#Eating Manatees. Femto 17:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC), 11:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - no evidence it is a hoax. Try googling for "manatee hunting" Yomangani talk 16:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
OK, Delete on the grounds it is recreated previously deleted material. Yomangani talk 18:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Somewhere between a hoax and an advertisement for a non-notable website. StuffOfInterest 16:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • KeepMerge into manatee, not a hoax, though the last few sections need to either be sourced better or deleted. Topic may not need its own article though, maybe a few sentences merged into manatee would be sufficient. Recury 16:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Refer to this website and notice the similarities. This article is definitely a joke. Lawilkin 16:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Just because info is on a joke site does not necessarily mean it is false. This article comes to the same conclusion as ours does, and they actually factcheck their stuff. Plenty of other sources are available on google that concur. Recury 17:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • The article you cite is simply a discussion of whether manatee meat is red meat or white meat. There is no legitimate reference to eating or hunting manatees. There is one quote from a person who has apparently tasted manatee meat, which is not a standard or notable practice. I had a steak recently; is that in the Wiki? No, it is not, and for good reason. - Corporal Tunnel 17:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Huh? It's right there, "Manatees are protected throughout their range in the world but are still illegally hunted and killed in remote areas." And of course steak is in the Wiki. Recury 17:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • And where, pray tell, does it say anything about eating them? It doesn't. You are correct in spotting my poor phrasing, where "eating or hunting" should have been "hunting and eating." As for steak being in the Wiki - yes, of course it is. But MY steak isn't in the Wiki. Neither is manatee steak. That's as it should be. - Corporal Tunnel 17:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
        • It says that in the other article that is referenced. I won't follow up on your weird non-sequitur about individual steaks not having articles, if thats OK with you. Recury 17:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Just because info is not false does not necessarily mean it needs an article and every content on the topic created by anybody must be kept. Femto 17:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
          • Of course not, and its a damn good thing no one's claiming that. Recury 17:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
            • IF manatee meat is gone, then by the same rules, beef should be erased too. I have a verifiable source. I"m looking for the book i borrowed from the library from which i got the idea for manatee meat, so please bear with me. THIS IS NOT A HOAX! This is as much as a hoax as dumplings are.-- Adam Wang 01:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This article has been deleted twice before, which should be reason enough. As it stands it's link spam and contains copyrighted material, and if you remove the spam and the copyright violations all that will be left is "manatees are made of meat, and sometimes people eat them." Which is pointless, since people eat everything. The joke here is lame and, if you will, in bad taste. - Corporal Tunnel 17:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, and this time let's make sure it stays dead. Femto 17:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Spam. --  Tivedshambo ( talk) 18:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete because of the copyright violations. -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 19:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP. Talk to Yamla. I'm trying to fix the copy vio. Bear with me please. I have a very busy life. -- Adam Wang 20:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I am not casting a vote at this time but I can confirm that MUBOTE is trying to fix the copyright violation. I suggested that really the only way of doing so is to scrap everything and start from scratch. That copying even a few words can be problematic. Also, that the article needs citations and evidence that it is not a joke article. But my comments here are to confirm that MUBOTE is working to fix the copyright violation. -- Yamla 20:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. If you read his talk page, it's clear he is trying to fix the copy vio. Also, the article was in WP: UNDEL and it was saved. It was deleted the second time by accident because Yamla didn't know about the Undeletion review. Read his talk page. --Alex Defalco 20:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • In reading his Talk page and browsing his contributions, the main thing that comes through here is that he's in ninth grade and has a certain understandable lack of perspective in his past Wiki projects. His zeal is admirable, but I believe there is no call for this article to exist, whether or not the copyright violations are resolved. - Corporal Tunnel 21:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • I'm in grade 10 now. How is this a hoax? You have admitted that there is a shred of truth. Yes, monkeyspit was a hoax. I didn't know it was a fake site. So im' getting rid of the stuff from that site. This is knowledge. Wikipedia doesn't censor. Just because the average american male may not find eating manatees particularly attractive, its the truth, WITH some verifiability to back it up. I'm currently going to the library to look for the book that i got the idea from. -- Adam Wang 01:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Let's assume you just didn't know that deleted talk needs to be archived, but why did you remove great parts of your talk page now, among it all manatee-related discussion? Femto 12:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
          • I'll put that back. I was just clearing stuff up becuase it said my talk page was too long. -- Adam Wang 01:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete, this is an ongoing hoax possibly connected with the elephant vandalism, as admins can see from the history of Eating Manatee. That article was illustrated with a T-bone steak photoshopped onto a picture of a manatee. Gazpacho 01:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, speedily would be OK. A hoax to promote a website. -- Pjacobi 13:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete, for the reasons Corporal Tunnel said. -- pIrish 16:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • What happened to my sources? It included books, and websites. Obviously, due to the extent of books written on this subject, it won't be a hoax. Promoting a website? I removed the information from Monkeyspit, and I'm fixing copy vio. Why delete? -- Adam Wang 16:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • The question should be "why keep" (respectively "why create" in the first place), not "why delete". I merged the details on sources into Talk:Manatee#Eating Manatees, as a central place for not directly deletion-related discussion, and left a pointer at the top of this page. If you want to convince other editors, start there. Those sources aren't cited on this page (beyond the basic fact that "manatees are made of meat and sometimes people eat them"). Instead, your 'taste' section still copies wholesale from Monkeyspit.com. There are two links to eatmanatee.com. Unless you consider a PO address selling books and t-shirts a reliable source, the details in that section are dubious too. Remains the reproduction of an unencyclopedic hunting travelogue. Fix it all, and there is nothing left. Femto 21:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I'll add the lists of books and websites into the sources. Why did you delete them? -- Adam Wang 00:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete per an incredible failure of WP:RS, WP:SPAM (probable promotion from eatmanatee.com), and possibly WP:HOAX. Oh, and it's been deleted multiple times before. Srose (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I have never been assosciated to any of the websites I used as sources, ever. First, why would I promote their website? I am in 10th grade in Canada, not a college idiot with nothing to do. You may think, "If Mubote isn't affiliated with the websites in any way, why does he care so much?" It's becuase I have pride. Personally, I'm proud of starting the article. You may think otherwise.

Secondly, what would be my initiative? I don't think I'm a moron. I just ran across something interesting, and put it on wiki. Of course, wiki isn't only for "Interesting Things," you need sources. Which I have. There is no evidence that it is a hoax. True, it has been deleted twice, the second time by accident by Yamla. I recreated it after Undelete said I could. Yamla didn't know, and he let me remake. Manatee meat is just as much a hoax as beef and mutton are. Just becuase most people don't eat it, doesn't mean it isn't good enough for wikipedia.

Finally, if wikipedia truly does not censor, then why is this being deleted? I'm sure there are many joke articles on many other meats. Wikipedia has many arcane articles, and manatee meat is one of them. Manatee meat has sources, I'm fixing copy vio, I'm borrowing the books I have listed from the library, and I'm putting it on wikipedia. So please, consider my statements, and vote keep. -- Adam Wang 00:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Adam, you have now voted twice here, which is in keeping with your continuing disregard of the rules and practices of the Wiki. You have also failed to identify yourself as the author of this article. Voting twice is cheating.

    You have added completely unacceptable sites as "support" for an entry that boggles the mind with its irrelevance. While you have removed the most bizarre and ridiculous of your subsections, the two remaining both fail as Wiki material. One is quoted in its entirety from a single unsupported web source which is a memoir column written for a tourist site, and the other is based on a joke website that exists only to sell t-shirts and "cookbooks." Your inclusion as an external link of a page on rexcurry.net, which appears to be a repository of undocumented paranoid ravings, is another instance of your failure to read and identify your sources. Your "educational site" is an email quoting a wire-service article about a single instance of illegal manatee meat sale - poaching, not cuisine. The "brochure" on the manatee is a management report which simply reports occasional poaching. The Thinkquest.org citation was written by elementary school students, complete with pictures drawn in crayon.

    It appears that you do not understand the difference between a reference work, which exists for the edification and use of the greater public, and a blog or MySpace page, on which you can work out your obsessions in your own private circle. The standing article on manatees already has a sentence on the hunting and eating of manatees, which is more than sufficient for this pointless topic.

    This entry utterly fails the first of the five pillars of the Wikipedia: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is not a collection of source documents or trivia, a dictionary, a soapbox, a newspaper, vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory. It is also not the place to insert your own opinions, experiences, or arguments — all editors must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy." Please familiarize yourself with Wiki policy before you post any further articles.

    You are sustaining an argument here as your own personal private joke. It is beyond trivia, pointless and irrelevant in the extreme. Your inability to distinguish between the relevance of beef in worldwide civilization and the relevance of manatee meat is rather alarming.

    As far as your argument that "I'm sure there are many joke articles on many other meats" - any such articles will be deleted as they are found, and even if there are others it does not mean that this one should be permitted - especially since you have now freely admitted in the open that this is a joke, which is not permitted here. - Corporal Tunnel 01:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • First off, I did not admit that this was a joke site. I admited that he monkeyspit site that I recognized that Monkeyspit, a site I unknowlingly used, is a joke site. All information from that website has been removed. Secondly, I did not mean to vote twice. I was just trying to sway other people to vote twice. Thirdly, this article is not random trivia, a dictionary, a soapboax etc. etc. It is encyclopedic fact. Eating manatees is "irrelevant" as "beef" is to cows! I can distinguish the difference between beef and manatee meat. Please don't insult me. Manatee meat is part of a culture, just as beef and other meats are. I have not freely admitted anything whatsoever. I have sources in books. I realize now that yes, my topic is too short for its own article, but no, I don't think that "manatee meat" should be removed completely. I agree with Yamla's idea below to double the existing article in Manatee, which I added, and keep like that. When I reffered to Manatee Meat as arcane, I meant that it isn't as hot an article as the United Nations is. I wrote most of The Conservative Party of Norway. It isn't exactly the most popular article, yet it isn't irrelevant. I would be satisfied by a merge. I do not write joke articles. I am not a vandal. I am not an immature high schooler. Thank you. -- Adam Wang 01:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. Although I seem to be in the minority, I'm not convinced that this is a joke article. So (for this paragraph, anyway), let's assume this is a legitimate topic. I just don't see enough content to warrant an entire article. The article on manatees has a single paragraph noting that they used to be hunted and that the commercial meat farming has been suggested as a way of preserving the species. This seems to be a relatively recent addition (wasn't there at the beginning of June, for example), so I suspect this article has already contributed to enhancing the main article. I'd like to see us look at the rest of the content and perhaps add some of it to the main article. I'm not talking a huge section, mind you, but we could at least double that section in Manatee, I'd think. -- Yamla 04:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Blank Verse 05:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Marilyne MacLaren

Another failed election candidate, although at least she does hold elected office as a councillor. Precedent is to delete these, but No vote at the moment. [see below] -- Mais oui! 16:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - non-notable and won't be contesting national elections again, article says. Martín ( saying/ doing) 16:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I would agree with deleting most articles on councillors, but I believe that Marilyne MacLaren is notable. She very nearly got elected at the last election (one of the most marginal seats in the country?) - as well as being notable for getting one of the worst ever results for the Lib Dems in the Hamilton South by-election, and has contested 3 other parliamentary elections. She is fairly well known in Edinburgh - especially among the student population - due to the HMO quotas proposal, which did spark a fair bit of controversy at the time. -- Vclaw 16:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. There are no prizes for coming second. Ohconfucius 04:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom (but there are prizes for coming second, everywhere from the Olympics to most lotteries). Re Vclaw's comments, she didn't seem to generate much in the Scotsman beyond routine reporting, which suggests that she isn't that important locally. She's certainly not Eric Milligan. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per arguments above. If her claim to notability rests upon "being notable for getting one of the worst ever results for the [insert party] in the [such-and-such] election", then all dire performances would automatically elevate the perpetrators to Wikipedia fame! -- Mais oui! 23:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - in response to Mais oui - when was the last time a Lib Dem candidate lost their desposit (and finished in 6th place!) in a Scottish election? I'd say its a fairly unique occurence. Anyway, I wasn't saying that was the only claim to notability, just a small part of it. May I just a comparison to, for example Angela Constance, a shorter serving councillor and parliamentary candidate once. I note Angus McLellan voted keep on that, largely on the basis of mentions in the Scotsman etc - I note MacLaren has 4 times as many unique hits. I would also suggest comparing to other councillors / candidates Peter Kearney or Laura Love who have not been listed for deletion. Of course, their party political persausion has nothing to do with this... -- Vclaw 00:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Mmmm... that last comment there is near the borderline to failing WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Kearney's claim to notability seems to rest upon his prominent position as a public face of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland. Love's notability is more contestable. Feel free to AFD if you so wish: I would probably vote Keep for Kearney, but Love? ... I am open to listen to all arguments. No hard feelings about comment by the way, let's not fall out over trivia. -- Mais oui! 10:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Hi all. I created this article way back when, and occasionally wondered if it would ever get AFDed on a "no wins, no notability" basis... Vclaw, thanks for letting me know it was listed. MacLaren's notability is not great, but it's a cumulative thing. She's contested five national elections (albeit two of them on a list); one of these was remarkably bad (Hamilton South - I don't know of a worse LibDem record) and one remarkably close (Edinburgh South 2005). She's held Party office, and she's been on the council of a major city for twenty years. None of them necessarily things which give notability in and of themselves, but I'd argue that when applied to the same individual they're reasonably notable. (I wouldn't have created the article if I didn't think she was!). Incidentally, if councillors in the main aren't notable, it might be an idea to clean up the redlinks at City of Edinburgh and the like. Shimgray | talk | 08:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge into Al Snow. Baseball,Baby! balls• strikes 19:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Pepper the Dog

Very minor wrestling storyline, not significant for a separate entry Dsreyn 16:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. the wub "?!" 22:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Scottish inventions

Making a page about a certain country's/people's contribution to humanity (arts/sciences/history) is one thing. That's acceptable and is precedented. However, now we're pushing the boundaries. The transistor, motion picture, Calculus are now asserted as "Scottish inventions." Sure, a Scottish innovator probably was very revolutionary in the creation of motion picture, but because of that motion picture is a SCOTTISH invention? Give me a break. The dozens of other countrymen to contribute wouldn't be pleased. If anything, a lot of reliable information on this page should be kept and moved to Culture of Scotland (and Culture of England) under a Discoveries/Innovations section (much like in Culture of the United Kingdom). But purporting some pretty outrageous claims and somehow attributing an invention to a single nation.. especially when many other men contributed to its creation... is inching upon nationalistic or ethnic pride. Furthermore, we can't say that just because "discoveries" are often miscategorized as "inventions" we should list them as such (note the material on English inventions). Something should also be done about the categories Category:English inventions and Category:Scottish inventions. There are English and Scottish inventors and innovators and undoubtedly a lot of these inventions will be attached to their name. Nonetheless it's a different story to call them [Enter Nationality Here] inventions. We wouldn't do it for any other categorization. The Turing Machine is a Gay Invention?

Included in this nomination is the Scottish counterpart.

Both were created around the same time and have no other counterparts like German inventions. Both were mainly edited by a small handful of editors: ...And Beyond! 16:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - the proposers' arguments sound more like reasons to rename and re-focus the articles, rather than to delete them. This is a very well covered area: there are absolutely tons of websites and books listing Scottish inventors and inventions. All of the entries ought to be referenced, and I am sure they could be, but it does take a lot of time. I know less about how well English inventors/inventions are dealt with in good sources, but I would be extremely surprised if there was not a wealth of source material. Of course if a claim is false it ought to be qqualified/explained; or removed altogether; but if the false claim is well-sourced then that in itself is a notable phenomenon. -- Mais oui! 17:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It's not simply that the claims are wrong. It's the attribution that an invention is somehow tied to a nationality or affliation enough to call it a BLANK invention. There's no such thing as "Scottish inventions," "Mormon inventions," or "Gay inventions," and we shouldn't attribute the entire invention to just one association. Especially most of the ones listed on this page - telephone, motion picture, etc.. Furthermore, the argument supports deletion because a separate page is unprecedented and unnecessary as any claims for discovery or innovation by a nation is put in that nation's/people's Culture page or the page for the people themselves Culture of Germany/ Culture of the United Kingdom. ...And Beyond! 17:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - these articles need improving not deleting Aquilina 17:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • This is by no means a prerequisite for my keep vote - but how about a rename to "History of science in Scotland" or "Landmarks of technology in Scotland" or some such combination? Gives a bit more scope for expansion too, and more accurately reflects the contents. Just a thought... Aquilina 21:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - A list of inventions made by Scottish people. What's wrong with that? If there's something incorrect, edit it. Don't delete the entire article. --  Tivedshambo ( talk) 17:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
What's wrong with that....what I mentioned above. A category of Scottish inventors or a section in Scottish culture mentioning some innovators in Scotland is a different story from what this article is doing. We can easily say "one of the inventors of TV technology was Scottish." but this would be completely different from saying or implying "Television is a Scottish invention." Furthermore, we can't pin discoveries as the same as inventions. "Noble gases" is an invention? ...And Beyond! 18:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The Scots invented and discovered loads of shit. Live with it. -- Tess Tickle 18:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Well with neutrality like this, it's no wonder people call wikipedia bias and unreliable. ...And Beyond! 23:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
So I should just shut the fuck up and agree with you? Hogwash and bunkum. The point of this page is so that people can express their viewpoints on wether or not the article should be retained. If you don't like that idea, you're in the wrong place.-- Tess Tickle 01:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment - You haven't heard the half of it. Try out:
... or, even better:
As you can see, this topic is pretty much a national hobby. (Mind you, the Basques deserve a wee bit of the credit too!) :) Mais oui! 19:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
There's a lot of evidence for us inventing soccer (in its present form). As Scottish author Christopher Brookmyer pointed out, English claims to inventing footie rest on their establishment of the FA, meaning the English didn't invent football- they invented football bureaucracy :) Lurker oi! 12:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Changing opinion, see belowKeep. England and Scotland were in the vanguard of the Industrial Revolution and therefore there's some claim to this being a coherent topic and more than just a celebration of national pride. It's different from Gay inventions or African-American inventions ( Benjamin Banneker, George Washington Carver, yadda yadda). It would be nice if the article went a little deeper into the reasons why Scotland has this engineering tradition. Besides, the article is worth keeping just because of the restraint shown by the editors in not mentioning Scotty. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. And och my gudeness, doon't that laikness o' Baird luke th' pairfect spittin' image o' th' "dour Scot?" Dpbsmith (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment French wines: legitimate topic. Scottish wines: bogus topic, despite the Cairn o' Mohr Winery. Scottish inventions, legitimate topic. French inventions, bogus topic, despite daguerrotypes and Jacquard looms and fuselages. I don't want to go overboard on national characteristics and/or stereotypes, but historically nations did have national specialties. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • There's plenty of inventions by a French national, but French inventions? What is a French invention? Photography purely because of the daguerrotypes? ...And Beyond! 04:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The nominator is right about dubious claims, though. The motion picture? Nonsense. Everyone knows it was invented by Friese-Greene. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep- Surprised this article has been listed- although some "inventions" are dubious, the article should be modified rather than simply deleted. Astrotrain 21:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Let's not be silly. This most certainly is not any more speedy keep than Gay Inventions. ...And Beyond! 23:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Regardless of whether or not pride in invention is an important element to scottish nationalism, I don't think we really want to get WP into pissing matches over, say what "people" or what "nation" invented what [21]. In addition, a great deal of the current entries are patent (if you'll pardon the pun) nonsense. A scot "invented" cornflour, which had been created and used several thousand years before the scots even had corn (Did they "invent" rice, too)? They "invented" popular use of a decmial separator, traced back to arabic culture and in use since 850? And of all things, they "invented" CALCULUS? Sheesh. Next thing you know, Jesus is Japanese, [22], and we'll have to suffer endless, stupid, nationalism wars on whether a significant person like Copernicus was "Polish", "Austrian", "German", "Prussian", or *whatever* (we do [23]). Somehow, I really don't think Wikipedia is the right place for nationalism rallying. Ronabop 04:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, Ronabop has convinced me. There could be an article about the History of Scottish engineering and invention, but this isn't it, this is yet another almost entirely unsourced list, and the information in it is so dubious that it isn't a usable starting point for a proper article. Due to the Scottish role in the industrial revolution, "Scottish inventions," like "French wines," could be a legitimate topic and not just national boosterism, but this article is just national boosterism. If this article had been entitled List of Scottish inventions I would probably have said it should have been deleted right away. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Mais Oui and rename per this suggestion by Astrotrain. -- Cactus.man ✍ 07:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but this needs to be cleaned up in a big way; I am surprised to learn that bridge design was a Scottish invention. Gee, I knew the Romans must have learned it somewhere. :-) Carlossuarez46 06:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment - read the article. It does not claim that the Scots invented the bridge, simply that some Scotsmen developed or improved some variations of bridge design. Having said that, I agree it is in need of cleaning, and getting rid of some claims, but this is not a reason to delete it. --  Tivedshambo ( talk) 11:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep It's interesting, its a worthy topic. Article could do with a cleanup, and more verification, but no reason to delete Lurker oi! 12:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If you disagree with a claim made in the article, please it, rather than saying its wrong but letting it remain. It's our job as editors to ensure that articles are as accurate as possible Lurker oi! 12:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
It's not my "job" to do anything to Wikipedia - I produce and update articles which interest me and I have a knowledge in. I don't have enough knowledge to edit this article, or to check every claim it makes. I only state that some of the claims need to be removed, but I don't have time to investigate which ones. --  Tivedshambo ( talk) 13:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Well, in order to make a start on this, I'm going to mark the items which need source citations... which is to say all of them. I don't intend to do all the work of going back and checking to see which of the linked articles actually contain valid sources, copying those sources into the article, but I'll spot-check a few of them in due course. The work of providing sources of course is the responsibility of the people who want to retain items in the article. NPOV requires that disputed or questionable claims of priority be mentioned. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
One verification for the cynical - see Fundamental theorem of calculus.--  Tivedshambo ( talk) 21:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete - horribly broad, both in what counts as 'Scottish' and what counts as an 'invention'. Includes foodstuffs, 'popularising' something, the work of various engineers, discoveries, 'pioneering work', etc. It's pure jingo, in other words. There's a good article or series of articles to be written about this subject. This isn't it.-- Nydas 18:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep in fact substantial additions could be made - as well as a few deletions I think I agree with Nydas above, except that I would work with this article. One further point I would like to make is there is a current trend to deny innovation on largely picky grounds - TV is a good example Baird did in fact invent an early TV system which was produced and was used, fair enough it was a development of other work - which this does reduce the significance of his achievement. However by that arguement no-one invented anything.-- Eek10bears 19:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - the expansive criteria used to decide whether an invention is 'Scottish' (by a Scot or by non-Scots in Scotland) mean that Baird's television is also an English invention, as are Lister's antiseptics. Either have a list of Scottish inventors or a list of things invented in Scotland - having both in the same article is a recipe for mayhem.-- Nydas 07:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete as trivial, unverifiable (for many inventions) and an edit war magnet. Who invented things and what nationality (or ethnicity or religion) they should be counted as is very frequently disputed. For example, sometimes multiple people claim that they each invented something. Some inventions are so old or their history is so poorly documented, that it is unclear who invented it, yet some people claim that their ancestor or countryman invented it anyway. Also, many things are invented (especially many of the important modern inventions) as a result of multiple people's work, who may be from different countries, have different ethnicities or religions. Finally, it is unclear what nationality, ethnicity or religion someone should be counted as. For example, a person with a German mother and an Italian father may have been born in France, grew up in England and created his invention in the U.S., which he moved to at 18 years old and stayed the rest of his 90-year life. Which country or countries should he be counted under? As each group (Ukranians, Muslims from India, Chinese Americans, German-Irish, Latter Day Saints) gets its own list, the problem grows exponentially. Creating, maintaining, edit warring, dispute resolution, blockings and bannings resulting from the articles takes time and manpower away from far more important articles. -- Kjkolb 19:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Unilever. – Rob ert 13:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Heartbrand

article is already fully reproduced inside the Unilever article maf 17:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Jim Montross

Hoax. Worthy of speedy deletion? -- DeLarge 17:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Trnj2000 17:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Author has been posting vandalism on various pages today. - Corporal Tunnel 19:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Silly. - Umdunno 19:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 20:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as a hoax, possibly speedy as vandalism. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 22:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:HOAX WP:V, or simply WP:NN. Possibly so exclusive he doesn't need to advertise.... 20Ghits, gave several Jim Montrosses, from home services to Peach growers. No autocars. Ohconfucius 04:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, I hate hoaxes. NawlinWiki 14:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • delete per nominator its hoax probably Yuckfoo 18:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per all above. -- Satori Son 19:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete. No one has argued to keep this trash, so get rid of it. RFerreira 21:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

K8tie

Delete - Advert and/or vanity article.   Tivedshambo ( talk) 17:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as per nom -- DeLarge 17:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • How can we verify the contents of this article? How can we verify this person's place of birth? How can we verify all of the rumours that the article mentions? How can we verify the history of this web site, including the arrivals and departures that are listed, that is given in this article? Uncle G 19:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as woefully unverifiable. The excessive bold text hurts my eyes. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 22:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Del8. -- M @ r ē ino 23:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Ohconfucius 04:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I own the site I can verify the information is correct Jonoway
    • First edit by this user. Sertrel 21:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Don't know who Jonoway is, except he's not the NY Times, and so unfortunately, still does not satisfy reliable third party verification. Ohconfucius
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete Yank sox 23:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Chris Bender

The article is not about producer "Chris Bender" which link to this, nor does the person in the article seem to be any notable. According to this message User talk:Cskoney it was already speedy-deleted once. Jestix 17:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete as reposted content and A7 (the original reason). Tagged for SD.-- Kchase T 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- Alf melmac 21:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

List of celebrities and musicians with a MySpace profile

And:

Not useful or encyclopedic. Similar cats deleted: here and here. Delete. Crumbsucker 17:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Useful only if you're a spammer. Lazybum 18:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the first article, Keep or Merge the second two. A broad, highly inclusive list is a spam and self-promotion magnet. However, a List of famous people on MySpace seems somewhat useful given the enormity of Myspace as fad/cultural phenomenon (however, I think it would be important for editors to keep this list limited to very famous people).-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I can definately see how, if you were looking for infomation about someone, knowing if they had a myspace thing or not would be useful. Having this list and linking to it from the individual's article would serve as a sort of "see also" guide for the general wikipedia user who is just looking stuff up to learn more about it. I really don't see any reason for it to go except that it would never be all-inclusive, but when is anything wikipedia has ever all-inclusive? ONUnicorn 19:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Having a MySpace is not an encyclopedic trait worthy of lists. It's close to product promotion, in fact. It'd be like making a list of people who drank Pepsi or had an I-Pod. Crumbsucker 19:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Not really. What does the fact that they have had drunk Pepsi or owned an I-pod tell you about them? If, on the other hand, they have a MySpace page, then noting that fact and linking to it in their article is almost the same as linking to their non-myspace-website, or citing their auto-biography as a source in an article. It gives the general reader and researcher someplace to go for more information. ONUnicorn 20:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
There's a difference between linking to a MySpace and making a list of people with them. We don't have a list for people who have non-MySpace websites. Crumbsucker 20:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete we might as well have List of celerities who use AOL as their ISP -- Doc 19:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unmaintainable Dlyons493 Talk 20:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Useless, unencyclopediac. ReverendG 20:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, it's no longer an interesting point that some bands have websites, blogs, or MySpace accounts. Ashi b aka tock 21:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Who cares about a "NO LISTS" policy? If the list is interesting, I say keep it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.34.14 ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep and merge: I have a different view of this it's videly known that Musicians can easily have their own my space accounts on the sites but what about normal celebrities. I should point out for example I know at least 10-12 voice actors who have myspsace accounts and it is really useful to use. I would suggest merging all of them together.-- Jack Cox 00:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Everyone has a MySpace it seems. - Diabolos 01:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:OR. Also as a magnet for link spam. -- Koffieyahoo 02:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Unencyclopedic, unmaintainable, inherently vulnerable to unverified additions... If a celebrity has a MySpace page that is verified as actually being their own official MySpace page, add it as an external link in the article about them. Nothing beyond that is necessary or desirable. -- Icarus ( Hi!) 04:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Icarus. NawlinWiki 14:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Oh god, not myspace. ...And Beyond! 16:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all, per Icarus3. Jayjg (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 06:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, Diabolos, Koffieyahoo, Icarus3, ...And Beyond!, Ashibaka, and whoever else introduced an original point ST47 19:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep i like WWE and this would be the 1st place i check to see if a new WWE superstar have a my space account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don.-.J ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete them all. Don't get me started. RFerreira 21:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Vary | Talk 16:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Fratch

Neologism, article states, "The term can be categorized as a neologism and its use is mostly confined to the mid-atlantic region of the United States," but this is unverifiable. Deprodded. Accurizer 18:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • I am working on finding verifiable uses of the term outside of conversation. Also, perhaps instead of a permanent deletion, transfer the article to Wiktionary? Claymoney 18:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as unverifiable. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Not Transwiki material. -- Visviva 01:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unsourced. ~ trialsanderrors 01:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

List of German bands

No threshold so limitless list. Duplicates category. Delete all.

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Best Damn's Top 50 Outrageous Sports Moments

See also Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 February 4, Best Damn's Top 50 Unforgettable Sports Moments ( AfD discussion), and Best Damn's Top 50 Sports Blowups ( AfD discussion).

Crufty - not an article Delete - Doc 18:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Archspace

Non notable webgame, fails WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Additional info: Archspace gets 33,300 google hits and the Archspace's website has an Alexa ranking of 163,423. Peephole 18:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Peephole 21:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: This article has mostly been edited by the users DarkArchon & Agod Kenshin (article's creator). Both of these users have only done edits on this article in the wikipedia name space. Looking at the first version of this article, it looks like the sole purpose of it was to have wiki for this game. As such, I'm saying delete on the basis of Wikipedia not being a free wiki provider. Mitaphane talk 21:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Archmage, Archspace's predecessor, won MPOGD's game of the month a couple times and was mentioned in numerous gaming magazines in Korea (as was Archspace). Historically both these games were very unique for their time, and also I have not seen a single browser based game that paralled the AI of either of these browser-based MMORPGs. However, this is not "notable" enough to be listed on Wikipedia. I’m going to look for a video game Wiki to post this up on, and am also going to post it up over The Encyclopedia of Speculative Fiction in case anyone wants the original text. :) -- Ariad o ss 01:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. The count was 27-25 keep, counting 2 Redirect comments and 1 Merge All comment as Deletes. With this many commentators, raw totals take on greater importance in determining consensus, in my opinion. No way am I going to close this as a Delete with that many Keep comments. On the other hand, neither numbers nor strength of argument is enough to make this a clear straight-out Keep. Herostratus 05:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Abdul Muneem Patel

I don't know how to Multi-Delete, but I want this to be an AFD for all the suspects. It should be deleted because, while notability has been established, thats all we have. If any extra details become available they should be dealt with within the article on the plot. Havinf this one line of text pages for all the suspects serves no obvious purpose. Irishpunktom\ talk 18:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • per nominators' wishes, all the suspects now nominated:
  1. Abdula Ahmed Ali
  2. Cossor Ali
  3. Nabeel Hussain
  4. Tanvir Hussain
  5. Umair Hussain
  6. Assan Abdullah Khan
  7. Waheed Arafat Khan
  8. Osman Adam Khatib
  9. Mohammed Usman Saddique
  10. Ibrahim Savant
  11. Amin Asmin Tariq
  12. Shamin Mohammed Uddin
  13. Waheed Zaman
  14. Shazad Khuram Ali
  15. Umar Islam
  16. Waseem Kayani
  17. Abdul Waheed
  18. Assad Sarwar
  19. Tayib Rauf
  20. Rashid Rauf
Ohconfucius 03:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep article will need to be kept to document current event. I think someone trying to blow up almost ten planes and causing the aviation industry in Britain to implode is notable enough. Dev920 18:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As only being notable for the event, and since the article tells almost nothing, the same content can be provided in the event article. StuffOfInterest 19:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn clutter -- Tim1988 talk 19:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Nothing useful released about the plotters yet. This page may be useful at some point in the future, but not at all now. -- Fxer 21:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all. Innocent until proven guilty. So far, we have no info on these people, bar one, but nothing in Abdul Waheed's background makes him notable in his own right. Ohconfucius 03:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The only one I'm working on and know about is Abdul Waheed, and it's turning into a nice article. He's notable, of course, for the arrest, and in addition his sister, Heather Stewart-Whyte, is a famous supermodel, and his late father worked for the Conservative Party, both of which make his story more interesting that it would otherwise be. It's well-referenced, and there are no grounds for deletion within the policies. Bear in mind that more information is likely to become available about all these individuals; if charged, then via the courts; if not charged, then probably via them telling their own stories. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Having a model as half sister and a politician for a father aren't notable points, even that article boils down to one item of "being arrested", which is not worth an article in itself. I would also dispute that it's well referenced, I do not regard "a newspaper reported that an unnamed neighbour said" as very reliable, for example, expecially as WP:BLP required "high quality references". Also, "more information is likely" is very crystal ball. Failing notability, WP:NOT, and WP:BLP concerns are all grounds for deletion based on policy. Regards, MartinRe 12:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The notability of all of these individuals has been established, they tried to arrange a major terror plot that has been extensivly covered by media all over the world. These articles are obviously justified.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Any details for the suspects should be placed on the plot page, not in individual articles. -- Stretch 07:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. AfD nom is too soon, but if stubs don't become articles within a month, nominate again. — Viriditas | Talk 08:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge all into a list and split off notable individuals later.-- Peta 08:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Simply being arrested for questioning about a terrorist plot does not give any person instant status as an international figure who should be covered by an encyclopedia. Whether they are innocent or guilty, such notoriety is inappropriate. Ming the Merciless 10:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep - as per Slimvirgin. -- Leifern 10:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep so long as they're policed enough to keep them strictly factual. There names are all over the news, which should be notable enough. -- Joshdboz 10:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per SlimVirgin. -- Nearly Headless Nick 14:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per SlimVirgin.-- Coffeesuds 15:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep These people are notable terrorists. Bakaman Bakatalk 16:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Abdul Waheed and any others about which something substantial is known. Given only a name and age, delete or redirect to 2006_transatlantic_aircraft_terrorist_plot per Peta. A name mentioned in the news may be notable but it doesn't necessarily merit a separate article. Gimmetrow 18:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete None of these men have more than a line of text to say about them. Unless further information is released about them, we are better off with the list of names on the terror plot page. (which in fact currently provides more information than all of the individual pages put together) -- KPWM_Spotter 18:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As stated above, almost no of these articles have more than a line of text within them, but Keep Abdul Waheed and Tayib Rauf since they have more text.-- Otsego 19:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per precedents of terrorist events. Even those who are mistakenly accused for the September 11 have their own articles. It is likely that charges will follow in one way or another, so there is room for a lot of organic growth as well. - Mailer Diablo 19:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment precedent would suggest deletion, as previous articles on suspects (subsequently shown to be innocent) were filled with what proved to be unfounded gossip and harmful material because some wikipedia editors think that "a newspaper said that a neighbour thought that the suspect did X" is a reliable source. Regards, MartinRe 12:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As the nom says, they are notable. They need expansion, not deletion. -- Elliskev 20:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per SV and Viriditas. Jayjg (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per Viriditas. -- Bletch 00:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep terror suspects are notable even if they end up proven innocent -- as opposed to just not guilty. (see Richard Jewell, e.g.) Carlossuarez46 06:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wiki not a news agency, if all are convicted then it's worth one page at most, not one page for each. Cf with Big Brother Series 7: all members, past and present are on the main story page. Escaper7 09:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep because major anti-terrorism arrests followed by major regime changes in UK airports by a named group of individuals is most definitely not analagous to to some folks on Big Brother. (<humour>Unless Nikki goes out of control, I suppose<nothumour>). Budgiekiller 21:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete- this is a page containing little information. a page on the event would be more useful and appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.124.83 ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 16 August 2006
  • Keep. Meets WP:V and WP:BIO. Surely these articles will be expanded and improved as events continue to unfold. -- Satori Son 02:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete. There is no reason to create stubs for everyone arrested as long as they haven't even been charged. There names are listed in the main article, which is more than sufficient - and in many countries it would be a violation of privacy laws to publicly name people before they have sentenced, let alone not even been accused (i.e. charged) for anything. What if it turns out that all or most of them are totally innocent? Would anyone of you who say "Keep" like to have your own name forever linked with a false arrest on one of the most read websites in the world? As many people always think that a mere arrest means that a person must have done something, this could very effectively ruin the rest of your life. So, as a compromise, let's keep the names in the main article but delete the stubs. The fact that Slimvirgin has managed to put together a tabloid type gossip article more suited for The Sun about one of the arrested persons is no reason to keep it. Thomas Blomberg 14:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per Thomas Blomberg. I think it is premature to have articles on all these men which have not even been formally charged and tried. I think that it suffices to have their names listed in the main article. Nrets 14:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per Thomas Blomberg -- Oblivious 16:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per SlimVirgin - Aleichem 22:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep - as per Slimvirgin. Bunts 00:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per Thomas Blomberg. Crumbsucker 04:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all and Improve because nature of unfolding event means more is likely to be added. In six months or a year, if still stubs consider merge/redirect. Rich Farmbrough 11:05 18 August 2006 (GMT).
  • Delete per Thomas Blomberg. What we have been told by authorities is that this group planned a terrorist plot. Where is the evidence of this plot beyond the statements of law enforcement that the plot has been foiled? Perhaps when there is evidence presented in a court of law these people might merit inclusion in a single entry. Marklemagne 02:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Thomas Blomberg and Ming the Merciless. Webmink 05:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep all. These are people in the news for being acused of a major crime. If all or any are not charged then consider deleting them. In the mean time they need improving. Billlion 09:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - In the light of recent false arrests, police apologies, and the media circus, the entries should be deleted. If convicted, then Stet Pimdip 18:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom and above. This is Wikipedia, not Wikinews. This is not supposed to be a news database. These suspects are not encyclopedically notable enough for their own articles at this time. There's no need for in-depth profiles on them. If some of them prove to be key terrorists, then maybe for those people. Bwithh 02:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, arrests made [24]. Maybe re-list those who are turned loose. But I have a funky feeling those are going to be furiously argued to be kept because obviously they prove the evil scheming police keep arresting the wrong people :-) Weregerbil 16:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all These names are widely discussed on the web, and should be discussed here. Hopefully the article will grow to include significant information.-- Robcotton 18:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Slim Virgin and MailerDiablo. The names are widely discussed by the media and on the web. RFerreira 21:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now, if no more info will be availble ina month period, merge them all to a single list abakharev 03:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Reluctant Keep All of these eventually can/will be filled out with more information, and at the least are fine as valid stubs. Deleting them all now just means more work later, and they serve no harm and a good baseline purpose now as stubs. rootology ( T) 03:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all the only claim to notability is being arrested/charged, which is not sufficent for individual articles, even if more "padding" is added to lengthen them. They may become notable in the future, but wikiepedia is not a crystal ball, neither is it a news outlet. Also, as is common in breaking news stories, newpapers report comments by relatively unreliable people ("A neighbour/friend/eyewitness") which are often sensationalist, and later retracted/overridden. Wikipedia should not be in the business of repeating gossip immediately without allowing a reasonable time to elasp and check whether it was unfounded or not. As an encyclopedia, we should act like one with calm, measured, and unhurried actions, and not act like a tabloid newspaper trying to get the "scoop". In short, by failing notability, WP:NOT, and having WP:BLP concerns are all be grounds for deletion based on policy. Regards, MartinRe 12:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all On BBC Radio 4's World Tonight news programme yesterday evening (21 Aug 2006), a criminal lawyer expressed concerns that media coverage and speculation would make it difficult for the suspects to have a fair trial. If you think the suspects may be guilty, you'll agree that a fair trial is essential for them to be convicted and sentenced; if you think they may be innocent, you'll also agree a fair trial is essential so they can be released. Strongly disagree with expanding the pages now: whether they are innocent or guilty, second-hand speculation based on flimsy media reports ("neighbours said he looked a bit shifty") doesn't help the suspects or the aim of justice. At the moment, the pages are too minimal to be of any use... and anyone who wants the suspects' names can get them elsewhere. It would be more appropriate to list them if they are actually convicted. Marcusswann 13:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all, morons!: It is very important to keep record of the acts of this fascism and manipulation of the public mind towards the real 1984. Would you keep the records of the Jews murdered by Goebbels around? I think so. The tired argument that this is not encyclopedic relies on the empty argument that this space we are working in is anything like the ridiculous hardbound volumes of drool hoisted upon us in our youths by "experts" who "knew" more than we, as a collective consciousness, did. Holon67 14:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note to closing admin Should all these AfD'd pages be deleted, you may want to delete Mehran Hussain also. Or if that seems out of process, give me a holler and I'll {{ db-author}} it. Weregerbil 15:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete all per Thomas Blomberg. These articles are nothing but clutter right now. Let them be created in the future as events warrant. — Michael Hays 16:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all, mention in main article is ample at this stage. Mrsteviec
  • Redirect all to 2006 transatlantic aircraft terrorist plot. As of now, it's the event that is newsworthy, not the actors. ~ trialsanderrors 01:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect all per trialsanderrors - Todd 03:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: as all parties seem to have agreed that content has in fact been merged, then clearly the article needs to be kept in some form, whether a redirect or a separate article. Redirecting is up to those doing the merge - no part of merging is governed by AfD. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Shi'a view of Ali

Shi'a view of Ali was nominated for deletion on 2006-05-14. The result of the discussion was "no consensus. You don't need to use AFD for suggesting merges". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shi'a view of Ali.
  • The discussion was not no consensus, it was "Uncle G accidentally misunderstands what Dev920 is thinking and closes AfD". Mr G, I think you have the wrong end of the stick.
    • That is not a closure notice. Uncle G 01:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

In preparation for nominating this article for deletion, I have recently added all salvagable material to Ali, as can be seen here. This means that Shia view of Ali is now an unnecessary POV fork (because the original article can hold the good material just fine), and should be deleted. Dev920 16:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as redundant; I would also recommend cross-linking to your new section from Shi'a Islam and Misconceptions about the Shi'a. TheronJ 21:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Merge. On reflection, I think Uncle G is right. TheronJ 02:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Done. Dev920 21:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Deletion is not the final stage of article merger. Uncle G 22:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I don't want to merge it; I want to delete an uneccessary POV fork. I've just taken out the useful bits. Dev920 23:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • I refer you to the first four words of your nomination. You clearly do want to merge it. So do the merger properly, and complete it in the way that mergers are to be completed. That is not by nominating the article for deletion. Uncle G 00:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
        • I think "I don't want to merge it", was rather clear about whether I do or don't want to merge the article, but I will change it. Dev920 00:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
          • The fact that you have already done the first part of the merger, per the diff that you yourself gave above, indicates that you do. Uncle G 01:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • To clarify, I DO NOT WANT A MERGER. I want to delete a POV fork that is unnecessary because the section in the original article is not large enough to warrent. A merge would result in an equally unnecessary redirect, and there isn't much to merge anyway. So the articled should therefore, IMO, be deleted and not merged, and so this discussion is very much valid and Uncle G shouldn't have tried to close it because he has misinterpreted my intentions. Dev920 00:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I've already pointed you to Wikipedia:Merge once. Please read it. If you wanted this article deleted, you should not have begun merging its content into another article. Once again: Deletion is not the final stage of article merger. Uncle G 01:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • And I've read it! And I've said twice, I don't want to merge it! Tell me, what should I have done when I saw a POV article, sat around and waited for a dozen merge and redirects, when I want the thing deleted? Instead, I have an admin who insists I've started down the road to merging, WHEN I DON'T WANT TO MERGE IT. Merging means a redirect, which is pointless in this case and the entire thing should be deleted, obliterated entirely. The reason there is no overwhelming consensus is because, Mr G, you have insisted I am halfway through a process I am not. How can there be any kind of decent consensus when you have shut down the AFD? The only voter before you came demanding I want a merge when I don't supported my plea to delete - that is hardly no consensus to me. Dev920 01:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Dev, your edits are very good, but I think G is right - merger is the right policy. You found "two or more edits that are a large overlap." I don't see the Shia view of Islam page as a POV fork - the editors aren't protecting themselves from the alternate POV by creating the page, they just have more pages than they need. As I said, I think your pages are great, but I would go ahead with the merge. TheronJ 02:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I went to ANI for a second opinion, and they said that because I didn't write the information I added to the article in my own words, despite it being free content to the world, deleting the page it originated from is effectively stealing the content and claiming it as my own. Having now been told this (and it would been nice if Uncle G had explained it himself), I realise I have no choice but to create a redirect, despite my misgivings, whatever my original intent was. I will do so now, and will refrain from making the same mistake with my next AfD. My apologies to Uncle G for apparently wasting his time - but please don't bite the newcomers to AfD attempting something new... Dev920 11:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep as nomination is now moot. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Brave New Girl

Disambiguation page with only 1 blue link, rest are red links. Suggest Redirect or Delete until such time when articles needing disambiguating are written. Leuko 19:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Though obviously it would be nice if someone would create the articles it disambigs to. Dev920 19:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect until the other articles are made. 11kowrom 19:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Provisional that someone can actually establish that there is a song, book, and film (at least in the works). I'm a bit surprised that all are redlinks at this time. StuffOfInterest 19:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect until the other articles are actually made. I think there's a speedy delete criteria for redlink only disambig pages but a redirect is fine. ColourBurst 21:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Articles are created so speedy keep. ColourBurst 21:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep I created two of the articles and found the song article buried in history. Credit User:Homie 01 for that one. Took care of disambiguation link repair as well.-- Kchase T 21:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. notable internet meme/personality. -- Madchester 15:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Geriatric1927

It fails WP:BIO. The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.) only one coverage by Yahoo does not make him notable. Local TV news coverage is cited but unverified. Lonelygirl15 ( AfD discussion) was mentioned once by the New York Times but was removed due to failing WP:BIO. -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 19:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)I edited this to correct the LG15 link reply

  • Delete, Oh geez, seconded. Completely non-notable. Just a senior citizen with a webcam. Wikipedians, once more into the breach. The battle with the rest of the internet has begun in earnest. Detruncate 19:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Commentit was a story on BBC news earlier today. Old m
    • Comment if that is so, please provide a Channel/provider, date, time, the show/segment it was on. Also provide a link to that newcast if you could. Otherwise it's unverifiable -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 19:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, Maybe not to people across the Atlantic in the US, but here in the UK this chap has been mentioned in several newspapers (hold on while I get a hyperlink to this piece of paper infront of me...), radio broadcasts, and on BBC News at 18:00 14th Aug. (you don't get a time slot on the worlds largest media corporation's News program for being a 'senior citizen with a webcam'). BTW Detruncate, 'Wikipedians VS the internet'? How obnoxious can a single person be? Spud
  • Keep, he is an internet meme now, and enough of one to get non-internet news coverage. Recury 19:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If it can be Verified. Just saying this isn't enough. People said LG15 had all that coverage as well but never provide proof...now her page is gone. Please provide links to Independent, Reliable, Reputable, Non-Trivial, Third-Party sources. For those across the ocean, we can't just take your word he has been on the BBC. It must be verifiable, hence links and all the information previously questioned. I would remind Spud to refrain from personal attacks -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 19:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Just look them up. Recury 20:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment But Recury, they are basically Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event. They only count as one coverage per WP:BIO. Even the Washington Post article is close to the same as the others: almost to the point I have trouble deciding if it would fall under 'muliple similar stories' or not. -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 20:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Here are some Independent, Reliable, Reputable, Non-Trivial, Third-Party sources:
      • UK
        • Channel 4 News Channel 4 is a major broadcaster in the UK Alexa Traffic Rank: 585
        • The Guardian The Guardian is one of the major nationwide newspapers in the UK Alex Traffic Rank: 298
        • Reuters UK It is from Reuters, enough said (written in the US) Alexa Traffic Rank: 2,549
      • Elsewhere
        • Washington Post geriatric1927 on the WP website, probably on print too. Alexa Traffic Rank: 202
        • CNET NewsHuge technology website CNET writes about geriatric1927 Alexa Traffic Rank: 81 Spud
  • Comment Spud, while I applaude your effort, The Guardian, the UK Reuters, and the Cnet articles are word-for-word the exact same thing. These count as one single source (reuters news) -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 20:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • The Guardian page doesn't appear to be written by Reuters Spud
  • Comment...as is the Channel 4 report.. I don't know how to call the Washington Post article as it's an opinion column -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 20:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep quoting from BIO: "just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted". I may reconsider if no new news coverage surfaces in the next five days.-- Kchase T 20:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - So what if the Guardian, Reuters, and Cnet articles are the same? Any one of them makes him notable, especially the Guardian and Reuters. Also, Spud- I added the links to the page, where they should have been in the first place. -- PresN 20:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment So, you are saying WP:BIO should be ignored? -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 21:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • No, the point is that WP:BIO is written as a guideline for inclusion. If a subject meets any of the criteria, BIO strongly suggest inclusion. If he or she meets none of them, then the argument becomes more subjective, as here.-- Kchase T 21:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep He's an internet phenomenon like the "Star Wars Kid" (who has a looooong wiki page). Interesting enough to keep and add more information. He already has fans you know...( Mikadoo 03:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)) reply
  • Delete... for now. Too new, it may be just his "15 minutes". If, in two/four/six months, it becomes something that would be important or interesting to know in 100 years, Keep then. Ronabop 05:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Way way too early to tell if he will last the notability distance. So far there are good signs but that is just speculation. My opinion is to wait at least another couple of months before considering this topic notable. Remy B 06:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete recentism - this guy just happens to be the current fad and was reported in the UK press (notably the London Metro) but it's not a notable phenomenon and is only here because it's currently going on. MLA 10:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep If you are notable even for 15 minutes you have been or are notable. It's like saying Elvis was notable once but not anymore! I say keep the wiki and if he really does lose popularity over the next few months then delete then. It should not be the other way around - there are way too many geeky idiots with too many self interests who should let authors (like the one who wrote this) get on with it and not serve as just a 'notable' nuisance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Str8hing ( talk • contribs)
  • Comment Please refrain from making personal attacks. If something just happens to be a current internet fad, it's not going to be the same as Elvis. Not every emailed in-joke or forum highlight is a notable phenomenon. Wikipedia is systematically biased in favour of these sorts of things, not against them. Also please use sign your comments using four tildes ~~~~. MLA 11:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Because he was completely unknown about one week ago? Remy B 12:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Featured on GMTV (UK breakfast TV programme) morning of 15th August. Also, can youtube stats count as a 'reliable' source. Over 1 million views of his videos is pretty large, is it not? In addition, the BBC newscast is now featured on youtube (verifiable...) as are reports from major news sources / media outets in Brazil, Germany (Der Speigel) and Holland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.33.102 ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete Changed to weak keep, see below Srose (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC) - I think this may be a case of recentism... He was featured on a Massachusetts news channel last night, but who's to know if he'll just fade away? I asked myself if he will be remembered in 50 years, and so far, I think that's a big no - other than by friends and family, of course. If he proves that he has staying power or has an impact in some way on youtube, I may switch over to keep, but for now, it's too soon to know. Srose (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Can't see any real reason to delete. Has received a lot of media coverage. These people saying 'will he be remembered in 50 years' and 'recentism' to you I say so what? I find it notable based on it being reported in dozens of papers, on dozens of tv stations and radio stations. Localzuk (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep I think something needs to mentioned here. Even if an article in a major newspaper is just a repeat of a Reuters article says something... it should count for something. Why? Because it means a major newspaper decided to use it, meaning the editors of a major paper thought it was somewhat important. I can understand not wanting to count small-town news paper repeats, but if the ohter major outlets carry it, then it is something more. Dave 16:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as Reuters and the Washington post have covered it. Besides, if Emmalina gets an article that survives an AFD, why not this guy? – Andyluciano 17:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
By the way, I'd like to point out a quote from WP:BIO:
Notability can be determined by:
...
  • A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following
Sure, youtube does not count as "well-known films or television productions" (which is the rest of that quote), but I'd say that it is verifiable that geriatric1927 has a large fan base and cult following. (His subscriber list and massive number of responses demonstrate that. He is one of the most-subscribed-to users on the site.) – Andyluciano 17:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - QFT above Old m 17:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, he's interesting, has a huge number of subscribers and will continue to provide accounts of his life in future vlog submissions. Those accounts will provide additional material to add to his Wikipedia page. --Jason Huebel— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.6.219 ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep - I'm usually against having articles on YouTube phenoms, but this guy's different. As BBC reported, he's been viewed by half a million people in just under a week, certainly a strong foundation to a cult following. -- Brazucs ( TALK | CONTRIBS) 22:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Even if he does fade away and still produces work wat about all the other fads listed on this encyclopedia. He has made an impact and because of that it should be kept.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.191.1.151 ( talk • contribs)
  • KEEP Consider the arrogance of people who think this should be removed. He has been mentioned in reputable news organisations around the world. He uploaded his video to youtube, and the response was enormous. That ALONE makes him worthy of inclusion. Aaarrrggh 23:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Although I think it should be Wikified extensively-- DethFromAbove 02:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep William Hung still has a Wikipedia entry! Why not Peter. The Internet does not provide chances for cross-generational communication, but Peter has struck a nerve. YouTube users have been moved to tears by what he is doing - this is a phenomena. Watch it! Something important is happening.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.70.212 ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep i agree with the person above... if william hung gets one so does geriatric 1927. this guy has been on more than one news chanel and more than one form of news, that qualifies him if u ask me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.139.56 ( talk • contribs)
  • Total thusfar So far its 21/5 in favor of keeping— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.139.56 ( talk • contribs)
AfD is not a vote
  • Keep Numerous articles, tv news coverage in several countries, and in less than 2 weeks he has the second most subscribers all-time on youtube. I think that's notable. Siradia 03:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep; also, I feel Lonelygirl's AfD should be revisited based on the resounding keep vote we are seeing here. Everyking 03:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
*Comment - No, I don't think so. Lonelygirl is much different than Geriatric - she's certainly not a fad. -- Brazucs ( TALK | CONTRIBS) 18:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Fad-y, but he's is receiving quite a bit of coverage. Notable. — TheKMan talk 06:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep; This guy is more than a fad, he hss been reported in Australia on various news channels as well. In any case, he has become a phenomenon, a poster of how the internet is connecting all walks of people, and his stories are truly touching, even more so, the way he is taken back by being so well recognized (as the bloke is 79, lost his wife years ago). He's probably the oldest person to become an internet HIT! IMHO, if GOATSE is an entry on wikipedia, geriatric ought to be as well! -- Unleaded— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.73.206 ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep; The article should be kept, he has been on the news in several countries across the world. You don't get coverage like that for nothing. If interest in him dies down in a few months, then delete it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.128.201 ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep; Reasonable national and international coverage. Encyclopaedias are supposed to be comprehensive - this is the first notable case of youtube autobiography. Blogging is age old - internet memoirs are not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Womblette ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep; Peter is a celebrity. The only criteria for being a celebrity is that they are reknown. Peter is reknown. I'm sure more people have been to Peter's wiki entry than, say, Matt Pinfield's.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.103.1.44 ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep for now, mildly notable. Relist at a later date when the hype/craze has died down, possibly under semi-protection to avoid Youtuber's from swarming in.-- Andeh 15:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Switched to weak keep per Andypandy. If, as I suspect, the craze does die down, it will be relisted in several weeks or months. I'm going to assume that due to the huge amount of traffic he's getting right now, he might have more than 15 minutes of fame. Also, as a senior citizen making an impact on YouTube, he's definitely unique and may pave the way for a longlasting trend. Srose (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; none of the autobiographical information in the article is verified, it's merely a repetition of geriatric's videos. Phaedress 17:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This guy has been on BBC news, Channel 4 UK, Australian news, and is huge all over the internet. — Mets501 ( talk) 18:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Washington Post, CNet, Guardian. What else do you want? 24.31.9.226 19:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (for now). Notable. (IMO we should consider re-AfD-ing in a few months if his notability has declined.) -- Billpg 22:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. My overall preference would be for a page of video bloggers. If such a page existed, I would favour listing him there, along with others who are just-a-bit-notable such as Nornna, Emmalina and Renetto. If he sustains his (IMO) high-notability after a few months, the page could then be "promoted" to a whole article. That option isn't on the table right now, so my Keep vote above remains. -- Billpg 22:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP - What length of time qualifies for notable? Peter has been in the news for weeks now and has millions of views on his historic(if personal) broadcasts. Some entries on Wiki have been added even though the actual event only lasted hours. The only way to decide whether to keep an article or not, is for Wiki to provide explicit requirements or metrics to confirm notability 80.192.244.102 23:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Stew reply
  • Comment. Agree with previous comment. I think this guy is a noteable, not as a celebrity but as an event in Internet evolution, showing how effective these tools are for reaching out to large audiences, and as a first to span the age gap and gain wide acceptance just by talking about life. He should be at least mentioned in a youtube article. xlynx 11:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP. This man has just surpassed Brooke Brodack as the most subscribed to individual on YouTube. Furthermore, he has just made a video stating that he is aware of websites that exist with his YouTube handle, but he does not endorse them (they are fan based websites). Finally, in that same video, he acknowledges that the media has reported on him, yet he will not subject himself to traditional media outlets and shall remain exclusively on YouTube. - Shirley Grace 19:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP. As already stated, you have a article for Brooke Brodack who was previously the most watched person on the site, why delete this guy if he has surpassed her. If you delete him, then DELETE Brooke Brodack as well!! Raerth 23:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I think we've reached consensus.-- DethFromAbove 23:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • DELETE! Do any of you realize why this is up for deletion? This guy does not want fame; he doesn't want his phone conversations with the press recorded without his permission, he was not want his privacy invaded. The people saying "Keep" are just saying that because "he's incredibly popular"; they completely lack the knowledge of this situation; they're only making this worse. Gah, what's wrong with you people? You haven't reached a consensus! This is horrible! -- Zaita 00:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC) (P.S... sorry for all the italics, but it's hard to express myself with the smilies I've become to accustomed to using) reply
    • It's just a question of covering notable and verifiable information. It would be worthwhile to be particularly strict about it in this case, sure, but deletion on these grounds shouldn't be considered. Many people are famous who don't want to be, and we still cover them. Everyking 11:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment. Privacy concerns (especially for a non-public figure like Geriatric1927) must adhere to WP:BLP. -- Madchester 15:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep and cleanup At the moment, he's a notable internet meme, though his hits have fallen off somewhat over the past few days. -- Madchester 05:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • KEEPwith half a million hits on youtube, he is notable and many people like me, might hear about him from the news and would want to know about him in more detail and quickly from wikipedia. Since I found many interesting information on "Salam Pax" in wikipedia, I've felt that the main advantage to wikipedia is that it is up to date and doesn't only cover TV celebrities. And since one criteria for notable personalities contains "large fan base" for TV personalities, I don't understand how TV personalities would be more important than You tube personalities. And finally even if he does die away, his importance will always be in his age.
  • KEEPif he doesn't meet the requirements for an autobiography, I think the 'geriatric1927' phenomenon itself should be recorded in wikipedia somewhere, whether as a full article or as a prt of another. This is good enough for now. I read about him in a newspaper coming home on the train, and looked for him on wikipedia when I got home. Surely there is a need then... Tompee 14:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Please sign your comments with ~~~~ - otherwise your comment is far more likely to be ignored in the final decision. Remy B 13:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • KEEPIt's one thing to keep his name/phone/address private, but this is not in the article. However the article might be modified to describe this issue
    • I have done this. Perhaps other wikipedians will want to emphasize it more, but it is in there. Tompee 00:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • KeepWithin a week, he has become the most subscribed-to video uploader on youtube, as the article says. My suggestion is simply to keep the article up for now. He has had millions of views, and some of those people may be looking for some background information about how an unknown retired person became the number one youtube contributor. theAnarch 1:18am 19 August 2006
  • KEEP A definate keep, G1927 is now a 'household name' in online circles. He's been reported globally, and his has been an impact - that may prove critical to the future successes of YouTube. Something, which could well have a lasting impact. This article, is relevant indeed.
  • keep please does not fail bio guideline geriatric1927 has major cult following on and off youtube plus notable press coverage Yuckfoo 20:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP As someone before said he does not want publicity, well he already has it, He went out to tell his story and people are hearing it. By keeping this page new viewers can get that needed info on this verry no celeb Skeeve KAM 05:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP I don't understand Brian's insistence of verifiable and more media mention of geriatric1927 considering Emmalina was a Keep with less media coverage, fewer viewers and did nothing notable. This man is the most subscribed to user on YouTube, has had International media coverage and most important - he's captured a worldwide audience that spans four generations, that alone is quite notable and an amazing accomplishment. He won't soon be forgotten. If he is, then take the page down then, like Emmalina's should be considering she's no longer on YouTube and never accomplished anything noteworthy. [[User: ErnieJamie 07:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Best Damn's Top 50 Unforgettable Sports Moments

See also Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 February 4, Best Damn's Top 50 Outrageous Sports Moments ( AfD discussion), and Best Damn's Top 50 Sports Blowups ( AfD discussion).

Derivative listcruft. Not an article (see also Best Damn's Top 50 Outrageous Sports Moments below Delete - Doc 19:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Why is this "Derivative listcruft"? This list was put together by the sports show Best Damn Sports Show Period and lists an interesting collection of moments in sports. It can also be considered as an episode of such show. Mtxchevy 19:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete if it's the Best Damn Sportshow's list, then they can keep it. We do not need an article for every list compiled by a TV program, or newspaper, or radio show. -- Whpq 20:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment neutral so far. This is a decent list with links to all the events in question. Other than the fact that "The Simpsons" are way more popular, I don't see much difference between deleting this and deleting a Simpsons episode article.-- Kchase T 20:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete another one? ReverendG 20:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as NN and possible copyright violation -- Alias Flood 21:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Alias Flood. Carlossuarez46 06:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Just when you thought you'd seen it all. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Michael Hirschbeck

I'm a big Indians fan, but their batboy doesn't need a page. He only gets 88 Google hits, another sign of non-notability 11kowrom 19:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Notablility can not be had by association -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 19:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Maybe a someone can make a page with a list of all the batboys. Just a thought Meatman22 20:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless there's some way this guy meets WP:BIO, and even then I'd be skeptical.-- Kchase T 20:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • not Bat Boy? delete per nom. speediable, as notability is not asserted. Ohconfucius 03:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Isn't he the son of John Hirschbeck? Not that being the son of a famous person confers notability, but still... Irongargoyle 16:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

The Webcomic List

A website that lists webcomics. ~113,000 Alexa ranking, no claims of notability, and otherwise not meeting WP:WEB. Delete as a nn website. Wickethewok 20:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - I've since added more details about the notability of the sight. Also it is notable. If you enter "Webcomic" into Google it is the first entry. ISD 21:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment It is important to note that the top google hit for any search is usually the one with the most relevant domain name, and doesn't actually signify importance or traffic ranks. Ardent † ∈ 22:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, unless someone adds some good source citations to reliable sources that testify to the importance of this site. (Presently, the only sources cited are the site itself!). Who, exactly, says that this site is important? Dpbsmith (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Starry Eyes 20:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the article cites zero reliable sources, and "Top google hit for X" isn't a good point on notability. WilyD 20:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 21:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Also, only has 4 distinct google hits, 2 of which belong to the website itself, one seems unrelated to the topic, and the other is a dead link. Seems like a fairly new site. Once it has gained notability a good article could probably develop, but as for now it is non-notable. Ardent † ∈ 22:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Interestingly, there are more sites linking to it than there are mentioning it by name - probably down to webcomics using graphical links to it which display that comic's ranking (e.g. this comic). It's quite common for webcomics to link to rankings/listing sites in this way. - makomk 21:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • If it's really important, it should be possible to find a published comment in a reliable that describes it as "important." That's would be a lot more convincing to me than Google hit counts, which are subject to search engine optimization and so forth. Websites like to do link exchange for mutual self-promotion, inflating the apparent importance of both. Does anybody say anything about it in Wired? Slate? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete webcomic cruft that is unverifiable through reliabel sources. WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Nero (band)

This article survived its first deletion attempt. The votes were 5 for delete, 1 weak keep, 1 keep by a then-new user (who signed their name manually), and 1 keep by a now-blocked user. The band's one release was self-produced and self-distributed and they are now defunct. One rationale for keeping was the band has been on an "international tour"...inasmuch as a date in Vancouver if you live in Oregon counts as an "international tour". This is the one criterion in WP:MUSIC where Nero's standing is anything beyond clear-cut failure, and even there they fail by the spirit, if not the letter. Starry Eyes 20:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) (PS: Note a recent prod attempt by User:Femmina, revoked because of its dubious survival on AfD.) reply

  • Delete as nominator. Starry Eyes 20:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Seems to have good detail, and only went defunct because their lead vocal was killed in an accident. Dev920 20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Yes, lots of made-up detail. You can't use the death of your friend as an excuse to keep an advertising page on wikipedia. -- Femmina 23:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Article still does not cite it's sources. Does not verifiy what tour they were on. No Reliable Sources cited. Fails all points of WP:Music. Looks very much like a vanity page. -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 20:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)I used three `~` instead of four when I signed this last time. Self-edited to correct my signature. reply
  • Delete fails WP:V as it has no reliable sources. WilyD 20:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:Music Spearhead 21:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete vanity page for a non-notable band. 100% original research. -- Femmina 23:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Note that the only criterion they might possibly meet is "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in notable and verifiable sources." The editors who support this article would need to come up with sources to support the description of the band's tour. I would consider a show in Vancouver, British Columbia to be an "international tour" for an Oregon-based band only in the most technical sense anyway. -- Metropolitan90 04:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, notability may have been questionable in 2005, but definitely not present now. NawlinWiki 14:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. International tour, and several CDs listed at http://neroband.home.comcast.net/newnero/order.html
      • CD 1: Live at Ina's Spider House. Show recorded 7/21/05
      • CD 2: Nero. Album recorded December '03
      • CD 3: Live at the Black Forrest. Show recorded 11/24/04 (2CDS) TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 10:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Is that a joke or what? "The following CDRs are available. They are all homemade. See below for ordering instructions." That's what the page says. Oh, and... TruthbringerToronto... What about stop stalking me? -- Femmina 13:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No way should this have survived; Unvertifiable, vanity and een falls below the risibly low standards elaborated in WP:MUSIC. Eusebeus 15:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator. Time to fix our mistake. RFerreira 21:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Best Damn's Top 50 Sports Blowups

See also Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 February 4, Best Damn's Top 50 Unforgettable Sports Moments ( AfD discussion), and Best Damn's Top 50 Outrageous Sports Moments ( AfD discussion).

Another one (see above) Delete - Doc 20:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - no need for an article for every list created by a TV show, magazine, radio program, etc. -- Whpq 20:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both as listcruft and possible copyvio. BoojiBoy 20:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as listcruft. The nominator is referring to this AfD.-- Kchase T 20:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. ReverendG 20:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete NN. These lists are often copyright protected. -- Alias Flood 21:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per my earlier votes on the similar articles. Carlossuarez46 06:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Trainer Tower

Totally NN part of a Pokemon game. No context as of this writing, and not even notable enough for a merge. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 20:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - per nom. Wickethewok 20:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. It's essentially a subpage of Shiny Pokémon, which is the only page that links to it.-- Kchase T 20:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Don't you think there should be a page for this though? There should be a page for trainer tower, to describe what it is and strategy to get through it.

0-172 1.42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment No, I do not. See WP:NOT. This is not an indiscriminate collection of information. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 20:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • In fact, gaming strategy is never supposed to be including in a Wikipedia article, regardless of the location/scenario/dungeon's notability. I wouldn't claim to be any sort of authority on the notability of this particular article, but strategy is right out. Icewolf34 20:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Somebody created a link to this page, therefore intending fore there to be a page about this topic. So I created it. Now, I do admit to having meager information on the particular subject. I also have to admit, that with having meager information about this subjct there really is not point in making it, but there was a link to this page, so I decided to create this page for anybody curious about this subject. But the page seems to be in violation of some rule, so I am not clear about what to do. 0-172 1:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 20:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete- It shouldnt' have been linked in the first place. It's too non-notable for there to be any non-game guide information about it, and WP:NOT a game guide, so that's right out. -- PresN 20:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If it is at all relevant to this discussion, I was considering also making a page for Trainer Hill of Pokemon Emerald, but due to the reaction of and discussion over the Trainer Tower page, I am finding that as not such a good idea. 0-172 2:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Yeah, that would probably be a very bad idea since they're almost identical concepts. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 21:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment From where I stand right now, the Trainer Tower article is unnecessary, but still needed. How about merging the information I provided about the Trainer Tower with the Seven Island section of the Sevii Islands article. 0-172 6:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note I do want to delete, but here's what should happen: Trainer Tower becomes a dab to Sevii Islands and Pokemon Emerald, and information is consolidated into new or existing sections of this article. TrackerTV ( CW| Castform| Green Valley) 03:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Thats what I just said . 0-172 1:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep. PT ( s-s-s-s) 21:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Antiseen

Band dubious notability. Per WP:BAND, the burden of proof is on the article, and the article doesn't claim or cite notability. Prod removed citing amazon and walmart presence. Fireplace 20:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - 747 unique Google hits, entry on AllMusic.com, media coverage in multiple zines (including MaximumRocknRoll), 24 years of national and international touring, played with GG Allin, and their work has been covered by Hank Williams III, who put out a record with them. PT ( s-s-s-s) 20:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete research shows they are somewhat notable, but the article makes no mention of this. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 21:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep per below. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 21:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Nathan Future

Lack of notability, irrelevant links, possible farce. ReverendG 20:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete No notability assertion. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 21:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, nonnotable small-time wrestler. NawlinWiki 14:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Wrestled indy starting in 1999 and ending in 1999. WP:NN Ohconfucius 07:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Resume-oriented programming

This article is about a new word that has yet to find wide circulation and thus isn't notable enough for inclusion RicDod 20:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom: neologism. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 21:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as nonsense Spearhead 21:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Nonsense is not a speedy deletion criterion. Please do not abuse the speedy deletion criteria. Uncle G 23:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Sounds more like something for a geek version of Urban Dictionary. Shadow1 22:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. The "geek version" of Urban Dictionary is the Jargon File, though it's not user-edited. ColourBurst 22:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The only mention that I can find of this concept is this, and that is more a critique of the over-use of Enterprise Java Beans than it is an explanation of resume-oriented programming. This concept has not gained any traction at all in the world at large outside of its coiners, as far as I can determine. Notability isn't the issue. This is, simply, original research. Delete. Uncle G 23:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Real and annoying phenomenon, but kind of soap-boxy and unencyclopedic. -- Xrblsnggt 01:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom Carax 03:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete, incoherent nonsense. Pavel Vozenilek 03:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was -delete - and the arguments presented by the sole keep were neutralised effectively. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Matthew Okine

Non-notable comedian/actor who has appeared in four films. Of those films, three of them are extra parts and the one as the main character has yet to be released and it will most likely be an Austalian-only release. Other standing information may not be able to meet WP:BIO either, since music is freely distributed through Okine's webpage. The "high profile" Raw Comedy finals searched with Okine yeilds no hits on Google.com besides the Wikipedia page and the person's MySpace page. Unique searches for "Matthew Okine" result in 703 hits. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 20:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply


*Keep I contested the prod on this. He's appeared in 4 films. In 2 as extras (See No Evil and House of Wax), one speaking role (Aquamarine) and one as the main character (Sweet FA). Raw Comedy is a national competition which was shown on national television. He also appears to have toured the country as a comedian and competed in a number of major comedy competitions. Drett 22:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to Delete Drett 19:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. There has been one reference to "Matthew Okine" in the Australian media referring to a goalkeeper in a school soccer match. Capitalistroadster 01:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Once again Capitalistroadster is turning to the media to base his decision. One reference in the Australian media DOES NOT CONLCUDE Matthew Okine is not of notoriety. You seem to neglect to remember what an encyclopedia is - AN ENCYCLOPEIDA NOT A MEDIA DATABASE. This guy is an actor in high profile films and Raw Comedy is a MAJOR competition. Try searching Raw Comedy and see if it satisfies your urges for a 'media profile'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelgsta ( talk • contribs)
    Please sign your posts, Nelgsta. Capitalistroadster's access to the Australian/NZ media database has been a very useful verifiability tool in WP:AFD when the article itself lacks sufficient verifiable references. I find his contributions very useful, more so than your assertions given here: for example, participation in a notable competition or minor appearance in a film does not automatically make one inherently notable. -- Canley 03:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment on database. Using the Factiva database, "Matthew Okine" gets 9 hits - one on an irrelevant soccer play, the rest mainly very brief mentions of this comedian, mainly in minor Queensland papers (and a minor mention in the The Toronto Star, and a short article on him in the South West News, no idea what sort of paper that is). "Matt Okine" gets 19 hits, mainly with brief mentions/gig guides in minor newspapers. He does get quoted in The Courier-Mail one time (5 July 2006), and there is also a once sentence mention in The Courier-Mail. I don't have any conclusions about this. This summary is probably misleading, so beware. I can take a better look at this if you need me to, just ask.-- Commander Keane 06:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The South West News is a suburban weekly from Brisbane. What's the reference in the Toronto Star? If it's any good, I would assert that international press coverage means he's slightly notable as a comic. Otherwise, I guess I'll admit defeat. Drett 20:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The Toronto Star mention was just a cast listing at the end of a film review, so nothing really. I probably should have said that most of the database hits were just mentioning his result in a couple of comedy competitions, so he is probably more notable for comedy that film.-- Commander Keane 06:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete He's appeared in 4 films. Let's see: his role in house of wax is so minor that it is not listed on the IMDb, his one speaking role in Aquamarine is the 15th listed on the credits on IMDb for a D-class movie. His first main role is in a small production whose main article was recently deleted on Wikipedia. I'm not sure why it is so wrong to use media searches to help determine whether or not someone is notable. People arguing for keep seemingly ignore the WP:BIO standards. Even if you feel that this guideline errs by being overly strict you have to agree that this guy falls way, waaaaaaaay below the criteria. Also it is important to point out that the claims in the article about the notoriety of the comedy competitions are a bit dubious. Let's also point out that the creator of the article is probably Michael Skelton who directed the movie Sweet FA (the only "important" role of Matthew Okine). The sole contributions of User:Mickskel were to articles related to this film and the corresponding production company. (You can't see that anymore because these articles were speedied.) Pascal.Tesson 12:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
extra comment His official site pretty much sums up the state of his career. Looks like a dcent guy but franky I think even he would agree he has no place on Wikipedia... Pascal.Tesson 12:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete does not meet WP:BIO yet.-- Peta 03:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete does not meet WP:BIO for any of the counts, whether standup comedian, actor, or musician. 742Ghits, of which almost all related to the films "See No Evil" and "Aquamarine". Clicking deeper reveals a dearth of information on the subject. So he's not even a blip on the radar. Ohconfucius 04:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Actually, there were no delete votes. Basically, there wasn't a quorum. But the four editors who did respond all wanted the keep the informationm, the only question was whether thru Keep or Merge. So I chose the least destructive, Keep. But since there was no quorum, I called it a No Consensus. I could have relisted the article, but I didn't think this was necessary as no one (except the nominator) wanted to delete the information. Herostratus 05:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

OmenServe

I don't think filesharing scripts deserve their own articles. Sysreset, Polaris, etc. don't have articles. If anything, this should be merged into Internet Relay Chat or MIRC script.

See also Wikipedia:Notability (software) Ashi b aka tock 20:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Merge into one of those. If it's used by 90% of listservers, then it's notable enough for a merge. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 21:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I kind of doubt that statistic but of course there is no reliable source for anything :/ Ashi b aka tock 21:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • As do I, but alas, WP:AGF. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 21:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. I see no need to merge the article with IRC or mIRC scripts - both are already overly cluttered. Also, it meets #2 in proposed Wikipedia:Notability (software). OmenServe has spawned various clones ( [25], [26], [27]) and translations ( [28]). DLX 11:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. As an mIRC user, I find Omenserve to be one of the best serving scripts around. I think the article is necessary and needed, and will, when completed, help newbies and general file sharing users to find and use one of the better scripts available for mIRC.
  • Merge, it will help the average person find the article. And if the article grows then it can be seperated, I highly doubt it will become that big though. BadCRC 19:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Bobet 09:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Samantha 7

Fails WP:Music having released just one album (threshold is two) and that was a flop. See here. Delete. BlueValour 21:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - OK, it looks like we need to rethink these guidelines; for an obviously failed and non-notable band to be considered worthy of an article is plainly nonsense in any serious encyclopaedic terms. BlueValour 21:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: You are certainly welcome to suggest changes to the WP:BAND guidelines, but I don't think that this is the proper forum. As for me, I have simply applied the existing guidelines as best I can, whether or not I completely agree with them. Cheers. -- Satori Son 22:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per two famous members. Personally, I do agree with that guideline, Blue, because it allows fans of famous musicians to track where they go and where they started. Srose (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. Herostratus 04:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Kendal Choral Society

Very little context, and only 11 ghits. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 21:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply


What is a ghits? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.131.114.45 ( talk • contribs) .

  • Comment, it's a google hit. ColourBurst 22:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep The Google hits are pretty bad., but the hits that they do get look solid. They seem to be listed in the british national archive. I think this bears further investigation and some better assertion of notabiliy and references. Irongargoyle 22:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep, could do with some expansion and sources. JPD ( talk) 11:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, context is not extensive, but descriptive and clear. The topic is encyclopedic and Google hits are a poor indication for subjects like this. I'll wikify it now. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Another weak keep For a performing group they produce very few Google and news hits, but I found a news item that details the history of the society, and I'd say this one goes in based on history not WP:MUSIC. ~ trialsanderrors 01:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Church of All Nations (PCUSA)

nn parish church; article tone is more of what might appear in a parish newsletter than an encyclopedia article Carlossuarez46 21:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. No notability assertion and reads like a flyer. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 21:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as nom. Carlossuarez46 21:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Enigma (UCLA Club)

Non-notable club. The article gives no information that anyone outside of UCLA would ever seek. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 21:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. No references/citations (i.e. fails WP:V; not verifiably important. - AED 21:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. rhmoore 22:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Enigma was highly invovled in the LARPY awards, well honored, and instrumental in some of the growth of Theater Style gaming in the California Area, having spawned multiple forms of Live Gaming, a semi-popular subject. The article should (and will) have this information added, but is absolutely interesting for LARP fans outside of the scope of UCLA. rizwank
  • It should also be noted that Enigma is not soley a club for UCLA students; it has a sizeable active membership of people who are alumni or unaffiliated with the university. Thus, it is at least as relevant as several of the listings on the Category:Science_fiction_organizations page, such as MCFI, UniSFA, SFera, or MISFITS. 71.232.105.50 01:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Randbot reply
  • Delete minor club not even known well at UCLA -- at least not by me or anyone I knew. Carlossuarez46 07:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete as nonsense. Yank sox 22:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Baseball Hall of Shame

Pure Vandalism Yankees76 21:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Strong speedy delete Was already tagged for CSD as patent nonsese. Why bother with AfD? (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I retagged it. To the nominator: Next time, uncontroversial speedy candidates don't need to come to AfD if you agree that they should be deleted. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 22:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE, although I did merge some of the info into Adarsh Hospital. Herostratus 04:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

M.Nagappa

I cannot establish that this physician is verifiably important. AED 21:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete the only notability assertion is that he is "famous". Which he is probably not outside of his small town. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 21:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non-notable. rhmoore 22:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect Delete nn. Is it common practice in Indian English to write a name this way? I haven't seen it in British English.-- Kchase T 23:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    Yes it is common in South India. (with a space that is) =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    This is the way Names are written, especially in Suuth India. In this case the person's name is Nagappa and M denotes the first letter of his father's anme See here for more information (especially the last para of that section) Doctor Bruno 09:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    Thanks both for the answers. Interesting read. I'm also comfortable with a redirect, perhaps merging a bare minimum of relevant content.-- Kchase T 19:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Director of a teaching Institution Doctor Bruno 09:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect - Non-notable on his own. But perhaps a redirect to Adarsh Hospital might work. -- thunderboltza.k.a.D eepu Joseph | TALK18:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete without sources to confirm he is a doctor or notable, I don't think wikipedia should include him. Nickieee 07:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I think a mention in Adarsh Hospital might be enough. Being the director of a hospital, even if it is the largest within a small district from India isn't enough to establish notability on its own.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

V of Doom

I'm not sure this really deserves it's own article. Much, if not all of the information appears to be in Logos of Viacom. Also, the second half of the article qualifies as a bad joke, seemingly perpetrated by a sock puppet. Dave314159 21:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete as nonsense. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 21:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per above. rhmoore 22:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete. If this isn't patent nonsense, it's very close. Worthy of BJAODN. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 22:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 22:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, clear consensus that article violates WP:NOR. Nandesuka 23:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Black Cop

Delete This should NOT be on Wikipedia. I signed on specifically so I could get rid of it. A friend's acquaintance wants to prove the site is useless, and had tried writing fake articles before. For some reason this one stuck. It was written as a joke - it's already received far more serious treatment than was ever deserved. -- Mirrorstone 20:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Note This is effectively the nominating statement. I have moved it to the top and fixed up the nomination to the standard format. Also this article survived a previous AfD discussion as no consensus just a few days ago here Gwernol 21:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Mirrorstone, as nominator please list the Wikipedia policies that you believe this article is in breach of. Thanks, Gwernol 21:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

OK, I'm new to Wikipedia, but so near as I can tell, this article violates policy in that (1) it's based on original research, and (2) it's racist. While the "black cop" is an archetype (meaning that many such movies and TV shows have them), it is not, to the best of my knowledge, a stereotype. The examples listed usually play into the "cop" stereotype in general, not a variation of it. And calling attention to the colour of any police officers is, in my opinion, wrong. . -- Mirrorstone 21:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Legitimate article that is growing naturally, I have no idea why MrBlondNYC has decided to put this up for deletion a second time so soon. I shouldn't be the one starting this debate either, where's his justification? -- Stukov 19:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Evidently this joke tuned some wikipedia editors onto a real phenomenon. The primary issue in the previous AfD was sources. There's the Ethical Spectacle article, which isn't much, but enough.-- Kchase T 23:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Delete SiobhanHansa is right about the remaining source. Without good sources, this is original research. It may be real, but it needs sources to stay, and a concerted effort to find them hasn't turned up the necessary ones.-- Kchase T 22:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The way this article is now, it still isn't very encyclopedic. The Ethical Spectacle article is an opinion piece on a vanity site (I don't mean that in a derogatory way, just that it's no different from a blog). One might look at the Black Cop article and say 'yeah, I've seen black cops on TV, it must be a real phenomenon' and you might be right. There might be something real there. But if there is it hasn't been shown from reliable sources in the article, so it's still original research. -- Siobhan Hansa 01:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete First, it should be noted that User:Stukov is the creator of this article so his vote should not count. Now, I'll just repeat my reasoning from the first AfD: Does everytime a black actor play a cop automatically make them a character type? Or does the "black cop" have to exhibit certain traits? I could maybe see gruff black lieutenants or captains being considered a "type" ( 48 Hrs., Starsky and Hutch, Homicide: Life on the Street) but even that's reaching a little bit. But just any cop who's black regardless of personality or rank is automatically a stereotype? Any black person with a badge is a stereotype? Come on. I could make the page "Black Doctor" and list just as many examples of black actors that played doctors. MrBlondNYC 07:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • User:Stukov has as much right to express his opinion here as anyone. Being creator of an article does not mean your vote does not count. Gwernol 10:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • This is a discussion, not a vote; and it is not who is making an argument that matters. It is whether an argument is a well-reasoned argument that is based upon our policies and guidelines that matters. The argument that you propound makes no mention of, and doesn't even address, our policies and guidelines, for example. Kchase02's and SiobhanHansa's arguments above, on the other hand, address the issues of verifiability and original research, and the sources that underpin the article. Uncle G 12:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Unless we plan to have all sorts of lists of racial/profession combinations in media showing up. LactoseTI T 12:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • If they are verifiable stereotypes that are not original research, then indeed Wikipedia should have them. Editors have pointed to a source that appears to document this stereotype. Uncle G 12:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A search of "Black Cop Stereotype" gets numerous hits on Googles and several informative articles on the subject of this particular film archetype. http://ace.mu.nu/archives/188958.php is one such site. 74.120.134.192 17:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This reference does not substantiate the article. As with the Ethical Spectacle, this piece is not from a reliable source. It's from the Ace of Spades HQ, a self-published political blog with a heavy handed agenda. The blog posting doesn't mention black cops. It's about large black women stereotypes on TV, or more particularly about PC outbursts against large black women stereotypes. A comment on the blog mentions black cops, but WP:Reliable sources specifically states that comments left on blogs should not be used as primary or secondary sources (as well stating that self-published blogs are generally not reliable). While a Google search for Black cop stereotype turns up a lot of hits, most of the ones I looked at were about real life race discrimination by police officers.-- Siobhan Hansa 17:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Speaking of guidelines, Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article is part of the guidelines regarding AfD. OK? I did skip the first part of my comments in the first nom which was: "Original research, lack of reliable sources and most of all ill-defined". The Ethcial Spectacle, though well-written, is a person's vanity page. The Narc review is from a blog and the "black cop" is mentioned very briefly in one sentence. The link provded above is an article about the "sassy black woman" stereotype and is also from a person's vanity site. The "black cop" stereotype is only mentioned in posts by readers responding to the person's comments on it. From this it is apparent that some people, myself included, feel that the black police captain is a type. But there has yet to be a reliable source about this. MrBlondNYC 21:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fails WP:OR and WP:RS to begin with, is poorly scoped (e.g. gruff black looey example) and bizarrely attributes the beginning of the phenomenon to 1988 (a role that was, IIRC, in fact colorblind casting). -- Dhartung | Talk 22:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Can see no reason for the nomination-- Tess Tickle 02:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. fails WP:OR and WP:RS. -- Madchester 23:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as original research per SiobhanHansa. Gwernol 20:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Based on the lengthy list of characters that meet this perceived movie archetype, I believe it warrants surviving a second nomination. 74.120.134.192 19:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    Note this user has already expressed their opinion here. Gwernol 19:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Herostratus 04:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Summer of Sonic

Placed on CSD, CSD was contested. Article has been deleted once before. While having Masahiro Kumono, Shun Nakamura, and Richard Jacques comment on the event is very impressive, it's also unverifiable because the only interview sources are the Summer of Sonic website itself, and it does not constitute a reliable source. There needs to be reliable sources about the event to make it pass WP:WEB. ColourBurst 22:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

The only other website (that I know of so far) is http://news.sonicstadium.org/story/190/ and a forum topic http://boards.ign.com/sonic_the_hedgehog/b5224/123339129/p1/ UnDeRsCoRe 22:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. Please read reliable sources. Sonic News cannot be considered "independent" as it is part of the TSS network, the host of Summer of Sonic. IGN forum posts are also wholly unverifiable because anybody can post. ColourBurst 22:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, there is this. http://www.sonic-cult.org/newsx/fullnews.php?id=100 I don't know if it's reliable... http://sonichq.mobiusforum.net/newsite/ it has a small thing saying to visit it. I still can't find websites that are classified as "reliable" such as IGN or Gamespot, or even SEGA etc. UnDeRsCoRe 23:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

This is pretty recent; shouldn't we give someone out there time to write something on it? Anyway, Jun Senoue, an muscian who works at Sonic Team, has something about it on his site. Besides, Sega recognizes it as a significant event and gave permission for Sonic Stadium to use the "15th anniversary logo" (which is usually only granted to sites like IGN). Also, interviews with Sonic Team staff were placed on SoS rather than their usual place at Sonic Channel. This is a big event, much more than Hedgehog Heaven. (I think you should know that "no evidence of notability, therefore not notable" is denying the antecedent and an irrelevant conclusion. Know the logic behind your own policy, for goodness sakes.) -- DavidHOzAu 02:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. You don't wait for someone else to write about an item to justify its existence here. It needs sufficient outside source first. Wryspy 07:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep- It is clearly a notable event! It has, as stated above, been recognized by Sega (of Europe, to specify.) It was even handed prizes, such as signed copies of Sonic Advance, and Adventure 2! It is recognized as a large fan event. And official event if count Sega's participation in it. And besides, why would Masahiro Kumono, Shun Nakamura, Richard Jacques, and Jun Senoue allow an interview with them if they do not recognize this event. UnDeRsCoRe 20:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply


August 20

I don't know what happened here. The article didn't have an AFD tag on it, this AfD was never closed. I'm recreating the AfD and relisting. This site is non-notable, as proven by the enormous list of nn handles of forum contributors. User:Zoe| (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Not notable, possible forumcruft, and possible advertising. Alexa Count is 827,456. -- real _ decimic 04:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Wryspy 07:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang ( chat/ patch) 12:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, not notable. Listing forum contributors doesn't really inspire confidence. RandyWang ( chat/ patch) 12:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete- per nom.-- Peephole 13:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Any reason for the 2 same AFD notices on the page? -- real _ decimic 20:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep- It is clearly a notable event! It has, as stated above, been recognized by Sega (of Europe, to specify.) It was even handed prizes, such as signed copies of Sonic Advance, and Adventure 2! It is recognized as a large fan event. And official event if count Sega's participation in it. And besides, why would Masahiro Kumono, Shun Nakamura, Richard Jacques, and Jun Senoue allow an interview with them if they do not recognize this event. UnDeRsCoRe 20:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no reliable sources. If it's deleted, be sure to remove the redlink from Template:SonicFeatures so as to discourage recreation by a well-meaning third party. - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 12:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment- Just because it does not have an official source dosen't mean it isn't an event. That would be like saying that a tv show dosen't exist just because no website has talked about it. UnDeRsCoRe 16:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
If it doesn't have any official sources and none can be found, it doesn't meet WP:V. If it doesn't meet WP:V, we can't/won't/shouldn't keep it. - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 19:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete If the world at large (read Newsbank and Lexis-Nexis) don't care then we shouldn't either. ~ trialsanderrors 01:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Wing Chun Teahouse

Fails WP:WEB, only 50 ghits (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 22:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, no reliable sources indicating that this site meets WP:WEB, Alexa of 3,308,870. -- Kinu t/ c 22:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, does not pass any bar as per both comments above -- Deville ( Talk) 23:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, meets WP:WEB, The content is distributed via sites that are both well known and independent of the creators through an online publisher and an online broadcaster. The article itself needs work, however it looks to be a starting point from which to build. It provides proof that its subject meets Wikipedia criteria via an "External link" section. -- yipman 23:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
How, specifically, is the content "distributed via sites that are both well known and independent of the creators through an online publisher and an online broadcaster"? (If there is no reply, count this as a delete per failing to prove compliance with WP:WEB.) Sandstein 05:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 09:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Stephen Celuch

A Google search returns only 7 or so relevant hits. Not notable. rhmoore 22:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, nn as per nom. I seem to get maybe more than 7 hits after you subtract mirrors, but some of those are not relevant, and none of them are links to any art references, online magazines, whatever. Seems that the only web presence is the artists' page of a particular gallery, and Celuch's own site. Maybe one day, but not now. -- Deville ( Talk) 23:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, nn as per nom. The fellow is an art student. "Stephen John Celuch" scores 2 Ghits, "Stephen Celuch" 25 Ghits. I have dug some more, and found as follows:
he claims to have won 4 prizes, but there is little information on 2 of them
  1. Wardine V. Frazier Memorial Award (3Ghits). It genuinely seems he has won this prize from the National Arts Club, but it is reserved for students. The award is for $100.
  2. Valerie Delacorte Scholarship (10Ghits). Prize from National Academy of design.
  3. ASL Merit scholarship (1Ghit) not relevant
  4. NAD First prize (0Ghits)
I would suspect that these are student prizes or awards, which in all likelihood would not qualify him under WP:BIO. He appears to have exhibited. The one trace I could find was Art Red spot, a gallery near Westport, CT. Conclusion: not notable yet. Ohconfucius 04:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 09:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Jose V. SuarezHoyos and Tampa Pathology Laboratory

Non-notable lab run by non-notable physician. "Pathologist of the Year by the Florida Society for Histotechnology" = non-notable award by another non-notable organization. Advertisement/Self-promotion. Both articles were created by User:Suarezisaza. AED 22:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was DELETE. - Doc 11:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

FHM lists

FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 1995 was nominated for deletion on 2005-08-01. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 1995.
All of these lists were bulk nominated for deletion on 2006-04-19. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 1995 (2nd).

These are copyrighted lists by a single publisher, and there's a growing consensus on Wikipedia that it is a copyright violation for us to replicate as bare content (forgive the pun). If deleted, they can be linked from the FHM article without violation. -- nae' blis 22:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Addendum: Here's some prior discussions of deleted copyrighted lists: Top_100_U.S._thoroughbred_champions_of_the_20th_Century, 100 best movies of the cinema of Mexico, The 100 Greatest Marvels of All Time, Guitar World's 100 greatest guitar solos, Bravo's 100 Funniest Movies, and before that several lists from Blender magazine. There is an archive of some discussion on the copyright/legality of the FHM lists, which deadlocked at Village Pump and Copyright problems in April and May, here. -- nae' blis 00:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Pages in category "FHM lists"
  • Delete every last one. BoojiBoy 23:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is cruft of little worth, but I wouldn't vote delete for that reason, based on stare decisis of the previous discussions. But its copyvio and so must go. Herostratus 00:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete the 95 one as it is a copyvio, it's editorial opinion rather then a reader poll. Weak Keep the rest, the results have been refrenced and mentioned in many other media, a bit crufty I must admit so only a weak keep from me. -- E ivind t @ c 00:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per nom. Also someone will have to delete the list in the 'sexy women's' article. -- Ageo020 01:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all as unencyclopedic and wikipedia is not a primary source. -- Koffieyahoo 02:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Has it been a month already? Well, at least this time we're having an actual vote. As always, keep. To answer the specific issues, this is not copyrightable information - a magazine cannot copyright the results of a poll even if it conducted the poll. This list is no more copyrightable than a list of Academy Award winners. The list is not compiled by editorial opinion, it's a poll of the readers' votes. This information is encyclopediac - if you think otherwise, give me an definition of what you think "unencyclopedic" means and I'll show you a hundred other articles that meet it. And if your sexual issues are so extreme that you consider a list of women's names offensive, I recommend you see a therapist. Sorry if my response seems flippant, but all of these issues have already been repeatedly raised and discussed. Based on history, the next stage will be somebody's decision that these articles are so wrong that they need to be speedily deleted by unilateral fiat. MK2 03:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment easy now. It is unencyclopedic as it essentially a copy of a primary source and and encyclopedia is by definition not a primary source. You can change it into a secondary or tertiary source by adding additional information on the persons in the list. However, the subject of each of the lists makes it impossible to add such information, as it was not published in FHM or a definite copyright violation. -- Koffieyahoo 05:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • It can also be changed by including discussion of the lists in the articles. In the previous AFD discussion, several sources for such discussion were given. Your argument appears to be that this is encyclopaedic if there is scope to expand it beyond the simple list data. Per the citations in the previous AFD discussion, that appears to be the case. Uncle G 13:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Yes. However, looking at the provided citations, I'm not seeing those go beyond: "This is the new top ten" and "these people aren't" in the list anymore. The first is void, as it is covered by the lists themselves. The second can only applies to very few of the people in the list, which would make for very flimsy, never beyond quite stubby, articles, which makes it sound much more attractive to add that info to the articles of the respective people. -- Koffieyahoo 02:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Thinking about this a bit more: what about ditching these articles in favour of one article for each of the editions of FHM presenting such a list? Filling these articles with a sourced discussion of the lists, criticism, changes, etc? -- Koffieyahoo 03:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all Articles of these lists as long as they remain simple lists. The lists, in there current unannotanted states, provide no annotation, added value, or description of the bacground or impact of these "Sexiest Women" lists. I must further note that I make decision as to {{ FHM Sexiest Women}} or Category:FHM_lists because those are outside the jurisdiction of Articles for Deletion, and must be handles by TfD and CfD respectively.-- danntm T C 03:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Scope for expanding these lists, such as the reaction to Britney Spears disappearing from the list, was given in the prior AFD discussion. From what you write, you want the articles to be expanded beyond mere lists. So expand them! Deletion is not the way to do that. AFD is not cleanup. Nor is it Wikipedia:Requests for expansion. AFD in fact prevents the very expansion that you want to happen. Uncle G 13:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • My concern is that any article should be more in the vein of the articles about the Rolling Stone magazine lists, as noted by nae' blis below, instead of simple regurgitations of the lists. I, personally. do not care to rework these lists because they are not my area of interest, but if another editor is willing to fix the articles, more power to them. I would certainly support an article on the FHM list along the lines of the Rolling Stone lists.-- danntm T C 16:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all for the valid reasons explained above. Eusebeus 04:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per WP:NPS. If the primary source material is removed, there's nothing left. This is inappropriate content, and no amount of editing will resolve that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Please note that The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, The 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time and The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time (famous and long-standing list/articles from Rolling Stone magazine) have now removed the lists themselves and gone to a commentary-based model. -- nae' blis 15:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Personally, I say these articles are a good example of why the FHM lists should remain as they are. Wikipedia is supposed to be a useful reference site. So if somebody is looking for information about the FHM sexiest women polls, what are they going to be looking for? The list of names and the rank they were in. Wikipedia has that information and the reader will get the information he or she wants. Now suppose somebody is looking for information about the Rolling Stones list of greatest songs. Does anybody think they want to read a commentary about the list? Of course not. They're going to see the wikipedia article on this subject is useless and go look somewhere else for real information. We have to remember that this site was not built for those of us who are contributors; it was built for users and our job is to provide information people will be looking for in an accessible manner. MK2 02:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • We are a useful reference site; that doesn't mean we're supposed to a) copy the Internet/sum of all human knowledge, or b) infringe on anyone else's copyright. Even if we do/did get permission to replicate FHM's lists, they just become vandal magnets for people wanting to switch the list, and without images or annotation, there's no value added over having the list linked. I'm all for mentioning notable placements on these lists in the articles for these women, as it's easier to keep an eye on there. -- nae' blis 15:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all as primary sources, copyvios, listcruft, etc. Stifle ( talk) 23:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete all as copyvios. For full disclosure: I nominated a bunch (maybe all) of these on the April 2006 go-round. Carlossuarez46 07:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Sorry, copyvio as above, gotta go. — MrDolomite | Talk 16:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • What's annoying is that several people are claiming they're voting to delete because this is a copyright violation. So let me repeat - this is not a copyright violation, you cannot copyright a compilation of facts. This is a list of women's names ranked in the numerical order that they received votes in a survey - it is a factual list and cannot be copyrighted by FHM or any other entity. It would be like the Motion Picture Academy claiming that they had a copyright on the fact that Crash won the Best Picture Award in 2005 - once they release that information it's public knowledge. FHM can copyright the text they wrote with their published articles and can copyright the choice of pictures they used as these are editorial content that was added to the factual listing. But none of this editorial content was included in the Wikipedia articles. (I will concede that the 1995 list was created by editorial decision and not as a result of a survey; therefore it may be copyrighted.) MK2 06:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Remember: this is not so much a vote as a discussion. The closing administrator isn't supposed to just count votes, he/she is supposed to read the suggestions and make a decision based on those suggestions. -- Koffieyahoo 07:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • I have no problem with the principle of consensus decision - I just feel that it should be bound with the limits of the facts. If people were voting to eliminate the article on Millard Fillmore because he was a relatively unimportant President, I'd argue against that decision but I would accept it if that was the way the consensus went. But if people were saying they were voting to eliminate Fillmore's article because he was a fictional character, I don't care what the consensus is, those people are simply wrong. If you start ignoring the facts and treating your opinions as if they were reality, you'll just end up invading Iraq. MK2 16:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Tyrenius 01:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply

V S Kudva

Company president. Not certain that he is verifiably important. As is, fails WP:V. The only reference states: "Information and image provided by the estate of the Late V. S. Kudva." AED 22:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. I added two references which confirm some of the details in the article. I wish I had access to a copy of Who's who in India or a similar title to confirm the rest of the details. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 13:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - One of the founder directors of Syndicate Bank, a reputed bank in India. Doctor Bruno 09:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Reference exists in another wiki article National Institute of Technology Karnataka, where U Srinivas Mallya and V.S.Kudva are credited.-- PremKudva Talk 09:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep- While I am unable to provide weblinks to the other details I have provided a reference to the official Syndicate Bank site that mentions Vaman Kudva as one of the founders of that bank. The Syndicate Bank wiki entry too credits Kudva as one of its founders. Unfortunately this part of the country not much information on the cities founder fathers are stored online.-- PremKudva Talk 04:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD attack criteria. -- light darkness ( talk) 22:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Snownigger

Wikipedia is not an urban dictionary; prod tag was removed without comment. Source cited in article does not mention this term. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep all - AfD does not govern merges and it is up to those supporting a merge to actually carry it out. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply

10th Kingdom character articles

Each of these articles about characters from a television movie is written almost completely from an in-universe perspective with no citations. Each has one or more sections devoted to trivia, "facts", speculation, and extraordinarily banal quotes. Attempts to remove such sections are reverted by the articles' author. One of the articles is a duplicate. These articles should all be deleted and merged into the main article, The 10th Kingdom, which could use some work itself. Chris Griswold 22:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Neutral. These aren't high-quality articles, but I know for a fact that 10th Kingdom has a fanbase. I'm not sure how big it is, though. In any sense, "merge and delete" is not a valid vote because it doesn't comply with the GNU Free Documentation License. Though AFD is unnecessary if the goal is just to merge the articles, I support keeping the AFD live to develop consensus on 10th Kingdom's notability and the suitability of keeping the individual articles, because a consensus to delete could very well emerge. szyslak ( t, c, e) 00:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Stubify, merge and redirect per Vary and MacGyverMagic. szyslak ( t, c, e) 09:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all There needs to be a compelling reason to extend daughter articles for material that is, in and of itself, rather obscure. Review of these articles does not provide that kind of substantiation, making this essentially fancruft. Eusebeus 04:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (See addendum below) Too long to merge into one article (except the duplicates for Virginia, of course). Add {{ unsourced}} and cleanup templates as necessary, and try to establish communication with the chronic reverter on talk pages to discuss removing trivialities, but use Wikipedia:Resolving disputes if said reverter refuses to cooporate. Deletion at this point in time would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If they're ultimately pruned enough to be merged without excessive length, go ahead. Otherwise, no big deal. Plenty of major characters in fictional stories have their own articles. -- Icarus ( Hi!) 04:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Addendum: Keep or merge. They're long enough that I'd prefer for them to be cleaned up and then re-evaluated to see if they've become short enough for a merge, but I'd rather see them shortened and merged (prematurely, in my opinion) per Vary than than deleted altogether. -- Icarus ( Hi!) 16:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all Shorten, merge and redirect. I loved "The 10th Kingdom". I actually applauded at the end of the final installment. The performances were superb. But Wikipedia has no articles on Natasha Rostova, Andrey Bolkonsky and Pierre Bezukhov. No way should there be individual articles on the characters from "The 10th Kingdom". Gildir 23:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I'm not familiar with War and Peace, but if those are main characters then they certainly could have articles here. Plenty of main characters from classic works have their own aricles (e.g. Winston Smith, John the Savage), so why not them? More applicable to the 10th Kingdom, many contemporary characters have articles too. I don't see why certain characters not having articles (yet, at least) means that other characters shouldn't, either. -- Icarus ( Hi!) 19:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Vary | Talk 16:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Relisting: two deletes, one neutral, one keep, one merge (the nominator). -- Vary | Talk 16:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge intros only Stubify and merge into 10th Kingdom characters, and Redirect; merge and delete violates GFDL. The 'Official Bios' which take up most of the pages are copyvio from the official web site for the series, which now appears to be offline. Character info from The 10th Kingdom should be merged there, too - that'll go a long way towards cleaning up that page. -- Vary | Talk 16:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Do you know where there's an archived version of the official website so we can know exactly which parts have to be removed/re-written? -- Icarus ( Hi!) 19:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Calling it a "TV movie" is a bit of a stretch, as it's like 12 hours long or something (I have the DVD and it takes up 3 discs). It's at least a miniseries or a "limited series". I'd say the character articles are reasonable, as they're too big to be merged. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge - Only basic character info, no "trivia". The fact that these articles are long is just bceause they're filled with a re-hash of the plot and worthless trivia about the characters. Wickethewok 19:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Stubify and merge, and redirect per Vary. For characters that have only been in one work of fiction there does not need to be an entire article dedicated to them unless there are substantial claims to their importance. These articles do not have that. -- Mitaphane talk 01:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Wikipedia is not a paper dictionary, and can easily accomodate having these entries. Having specific character entries for a story can often help aid the reader in understanding the story better. The Virginia Lewis page should be redirected to the Virginia Lewis (10th Kingdom) page, and the Huntsman (The 10th Kingdom) should be restored (somebody deleted most of the content from it), though. - Todd 03:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment the content removed from Huntsman (The 10th Kingdom) was copyvio, taken from NBC's official site. -- Vary | Talk 03:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Well, then I think we should keep these articles iff the author can write versions that don't violate copyrights. Is there any way to vote accordingly?
  • Delete all. First of all, we don't know what is and what is not copyvio. Second of all, re-writing all these articles into short paragraphs for a merge takes time. It just ain't worth it. Neither is working with the ostreperous editor through dispute resolution etc, which a couple of commenters have suggested but not volunteered to do. Finally, IT IS CRUFT. Smashy. Herostratus 03:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Slaps Herostratus with a wet fish. Not everything fictional is cruft you know. Besides, most cruft can be dealt with by excising extranuous info. - Mgm| (talk) 09:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • No, but this is cruft. This is not a great work of literature we are talking about, here. It's a TV miniseries that will presumably be utterly forgotten in five years or less, except by people fishing the bottom of the $0.99 bargain bin. Herostratus 16:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Shorten, merge and redirect into a List of 10th Kingdom characters per WP:FICT. While they may not warrant separate entries, there's no reason to delete them instead of merging them into a collective article. - Mgm| (talk) 09:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I haven't changed my mind, and I'm not really keen on being asked to change my vote. -- Chris Griswold 09:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. - Doc 11:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Mike Caracciolo

Sad, I like this guy, but not notable enough Nick Catalano contrib talk 22:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Strong keep Also nom withdrawn. Tyrenius 01:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Martha Hill

Nicely recently wikified article, but no nobility is asserted. Being a teacher is important, but just a teacher is not-notable enough to have their own article. - Royalguard11 Talk My Desk 23:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, after seeing the latest rw, I see that she is quite notable. I will then withdraw my nomination, and bring this to a speedy close. - Royalguard11 Talk My Desk 18:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I don't know about no notability asserted. She actually seems reasonably notable to me. She started this Benington dance school (essentially Benington's dance department at the time) and then brought it with her to Connecticut College. Then she started Juliard's dance program and merged modern and ballet. These all seem like impressive enough accomplishments to me to keep the article. It'd be nice if the doctoral dissertation were properly referenced if it's kept.-- Kchase T 00:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. She wasn't "just a teacher". She taught at a pretty advanced level. She influenced a lot of dancers. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 00:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - first director of dance at Julliard? Sorry Royalguard, she is clearly notable. However, I'll grant you this article does look malformed somehow... I'll try and see if I can't improve it. -- Deville ( Talk) 01:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I have partially re-written it, putting her achievements into a more obvious light, and asserting her notability. From the information therein, it seems that she has been very influential in her role, and her achievemnts have a lasting impact. Keep per Deville. Ohconfucius 02:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    looking a lot better now -- Deville ( Talk) 03:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

CMS Lebanon

  • Delete--Obvious advertising, product is nothing special, not meant for Wikipedia. -- Palffy 23:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, no indication of meeting WP:CORP. A few things, Palffy: usually you don't say "per nom" if you're the nominator, as it means delete per the nominator's reasoning, which in this case is your own. Also, please have a look at these instructions about completing an AfD. You missed step one. I tried to finish it, but I can't get the page to link up for some reason. Could somebody help me with that?-- Kchase T 00:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no assertion of notability, this could probably be a speedy A7, but in any case clearly spam -- Deville ( Talk) 01:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Gentle Mouse

  • Delete --Obvious advertising, product is nothing special, not meant for Wikipedia. -- Palffy 23:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This Afd is a revolutionary new development in page removal technology. Not only does it enable the page to be deleted, it is ergonomic and user friendly to lepers, penguins and headless ferrets. Blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah.... -- Xrblsnggt 00:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, clearly spam -- Deville ( Talk) 01:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Like the sound of the product - original not notable, though, but advertising enough to vote against it. Ohconfucius 02:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - not notable. Reads as advertising. — ERcheck ( talk) 02:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Tyrenius 01:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Grant Lawrence

This person is non-notable. We have deleted articles about many radio personalities, radio shows, etc. that were more notable. The Wikipedia is not a directory. Ich ( talk) 23:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete radio personalities aren't generally notable.-- Kchase T 00:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I'll have to defer to our truthbringing Canadian friend and go neutral. I'm not too familiar with Canadian radio.-- Kchase T 18:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. He is a significant Canadian radio personality, heard across Canada, not just in a local market. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 00:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I have to agree with Truthbringer here. Not only does this Gsearch return tons of relevant hits, the first link makes the scenario pretty clear: if you've got a page on CBC.ca, I have to say you're more than notable. -- Deville ( Talk) 01:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment we still have deleted articles on regional broadcasters, cbc page or not. See: what Wikipedia is not. Ich ( talk) 01:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I think you're misreading that section of WP:NOT. That someone happens to be contained in such a directory doesn't mean they can't be individually notable.-- Kchase T 01:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete He's an obscure radio presenter. Eusebeus 04:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Cricketweb

Seems like a NN vanity website (creator was Cricketweb. Garners only 50 distinct google hits, most of which are irrelevant or from the website itself. Ardent † ∈ 23:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Keep no consensus. It should be noted that reservations were expressed about the current state of this article which needs a clean up. Tyrenius 00:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Ygnition

Cable/brOadband Company, no indication of meeting WP:CORP. Article is full of OR and written more as a consumer advisory than an encyclopedia article. -- Celithemis 23:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete fails CORP.-- Kchase T 00:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. 150,000 apartment units across nine states sounds like a lot of customers and hence a lot of money. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 00:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • How much money a company makes is irrelevant to whether it warrants an encyclopaedia article. Editors below have used WP:CORP. You will notice that they are discussing sources of information, not corporate income. Uncle G 12:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, NPOV cleanup This is the only news item I found related to the company, but it does satisfy a WP:CORP criteria. I noticed this article when it was initially created, as it read like a soapbox rant against the company. I've asked the creator to try to tone it down and follow rules of verifiability, but I see that the current version is only slightly improved. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I noticed that too, but CORP requires multiple works. In any case, unless there's more, I don't think that is enough to do an NPOV article.-- Kchase T 01:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I'm learning my way around wikipedia and revising and filling in.. I can see problems.. google ygnition and all you get are their ads, reports of their finacial mergers and movements or complaints. Complaints start at @11th entry Dragongrey 04:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and clean up. The best way to avoid POV may be to prune it down to a stub since most of the references to Ygnition on the web are either advertising-speak or complaints from extremely bitter customers. Thatdog 04:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC) (Disclosure: I'm an extremely bitter ex-customer!) reply
  • Delete fails WP:CORP. Eusebeus 04:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Co-branded partner with Vonage, which is certainly listed on NYSE. Forbes reviewed Vonage as "viable" [30] Dragongrey 06:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Being listed on the stock exchange is not a criterion for inclusion. And the existence of a Forbes article on a completely different company has no bearing upon this company. Uncle G 12:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. (nn-bio) — ERcheck ( talk) 02:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Prem

Not notable Gamesmaster G-9 23:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Lebanon/Temp

POV Content Fork. Promotes a fringe right-wing view of politics and demographics. Nimur 00:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

The goal of the original author is to re-write most of the Lebanon Article distinctly from the main article; this will subvert the standard WP editing process. The factual accuracy is highly disputed; citations are all from POV sources. This forked sub-page should be deleted in accordance with Wikipedia:NPOV; in general, it is bad policy to use a /TEMP sub-page to make major page changes to an article. Nimur 00:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

This is not merely a content-dispute. This is an attempt to use a sub-page to fork content. Such actions violate WP:POV_fork:
A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies.
For this reason, this /Temp sub-page should be deleted. Contributors to /Temp should not attempt a total re-write, but should instead use the standard editing procedures. Furthermore, WP:POV_fork#Temporary_subpages states:
New drafts should be written in the "user:" or "talk:" namespace and not in the main namespace.
Please accept these as valid WP:DP citations. This is not an "abuse of AfD." Thank you, Nimur 14:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Thanks for referencing valid policy reasons. In view of the above arguments, delete and userfy (no userfy needed as talk copy made). Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply


I am also a bit confused about the organization here. It seems that the creators of the /Temp pages duplicated the article twice - once as a sub-page, and once as a sub-page of the Talk namespace. Both of these appear to be content-forks:

Please consider this AfD as a nomination for the deletion of both, since they are equivalent. Nimur 14:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I see now that the Talk: page is an attempt to "talkify" the page, as per the policy. User:Francis_Schonken copied to the Talk space in anticipation of a deletion. Sorry for my earlier confusion. Nimur 15:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I created the page earlier. I never attended to make it a POV fork. I just wanted to make a working ground for editors to completly rewrite an awful article. If it is against policies, I'll just move the work to my user page. CG 10:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as copied to Talk: space. JPD ( talk) 11:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_14&oldid=1116878506"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 13 August 15 >

Purge server cache























































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

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

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

Paghman Saadat

Paghman Saadat (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

POV forking: appears to have been written to promote the Idries Shah school of sufism, while avoiding the status dispute on the page about him. User:Jedermann 15:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls• strikes 00:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as nonsense vanity. — Centrx→ talk • 15:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Jim Samuel

Hoax (among other things, note date of birth), no Google hits Dsreyn 14:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Not Allowed

This page is "Wikipedia" Garbage data. Our company has contacted Wiki representatives in Florida and this reference has been sited as simple harassment. There is no reason for this reference and should NOT be considered reliable information.

  • Delete either its self-authored and violates WP:VANITY or its not and is copyvio from [Not Allowedl]. In either case its spam. Dlyons493 Talk 11:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, selfvertising. NawlinWiki 14:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

the authour of the article had INVITED "graham" to show examples of BETTER articles _ but "graham" has chosen to make this a personal issue? we have NO idea what his agenda is. "graham" has REFUSED to send any EXAMPLES of the "the perfect article" for a BIO on this site. Can someone else show us a CONSTRUCTIVE, credible example? Go read Bill Bernbachs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Bernbach) article or Jay Chiat's... (on this site) Are those VANITY? OR are they BIOS of successful people - you've NEVER heard of or have no interest in hearing of? there are THOUSANDS that DO have interest in this information. ( User:Not Allowed 00:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)) reply

Have a look at Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_great_article and Wikipedia:Featured_articles Dlyons493 Talk 00:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply

now THATS a sound, straight forward reference comment. (it) no presumptions, no personal bias (apparently) .. and no bizarre jealousy. Merci, Dlyons493! we'll check it out. ( User:Not Allowed 01:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)) Please do not accuse the nominator or any other users of having an "agenda", "personal bias" or "bizarre jealousy". reply

  • Delete as a violation of WP:BIO and WP:VANITY, as well as fairly obvious advertising. Srose (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Inappropriate tone; written like an advertisement rather than an encyclopedia article. WP:VANITY is not grounds for deletion, but it sure as heck doesn't help either. Kickaha Ota 17:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I get only 79 google hits on his name, and most of them are things like letters and reviews that he has posted. There is a mention of him in the ad industry mag "'boards", but it is a one sentence "Not Allowed." sort of thing. Brianyoumans 18:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

















































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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by User:ClockworkSoul per G4. -- Arnzy (whats up?) 03:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Rules of Make Believe

This is the second time this article has been nominated for deletion. It was originally deleted here, and was then protected from recreation due to repeated recreations, including changing the guidlines then claiming that it fit. But it's back. Previously, the website, seen here had an Alexa rank of 2.5 million, it is now off the radar with no rank and 90 Google hits. Its sole claim of notability is that it was once mentioned in a "Tech News" (CNET?) article in 2002. This is meaningless, it's like being mentioned in a local paper, and I doubt that the story was centred on this webcomic. (note that the reviews linked are not from professional sources, but in fact reader reviews) This is less notable than the Philip Sandifer incident and no way near as popular as Encyclopedia Dramatica. We should be applying the same standards to webcomics as we do to usual websites. - Hahnch e n 00:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by ClockworkSoul. — NM Chico 24 03:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

San Renard

This is the 3rd nomination for this article. It has been deleted twice before at here and here. If this discussion concludes as a delete, I strongly suggest it be protected from recreation. It might not be vanity, but somehow, I think the way this article professes the subject's deep love of his girlfriend in spite of the great difficulties due to distance, hint at it. Also it mentions of the authors' lack of "passion for fame and attention". Let's help this non-notable internet noncelebrity (just read the article and see what important notable things he's done) achieve this by deleting this article. - Hahnch e n 00:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. (speedy if it is a repost) Yomangani talk 00:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy G4 if it is indeed similar to either of the originally deleted articles. Delete otherwise as failing WP:BIO. -- Kinu t/ c 00:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete — per Kinu. SynergeticMaggot 00:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy per above. Sorry Guy 01:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete -- Whpq 01:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete tagged as such — NM Chico 24 01:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete. Dinosaur puppy 02:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy G4 and protect for bad penny. clearly contravenes WP:VAIN Ohconfucius 03:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete and protect per above. -- Arnzy (whats up?) 03:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango 123 23:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Scroll Dynasty

Another webcomic on the Comic Genesis free web host, found here. "Scroll Dynasty" manages to attract 30 Google hits and is not mentioned in Comic Genesis' Alexa Report. (even if it were, it probably wouldn't be notable, verifiable or popular anyway). There's nothing between this an a myspace personal. - Hahnch e n 00:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Stage Select: When Masters Attack

Mega man fan fiction webcomic, found here. A search for "Stage Select" "When Masters Attack" generates 50 Google hits, none from which could be classified as a good source and an Alexa rank of 1 million. This is not a website worth noting in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a web directory for the same reasons its not a phone book. - Hahnch e n 00:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Swashbuckle

On my universtiy student paper, runs 2 comics. They're not notable, were the comics on your college paper notable? I doubt it. They're not going to become any more notable if they're put onto Angelfire and branded a webcomic, are they? Heck, is anything on Angelfire notable? - Hahnch e n 00:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

AltNuMet

The following page has been existence since December 2005, and the top of the page notes "This is a temporary page to host a rough draft of the merger of articles Alternative Metal and Nu Metal". However, in almost a year nothing has been merged, and seems to be nothing more than a waste of space. Some would also dispute that nu metal and alternative metal are two seperate genres, and a merger wouldn't be justified. Dmiles21 00:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Smerge and delete — Thats if the merge hasnt already been done. SynergeticMaggot 01:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Articles for alt metal and nu metal should be separate. If there's anything new here that should be merged to the separate articles, that should be done. But there's no reason to have a single article about two different genres. — NM Chico 24 02:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — mboverload @ 04:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete If the merge doesn't work, should delete this article anyways. Daniel's page ☎ 06:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete — Looks like it's gotten forgotten. ShaunES 07:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, I agree. — Khoikhoi 07:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I agree too, and "rough drafts" should be in user sandboxes or on talk pages, not on the article namespace. Martinp23 10:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • What's a draft doing in the main namespace? I also object to the article title, but that's a different story. Are alternative metal and nu metal really interchangeable terms? Well, delete if the merge is complete, I guess. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 13:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Abandoned effort. StuffOfInterest 13:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This page is abandoned. -- Neo139 22:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Rp Land

Non-notable web forums, prod removed. Unfortunately, we don't have a CSD for nn-websites, so it can't be speedied. -- Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

wat does that mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sithlord4 ( talk • contribs)

Sorry, a lot of jargon in there. Basically, the subject of the article isn't well-known enough to be included in Wikipedia (see WP:WEB for inclusion criteria for websites), and it's not able to be speedily deleted, so we have to go through this process. -- Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete admits its non-notable in the first sentence.-- Crossmr 00:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete typical forum vanity, even includes a member list (!!!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — per nom and above. SynergeticMaggot 00:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete... hosted on Invision boards, enough said. Fails WP:WEB. Even includes the obligatory 1337 p05t3rz list. Barely coherent article. -- Kinu t/ c 01:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - self-admitted as not passing WP:WEB -- Whpq 01:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Does {{db-group}} apply to internet forums? -- Wafulz 01:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete I found that the Sithlord4 who asked about jargon in there was the creator of this article and an admin on RP Land. This now is also a vanity article that also has WP:WEB issues. This was prodded, but the aforementioned Sithlord deprodded it, leading to this AfD. His contributions are all related to Rp Land, except for the Mystic Ruins edit. He also once blanked a page (see his talk), but his contribs don't say so. TrackerTV ( CW| Castform| Green Valley) 01:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment - as the user who caught the blanking, I can assure you that his contribs do say so. It's his second edit to this very page, in fact. There's probably a better template to have used than the vanilla "don't blank pages" boilerplate, but that was the only one I could find at the time. BigHaz 07:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Nom withdrew. SynergeticMaggot 06:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Politics of Wallonia

Article should be merged back into Wallonia. Article starts with a self-reference. TrackerTV ( CW| Castform| Green Valley) 00:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Withdraw nom Article has now been heavily expanded. I think this article is much better than the one that existed when the article was nominated for deletion. TrackerTV ( CW| Castform| Green Valley) 14:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Back-merge anything that meets inclusion standards into the Wallonia article. While informative articles about politics by country are acceptable, information about the political structures of individual states, provinces, districts, etc. is best served by adding to their respective articles. -- Kinu t/ c 01:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • No vote: The article now looks significantly better, and is in the spirit of the other sub-country politics articles mentioned below, in that a better distinction is made as to the politics of Wallonia both within and distinct from the country itself. -- Kinu t/ c 18:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge back to main article anything that needs merging. -- Whpq 01:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge anything useful per above. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Somebody could merge this into Wallonia by Meets and inclusion. Daniel's page ☎ 06:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per above. Martinp23 10:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, no need to compress articles. There's a lot that can be said about this topic. The idea to merge this is strongly biased, confer Politics of Abkhazia, Politics of British Columbia, Politics of Assam, Politics of Toowoomba, Queensland and so forth. Any state that has a separate (which is in this case very separate) government, with its own parliament and secretaries, deserves its own Politics article. I agree that this may not be obvious if you don't know the topic, so here's my telling you. The article just needs decent cleanup and considerable expansion. -- Thunderhead 13:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • KeepStrong Keep. Granted this article has much room for expansion and wikification, but that is no grounds for deletion or merging. The politics of Wallonia differ greatly from the politics of Belgium's other half, Flanders, as exemplified in this article in The Economist. Ardent † ∈ 13:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge back into Wallonia, if there's enough for an article after that, recreate it. Carmen Chamelion 15:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per all of above. -- CPAScott 15:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There is strong precedent for this sort of article, I removed the self-referential opening, the article just needs clean-up and expansion. ONUnicorn 19:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as now expanded (and will be expanded further); note that the article was considerably revised since the above opinions were posted so that merge may no longer be a valid option. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, vastly improved. -- Dhartung | Talk 20:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge and redirect into Central African Republic. Baseball,Baby! balls• strikes 00:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Civil unrest in the Central African Republic

Article should be merged back into Central African Republic. Article is very small, linkless, found through Random Article. TrackerTV ( CW| Castform| Green Valley) 00:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Merge and redirect — To a desirable location. SynergeticMaggot 01:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Macktheknifeau 05:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and Redirect Merge and redirect into desirable location. (Per SynergeticMaggot). Daniel's page ☎ 06:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge back though there is the potential for a similarly-titled article to exist, just this isn't it. MLA 09:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect or expand hugely. Martinp23 10:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Agree with Martinp23 — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 13:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Smerge if not expanded. Looks like an article created solely for Portal:Current events posting. -- Dhartung | Talk 20:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply


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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Communications in Kazakhstan

WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. TrackerTV ( CW| Castform| Green Valley) 00:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Neutral. To call these facts indiscriminate seems like nationalistic bias not allowed by WP:NPOV. The information should remain on Wikipedia on one page or another, maybe in the Kazakhstan page, maybe on this page. But it is not indiscriminate. SliceNYC 00:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - there's an entire category Category:Communications by country for these article. -- Whpq 01:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect — To Kazakhstan. SynergeticMaggot 01:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, part of a series. Gazpacho 02:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Gazpacho. Dinosaur puppy 03:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. Wryspy 04:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Someone could merge this into Kazakhstan. Daniel's page ☎ 06:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Kazakhstan. By itself, a "communications" article is a fine subject for an article, and an individual article is great if we can get plenty of content on it, but this article amounts to a table of information. While encyclopedic, such an item is more useful in the context of a main article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Kazakhstan. NCurse work 08:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I have taken it out again as lists of facts look ugly in main articles. Piccadilly 10:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment this information isn't quite indiscriminate, it's almost certainly a copy and paste from the CIA World Factbook as IIRC it mirrors exactly the format used there. MLA 09:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Very strong keep, improve and do not merge. Every country has such an article. They were all created by a bot and many have been vastly improved since they were started. That this one hasn't been improved yet is merely a manifestation of systemic bias, but we should keep waiting. Calling this indiscriminate is utter nonsense. Piccadilly 10:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and rewrite as noted by MLA, this information is a direct copy-paste job from the CIA world factbook in 2001, and as such the information, as well as being copied verbatim, is hugely out of date (3 years is quite a long time in communications infrastructure life). It needs updating, rewriting and merging. 81.159.65.145 10:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Martinp23 10:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) no signed in reply
  • Keep ...because of the "by country" category reference. I'm more concerned about the utility of Category:Communications in Kazakhstan. StuffOfInterest 13:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep per Piccadilly. Each country has or ought to have such an article. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep because of its current terrible state. However, this is redeemable. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Hmmm On the one hand, this information would mean a lot more if it were on the same pages with other countries, for comparison's sake. On the other hand, merging all of the countries onto one page would make a huge, huge page that is difficult to navigate. Let's not kill off good information, but is there maybe a better way to display it? Jacqui ★ 21:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as part of a series. — dima / sb. tk/ 21:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as part of a series. Either way, it is not necessary to discuss merges in this forum. Yamaguchi先生 08:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Barbara and Jenna Bush

Unneeded, just like a Plusle and Minun page would be. The two subjects are strongly related, and one could take the time to go to Barbara Bush or Jenna Bush anyway. TrackerTV ( CW| Castform| Green Valley) 00:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. SliceNYC 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — Waste of space. No need for redirect either. SynergeticMaggot 00:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - spurious article -- Whpq 01:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: since the contents of the two articles were once here before being spun off, does this page need to exist, if nothing else, for the history, per the GFDL? -- Kinu t/ c 01:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as redundant. -- Arnzy (whats up?) 03:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — Redundant mboverload @ 04:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as redundant. Nothing to merge, redirect would be fruitless. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No longer needed now that Barbara and Jenna each have their own articles. If the GFDL requires that the history be kept, turn it into a redirect to Bush family, but only if needed by GFDL. -- Metropolitan90 04:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete redundant. Daniel's page ☎ 06:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, redundant. -- RattleMan 06:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — Redundant. ShaunES 07:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as (you guessed it) redundant. — Khoikhoi 07:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above ( Neostinker 10:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)) reply
  • Delete redundant Martinp23 10:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, redundant – they have their own article, bless their little bootses! — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 13:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Very redundant. StuffOfInterest 13:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete certainly redundant. Consider redirect only if people think users will actually search for "Barbara and Jenna Bush" collectively instead of just "Barbara Bush" or "Jenna Bush" alone. My guess? Will never be typed into the search box, and thus no redirect necessary. -- CPAScott 15:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I doubt that it's going to be of any help. (Wondering why everyone is using the word redundant when you could just say unnecessary and still get the same meaning =]). -- Nishkid64 16:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Dev920 17:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep, did anyone saying delete actually READ the page? It's a disambiguation page pointing at the two seperate articles. Whoever first created articles on the "first twins" created ONE article, which was then (rightfully) split into one on each sister. As is unfortunately true of most twins, a great many people think of them collectively, and when looking for information on them would natrually do a collective search. Checking the "What links here" gives us 53 pages including (tellingly, if you ask me) Wikipedia:Top 10 Google hits, A-K and Wikipedia:Popular pages. To delete this disambiguation page would be a mistake, leaving stranded anyone looking for information about the Bush twins. At the VERY LEAST it should become a redirect pointing at SOMETHING where people can find what they are looking for. Otherwise it would be left open for the creation of redundant articles. (P.S. Redunant and unnecessary aren't exactly the same). ONUnicorn 20:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Bush family per ONUnicorn. This is a search term that will get a good bit of use. Jacqui ★ 21:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per ONUnicorn - -- Ageo020 00:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, should never have been created as one article in the first place. The edit history should be saved, so make it a redirect to Bush family, rather than either one of them. Bush twins is a redirect here, btw. -- Dhartung | Talk 20:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Richard 08:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy redirect to a Bush family page or something. Deletion is not an option by the GFDL. Ardric47 23:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This reminds me, I think it is high time we broke out the Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen article into seperate pages. They're not infants any more; they've each made significant achievements on their own, and are now on top of a multi-billion dollar empire thanks to their numerous product lines marketed by Wal-Mart. GW can only dream that his daughters will ever achieve such success. RFerreira 21:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Nterface

Advertising, nn software, article created by User:Nterfacejason. I PRODded, but Nterfacejason removed the PROD, so I bring it here. User:Zoe| (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete — vainity. SynergeticMaggot 00:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - the advertising for the company was slapped onto an existing article. I've removed the addition of the company spam. -- Whpq 01:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • There's nothing in the article which explains its notability. How many users does it have? Has it been cited in major publications? User:Zoe| (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Technology is no more notable than the company. User:Nterfacejason.
  • Delete per nom. Wryspy 04:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Vanity, and advertisement is strongly prohibited in Wikipedia by Wikipedia policies. Daniel's page ☎ 06:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not assertation of notability
  • Delete non-notable Dlyons493 Talk 11:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Doesn't stand as notable in itself. Probably warrants some additional explanation in the QuakeNet article. StuffOfInterest 13:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no reliable sources WilyD 13:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete impossible to verify and too small in scope. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 20:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 00:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Gay rights in Brazil

Delete or at least merge with something, this one-sentence vanity article adds nothing on its own. Complete self-serving trash. Courtney Akins 01:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep the article is a pretty poor stub at the moment, but should remain for expansion: there is plenty to be said on the subject, and Wiki has a series of "Gay Rights in [Country X]" which is intended to be comprehensive. It's certainly not "vanity" as it doesn't promote any non-notable person or organization. It's just skimpy in its present form. DanB DanD 02:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Ok, but fair enough, lets merge into Human rights in Brazil for now then split the article off on its own once its hit "critical mass." Courtney Akins 02:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • That's self-contradictory. Delete and merge is illegal under the GFDL. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Courtney, you're the nominator, we already know you want to delete it. DanB DanD 02:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Also, I have to say that the "complete self-serving trash" comment strikes me as a tad inappropriate. I would urge the nominator to strike that and reword it to sound a bit more in keeping with wikiquette. — NM Chico 24 03:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and merge Not sure what to merge into though. I guess the suggestion above makes sense. -- Wafulz 02:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep being focussed on laws and constitutions, the article is neither trash nor vanity(!). Just as valid as Gay rights in Canada or Same-sex marriage in California. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Human rights in Brazil. Once the information because extensive, then recreate the article. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and Expand The article is a stub, but there are tons of stubs on Wikipedia. The only reason to delete a stub is if there's no possibility to expand the article, or if the article's subject obviously doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. I think just about anyone would argue that this subject can definitely be expanded, and a quick search will turn up many related articles for other countries. As for belonging here, the subject of gay rights is unarguably a large and devisive issue for many countries. Brazil is one of the largest countries in the world, and the largest of its continent, so the issue of gay rights there is most certainly a notable issue. That being said, this article definitely needs a lot of work. — NM Chico 24 02:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per Zscout370. -- Corporal Punishment 03:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand, part of a series, one man's trash is another man's article waiting to be expanded. Please explain "self-serving". Courtney's characterizations are disturbing, in that not only is it more than one sentence, has nothing at all about it that can be called vanity, and is well-sourced. User:Zoe| (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per NMChico24 and Zoe. This stub has clear possibility for expansion and is actually very well sourced in its own right right now. Merging it as a wait-and-see isn't the best way to approach this, as it involves shuffling content over and then shuffling it back when the (inevitable) expansion occurs, while removing valid categorisation in the meantime. Ziggurat 03:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand per above. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The subject is article-worthy. It simply needs to be expanded by a knowledgable editor. Rohirok 04:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand. Merging this article to Human rights in Brazil would not eliminate any repetition or make Wikipedia easier to navigate. It would only mess up existing organization by removing the useful "Gay Rights in South America" navigation bar and taking the article out of the "Gay Rights by Country" category. -- Celithemis 04:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this stub per nom. Wryspy 04:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, all countries should have an article like this. Everyking 07:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand, I agree, this is an encyclopedia-worthy topic, and other countries probably need specific articles of this nature. -- The Anome 12:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand. Gay rights is different from human rights and this is a valid encyclopedia topic. -- Ter e nce Ong ( Chat | Contribs) 12:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Valid stub which is part of a series. StuffOfInterest 13:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - stub is not a valid criterion for deletion, page is linked to by several other pages, has great potential for expansion, et al. WilyD 13:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep - obviously expandable, a topic of wide interest, seeing it belongs to Category:Gay rights by country. Historical information would be welcome, and a discussion of cultural attitudes in the various regions of Brazil also valuable, as well as what mood prevails in those municipalities where anti-gay discrimination is not banned by local statutes; but stubbiness is not a grounds for deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Human rights in Brazil. -- Gray Porpoise 14:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Given the discussion above about the detrimental effects of a merge versus just adding a stub notice to this, could you give a little explanation as to why this is preferable? Ziggurat 20:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and Expand into Human rights in Brazil. -- Nishkid64 16:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and Expand or Merge into Human rights in Brazil. Notable subject. jgp T C 16:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Human rights in Brazil. -- Will Mak 050389 16:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Just because the article is naff doesn't mean it should be deleted - it's still noteworthy. Dev920 17:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect Human rights in Brazil -- for now. It's clear the small amount of information here doesn't yet need its own page; however, the noted use of "Gay Rights in X" (where X=country) means a redirect is appropriate. Hopefully there will come a time when the content on gay rights in Brazil is much larger, and then that information could be moved back to Gay rights in Brazil. Jacqui ★ 21:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Celithemis -- Icarus ( Hi!) 02:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment This may be a bad-faith nomination because an article the nominator created was nominated for deletion for, among other things, appearing to be vanity. -- Icarus ( Hi!) 03:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Should be easy to expand to half the size of Human rights in Brazil, numerous parallel articles exist. I do think this is a suspect bad faith nom per Icarus. -- Dhartung | Talk 20:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep not the best start, but anyone is free to edit it. Carlossuarez46 06:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect into Human rights in Brazil -- Richard 08:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge into Human rights in Brazil. I do hope that this wasn't a bad faith nomination. Yamaguchi先生 08:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Tyla Juliette Schwartz

Fails WP:BIO. No significant press coverage here. Not-notable, Delete. TerriersFan 01:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Not nearly notable enough to earn the article; there are thousands of contestants that have reached round three. -- Wafulz 02:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NN. Ohconfucius 04:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Leuko 04:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete — {{ db-bio}} - Glen 05:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO, and WP:NN Daniel's page ☎ 06:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. — Khoikhoi 07:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - as someone who doesn't watch the show, what does "round three" entail? -- badlydrawnjeff talk 11:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Belongs in a list of contestants, not in an article of its own StuffOfInterest 13:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn. Should be on the list of contestants, but a separate article is not needed. -- Nishkid64 16:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator. No objection to having her on a list of contestants though. RFerreira 21:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Sally Yoshino

The article does not meet the guidelines of WP:BIO. Therefore, delete. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 01:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep. She appears to be notable in her "field", and most JAV actresses are hard-pressed to meet WP:PORN BIO as it is now. 51,000 Ghits, 315 unique. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Unless her name is more common than I think, she seems to get enough referencs to warrant an article. StuffOfInterest 13:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 13:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment 198,000 G-Hits on her Japanese name. Neier 13:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete Doesn't meet WP:PORN BIO (hence "delete") but Coredesat's comments are interesting (hence "weak") -- CPAScott 15:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep. It doesn't necessarily meet WP:PORN BIO but I think this article deserves to stay per the number of Google hits. -- Nishkid64 16:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep per Coredesat as well. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 20:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Vehement Delete Her pantaloons are unclean! -- Xrblsnggt 02:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment she's Japanese, PORN BIO is biased towards North American pornstars. 132.205.93.86 03:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep If any JAV actress is notable, she is. - Wickning1 15:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Yoshino is a notable Japanese model. Yamaguchi先生 08:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Bridge To Turkey Fund

no evidence of notability-- Crossmr 01:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Hey all. I am the author of this article and a member of BTF. I work hard to raise funds for poor kids' education. I am not native Turkish speaker but doing Ph.D. in Economics. Now, can anybody tell me what is wrong with using the web site materials? "Turkiye" means "Turkey" in Turkish. Please take my article out of delete process. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogulsev ( talk • contribs)
    WP:NOT wikipedia is not a free webhost or vehicle for advertising.-- Crossmr 06:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, rewrite, rename to "Bridge to Turkiye Fund." The author spelled the name wrong, and the article is basically copied from here. The operation is international in scope, which meets criteria proposed under WP:ORG. -- Wafulz 02:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    I could agree to, rename, rewrite, cite IF someone does it, but I'm not for keeping articles on speculation of improvement.Retracted see below. With no idependent references it fails. If it is copied directly from the site, then its a likely copyvio.-- Crossmr 02:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non-notable charity. Based on search under correct name, I can't find anything that would qualify as independent coverage from reliable sources. Fan-1967 02:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete My results and conclusion are similar to those of Fan-1967. — NM Chico 24 03:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — 19 "unqiue" google hits. My pot dealer has more online presense. mboverload @ 04:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. -- Vary | Talk 18:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Christianese

WP:ISNOT, a dictionary, publisher of original thought, or a directory. This is a list of words Blessed, Fellowship, Mission, Ministry, and others without references. Each of these words has an article which defines it already. Car54 01:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Whois] [1] [2] aaaaand...here are two books about it: [3] [4] DanB DanD 02:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Weakest Keep On the surface appears to be a silly neologism, and I'm still not convinced it has much importance. It does appear to be utilised by a lot of different websites, though, and DanB DanD was able to site further usage. — NM Chico 24 03:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Documents a distinctive and culturally-relevant jargon. Rohirok 04:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of 'distinctive "jargon"' Wryspy 04:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Polari? Engrish? Cockney rhyming slang? Lunfardo? Slang#See_also? DanB DanD 05:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. This article is more than a mere list of words with definitions. True, it lists examples, but it also discusses religious culture associated with the jargon, sociological implications and influence on popular culture. Also see the counterexamples to your arguments listed by DanB DanD above. Rohirok 17:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Very weak keep, as DanB DanD has cited outside usage – but I think the whole idea's pretty silly. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 13:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Neologism StuffOfInterest 13:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per references by DanB DanD, but remove OR elements of the list. Staecker 13:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep defintely a distinctive jargon. Carter 19:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • No one's going to use this search term, and frankly I feel the neologism "Christianese" has a very distinct POV. That said, there are certainly words used specifically by certain religious sects. Why not merge that information to articles (or sub-articles?) about those particular religions? Jacqui ★ 21:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • If you think it's a slur on Christians, it isn't. As a matter of fact, the word is itself Christianese: it arose among evangelicals who feared their proselytizing was ineffective because they "speak a different language" from the people they're talking to. Anyway, the titles of many articles--the names of advocacy organizations and so on--express a PoV. DanB DanD 06:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Wryspy, sources notwithstanding. It's a neologism. Gazpacho 02:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this article needs to die for our sins. -- Xrblsnggt 02:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete wikipedia is not a dictionary. Think about this as if this were a language. Chinese, a language of several dialects in China, has an article that redirects to the elements of that culture, the people, etc. It does not simply list words and meanings. Yet, this is worse because it defines english words, and english words that already have articles in a Christian category. C56C 08:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, good solid article, but lose the lexicon. -- Visviva 10:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but rename. "Christianese" is used most often in a POV sense or a humorous one, but the article is (apparently) broader. Something like List of Christian terminology or List of words and phrases in Christianity.-- Dhartung | Talk 21:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - needs work and closer sourcing but definitely encyclopaedic. BlueValour 03:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Neologism, and a couple books do not convince me that it's a widely used one. Isomorphic 05:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:ISNOT a lexicon. Nickieee 07:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Here is an example [5] from the Church Marketing Sucks blog. It's more than a neologism. The entry needs a clean up/destubbing, but it belongs in Wikipedia and with the name Christianese. Carter 16:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC) (reitterating previous vote to Keep) reply
  • Keep This article isn't limited to a lexicon, it explains the cultural contexts as well. Borisblue 00:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn - keep. Kimchi.sg 23:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Xcellent

Stub, NN thoroughbred TrackerTV ( CW| Castform| Green Valley) 01:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete — Does not look like the horse won anything major... deletion is probably the best option —— Eagle ( ask me for help) 02:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
How would you know? If you don't know the horse, don't comment. Wallie 20:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Once the horse wins a couple of major titles and gets some real coverage, then perhaps an article would be appropriate. — NM Chico 24 04:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — As a kiwi I can confirm this is nn - Glen 04:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete In this case, Deleting is best option because this doesn't look like horses won the anything major. Daniel's page ☎ 06:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Glen. — Khoikhoi 07:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – it came third; I thought horse-racing was a first-or-nothing sport? Thus, non-notable. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 13:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Horse vanity. StuffOfInterest 13:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep New Zealand Famous horse. Comment: There is a japanese article ( エクセレント) on this subject.-- Galopin 13:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Michael 19:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete far too local in scope, and non-notable even within its community. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 20:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Sorry. The horse IS notable within its community. Wallie 21:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep. Let me address some of the above opinions advocating for deletion.

  • “Non-notable” and “not won anything major”: Xcellent is the winner of the New Zealand Derby, which is New Zealand's most prestigious three year old race. The horse is notable for this alone, and deserving of an article. But the horse has also won the Kelt Capital Stakes which is New Zealand's richest thoroughbred horse race. And the horse has won a total of four Group 1 races from just 9 races contested.

I wonder if the horse had been a Kentucky Derby or Epsom Derby winner if it would be up for deletion. I think not.

  • User:Riana_dzasta “it came third” - It ran third in the 2005 Melbourne Cup behind Makybe Diva – which was the only horse in its 125 year history to win THREE Melbourne Cups, and is one of Australia’s greatest ever staying mares.
  • User:Glenn – you may be a kiwi, but you are sadly lacking in your knowledge of New Zealand thoroughbred racing.
  • User:Galopin who is a Japanese wikipedian and a very knowledgeable horse racing contributor recognises Xcellent as a notable New Zealand racehorse.

I wonder if any of the people calling for deletion bothered to Google “horse Xcellent”. If they did they would have got 33,000 hits. Not-Notable? The horse certainly was the subject of a enormous interest from the Australian racing public when it crossed the Tasman Sea for the 2005 Melbourne Spring Racing Carnival.

I small number of wikipedians are making great efforts to increase the number of articles on thoroughbred racing around the world and their efforts will not be helped if we have to constantly defend articles on our chosen subject. The article is a stub, and needs expanding, but I strongly believe that it should not be deleted. - Cuddy Wifter 02:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per Cuddy Wifter. -- Kusunose 13:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Withdraw nom I am not a kiwi, and I did not know that it won some prestigious races for its country. I now want to keep the article. TrackerTV ( CW| Castform| Green Valley) 14:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Who would want to delete this anyway? The horse is well known internationally. Probably the same person who wanted to delete the article All Blacks. Why not go ahead and delete Dancing Brave and Ruffian while you're about it. Wallie 20:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Maralyn Ramsay, Countess of Dalhousie

subject is the wife of the Earl of Dalhousie and approximately 690th in line to the British throne, and possibly something in the Imperial Russian house ;-). Ohconfucius 01:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO. ghits almost entirely pull Wikipedia and mirrors. Has this person actually done anything notable besides being born/married into incredibly diluted royalty? — NM Chico 24 04:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Sorry, but I think King Ralph was higher in the succession line. StuffOfInterest 13:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I'd like to see more references, but aside from that, I believe that the noble title automatically infers notability. Being within the top thousand of the royal class (pardon the pun) counts.  ;) -- Elonka 08:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. as WP:NOT Burke's Peerage; Elonka's rationale leaves me unconvinced. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. If the decision is to delete, my recommendation is that the information at least be merged into James Hubert Ramsay, 17th Earl of Dalhousie, or the previous Earl, Simon Ramsay, 16th Earl of Dalhousie, since it appears that there is already precedent to have a bio on each of the Earls, per Earl of Dalhousie (even if their wives are not seen worthy of bios). However, I still believe that Maralyn Ramsay satisfies the notability requirement on her own because of her other blood connections (including being in line to the throne by her own right, not just that of her husband). This may even be a case where the wife is more notable than the husband, though I'll admit that I'm not currently conversant enough on the details of these two individuals to make that determination myself (except it is telling that a Wikipedia article on the wife appeared before an article on the husband). -- Elonka 21:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There is information given here which is potentially useful to the reader who comes across the entry. - Kittybrewster 21:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • It seems to me that there was a reasonable rationale for including UK peers by default so long as they could sit in the House of Lords, not that most of them cared to do so. That made them more or less comparable with Senators in the US/France/&c. However, that's no longer the case. That doesn't retroactively make them nn, but it does mean that there is a good deal less reason to include peers and their families now than there was a decade ago. In this specific case it does seem odd to have an article on the wife rather than the husband, who probably qualified in that he was a peer in the period when they could sit in the upper chamber. My own view is that neither of them is of any great importance, probably less important than local council leaders, most of whom we delete without much fuss at AFD. I used to rent an apartment from a Count, and had French lessons from the grandson of Duke; I suspect that they'd be amazed to learn that their ancestry made them notable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Note that we have generally considered Irish peers since 1801 and Scottish peers between 1707 and 1958 as automatically notable, despite the fact that, like today's hereditary peers, they only served in the house of lords if they were elected as representative peers. john k 10:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I feel that peeresses are fair game, especially when combined with two peeress cousins and a spot in the line of succession to the British throne, as well as descent from the Russian Imperial Family. There are a few very notable connections with this lady. Charles 00:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. as per Charles (above). The page may be of interest to someone. JRawle ( Talk) 00:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. A peeress is certainly more noteworthy than a minor cadet member of the ducal family of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, e.g. Prince Adrian of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, who survived an AfD last month. Noel S McFerran 01:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. nn, yes someone may be interested in her, but there's no indication that she's done anything but marry and procreate -- something that several billion other people have done -- the fact that she is distantly related to some famous people does not make her notable. Carlossuarez46 06:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep., I think. I think any peer or peeress has generally been considered to qualify as a priori notable. I'm not sure that being descended from the Electress Sophia makes you notable on its own, although there really aren't that many such people - a few thousand, perhaps? john k 15:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. A peeress is notable. Just because nobles and geneology is not interesting to some people does not mean other people are interested in it as well. Morhange 18:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into an as-yet-uncreated article about her husband. Ardric47 23:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As a Ramsay, I don't think she is sufficiently notable for an individual page; therefore, I suggest retaining the information currently provided and merging that information into an appropriate article. Adraeus 04:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not notable, at all. MatthewFenton ( talk • contribs) 10:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - hey she's even closer to the throne - 660th now :-) If her title had been in her own right that would be fine but she has it as the wife of a peer and nothing seemingly achieved to make her notable in her own right. BlueValour 04:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - she seems to present at Clan events such as Games etc. and further research might find her as a patron of an organisation(?) Craigy ( talk) 21:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

What a Teen Year

Previously prod'ed and deleted uncontested, but recreated, which requires a full AFD. Basically, an allegedly planned series on Disney, with no sources except an unverified TV rumor site entry [6], created by the same author. Google comes up with nothing except that site and Wikipedia. May or may not be a total hoax, but certainly unverifiable. Author has been involved in a number of such unverifiable articles in the past. Fan-1967 02:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • We AFD'ed and prod'ed a whole bunch of these back in July, as well as some others from the same author that were more obvious hoaxes. Recreating this one may have been author's way of sticking his foot back in the water to see if he could get away with it. Fan-1967 05:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • That entry shows as having been created on that site by a user named "MCcoupe7", while this article was created by User:MCcoupe7. And a check of the schedule shows no such program aired last night. Gee, what a surprise! Fan-1967 20:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete crystal balling in its current state, and provides no useful info. If someone chooses to recreate it with useful and up-to-date content, they may. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 20:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete crystal ballin'. — Khoikhoi 22:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. RandyWang ( chat me up/ fix me up) 09:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This Bitch Jtervin 12:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. — dima / sb. tk/ 21:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator. It is too bad we haven't hard coded some way to require base references before accepting a new article. RFerreira 21:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Wouldn't necessarily help, in a case like this, where another site allows unverified information, and then an article here cites that other hoax entry as a source. Even TV.com and IMDB have been known to have hoax info. Fan-1967 21:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Devilball

Non-notable, very few ghits (except WP mirrors). WP is not for things made up in one school (or vacation) day. Article was de-prod'd with no edit summary by Devilball ( talk · contribs · count) — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 02:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment - Yes, I am aware of that. However, I have also seen it noted in many nominations whether or not there was a prod and if it had been contested, and it was, so I included the info to save other editors the time of checking the article history. I believe the other reasons I listed were quite valid. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 17:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 20:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. — Khoikhoi 22:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator, as much as I hate that "made up in school one day" saying. It sounds lame. RFerreira 21:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete all. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Ulf Bauscher, Berthold Bauscher, Franka Bauscher, Lorenz Bauscher

the subject's entry in wiki is by virtue of his being approx 128th in line to the British throne as a direct descendant of Queen Victoria. Not other claim to notability. I also nominate his younger brother, Berthold Bauscher, and Berthold's children Franka and Lorenz Bauscher Ohconfucius 02:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete All Is it really necessary for this site to chronicle the geneology for every person with the slightest hint of royal blood? A recently reported study indicates that the common ancestor for every person currently on the planet probably lived less than 3,000 years ago. So we might just as well chronicle the royal lineage of everyone. — NM Chico 24 04:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the lot, as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — All of them - Being born is not notable. Having an important ancestor is not. Peripitus (Talk) 11:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Unless they have done something notable, they should probably exist as a note in a line of succession article. StuffOfInterest 13:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all. Verifiable. In Wikipedia's fashion of thoroughness, we could as well have articles on the first 200/250 people in line for the British throne. -- Thunderhead 13:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    Changed my opinion to merge into a single article for all people in the line of succession that details more how and why they're in that line. That would handle the relevant information in a better way than separate articles. -- Thunderhead 11:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Line of succession to the British Throne, for everybody under #100 in line with no independent claim of notability. NawlinWiki 14:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect - Per NawlinWiki. Someone may come searching for information and it wouldn't hurt to lead them to the list. - Aksi_great ( talk - review me) 14:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and Peripitus. WP:NOT the Almanach de Gotha and not a genealogical database. These don't fail WP:BIO, they don't even bother trying. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. We have the list Line of succession to the British Throne, not every entry on every list deserves an article; that's often why we have lists. Carlossuarez46 06:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep- being in the line of succession to the throne is notable. Astrotrain 21:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Completely unknown, even in Germany. °ڊ° Alexander 20:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete creating a redirect is asking for somebody to re-create the article. Claims that somebody is in the line of succession to the British throne beyond the first 39 places on the British monarchy website are not verifiable and original research. Is there any evidence that this person is a Protestant, which they have to be to be in the line of succession? PatGallacher 14:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Line of succession to the British Throne per NawlinWiki. Anything past the 100 mark is just ridiculous unless they have some achievements outside of being in line to the throne. RFerreira 21:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and/or redirect, verifiable but it seems that this information would be best handled in a single article. JYolkowski // talk 23:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all - no nobility and no notability. BlueValour 04:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

SasuNaru

Naruto fancruft. Articles about any fan pairing, yaoi or not, really do not belong on Wikipedia. NeoChaosX ( talk | contribs) 02:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of anime & manga deletions. NeoChaosX ( talk | contribs) 02:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, I could have sworn I redirected this once upon a time. Then again, I think the one I did had an X and was written terribly. In either case, how is this in any way notable, relevant, or the least bit worth mentioning? – Someguy0830 ( Talk | contribs) 03:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. No. Just... no. And here's me thinking I'd never use the term 'fancruft'. Shiroi Hane 03:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Head, meet desk. Fanfiction/fan-pairings/fan-anything that isn't noteworthy doesn't belong here.-- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fan Slash fiction pairing is not notable enough. ColourBurst 05:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, crufty. Sorry, Shiroi Hane! — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 13:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per above. StuffOfInterest 13:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, slashfanficruft. If I had to cite a policy, I'd say... WP:V and WP:OR? -- Kinu t/ c 15:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to a Naruto community article or some sort. If one does not exist, delete per lack of context. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 20:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as fanficcruft. I think this pairing is quite popular amongst a certain sort of fan, but I agree with the nom. If anyone can find anything vaguely resembling a WP:RS, trim and merge to a suitable Naruto-related article instead (if one can be found). - makomk 20:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. — Khoikhoi 22:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This entry makes my heart bleed in numerous ways. _dk 10:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

My First MUN

Article was prodded and deleted 17 July but recreated. Accordingly, it's a contested prod. The subject of the article is a non-notable student event, a regional Model United Nations held in Northern Virginia as a warm-up before other Model UNs. — C.Fred ( talk) 02:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete unencyclopedic.-- Peta 03:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as a non-notable event. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Coredesat. I have participated in a dozen of these things; I'm not going to create articles on all them. Or am I? — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Way too low level. StuffOfInterest 13:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, WP:NOT a list of every non-notable regional student competition. -- Kinu t/ c 15:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn. — Khoikhoi 22:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. A university-hosted, nationwide, annual MUN would be notable. An MFMUN is just a practice. I've done 'em before. -- M @ r ē ino 23:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

List of TNA X Division Champions by age

Originally tagged as a speedy, but this isn't quite a candidate. It is however, quite non-notable. – Clockwork Soul 02:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete This information can already be found in the parent article. It seems unnecessary to have an article sorting the title holders by age. — NM Chico 24 04:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as redundant. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It is interesting, and this type of list exists for other titles as well. TJ Spyke 04:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Haha, TNA. I'm sorry... Delete per NMChico24. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Redundant. StuffOfInterest 13:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Also protect the page (if it does get deleted). I remember seeing this page before August 2 (when it was started), and it got deleted then too. RobJ1981 18:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete other wrestling pages don't have this and only the oldest/youngest parts really matter. --- Lid 21:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Edit: actually some other pages do have this, though I don't see why. --- Lid 21:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete doesn't seem that notable to me, but if there are other lists like this then post links and I might change my vote, though I think I agree with Lid that only the oldest/youngest are really relevant (and that is on the title's entry, presumably) -- Davetron5000 21:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
List of WWE world champions by age and List of ECW World Heavyweight Champions by age. TJ Spyke 21:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Well, those are also scheduled for deletion. Wouldn't it be simpler to just put a birthdate or age column in the table on the championship's entry ypage? -- Davetron5000 14:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as redundant. — Khoikhoi 22:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
How is it redunant? This is the only page where all the champions are listed rather than just the oldest and youngest. TJ Spyke 22:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I think all the age articles should be removed. What's the point of useless trivia? I can understand list of champions by length, because that's somewhat notable.. But age? Give me a break. What's next, champions by height? weight? It's redundant because there is lists of champions already, and there doesn't need to be a near identical list (with the exception of some small detail like age). RobJ1981 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Why not? It's a solid categorisation. King fish erswift 10:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as redundant. BlueValour 04:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 06:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Riley Mason

Information supplied (which isn't much) is inaccutate Throw 02:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete although I must say I got a chuckle out of the phrase "She is reputable for her anal" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete Fails CSD:A7. Outside of CSD, fails WP:BIO. — NM Chico 24 04:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete per CSD-A7, no assertion of notability. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Bellerive Elementary School

Non-notable elementary school. Editor who removed prod cited WP:SCHOOLS—which includes a list of criteria to establish a school's importance, none of which are asserted in this article. Accordingly, delete as non-notable organization. — C.Fred ( talk) 02:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep or merge, important part of education in its local community, no need to betray users who wish to find out about it. Kappa 03:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
"Wikipedia is neither a directory nor a phonebook." There's nothing in this article right now beyond a directory listing. — C.Fred ( talk) 03:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm sure Kappa needs to be reminded of the arguments against schools. Gazpacho 03:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete NN Elementary School in a Big City. -- Corporal Punishment 03:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Another school undistinguishable from hundreds of others... Valrith 03:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete — Die mboverload @ 04:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete contentless article about a non-notable group. Again. Opabinia regalis 04:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — NN I only got 138 hits on MSN... which had more then google. —— Eagle ( ask me for help) 04:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Here we go again with the school thing. Does anyone remember going to their 15th elementary school reunion? — NM Chico 24 04:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per NMChico24. No content, and nothing to assert the school's notability per WP:SCHOOLS (yes, I know it's proposed). Wikipedia is not a directory. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • These break my ♥, but delete per nom. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Valuable topic. Prodding schools when they are known to be controversial is intolerable misconduct. Piccadilly 10:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no evidence of any notability. And I doubt if anyone is going to feel betrayed. Prodding schools may be fairly pointless but it's not misconduct. Dlyons493 Talk 11:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not notable school. Viridae Talk 13:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete NN. StuffOfInterest 13:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, non-notable school. -- Ter e nce Ong ( Chat | Contribs) 13:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, i'll expand it. Carmen Chamelion 15:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Parkway School District. — RJH ( talk) 17:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, though needs explanding. Dev920 17:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • While schools are notable, this one doesn't have much said about it here, so why not merge and redirect any missing information to Parkway School District? Jacqui ★ 21:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Oy gavault, delete delete delete! -- Kicking222 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Parkway SD. NN school. -- e ivind t @ c 22:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete definately nn. — Khoikhoi 22:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. If there are any school articles that should be deleted, it's articles like this. Articles like this, in the form of "Springfield Elementary is an elementary school in Springfield", serve no purpose and are almost totally uninformative. szyslak ( t, c, e) 23:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete by WP:SCHOOLS , school has to be a post-secondary school. -- Ageo020 00:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep this is another article which should be expanded rather than deleted. Silensor 07:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above and per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. GBYork 12:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as article is only a directory entry plus links to external sites, and WP:NOT policy requires us not to be a directory nor a repository of weblinks. GRBerry 14:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • keep please schools are important it needs expanding not erasing Yuckfoo 17:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
So expand it then! Carmen above tried - doen't look like she had much success. I suspect that's because there's not much to say. Dlyons493 Talk 17:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
There is plenty of verifiable information available about this school, please feel free to assist me in my expansion of this article. Silensor 18:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment big improvement, well done! I still wouldn't keep it myself, but it's good to see someone actually expanding it rather than voting keep and doing nothing :-). Dlyons493 Talk
It's irresponsible to encourage people waste their time expanding articles when the topic is allegedly "non-notable". Kappa 15:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - verifiable and notable. -- Myles Long 18:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. non notable school. — dima / sb. tk/ 21:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete another nn school. Carlossuarez46 06:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Notable school recognized by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program. Bahn Mi 00:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep notability isnt policy... verifiability is.   ALKIVAR ™ 06:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the ongoing guideline discussion at WP:SCHOOL, notability of the school is verifiably conveyed. Yamaguchi先生 08:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, meets content policies. Notable per last 500 discussions of the question. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This school is not quite yet 50 years old, but it does meet the qualifications 1 and 3 of WP:SCHOOL with multiple non-trivial works covering the subject and significant awards and commendations. Give the horse a rest, its been beaten enough. RFerreira 21:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 07:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Joseph E. O'Doherty

  • Delete: Article does not assert the importance of the individual, in accordance with WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Only listed as author low on the list on a couple of articles. Does not seem to have individually done anything noteworthy. Leuko 02:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Peta 03:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete interesting research, but seems to be of little note. Top ghits include wikipedia mirrors. — NM Chico 24 04:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge or Redirect into a related article. -- GoOdCoNtEnT 04:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete — {{ db-bio}} - Glen 05:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per above. Daniel's page ☎ 06:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Credema 06:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete by ClockworkSoul as copyvio. — NM Chico 24 04:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Dingmans Campground

Originally posted as a speedy because "not notable, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". I tend to agree, but that's not a speedy. – Clockwork Soul 03:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: With the exception of the descriptions of each campsite, the rest of the article is a copyvio from http://www.dingmanscampground.com/ ... — ERcheck ( talk) 03:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Whoops, when I put {{delete}}, I thought it was for a deletion proposal. Yea, thanks for the fix Clockworksoul. Delete. Hurricanehink ( talk) 03:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I have tagged it as copyvio and listed it there. Daniel Case 03:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - not notable spam. Leuko 04:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I will speedy as a copyvio. – Clockwork Soul 04:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by User:Neutrality  -- kenb215 03:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Nail the casket shut

nn company, first person, advertising. Was PRODded. As I was about to add a prod2 to it, I got an edit conflict as the article's creator removed the PROD. User:Zoe| (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete vanity. Gazpacho 03:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as prod'er. Article is a first person account of trying to start the company, which is not doing well. Nowhere close to WP:CORP. -- Fan-1967 03:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 15:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Victoria Luise Prinzessin von Preussen

former Prussian princess without dynastic rights and 144th in line to the British throne Ohconfucius 03:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Incidentally, there is no such rule. There isn't (at least three days ago) even such a guideline. WilyD 13:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete all. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Ileana Snyder, Nicholas Snyder, Alexandra Snyder, Constanza Snyder

subject is 105th in line to the British throne, no other appernt claims to notability. I also nominate her children Nicholas Snyder, Alexandra Snyder, Constanza Snyder Ohconfucius 03:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 06:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Pirates of the Caribbean Online

A game that doesn't exist yet. The website just redirects to Disney's Pirates website, which is mostly advertising for the movie. User:Zoe| (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The website clearly directs to the MMORPG page and not the movie. The game is in development and just because it isn't released to the public does not mean it doesn't exist. -- Zeno McDohl (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, with no prejudice against writing an article when the game does exist. No beta, no newsletter, no notability as yet. -- nae' blis 03:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Personally, I'd say an official website, some screenshots, news and so on deems it to be notable at the least. -- Zeno McDohl (talk) 04:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Newsletter updates HAVE been published, including one this month. The article was incorrect in that regard, I updated it. -- Vandelay 12:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Abstain. - the article's undergone some improvements in sourcing, but I still think it's preliminary. Not enough to block a speedy keep though, if Zoe withdraws. -- nae' blis 21:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is/will be an official game release related to a blockbuster movie franchise. Certainly notable, even if unreleased. Rohirok 04:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is legit. I had already heard about the game. Wryspy 04:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as above. Macktheknifeau 05:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Crystalballism doesn't apply to a game that's almost certainly going to be released, and has verifiable sources. ColourBurst 06:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang ( chat me up/ fix me up) 08:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. If you look at the crystal ball policy, this clearly crosses the threshold into keepability. Information is well-sourced from official sources and/or press, and it would be notable once released. Captainktainer * Talk 09:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Well sources, and it is a game to be released. Havok (T/ C/ c) 10:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Wikipedia has an entire (and fairly large) category of articles devoted to "Computer and video games under development". It has a similarly large category called "2007 computer and video games". (Refer to the bottom of the article to see the links). This deserves to stay as much as any of the others in those categories. -- Vandelay 12:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Far enough along that it will happen and isn't just speculation. StuffOfInterest 13:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above -- Peephole 16:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • 'Keep as per above. Dev920 17:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- Ariad o ss 18:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep plenty of useful content, here. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 20:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - WP:SNOW? -- PresN 20:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • No, but we could speedy if Zoe withdraws and nae'blis comes around. Keep. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 10:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Major product, sufficiently notable, even pre-release. -- Elonka 08:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per User:Vandelay. — dima / sb. tk/ 21:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Windows Vista doesn't exist yet in the same way. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per ColourBurst and many others. And yes, WP:SNOW does apply. However, I can't close it now. 1ne 05:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Portable air conditioner

Contended merge to Air conditioning where the information in the article is already present. Current article is a duplicate, has an unencyclopedic tone and is an unnecessary fork. Delete -- Peta 03:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Merge per nom. As pretty much the exact same info is in the the parent article, Delete. Leuko 04:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Whatever is in the Air conditioning article is a copy of what was here, and not the other way around.-- AAAAA 10:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I see no compelling reason to merge anything here. From the Department of Redundancy Department. — NM Chico 24 04:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. This is not a dictionary of every possible item on earth. Wryspy 04:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per all the above. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP. Whatever is in the Air conditioning article is a copy of what was here, and not the other way around. I believe Portable ir onditioners are a special type of air conditioners that deserve their own article.-- AAAAA 10:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Merge is an inappropriate suggestion - the airconditioner article is already too long. WilyD 13:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete redundant with Air conditioner; not a likely search term. Tom Harrison Talk 13:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Redundant StuffOfInterest 13:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per redundancy. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 20:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. — Khoikhoi 22:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. — dima / sb. tk/ 21:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect all. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Cathrine Ferner Johansen, Madeleine Ferner Johansen, Sebastian Ferner Johansen

subject is approx 76th in line to the British throne and also distant pretender to the Norwegian throne. I also nominate for deletion the pages of her children Madeleine Ferner Johansen, Sebastian Ferner Johansen. No apparent notability outside their distant claims to the throne(s). Ohconfucius 03:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Very Weak Delete — Almost no hits in search engines, but if anyone can show an ounce of notability I'm opening to changing my vote mboverload @ 04:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete tangential royalty is not notable in and of itself. Delete the kids too. Wait, that sounds kind of sinister. Opabinia regalis 04:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete All See comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulf Bauscher — NM Chico 24 04:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I keep having to stop myself writing Off with their heads Dlyons493 Talk 11:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all, so what if they are in the line of succession to the British throne, they are mainly non-notable people. -- Ter e nce Ong ( Chat | Contribs) 12:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Enough already! Perhaps this should have been done as one big AfD. Maybe leave a redirect behind ot the line of succession article but even that doesn't seem worth the effort. StuffOfInterest 13:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- I would Redirect to Line of succession to the British Throne everybody under #100 in line with no independent claim of notability. NawlinWiki 14:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Line of succession to the British Throne. 76th in line is no claim to notability. But redirect wouldn't hurt. - Aksi_great ( talk - review me) 14:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Aksi_great. The figures have no other claims of notability, and redirects are cheap. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 21:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect but to Princess Astrid of Norway, their links to the Norwegian throne is closer then to the British. -- e ivind t @ c 22:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Princess Astrid of Norway, nearest notable family member is where they belong. Content will need to be merged in (ie, a whole line). LinaMishima 23:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per other articles nominated by same user -- Roleplayer 02:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn Matthew Fenton ( Talk | Contribs) 11:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep- Astrotrain 12:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as previous, if 39th is far as Brenda's website goes ( here) why should we go further ? WP:NOT a genealogy database or Burke's Peerage. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per my comments on the earlier batches of pseudo-distant-royal-ish-folks. Carlossuarez46 06:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep verifiable grandchildren of monarchs (this seems reasonable, right?); merge the children into Cathrine's article. Ardric47 22:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment—Perhaps some people "voted" based on their position in the British line of succession. That information is overshadowed by their relations to the Norwegian royal family. Ardric47 22:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Cathy; Delete Maddy and Seb - Cathy is close enough to the Norwegian throne. Theothers are not. BlueValour 04:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Aski. Nickieee 07:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per LinaMishima. -- Angelbo 04:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete all. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Elisabeth Ferner Beckman, Benjamin Ferner Beckman, Benedikte Ferner

subject is approx 80th in line to the british throne and something in the Norwegian house. I also nominate for deletion the page on her son, Benjamin Ferner Beckman, and als o that of her sister Benedikte Ferner. Ohconfucius 03:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

She got married and divorced and is now living with Aage Hvinden. She ran a restaurant for a couple of years. Doesn't add up to notability IMHO. Dlyons493 Talk
  • Keep verifiable grandchildren of monarchs (this seems reasonable, right?); merge Benjamin into Elisabeth's article. Ardric47 22:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment—Perhaps some people "voted" based on their position in the British line of succession. That information is overshadowed by their relations to the Norwegian royal family. Ardric47 22:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Liz; Delete Ben and Bene - Liz is close enough to the Norwegian throne. The others are not. BlueValour 04:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep as royals. Nickieee 07:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as vandalism by creator with intent to deceive. Kimchi.sg 07:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Night Of A 1000 Cats: Been Alive

More hoaxing by the author of Blanca Murillo. There is nothing to indicate that any such movie exists. The title itself is nonsense. User:Zoe| (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Lack of credible sources. Leuko 04:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Total lack of sources. There was a 1972 Mexican horror movie ( [7]) released in English as Night Of A 1000 Cats (I've reverted that article to verifiable information only). No plans seem to exist for any remake or sequel to the remake. Fan-1967 04:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no WP:RS indicating that this project exists. -- Kinu t/ c 04:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete 'nother unreferenced crystal ball article — NM Chico 24 04:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Wryspy 04:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Kimchi.sg 06:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Coaxial warp drive

Was originally tagged as a speedy, but doesn't fit criteria. Original reason was patent nonsense (which it isn't), but it does look like some rather obscure Trekcruft. Notability? – Clockwork Soul 03:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete as copyvio of http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Coaxial_warp_drive. -- nae' blis 03:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete copy-vio Leuko 04:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as Memory-Alpha content is not GFDL-friendly. Alternatively, delete as Trekcruft. -- Kinu t/ c 04:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as a recent copyvio. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I'd support a speedy delete, but technically A8 covers commercial content (do Google ad banners count?). It was featured in a _single episode_ of Voyager, however, so it'd still be deleted. ColourBurst 04:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • However, it looks like A8 was designed with WP:SNOW in mind, so I'll tag it anyway. ColourBurst 04:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Wryspy 04:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/Speedy Delete Duality between fancruft and copyvio as memory-alpha is creative commons and not GFDL. -- Kevin_b_er 05:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete per nom. Macktheknifeau 05:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as vandalism - even the creator said it on the talk page: "the imdb doesnt know anything". Kimchi.sg 07:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Martin Hernandez

imdb never heard of this 13 year old actor, nor of any of the movies he is supposedly in or scheduled to be in. User:Zoe| (talk) 03:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 14:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Bill_Jensen

Article is a Vanity Page. Does not contain noteworthy information for inclusion in an encyclopedia Brad 03:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete as vandalism. Kimchi.sg 07:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Etras e Monali'sa

More of the hoaxing by the editor of Brother & Sister and Blanca Murillo and Martin Hernandez. imdb never heard of this movie. User:Zoe| (talk) 03:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Egregious hoax. The idea of a movie by Luc Besson not being on IMDB is ludicrous. Author needs to be blocked. Fan-1967 03:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and reprimand hoaxer per above. -- Kinu t/ c 04:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, as a hoax, possibly speedy as vandalism. Block the author. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Wryspy 04:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as hoax. -- Metropolitan90 05:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as vandalism. Kimchi.sg 07:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Blanca Murillo, Brother & Sister

There is no such actress listed at imdb, nor is the supposed movie she stars in listed. The article was written by an editor who has created several other hoaxish articles. User:Zoe| (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete both, no verifiability, suspected hoax. And check out that MS Paint-job "movie poster"... -- Kinu t/ c 04:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete More hoaxes. Unverifiable. Fan-1967 04:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this hoax per nom. Wryspy 04:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as hoax. -- Metropolitan90 05:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (no consensus). Not the easiest of decisions here with 12d/5k which is frequently sufficiently strong for consensus, but I have registered that there have been significant attempts at improving the article during the course of the discussion. One of the arguments presented (unverifiability) appears to have been countered and I gather that a Google search which someone referred to does give some independent media mentions, e.g. this one. I am uncertain about notability here, but I will call this a no consensus based on new evidence surfacing over the course of the discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Starving Jesus

Originally tagged as a speedy for "patent nonsense", but it's not. It does, however, seem to be very difficult to verify. – Clockwork Soul 03:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete unsourced, unverifiable, non-notable, crystal-ballism, take your pick. Opabinia regalis 04:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as unverifiable with reliable sources. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Opabinia regalis, surely we'll be the first to write about it when something exciting happens to these reckless fellas. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Searches actually turn up quite a bit regarding this one. Article does need some serious work. StuffOfInterest 14:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I am more than willing to take any advice I can get. Also, I am searching high and low for a good Wikkipedia Text Editor. Derek C 15:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Opabinia regalis. Rohirok 17:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete with Opabinia regalis's gracious homework. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 17:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. WP:NOR. Lazybum 18:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Still seems like nonsense to me. KnightLago 21:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nonsense. — Khoikhoi 22:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Opabinia regalis -- Wildnox 22:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I have now added more refrences, an ISBN number and fixed the xxxchurch wiki link. This is in fact a real book written by a popular ministry which has been featured on ABC News. ABC NEWS Story Derek Cormier 23:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn book with a "human interest" angle, very cute, very today, very yesterday tomorrow. Carlossuarez46 06:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Derek Cormier's new refs. xxxchurch is well known enough for their book to be notable, at least in some Christian circles. Book is selling on Zambooie [ [8]], perhaps it's an indie pub? It would explain why it isn't in as many references. SuperJerms 16:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn book BlueValour 04:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep I've just wikified the article, so its in better shape now, and I've tagged it for cleanup. With Derek's references, it can be considered notable enough, and there are other less referenced book articles out there. -- Draicone (talk) 06:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Question This article still needs some clean up, but after reading Wikipedia:Notability (books) I believe this article clearly meets those proposed guidlines. How do I get the tag removed? Derek Cormier 02:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as vandalism. Kimchi.sg 08:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Mexican Awards

Considering that this article was created by an editor with a history of creating fake movie articles, and that one of the winners { Martin Hernandez) apparently doesn't really exist, this entire article is suspect. Are there really such awards? No sources. User:Zoe| (talk) 03:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Hoax. Gave an award to a kid who doesn't exist for a movie that doesn't exist. Fan-1967 03:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Appears to be a hoax. Leuko 04:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, suspected WP:HOAX. -- Kinu t/ c 04:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: Also check out the related Category:Mexican_award_winner; the valid articles that have been tagged with this category need to be edited accordingly. -- Kinu t/ c 04:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Looks like we've got them all cleaned out. Only award winner left in the category is Martin Hernandez. Fan-1967 05:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for a trifecta of hoaxery per Fan-1967. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete based on hoax history. Wryspy 04:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as hoax. -- Metropolitan90 05:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete hoax. Macktheknifeau 05:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Dromana Primary School

Non-notable school, no evidence of satisfying WP:SCHOOLS. Valrith 03:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete - With almost no information in the article, it does not seem to satify WP:SCHOOLS Leuko 04:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete contentless article about a non-notable group. Again. Not even a link to the school's website. Opabinia regalis 04:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for no content. Does not contain any assertion of notability per WP:SCHOOLS. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete primary schools are not inherently notable. — NM Chico 24 04:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • </3 Delete, seems to have been written by a student who likes his school. Which is good. But not for Wikipedia. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Stop wasting time. The number of school articles blossomed regardless, so all you are achieving is to hobble wikipedia and enage in conflict for the sake of it. Piccadilly 10:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Dromana is hardly notable let alone its primary school. Piccadilly precendent is not binding and since since schools consistently rarely show notability beyond being schools they will continue to come up in AFD. Viridae Talk 12:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete NN. StuffOfInterest 14:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, NN. No assertion of notability made, and no information here beyond what would be found in a directory listing. — C.Fred ( talk) 15:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Dromana, Victoria. WP:SCHOOLS is still under discussion and so using it as a deletion criteria is absurd. — RJH ( talk) 17:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep crap article, but can be expanded. Dev920 17:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no assertion of notability, and I'm willing to bet none will ever be found. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 20:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • 'Merge (for now) to Dromana, Victoria per RJH. Jacqui ★ 21:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Dromana, Victoria. Hasn't received any mentions in the media so difficult to expand. Capitalistroadster 21:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 21:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as a directory entry and since this is a primary school I don't see this grow beyond this while at the same time citing reputable sources. -- Koffieyahoo 01:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep there is no reason this article cannot be expanded. Silensor 07:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above statement and per Piccadilly's statement above. GBYork 12:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a directory entry violating the WP:NOT policy against directory entries. GRBerry 14:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the fact that people say it can be expanded, but don't actually expand it, suggests to me that that there are no verifiable sources. If and when some are found, the article can be recreated. Dlyons493 Talk 15:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • No, it just suggests that it isn't their obligation to do so. Millions of needed edits are not made for all sorts of reasons, including the amount of time that is wasted due to school deletionism. Calsicol 17:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Non-notable. -- Roisterer 16:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • keep please this is important to the community Yuckfoo 17:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 06:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and improve. Calsicol 17:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep notability isnt policy... verifiability is.   ALKIVAR ™ 06:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep since the school was founded in 1861, we should be able to provide coverage. Failing that, merge into Dromana, Victoria. Yamaguchi先生 08:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom James68 15:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. 150 year old schools are of course notable. Bahn Mi 00:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, meets content policies. See Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep for a series of responses to notability concerns. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (or merge with Dromana, Victoria), should be sufficiently verifiable. For those who cited WP:SCHOOLS, they should note that (1) this school does meet the criteria since it's over 50 years old, (2) this is currently just a proposal, not a guideline or a criteria and (3) it doesn't mention any criteria under which articles should be deleted unless they don't meet Wikipedia's content policies, and no evidence has been presented that this school doesn't. JYolkowski // talk 21:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- verifiable stub. Allow for growth. - Longhair 11:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory. Nandesuka 16:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, verifiable school. This is one of my semi-local schools, so I'm willing to help edit it. I just noticed that the principal information is incorrect. Ray Robertson is the current acting principal, Ray Hocking left last year. Going now to correct. Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 18:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, verifiable and established school. Also old enough to have plenty of potential for expansion so merge is not appropriate. Kappa 19:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Cory Phillips

  • Delete. Self-promotional (see creator's username and record company), debut album comes out this fall, not famous yet. We are not a promotional vehicle. -- nae' blis 03:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Artist's label created the page, yes. But, as far as the debut album coming out this fall, I didn't know that such promotional information is prohibited, and to prevent the page from being deleted, the info was changed. To counter your suggestion that including a listing of Cory Phillips is somehow inappropriate because he is not famous yet to your specification, phillips is a very popular live musician in Los Angeles. And what difference does it make whether or not there is a commercial music product for sale to validate him to you? Does participation in the capitalist system only validate a public figure on Wikipedia? I did not think so. Thermalrecords 06:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Participation in the "capitalist system" isn't strictly necessary, but the bar for inclusion for most people is much higher without a major label/produced well-selling record. See WP:MUSIC for some of the suggestions: was he featured in multiple non-trivial published works (such as LA papers, music trade magazines of record, etc)? Was he ever in a notable band prior to his current "supergroup" (or was anyone else)? Has he won a major music award or competition, and do you have proof as it is reported in the press? Is he the most prominent representative of a notable style of music, and has this been reported as such? You have options, and you have at least four days to make your case...thanks for trimming the article already of the promotional material, and welcome to Wikipedia! Cheers, and as noted below, if his record takes off and he does become more famous this fall, it's intensely likely a fan will come and write an article for you! -- nae' blis 12:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Promo; WP:NOT a crystal ball ("Fates willing, the release will see success sufficient to garner the interest of a major label"). Daniel Case 03:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - self promotional, not notable. Leuko 04:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Not notable to who? Cory Phillips and his nine-piece band are notable to a lot of people in Los Angeles who regularly pay money to see them perform. Thermalrecords 06:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • See nae'blis's response above. Notability is fairly well-defined here. Daniel Case 13:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, suspected WP:VANITY, no WP:RS indicating subject meets WP:MUSIC. -- Kinu t/ c 04:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Point taken. Understand this to be the first attempt at creating a wikipedia page. It has been edited to include just the facts. Thermalrecords 06:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — Real bands don't need a myspace profile mboverload @ 04:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Probably not true; lots of "real" bands take advantage of MySpace's music-embedding features; "Itzkoff also observes that MySpace’s much-celebrated music section is heavily weighted in favor of record labels rather than breakthrough musicians" -- nae' blis 04:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Wryspy 04:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete — {{ db-bio}} - Glen 05:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete Promo. WP:NOT soapbox. Ohconfucius 09:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Harsh words, mboverload! I tend to agree... but then we have things like this. As for Mr Phillips, delete, promo, get out there and get famous(er), we'll write the article for you. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete NN, vanity, and probably a few other reasons. StuffOfInterest 14:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, not notable yet. NawlinWiki 14:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn. — Khoikhoi 22:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete .... for now... looking at the amount of cross-site self promotion, I expect an entry back in here fairly soon, once he/they've busted their butts on a national tour (probably the easiest way to meet WP:MUSIC while furthering one's career, or looked at from another perspective, the easiest way to destroy a band. :-) ) Good luck to Cory and Thermal! Ronabop 03:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete — Mets501 ( talk) 13:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Bad Kid

I'm not even sure this Halo insult that has "just recently started to get popular" even deserves consideration as a transwiki. Daniel Case 03:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy Delete — The article practically admits it's a completely non-notable nelogism mboverload @ 04:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete. I don't even see how it's insulting. – NeoChaosX ( talk | contribs) 04:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, neologism, possible attempt to astroturf a protologism. -- Kinu t/ c 04:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Leuko 04:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Can we speedy delete this under WP:SNOW? ColourBurst 04:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete — as nonsense - Glen 04:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) - Glen 04:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete, patent nonsense. At the very least a non-notable neologism. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Wryspy 04:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete — Speedy Delete as Patent nonsense, non-notable neologism. ShaunES 07:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Samantha Anderson

Doesn't get close to meeting WP:PORNBIO. Delete. BlueValour 03:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. This is Samantha 38G, the subject of another article that was deleted. I can't tell if this is a re-creation, but she still doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:PORN BIO. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. We delete these porn upstarts daily, don't we? Wryspy 04:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, although her 'incredibly massive breasts' might tip the balance in her favour. Or not. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete her article and that of her primary school. Dlyons493 Talk 11:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. NN StuffOfInterest 14:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 20:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. — Khoikhoi 22:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Namesake Entertainment

Delete - does not seem to be notable per WP:CORP, only hits in Google is company's own website, no independent mention. Leuko 03:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep Delete. They're in the IMdB [9]. However, while we tend to accept any performer with IMdB credits, does merely being in the IMdB make a production company notable? Daniel Case 04:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: Per WP:CORP, "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." The listing in IMDB is trivial, because all it does is list the movies which the company has been associated with. Also, that is one published work, where WP:CORP requires "multiple." Leuko 04:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Question answered; changing my vote. Daniel Case 04:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I know the above user already changed his vote, but I simply wanted to point out that IMDb is in no way a measure of significance, and that people are not even remotely guaranteed they have a WP article because they have an IMDb entry. I have an entry (for donating to The 1 Second Film)), while a friend of mine starred in an actual movie. Neither of us has a WP page, nor do either of us (but especially not me) deserve them... nor do people who played corpses on CSI or spoke one line in a film. -- Kicking222 21:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and subsequent information. Wryspy 04:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per all above; no reliable sources indicating that this production house meets WP:CORP. -- Kinu t/ c 05:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per all above... nn company producing nn films. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete NN. StuffOfInterest 14:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn. — Khoikhoi 22:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete by Neutrality, [10].-- Kchase T 04:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Bikini Round-Up

This article has seen it all: speedy deletion declined, and is a contested prod. It's a one sentence article about a non-notable porn film with no citations whatsoever. MER-C 04:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete It's a non-notable HBO TV movie. TJ Spyke 04:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, non-notable TV movie...and there is no "M" rating for TV shows or movies. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete this and Zentriert ins Antlitz (linked from this article, but not in the nomination for some reason) as CSD A7 - no assertion of band's notability. Kimchi.sg 08:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

E.M.I.T.R

Patent nonsense, no context. Speedy delete A1 TrackerTV ( CW| Castform| Green Valley) 04:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Speedy delete — ERcheck ( talk) 04:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

My book

This could be the title of so many pages that end up here. This one in particular cannot be an encyclopedic article. Ever. Daniel Case 04:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete It's basically just a blank page. TJ Spyke 04:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete page is empty, article name has nothing to do with content and, can not be salvaged. -- Gogo Dodo 04:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete. Original research from a confused newcomer. Rohirok 04:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as empty or possible G4. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Wryspy 04:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus to delete, merge to Marine Park possible. W.marsh 18:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Marine Park Race Attack

Minor news item from 2005 of no lasting significance, delete -- Peta 04:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Wryspy 04:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete We're not wikinews, and this doesn't seem like an event that, at this moment, will hold bearing on the future. Nom's wording of 'no lasting signifigance' is a good way to put it, as right now it doesn't hold major signifigance. Kevin_b_er 05:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. These things have a way of resurfacing by way of people on the losing side trying to get even later. The article serves as a useful reminder of problems that won't go away. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 09:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – Q: can't articles like these be trimmed and merged into Ethnic violence? There must be more like this floating around. Just an idea. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Not sure where, but there must be another article which can host this single paragraph with a few reference links. StuffOfInterest 14:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is local news. Mention of the attack might be appropriate in an article dealing with race relations or crime in the region, but this doesn't merit its own article in an encyclopedia. Rohirok 17:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I hope someone improves the article.-- Tess Tickle 18:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Rohirok. We're not Wikinews. Mention the attack in some other article about the region, but it doesn't need its own. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 22:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per TruthbringerToronto. 1ne 06:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Local news of no encycloepdic or historical significance. GRBerry 14:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Marine Park. -- Visviva 02:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Yank sox 04:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Les Tapies

Previous version was a lengthy copyvio and tagged as such, so the author removed the copyrighted text (good) and turned the article into a nanostub about an unspecified "program" program with no distinguishable notability. Opabinia regalis 04:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I'm fuzzy on if a 'program' at a school can qualify for speedy delete on A7, but it doesn't appear to be all that great anyways, nor does it appear to assert its signifigance or importance. What's special about it? It appears to be an international summer program, one of probably many around the world. -- Kevin_b_er 06:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The article is better now. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 09:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unnotable school program. Eusebeus 13:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable and of no interest. - Corporal Tunnel 14:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete almost speediable. ~ trialsanderrors 00:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Great White North Hamburger

This is unverifiable ( WP:V). There are no sources cited and there are zero Google hits outside of Wikipedia for "Great White North Hamburger". Sandstein 04:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as WP:NFT (eh?) — NM Chico 24 05:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, if anything can possibly be cited, then this is just a hamburger served at a golf club. WP:NOT the menu for every location on the planet. -- Kinu t/ c 05:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, unverifiable. -- The Anome 12:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete with homemade dill sauce. WilyD 13:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Eh, take off of Wikipedia. NawlinWiki 14:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per above. StuffOfInterest 14:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, obvious, non-notable recipe. Smerdis of Tlön 14:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, ad for a non-notable burger. It's probably good, but that's not relevant here. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 22:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I agree. — Khoikhoi 22:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, but move to Wikibooks cookbook as an alternate hamburger recipe. It does sound interesting, but not appropriate for here. Jzeitler 15:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator, but I must say a hamburger sounds good right about now. RFerreira 21:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Prodego talk 13:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

ModTheSims2

I love the site, I visit it often, and I've participated on the forums. However, it's does not meet the notability requirements for wikipedia.

It fails two important guidelines. WP:WEB and WP:VAIN The site was created and heavily edited by the site creator who goes by the nickname Delphi. The site was featured in two mass-media publication, however, the seem part of the excluded content of WEB #1: "Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores."

The site also has a high Alexa rank. However, web ranking is not a criteria for inclusion in the wikipedia and shouldn't be considered. Also, a detailed search query of google shows that 90,000+ of the unique google hits belong to the page itself. [11]. A vanilla search of the site's name reveals that there are only 635 unique web entries.

The article is also somewhat of a link farm that may also be a violation of WP:EL.

It's a very good resource and should be referenced in the main Sims2 article. So, I say Delete, redirect to The Sims 2, and include in external links. -- Kunzite 05:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment — I'm not sure about this one; it doesn't smell like vanity to me, despite getting created/edited by the site creator and even if it was, "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of assertion of importance is".
On the WEB thing... I'm not sure. ShaunES 07:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I've clean up some of the article, removed some elements that would read as vanity or advertisments. Havok (T/ C/ c) 10:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • How exactly does it pass WP:V? How does it pass WP:WEB? "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Where are the reliable third party sources? The two sources given are "Trivial coverage...that simply report the internet address... [or contain] a brief summar[ies] of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses"? -- Kunzite 11:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I would think that since it has been featured on G4TV's Attack of the Show and in Rolling Stone Magazine it is good enough. Maybe not for you, but it's still a third party reference of notability of the site. And in no place does it say in the policy about how it should be featured by the third party. When said sources recognize it, it is automatically notable. "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Both of those are credible, and are reputable. Havok (T/ C/ c) 11:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • First off, the article doesn't even cite the sources, it just mentions that the site was mentioned in these publications. Secondly, there's WP:WEB, which contains the guidelines on which sources are acceptable for web sites. Wikipedia is also not a web directory. -- Kunzite 11:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I think the policy which you try to justify this articles deltion with says "Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guide or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally shouldn't list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules etc. (although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable)." Which talks about what not to put in said article, this article is just as viable as Something Awful, Newgrounds and 4chan to give you a few. Havok (T/ C/ c) 13:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Nope. WP:WEB is the standard. Modthesims2 does not pass it. I think out of the examples you have given, two are most likely notable. (They get multiple, seemingly, non-trivial hits when I do LexisNexis searches.) 4chan doesn't, it's pretty much noted on the talk page, and it really should be nominated it for deletion. Modthesims2 gets no LexisNexis hits. Please explain to me how the Rolling Stone is non-trivial. If it were a two-page spread on the site.. I'd give it to you, I'd withdraw the nomination. It's a one sentence line about movie characters that were popular at the time the article was made who happened to make an appearance on the site. How is that notable for a wikipedia article? I'll end with the quote from the 4chan talk page -- Kunzite 03:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • They have still been mentioned on Attack of the Show. Which is more then can be said for other websites featured on Wikipedia. Havok (T/ C/ c) 07:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The TV show is still just a trivial mention. This deletion is about modthesims2:not about all of the other websites around wikipedia that need to be removed or whatnot. There is a lot of clean-up work to be done at wikipedia. -- Kunzite 12:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

These quotes are straight from Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is an official and founding policy of Wikipedia.

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
"Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources."
"The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic."


  • Keep Attack of the Show + Rolling Stone = Notable. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I dug up the Rolling Stone quote: "With the Oscars fast approaching, Brokeback fever spreads to the Web: America's favorite cowboys get pixetated as character mods for the Sims 2 video game, (modthesims2.com)" This is not even about the site, it's about Brokeback Mountain. Totally trivial. -- Kunzite 14:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I'd rather keep a marginal than delete a notable. StuffOfInterest 14:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete\uninstall this article. The Rolling Stone mention was about a movie, and happened to mention the website address. No coverage of the actual website which is required to satisfy WP:WEB. I Tivo "Attack of the Show", and remember this episode. They mentioned this site in passing, it was not featured or given more that 30 seconds of air time. I have a computer mod that was mentioned on TechTV's (pre-G4) 'The Screen Savers' longer than that; and it was mentioned in various computer mod magazines...should that get an article as well? No. -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 15:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment If you feel it's notable, and you can established that notability then go right ahead. The fact that Attack of the Show mentioned it, is good enough. I can give you a list of sites that havn't been talked about on AotS if you want. Meaning, it's notable. Havok (T/ C/ c) 15:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom-- Peephole 16:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as above. However, it would be nice if the Sims 2 article had a section listing the various modder sites such as this one, and describing the modder community in more detail. But in itself, this article subject is trivial to anyone who doesn't play the game. 207.34.120.71 16:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 16:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep not a very good article, but not hopeless. Notable enough. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 20:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Needs a good firm rewriting, but those references make it notable. -- PresN 20:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Have you even reviewed the references? Could you explain to me how they meet WP:WEB? What makes those two references non trivial? -- Kunzite 00:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and cleanup per PresN. RandyWang ( chat me up/ fix me up) 23:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above, the above-mentioned sources make it notable enough. As said needs some cleanup to look less like an advertisement. -- SevereTireDamage 13:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wikipedia is a general-knowledge encyclopedia. While it does not have the same physical limitations as a printed encyclopedia, it isn't the universal vault of all obscure fan knowledge. While MTS2 is certainly not obscure in the Simming community, I'm not sure it's something of benefit to the general reading public. In addition, when the article was created by the website owner and approx. 25% of the edits were made by him, with another 25% or so being made by editors whose only contributions are in this article (realizing, of course, that some of these are may have been made by people who have since registered), I do wonder about WP:VAIN. While this is somewhat to be expected of an article of this nature, the only main namespace article linking to this one (other than redirects) is the The Sims 2 article. As far as the Rolling Stones, etc., reference is concerned, I agree that a single off-handed mention does not constitute notability - it constitutes fortuitous coincidence. Out of curiosity, does anyone know if there was any significant increase in the hit count for MTS2 immediately following this mention? -- Carl ( talk| contribs) 03:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Even if it was created as WP:VAIN, I would say that that isn't a problem anymore. Even if it was mentioned in a sentence in Rolling Stones, it is better then most websites featured on Wikipedia. Also, it was linked to from Attack of the Show. Might have been for a brief moment, but again, it's more then most. Havok (T/ C/ c) 06:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I do refer to the comment above: yes there are a lot of articles that need to be considered for deletion. However, this deletion is about MTS2: not the hundreds of other poorly-sourced, iffy articles on websites which need to be examined. "There are articles with more trivial sources than this one" is not a valid argument for keeping. Given the time and attention of dedicated editors and (hopefully) a new focus on quality over quantity by the wikipedia foundation, I hope they will be evaluated in due time and with due process. -- Kunzite 12:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • A line must be drawn; when a site has been mentioned in two very reliable sources, it deservs a mention. I myself am an inclusionist (but I am sure you are aware of that fact). If articles are deleted on the grounds that they are "poorly-sourced", "iffy articles" etc. and are just deleted without having the chance to be buildt upon and improved. It's going to be very hard to get anything up on WP. This site is huge, it has been mentioned, and it deserves an article, period. Havok (T/ C/ c) 12:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It should be "hard" to "get stuff up" on wikipedia (i.e. there should be standards); especially when it's a fansite. Collocating and merging such things will not harm wikipedia. If the site's included in a link in the main Sims 2 article, there would be nothing lost. The problem is that you a mistaking two mentions of a URL in the mass media as "sources". Have you read the sentence in Rolling Stone that you're calling a source? It's not even about the site; it's about Brokeback Mountain. The TV "source" is equally trivial. Read WP:WEB which states the inclusion guidelines for media sources. You're also mistaken in your assertation that just because a "site is huge" that it deserves an article. A site's traffic does not matter. That's not mentioned anywhere in any inclusion guideline. -- Kunzite 18:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • A single sentance in the magazine is concidered a trivial source. The article must be a full length feature on just the site, so the Rollingstone article has been voided as a source. What is next? One mention in passing (which since I have the show tivoed, I can tell you it was about the same coverage the Rollingstone article had) on a TV show. Not Multiple sources. One very shakey one and one that doesn't qualify per wikipedia's own policy. It fails a major wikipedia pillar... WP:V. It fails to follow the guideline of WP:WEB as well (multiple sources) -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 23:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Redirect per nom. The cited sources seem fairly trivial in their mention of the article's subject. - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 12:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Swampass

(Contested prod) Wikipedia is not an urban dictionary. — ERcheck ( talk) 05:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as a neologism with little in the way of verifiability that I was able to track down. (I tagged this as a speedy, but the author removed the tag and commented, so I didn't bother redoing it.) Tony Fox (arf!) 05:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Move to Wiktionary. Leuko 05:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:NFT. Ridiculous, unverifiable neologism. This same article has been speedied twice before under the name Swamp ass and twice again under Swamp Ass. Suggest page protection for all three articles should this AFD result in deletion. — NM Chico 24 05:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per NMChico24... unverifiable neologism, probably made up you-know-where. -- Kinu t/ c 05:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:NEO. No transwiki here, I don't think it's for neologisms. Asshat, cited by author as an example, is actually only a redirection page to Asshole. ColourBurst 05:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Actually, wiktionary will accept neologisms, however they still need to be verifiable. BS is still BS, no matter which project it's posted to. — NM Chico 24 05:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as before, crappy article. Gazpacho 07:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per NMChico24 -- Mr Stephen 11:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NFT policy. -- The Anome 12:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Neologism. StuffOfInterest 14:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, non-notable neologism. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 22:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. — Khoikhoi 22:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not notable, poorly written. Jaedza 06:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sango 123 00:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Gary Burn

young australian actor who had a role in Home and Away, and who scored 52 Ghits with "Gary Burn" + actor. Prpopsd deletion per WP:NN Ohconfucius

  • Delete nn. tv show sucks too. Macktheknifeau 05:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete totally NN: the first legitimate Google hit on him is (guess what?) this WP article itself. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 20:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. While a search of an Australia and New Zealand database comes up with plenty of hits for Gary Burn, there is little related to this actor. However, should his acting career continue, we can have an article when there is more verifiable information available. Capitalistroadster 22:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 22:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. As yet, non-notable. -- Roisterer 16:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Declan O'Brien

  • Delete. Non-notable, fails WP:BIO, no independent reviews of work, only 1 relevant GHit (IMDB listing) Leuko 05:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. You can expand stubs and he's runs a company. Sinewaves23 15:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I agree with Sinewaves, and although the version marked with AfD before wasn't at all notable, it now has great deal of information to prove otherwise now. DrWho42 17:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • 'Keep Dude's a film producer. Good enough for me. Dev920 18:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep based upon the expansion of this article from stub to start. Yamaguchi先生 08:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

ZilCorp

No evidence provided that this company meets the WP:CORP guidelines, delete. --- Peta

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

List of Political Documentaries

Originally placed on CSD by User:Musaabdulrashid, but "This is an attempt to create a useless list of information that is notably displayed elseware" does not fit into any of the CSD categories, and so taking to AfD. I actually support this deletion as it'd probably be better off as a category. ColourBurst 05:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Yet another endless list. Categories are much more appropriate for this sort of thing, especially given its scope. — NM Chico 24 05:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as the person who nominated it for csd 15 minuets ago-- Musaabdulrashid 05:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete, listcruft, and improper title case is the icing on the cake. -- Kinu t/ c 05:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I prefer categories for this sort of thing. Mr Stephen 11:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - lists are much more useful than categories in a lot of ways, and Political documentary is an encyclopaedic topic. WilyD 13:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Lists are inherantly bad. Any political documentary, even one made in one school day, could be listed in this article.-- Musaabdulrashid 00:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:LIST would disagree, but it's probly the case that any featured list nominated here with "nn listcruft" would get deleted. WilyD 11:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as potentially infinite. Use the category instead. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 22:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete If this had meaningful criteria for inclusion, it would have promise. It actually has some content about the documentaries, making it more valuable than the category. However, with no criteria for inclusion, it is potentially infinite and listcruft. GRBerry 15:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • That is, of course, not actually true. Entries still have to get past WP:V, so the potential is not infinite, nor is there any real potential for "listcruft". WP:LIST also covers reasons for having lists, which is more than just discussing the contents of the list. WilyD 15:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Geoff McIntosh

subject is not notable per vanity piece by non notable person WP:VAIN 56Ghits for "Geoff McIntosh" + binary. Article is suspected autobiography, as info is unverifiable ( User:GeeMac per WP:V and WP:AUTO Ohconfucius 05:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - reads like an autobiography, not particularly notable. Leuko 08:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, WP:NOT a resume host site. NawlinWiki 14:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per above. 11kowrom 19:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Peta 05:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a public resume repository. Dsreyn 16:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Gerald Vernon-Jackson

proposed deletion of entry for Local councillor for Portsmouth CC, former Deputy leader of West berks council and former candidate for European parliament for the South-east, for not passing the bar of notability. Ohconfucius 05:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, city officials tend not to meet WP:BIO. -- Kinu t/ c 05:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. A coucil leader such as Gerald Vernon-Jackson has more power than an ordinary councillor, and is hence more notable. I added some references. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 07:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete According to point number two in WP:BIO: Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This is a city council member/leader. As a political figure, they do not hold a statewide/provincewide office. -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 15:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment. The next point in WP:BIO is "Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage". Gerald Vernon-Jackson qualifies on this point. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 22:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment The links given in the article don't cut it, unfortunately. The BBC article is not about him (it just quotes him), and the Yahoo link seems to be minutes of council proceedings, which aren't press coverage. If you eliminate all that, you're left with local news, which is not "significant press coverage". -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 23:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Convertec Business Solutions

Text makes no assertion of company's importance. Company website doesn't even work. User has only posted links and articles related to company. Garrepi 05:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Delete and redirect to Coining. Srikeit ( Talk | Email) 06:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Coiner

Delete per WP:NEO Brian G ( Talk) 05:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • So it isn't a word? Remove it from Wikipedia. EVERYWHERE. Zanadark 06:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ( T | C | @) 19:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn neologism about creating more nn neologisms... ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 20:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • We can't deny the existence of a word that is used throughout human history. Why don't we document it's existence. Zana Dark 20:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Watch out for sockpuppets. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 22:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete If this article were to be remade, detailing assumptive historical meaning of coiner, someone who made coins, it could be quite interesting. As of now, however, it is attempting to promote a neologism. LinaMishima 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I see all this talk and no EDITING happenning. Is this place collaborative or over-critical? Zana Dark 23:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Our coverage at the disambiguation articles Coining and Coin (disambiguation) is perfectly adequate, and this article is merely a simple duplicate of it. Redirect to either. Uncle G 00:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Coining per Uncle G. Fan-1967 00:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Question - Is it common to redirect to diambiguation pages? I'm not sure that I've seen that except for plurals. -- Brian G ( Talk) 01:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Redirecting an -er to an -ing is about the same thing as redirecting between singular and plural. Fan-1967 13:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

All I see here, is "If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests." Let's work together find a common solution. Zana Dark 02:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

See Also: Chewbacca Defense Zana Dark 07:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to Coining — By the way, Zana, you seem to be the one using Chewbacca Defense here. We are working together to find a solution. That's the point of sessions such as this. Ryu Kaze 14:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Is there a reason this is even being discussed? Delete. - Corporal Tunnel 14:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect Creative, though. Gimmetrow 17:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I think you guys might want to look at this before you argue with me anymore: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/coining

Žena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» 03:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 08:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Nick pearson

Looks like a vanity article (created by User:Nick Pearson) Anons have been edit warring over this page as vanity or not. It has been deprodded at least once. This particular Nick Pearson appears to be completely overshadowed by an actor and also an olympic athelete, each of the same name. While it lasts, I encorage you to read his blog entry where he states such lovely things as:

"So my plea to you. Join Wikipedia, as it takes only a few moments, and post a comment on the discussion pages about how this page should stay on the website, not because it isn't self-serving or shamelessly promoting a radio show that no-one outside of Bathurst and Orange can listen to, but because people deserve to know as to the absolutely marvellous nature that is me."

I think the author well justifies that the page is vanity and that they themselves have self-justified themselves as not meeting WP:BIO. -- Kevin_b_er 05:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete As non-notable biography. Werdna talk criticism 06:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete per nom. NN person and he even admitted it's a vanity page. TJ Spyke 06:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete as per nom, Don't leave it around for his blog-minions to flood the page. Canadian-Bacon (contribs) 06:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. -- Graham 07:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete per A7. Leuko 08:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Comparison of instant messaging clients. Yank sox 18:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

List_of_instant_messaging_clients

  • Delete a list is not an ojective decsion because the list serves as a stub like the example of the software split. It should be expanded with a concise comparison based upon usage statistics, and its role in modern business.The multiprotocol list is useful for research. The point that 2bit software/freeware is added wrecklessly can be addressed by a requirement that the new entry must have 2-5 verifiable outside links (ie: sorceforge), and that their entry is placed inot talk before it is added. I thinks this is a better solution than deletion.

This page serves no purpose other than to allow non-notable two-bit apps to appear alongside notable ones. It's a pointless list and you don't learn anything. Andymarczak 06:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Eberron Mod

Unofficial mod, the game it is modding isn't even out yet, plus even the website establishes no notability with forums with no more than a dozen posts on it. Completely insignificant especially when you consider most announced mods never appear. Ben W Bell talk 07:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. --jam es (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Christopher Hinz

Consesnus sought for this rather obscure writer of Sci-fi books: 2 books ('Ash Ock' and 'anachronisms') out of print; Paratwa ranked #675,513; Liege killers ranked #867,362 per Amazon.

Apparently won the Compton Crook Award (Baltimore SF society) for best first novel and nominated (but not apparently shortlisted for the John W. Campbell Award for best new writer according to Fictionwise. Rather NN, from what I can tell. Ohconfucius 07:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Tamil Slangs

Wikipedia is not an slag dictionary, and if it was these terms would go on the tamil encyclopedia. If any of these terms notable (for illustrating the structure of the language for instance) they can be merged with Tamil language somehow-- Musaabdulrashid 07:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Slang is an important part of colloquial language. They do not illustrate in any way the structure of the language. But that does not take away from its importance. Slangs reflect the people who use them and their way of interaction. The only way I can see of connecting it with Tamil language is by providing a link from the latter.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avan gopi ( talk • contribs) 00:24, August 14, 2006 (UTC).

  • Delete. I can't see how this list isn't either original research or pulled from an existing source. Slang terms that are independently notable ( lingam, for example) might make a good addition to the Tamil language article. -- Graham 08:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as nom and a list of slag from any one language is completely unnessesary.-- Musaabdulrashid 09:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. We're not Wiktionary. Wasn't something like this already deleted? -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 22:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Tamil Language Doctor Bruno 03:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless rewritten to cover the general topic of Tamil slang. Lists of words do not generally belong on Wikipedia. -- Visviva 20:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Preston Hellings F.C.

Non-notable Sunday league football (soccer) team from a small village; there are thousands of such teams, all of which compete below what is considered serious competition. Established consensus on WikiProject Football is that only teams from levels 1-10 of the English football league system are considered inherently notable and this team falls a long way short. Qwghlm 07:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as nominator. Qwghlm 07:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. – Elisson • Talk 12:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (they're not very good, either -- 4-18 last season). NawlinWiki 14:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Similarly, is the league itself worth an article? -- Kinu t/ c 15:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. - Pal 18:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --jam es (talk) 03:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Charlie Kadau

subject is not known outside of his involvemet with MAD magazine, scores 638Ghits. Ohconfucius 07:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Many people, and probably a disproportionate number of Wikipedia editors, are fascinated by MAD magazine. I think he's notable. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 08:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Involved with MAD magazine as a comedy writer and longtime associate editor for MAD Magazine? Notable. -- HResearcher 15:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Why does he need to be notable outside of his involvement with MAD magazine? Isn't that like saying that Barry Bonds needs notability outside of baseball? Dsreyn 15:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy redirected to Cowards Bend the Knee. Kimchi.sg 14:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Cowards bend at the knees (film)

This seems to be a wikipedia entry for the film " Cowards Bend the Knee" rather then "Cowards bend at the knees" the article isn't written in proper form, has several spelling errors, and there is already an entry for the article under the film's proper name.

Reason the page should be deleted Andrzejbanas 07:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 00:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Asma Kəsmə

this entry is challenged on the basis of WP:V or WP:HOAX. This listing for an Azerbaijani dance which forms part of the wedding ritual asserts notability based on its claim of being one of the oldest dances in the context of wedding ceremonies. Dances are an integral part of the wedding rituals in almost every culture, and this claim, therefore, needs to be properly demonstrated. Ohconfucius 07:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) See page bottom. Ohconfucius reply

  • Comment - where the hoax issue is concerned, the words are certainly cognate to the relevant Turkish infinitives ("asmak" and "kesmek"), so nobody's trying to pull the wool over our eyes by sneaking an obscenity in, since Azeri's close enough to Turkish for the words not to have changed enough. As for whether such a dance exists, I'll leave that to someone with slightly more knowledge in that field or abilities in that language. BigHaz 10:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The text comes straight from this web page: آذربایجان رقص لری /Azerbaijani dances. That holds also for several others, all listed under List of folk dances sorted by origin#Azerbaijan, such as Abayı and Asta Qarabağı. I do not think this is copyvio, as the page states near its beginning: "We are sending English translation of dances to Wikipedia". I think for now it is enough to keep the {{ verify}} tag. -- Lambiam Talk 16:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment my challenge is on the premise of its claim to be "It is one of the oldest dances which is current in marriage". Apologies if it was misunderstood: I was not challenging the existence of the dance, nor that it has a very long history. An assertion to notability of the dance such as "It is a folkloric dance which dates back to the Xth century" would appear sufficient in this regard. With respect, I would content that the source of the translated document itself needs to be subject to the same credibility test. Ohconfucius 05:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I was reasonably certain that that was what you were getting at. My comment about the language issue was to save anyone else the trouble of thinking "I wonder if we've inadvertently got an article with an offensive title?" BigHaz 05:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, we have lots of dances on WP and even Category:Dance. If Azeris do the dance at their weddings, that's notable enough for WP. If you want to take issue with the claim of "oldest" AfD is not the place to hash that out. I think the nomination based on verifiability and hoax is no longer operative. Carlossuarez46 06:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • comment point taken. I withdraw the AfD nomination. case closed. I beg for someone to fill out the stub. Ohconfucius 06:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Argoed High School

there appears to be nothing notable about this welsh secondary school. Ohconfucius 08:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

In all fairness, it's not that disruptive, and they don't have much of a point. WilyD 23:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep — WP:SCHOOL does not yet set a bar for deletion and there is no parent article to merge into. 550+ student high schools are unlikely to ever be judged as non-notable Peripitus (Talk) 11:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not notable, no paticuarly special achievements to warrant inclusion. Viridae Talk 12:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I think all high schools should be kept. NawlinWiki 14:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - common law dictates that high schools are notable. WilyD 14:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • What exactly do you mean by common law? Precedent is not binding in AFD. Viridae Talk 14:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Precendent isn't binding upon AfD, but it is the rational I'm advancing here, yes. It's a very well established precendent that secondary schools are inherently worthy of articles - and as long as they get past WP:V, I'm not really aware of a criterion anywhere which is binding upon AfD, or even an official-like guideline. WilyD 14:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
        • The guideline is at WP:SCHOOL, although it's among the most ignored guidelines here. -- Graham 17:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
          • WP:SCHOOL is a proposed guideline, not a guideline. It wouldn't be binding even if it was a guideline, which it isn't. WilyD 17:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. While the article is not extensive, it does provide some background on the school. Plus, there is verifiable information, with a reference to a newspaper article (albeit a local) included. This school article clears the hurdle. — C.Fred ( talk) 15:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep — At least until WP:SCHOOLS is agreed upon and we have some common guidelines. This school meets my personal criteria for notability. Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 17:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as is customary. Gazpacho 17:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It is a high school and WP:SCHOOL -- Ageo020 00:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Since Argoed High School is a high school, this nomination was a waste of everyone's time. Edison 02:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Notable high school. Carioca 04:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as a notable secondary school, this nomination is a waste of time indeed. Silensor 07:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- per RJH's statement. GBYork 13:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As the article contains no assertion of notability. Having articles on all schools violates the WP:NOT policy against being an indiscriminate collection of information. GRBerry 15:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment surely you realise that isn't true. There's no requirement for an assertion of notability, and WP:NOT doesn't forbid an article on every highschool any more than it forbids an article on every country. WilyD 15:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment ....or every person, every public convenience, blah blah blah. Carlossuarez46 06:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Comment true, WP:NOT doesn't really forbid an article on every person, though WP:V and WP:BIO do. WilyD 11:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 06:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep notability isnt policy... verifiability is.   ALKIVAR ™ 06:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep based upon my belief that secondary level educational institutions and above are notable. Yamaguchi先生 08:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep both. --jam es (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Science Fiction Studies

The notability of this journal and co-nominee is challenged per WP:NN. It is the news journal of the Science Fiction Society of DePauw University, and the article apparently fails to assert its notability.

I also nominate Andrew M. Butler for deletion. The subject here is a college lecturer of Sci-fi at Canterbury Christ Church University and is sometimes writer in a number of SF journals, including SFS. Ohconfucius 08:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep both. I have added a list of his publications,a nd I think that the article now demonstrates that he is notable. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 09:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep both. Notable refereed academic journal and notable author. — Viriditas | Talk 08:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Andrew M. Butler I've not yet investigated the journal fully, so I'm declining comment on it for now. However Andrew M. Butler has been nominated for a Hugo award, which clearly establishes him as a leading author in such matters, in my opinion LinaMishima 23:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, appears to be a reputable, established peer-reviewed publication. Not sure what the basis for this AfD is. Oh, and in the future please list separate AfDs separately. -- Visviva 13:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

EDiets.com

Spam, not edited since it was posted on June 23 Nuttah68 08:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as per nom. Rewrite as per Glen Dlyons493 Talk 11:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Rob (Talk) 11:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, spamvertising. Keep per GIen, below, but article could use some cleanup. NawlinWiki 15:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC) NawlinWiki 14:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep — Let me start by saying that I've been in the nutrition industry for 10 years so this is kinda my thing. Ediets.com easily meets WP:WEB criteria for notability, that is "The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation", at http://www.ediets.com/company/pressroom/awards.cfm you'll see its won "Forbes.com's Spring 2005 "Best of the Web" and a "Forbes Favorite" in the Diet and Nutrition category." for the third year, ""Standard of Excellence" WebAward in the 2004 WebAward Competition, which are produced by the Web Marketing Association", "PC Magazine selected eDiets.com its "Editors' Choice", "Nielsen//NetRatings has ranked eDiets.com as the #1 Most Trafficked Health, Fitness & Nutrition Site World Wide" etc. The company is publicly listed on the NASDAQ, and has an Alexa ranking of approx 3000. Hope this helps - Glen 14:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the topic but refer to copyright problems. The subject of the article is notable, and I think it deserves an article. As noted above, though, it is a copyvio. — C.Fred ( talk) 15:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment I cant believe I missed that (Ive tagged two other AfD candidates in the last hour or two for the exact same reason). I've blanked the article and tagged copyvio. I will try to sit down this morning and write at least a stub that isnt a commercial. I've left the AfD tag on the article, just in case for some reason it's found to survive deletion - then this AfD will remain relavant. - Glen 15:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep with rewrite to fix copyright problems. Leuko 19:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Glen's rewrite. As an aside, I humbly express my utter shock that this article was only written in June... As the most popular dieting website (according to my sources), I cannot believe it wasn't created a long time ago. Srose (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep with the new stub per GIen. Nickieee 07:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Rewritten

I have rewritten the article (just as a stub but it's a start) - it is located at Talk:EDiets.com/Temp. - GIen 16:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 00:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Druthers

Contested prod. Non notable local business that fails WP:CORP

  • Keep. This place was awesome and since I found out that there is one still in existance I'm planning an hour & a half road trip to go to the Campbellsville one! Druther's/Burger Queen Rocks!!! User: londonhistory 11:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Nuttah68 08:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Merge and Redirect to Dairy Queen. Catchpole 09:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This was not a local business, but a regional chain. Though it was absorbed into Dairy Queen, it was a distinct company from DQ, so merge and redirect is not appropriate. Article does need to be verified, however. Rohirok 17:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I remember this chain and it's slogan "I'd ruther go to Druthers". Gazpacho 01:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Not non-notable. They eventually faded away but they were a pretty well known fast food chain during the 1980s - one of the second string chains about comparable to Whataburger or Burger Chef. Dragomiloff 02:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above comments and continue to provide reliable sources. Yamaguchi先生 08:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Advertising Intern

the subject is not a recognised profession, and will share characteristics of the skill-sets for advertising with the employment characteristics of internship. Interns in almost every domain are basically inexperienced workers, thus multiplication of separate listings is not warranted. WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information. In the case of this article, it also appears to be a school project for User:Cndylanders, thus WP:VAIN. Ohconfucius 08:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - doesn't contribute anything that couldn't be found in Internship or Advertising articles. GrahameS 17:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Michael 19:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Leuko 19:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, I do not see how internship in a specific profession needs its own article.-- danntm T C 20:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Peta 05:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • "'Delete'" -- Jenne this article appears to have been written solely to lead users to an outlink produced by an ad agency in Houston, Texas.
  • Agree Delete for reason WP:VAIN. Mallanox 10:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply

You are all correct. I have no problem with deletion. It was my first attempt at contribution. Thank you for your input.-- Cndylanders 16:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - per nom. GBYork 00:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Alexandra Zhang

the subject is a film actress who has had several roles in film. However, many of the parts are unnamed, and none of the roles appear to have any prominence. Would appear to fail WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 09:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, non-notable actress (or rather, extra) per WP:BIO. Very few reliable sources indicating these roles; only relevant results appear to be copied from IMDb itself. -- Kinu t/ c 15:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn. Leuko 19:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Phoenix Hacker 20:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Agree, Delete. Mallanox 12:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete. For crying out loud, she is an extra, not an actress. Half of her roles are "uncredited". RFerreira 21:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of secondary characters from Futurama. --jam es (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Vice Presidential Action Rangers

This was only ever in one part of one episode of one TV show. It's clearly not notable enough. Philip Stevens 09:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Keep. Baseball,Baby! balls• strikes 00:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Factory 81

Contains one line of "information", doesn't comply with WP:Music Dmiles21 09:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete this version as clear cut copyvio. This discussion however indicates that there's no consensus to not include an article on this person, however, so in other words, creating it as a non-copy-and-paste of a news story should be okay. W.marsh 18:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Omar Shaick

Non-notable junior boxing champion: Google returns only 72 hits, and I can find no indication of notability. Prod removed by third party. RandyWang ( chat me up/ fix me up) 09:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Junior boxing champions are notable. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 10:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. Even junior boxing champions that have received zero media attention? Likewise, Omar has competed - at his highpoint - at the national (Australian) level, which does not satisfy WP:BIO's requirement that the sportsperson have competed at the highest level of their competition (ie, international). Since he's made no significant or lasting impact to his field, and has received absolutely no recognition from third parties, there's not much reason to include his article here. RandyWang ( chat me up/ fix me up) 11:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I see RandyWang's point perfectly, but what makes Omar notable is this – he is a Muslim boxer in a predominantly white field, and his religion is at odds with his impending success. There has actually been a fair amount of controversy in boxing circles in the past few days about the guy [my Google search got 401 hits for "omar shaick" boxing, by the way – what terms did you use?] I don't see any reason why there should be an article about him, unless this gets big. He isn't notable as a boxer, yet. He's notable for his refusal to get tested, and his religion. I'm going to abstain from voting on this one [after all that!!!] — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 12:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. Aren't you meant to be on enforced WikiBreak? :) You're right though, I seem to have used the wrong search terms: I get 479 for simply "Omar Shaick," but that still doesn't seem enough to demonstrate notability. As far as I can tell, the only significant thing he's done is refuse a drug test, but that's not really a particularly notable thing. RandyWang ( chat me up/ fix me up) 23:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment I found out how to bypass it :) I still stand by my previous comment, though – I think he's at least slightly notable due to the fact that it's not just a normal refusal to get tested, it's for religious reasons. It's interesting how many articles on the web about the controversy display such blatant anti-Islamicism and racism [note: no bias here... I've been raised Hindu. OK, maybe a little :)]. That said, unless this hits the fan (which I doubt it will), there's not much need for a proper article about him. Aaargh, that sounds confusing! In summary – he is slightly notable (notorious?), but right now we don't need an article about him. Weak delete — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 01:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (athletes) I do not see any of these being met by this particular boxer. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Right now the article is a copy-vio of the site listed as an external link. Wickethewok 13:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but delete as copyvio. JYolkowski // talk 23:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. Ey? Keep and delete? What would you like done, exactly? RandyWang ( chat me up/ fix me up) 21:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • It means that what I would like to see is this discussion closed as keep, but the page deleted through the procedure at WP:CP assuming it is in fact a copyvio. Such a verdict would cause recreations to be treated differently than a discussion closed as delete. JYolkowski // talk 22:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Rather, list on WP:CP as it is a copyvio. :)-- Tdxi an g Jimbo's 40th Birthday! 09:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Okay didn't realise I would cause controversy over this. As the person who originally added the article I'm not going to vote. I have zero interest in boxing, never heard of the guy, but then again I can probably name about 2 or 3 boxers in the world. When I saw the article on the ABC News site I thaught that it was interesting enough to see what WP had to say. When I realised he had no article I thaught I'd add it. I more or less (if I remember correctly) wikified the news article. If this is a copyvio (copyright violation, I'm assuming) I appologise. I knew the article couldn't be just that story, but as I knew nothing else about him, I figured someone who did (and actually cares about boxing) could add more info. If it gets deleted for any reason, I won't lose any sleep over it, I really did add it in good faith. AussieDingo1983 11:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Don't worry, nobody was assuming you did it in goodbad (whoops) faith. This page exists to determine whether the article should be included in any form, not because of the way you sourced your information. :) RandyWang ( chat me up/ fix me up) 13:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

God (Beatles)

Fictional album of no great note. kingboyk 10:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. It's just a list of songs the lads did solo post-Beatles, fancrufted into an album. (Yes, I did just verb "fancruft.") Non-notable and confusing. -- Merope 14:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is the Holy Grail of WP:MUSIC -- a non-notable Beatles album! -- M @ r ē ino 23:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Huxwell Manwachi

Being tudent union president at the University of Zambia appears to be his only real claim to fame. Has he done more? Andrew Levine 10:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • It appears he may have caused a huge stir, if the article is to be believed. Unfortunately, Zambia's online presence is minimal, and the article cannot be substantiated. 0hits on the Zambian 8Ghits, of which 5 wiki. delete Ohconfucius 06:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Questionable notability and no sources. JPD ( talk) 11:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Center for Range Voting

Delete. Hoax. Vanity. Non-notability per WP:ORG. The center for range voting is not more than a website by Warren Smith. Yellowbeard 11:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Michael 19:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above, does not seem to meet WP:WEB. Leuko 19:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. Ohconfucius 06:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Not notable. GBYork 13:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I don't believe this is a hoax, but it is completely non-notable per WP:ORG et al.-- Satori Son 15:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination even if not a hoax. Yamaguchi先生 08:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Selam Ahderom (second nomination)

Previously deleted but content recreated. Earlier AfD is here. Same argument as before, viz nn academic, possible vanity page. Eusebeus 05:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. African academics are underrepresented in Wikipedia. I think that, as an academic in Uganda, he is notable. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 11:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment- Every Ugandan academic is notable? I think not. J Milburn 13:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per TruthbringerToronto. -- Jeff3000 13:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Gets a reasonable number of Google Scholar hits http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=author%3ASelam T. Ahderom&btnG=Search Wouldn't meet WP:PROF in US/EU, but a keep would help towards reduction of systemic bias. Dlyons493 Talk 14:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (sadly). I created this article as part of a series on Bahai Counsellors. Sadly the precedent has been set that CBCs are not notable enough for their retention - even the list has been deleted from the main page on CBCs. That's Baha'is for you! AndrewRT - Talk 18:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Precedent schmecedent, Baha'is can be notable too. -- Visviva 19:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. He is not a notable academic, merely a lecturer at a university. If there is anything to make him notable, it is for being a Bahá'í Counselor, which does not equate notability unless the Counselor is also notable in his own right. We do not need to keep articles about people who do not meet WP:PROF as a means to reduce systemic bias. Uganda has quite a few noteworthy academics with published works. -- Ezeu 22:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Changing to Keep given the addition of published papers. -- Ezeu 06:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Ezeu. Happening to live in another country doesn't make a non-notable academic any more notable per WP:PROF (which is technically misnomer, since this individual is not even a professor, but a lecturer). To say so is not systemic bias. -- Kinu t/ c 05:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. As often happens with articles nominated for AfD, the article has been improved. I added three of his publications, and more can be found at http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Selam+Ahderom I also added a link to Eta Kappa Nu, the electrical and computer engineering honor society. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 06:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I am familiar with Ahderom's research and publications on computer generated holographic optical router. It is original and significant, and its methods novel and certainly qualifies notable per WP:PROF -- Optiv 14:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

The Ramayana: A True Reading

Clear POV fork of Ramayana. OR and only argument presented -- Samir धर्म 11:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Samir धर्म 11:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, original research/POV. NawlinWiki 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, unsourced POV fork, suspected original research. -- Kinu t/ c 15:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete. To those who may not have known the South India Phenomenon, the facts are
  1. Pulavar Kulandhai's book was initially banned by Madras Government, but the ban was revoked by the Tamil Nadu Government and today excerpts from the work are given in the Government Text Books as a chapter for Class X Tamil Subject. The book is same as Ramayana except for few variation - Ravana as Hero and Rama as Villain and Rama as Aryan and Ravana as Dravidian. Hence that book is totally verifiable and is not a original research. (Please see the History of TamilNadu to know what is Madras Government and what is Tamil Nadu Government)
  2. Few other facts are lifted from works of Periyar
  3. Few other facts have been taken from the articles written by Hindu Fundamentals against Periyar's views
The creator of the article has tried to give the points praising and opposing the epic. If some one can write an article for the Book (Ravana Kaaviyam), that can perhaps be included. Or another article may be Views on Ramayana or better key points from this can be added to the main article on Ramayana itself Doctor Bruno 04:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete - A cesspool of anti-Hindu garbage. Bakaman Bakatalk 16:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Conformist Rebellion

This has to be original research. ~~ N ( t/ c) 11:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I removed the PROD as it did come up with a few google hits, and wondered if a better article could be written with this title. Probably not though, and I don't think existing article should stay (per nom). Petros471 11:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The facts that the article states that this concept was invented by Ian Nordstrom, that the article was created and mostly written by MrNordstrom ( talk · contribs) (who states on xyr user page that xe is "the leader of the Conformist Rebellion"), and that that editor states that xe "disliked most of the students in his school and other schools in Washington, although he lives in Washington", lead inevitably to the conclusion that this is original research, an idea that someone made up in school one day, and decided to publish on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. The place for this is the creator's own web site, not Wikipedia. Yes, there are occasional mentions of "conformist rebellion" here and there, but they are mainly like this web page, which has remained empty for four years. There is no source material for an encyclopaedia article on this subject, and Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing such source material. Delete. Uncle G 14:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Uncle G. The Conformist Rebellion was a movement created in December 2005 by Ian Nordstrom. This movement represented the ideas that teenagers have continually rebelled against everything mainstream until no one followed the mainstream. This clear, lucid, and likeable prose shows that what follows is original research. Best wishes to Mr. Nordstrom, and hope that he continues to contribute. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This appears to be a small movement within one particular school (or possibly slightly larger but still objectively tiny area). Heck, I'd love for this to catch on and become notable as a youth subculture (the "I want to be a non-conformist—exactly like everyone else!" attitude of most deserves to be mocked, and harshly) but at this point, that is sadly not so. -- Icarus ( Hi!) 16:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Definitely OR, a google search for "Ian nordstrom" only returns mirrors of this article that have any relevance. GrahameS 17:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Global Personal Initiatives

Blatant advertisement, copyvio status uncertain - original site appears to have been "hacked". Erath 11:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as per nom. From Cache of the page, I'd say it has been copied and pasted into wikipedia, but since the original site has gone offline, the only other references google finds to the organisation are at wikipedia. Note if this article is deleted so should it's entry from this page be removed. 70.68.92.25 13:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • The above comment was related by me. Sorry, I didn't realise my session had expired. Ardent † ∈ 13:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete as spam. Strong Delete per below. Leuko 19:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as advertising. Kickaha Ota 19:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC) On second thought, WP:CSD states that advertising/spam is not a valid speedy deletion criteria. So let's make that a strong delete instead, with the hope of an early WP:SNOW closing if someone does not rapidly improve the article. Kickaha Ota 19:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Free Alf Stuart

A Completely NN organisation about a fictional character, possible hoax. Mentions books and songs that google does not know, and the organisation links only to message boards. J Milburn 12:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

NiceOne

Yet another web directory which asserts notability but provides no evidence of so. Alexa ranking of 467,820 [12]. Not likely to be the biggest of class at that level. StuffOfInterest 12:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. Please note there is also (now) a redirect called " Niceone" which should be deleted if this article is deleted. Content was originally a copy of the listed article. -- StuffOfInterest 12:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:WEB Leuko 19:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- per nom. GBYork 13:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Haakon 21:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Crimson highway

This page appears to be vanity of a non-notable band. I have attempted numerous searches and been unable to come up with any related press. Ardent † ∈ 12:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Leuko 19:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as a non-English subject I'll give it the benefit of doubt.
    • Comment I'd like to note that in my search for press I also searched the Brazilian MTV site for the skol rock appearance that the article claims. I couldn't find it. Ardent † ∈ 02:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Gazpacho 04:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Nom withdrew. SynergeticMaggot 06:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply

James Browning (Texas politician)

Does not seem to be about a Texas Politician, some of the claims it makes seem to be fraudulent, and it is written in a very bad style. Google turns up a lot, but few of them seem to be this person, I believe. No vote from me right now. Article has been completely rewritten and I now vote 'keep.' J Milburn 12:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

*Delete - A ten year old headlining OzFest? Andymarczak 13:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) *Keep as per Detective TruthbringerToronto. Andymarczak 06:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Delete This was a red link on a disambig page since January this year. See this edit. Unfortunately, mirror sites fill some google hits. Also, no references- very weak delete. JungleCat talk/ contrib 18:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: Change my vote. Single hoax edit by new user. Can't always WP:AGF Not sure about the disambig page entry. It's been there awhile. JungleCat talk/ contrib 18:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Article corrected by TruthbringerToronto. JungleCat talk/ contrib 12:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Could we start over on this one? I replaced the hoax text with information from a number of sources on the real Texas politician by this name. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 00:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and rename to James Nathan Browning after rewrite. Nice work. :) -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 01:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the rewrite version by User:TruthbringerToronto and agree with User:Coredesat that it should be rename with the politician's middle name. The rewrite James Browning is notable. -- 4.226.57.136 03:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: Might want to check that these links [13] don’t have any conflicts. If I get a chance and some free time, I might check these. Also, thanks TruthbringerToronto for the article replacement. JungleCat talk/ contrib 12:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Capture the Flag (Half-Life 2 mod)

Non-notable software mod with no sources, claims of notabilities, proof that its verifiable, etc... Delete as such. Wickethewok 13:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete or Rewrite. It's really unencyclopaedic at the moment, but as far as I know, Valve did some form of publicity thing by challenging the developers of the mod to a game of it, and included the mod in their news updates. Still, I'm not even sure if that's enough for notability. The current version of this page is horrendous, though. -- Angry Lawyer 16:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 17:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • DeletePer nom -- Peephole 19:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, mods aren't notable. Recury 20:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Mods can be notable, but this article doesn't show notablility. -- PresN 20:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per PresN. RandyWang ( chat me up/ fix me up) 23:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but Rewrite It has been established in presN that mods are indeed notable. However, this article needs a rewrite. Nothing will be done on wikipedia however of any note if articles are deleted in their infancy. This particular mod has been commended by VaLVE, the creators of the Half-Life series of games and in some media sources. Immediate lack of such mention and the format of the article are grounds for a rewrite, not an immediate deletion. The following link gives a basic idea. http://www.steampowered.com/Steam/Marketing/January27.2006/ -- Palehorse864 06:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.48.159.136 ( talk • contribs) reply
  • Comment I don't know much about Half-Life 2, but besides that Valve played a game with them and promoted their mod, does having their mod being selected for distribution over STEAM with other selected mods and commercial products make the mod notable? [14] Or is any mod that reached a certain development stage allowed to be pushed through STEAM? I would guess there would have to be some kind of professional level cream-of-the-crop selection going on there. -- SevereTireDamage 09:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I dunno, I can't seem to find any third party articles about it. Just message boards and such mostly. Can anyone find any third party reliable sources that show the relevance of this particular mod? Wickethewok 13:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • weak delete This article doesn't read like an encyclopedia entry. It explains what the mod is a mostly comprehensible way, but does not explain why it's important. If this can be added, keep, otherwise, dellete. Ace of Sevens 18:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Rewrite This could be an alright stub or even full article if it was written more as a factual reference and not as a simple guide I vote delete or full rewrite as per WP:NOT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magosis ( talk • contribs) 20:35, 20 August 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Yank sox 17:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Cheridonna Alexander

WP:BIO . nothing against nudism, but....subject occasionally gives lectures at college, reached several hundred nudists with Prodigy, and has appeared several times on TV - doesn't appear to be notable Ohconfucius 05:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete or complete rewrite in a hurry Article lacks sources, fails to assert notability and POV, and could not pass WP:BIO. Ifit can't be brought to suitable standards, it has to go. -- Svartalf 16:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, — Mets501 ( talk) 13:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above, possibly speedy as there doesn't seem to be a real assertion of notability. JPD ( talk) 11:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Svartalf and WP:V. -- Satori Son 16:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as non-notable. — Michael Hays 16:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDY DELETE as patent nonsense. (it was a painful wall of text that began "The Serozza were founded on January 18, 2002 by a group of people claiming the same descent. These people decided to start a tribe, a nomadic tribe not of a country, but of the Earth.", with no sources) ~~ N ( t/ c) 13:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

The Serozza

Non notable (no hits on google), possibly fictional (?) royal family. - Ladybirdintheuk 13:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I changed the nomination to speedy- it's straight up nonsense and not worth debating. Richardjames444 13:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --jam es (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Eric "Ty" Hodges

Doubt subject meets WP:BIO 500 g-hits. Verfiability problem in that there are no cited sources.  :) Dlohcierekim 13:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Have added IMDB source [15], which shows him in a recurring role on Even Stevens, and with appearances in several other notable films and TV shows. NawlinWiki 14:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, length of credits list at IMDB seems to satisfy WP:BIO. — C.Fred ( talk) 15:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep - Length of credits list in IMDB probably because each individual appearance in a TV episode is listed. Leuko 19:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Thanks to all. I probably was wrong to list the thing, but wasn't sure. If no one finds a compelling reason to delete, I should withdraw the AfD. Will look at this again when I'm not at work. Cheers.  :) Dlohcierekim 01:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Xoloz 18:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Raj Bhakta

Article had an AfD tag, but no page created so I'm listing it. I can see why it was tagged considering WP:NOT a soapbox - this article seems to have been created and is being maintained for the sole purpose of promoting Raj Bhakta and his congressional campaign. Delete, maybe insert a paragraph about him into Apprentice 2 Candidates article and redirect it to that page - Paulus89 14:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, combination of Apprentice appearance, nomination by major party for US Congress, plus various newsworthy stumbles in his campaign (mentioned in article) make him notable. NawlinWiki 15:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, abuse of wikipedia as entry is being maintained by paid employee of political campaign which regularly deletes information not favorable to the campaign including references to Mr. Bhakta's DUIs until others cried foul, deletion of references to articles from the Hill and the Philadelphia Inquirer unfavorable to the candidate, use of spam blogging to intimidate Wikipedians making comments. Page is nothing more than a thinly veiled piece of campaign literature. Bruceberry 11:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Response Article should be watched closely, and if editors are removing pertinent info in bad faith, they should be warned/blocked. When I read the article today, though, it didn't strike me as campaign propaganda (maybe because the DUI and false-accusation stuff was in it). NawlinWiki 15:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. The conduct of certain editors doesn't change the fact that the subject of the article meets criteria for notability on account of his TV appearance on The Apprentice and his campaign. The article is certainly long enough to stand alone. I agree with NawlinWiki that the way to deal with it is to warn the editors. — C.Fred ( talk) 15:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - blocker spammers as needed. There are procedures in place for that. WilyD 16:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and deal with vandalism as appropriate. Leuko 19:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. He's a major-party candidate for federal office - certainly a more worthy reason to be in an encyclopedia than his earlier television exploits. The article seems to have a balanced look now, and I think enough editors are looking in on it to keep it that way. Coemgenus 21:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Figure is notable as a major-party candidate for federal office. Yamaguchi先生 08:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Alleged inconsistencies in Star Wars

While I'm hesitant to nominate an article for deletion when it has received more edits than many Featured Articles, I feel I have no choice in this case. It's completely original research, with the 'question and answer' format just an excuse to pack even more fancruft into an already unencyclopaedic article. The title itself is a weasel word; alleged by who? The article never says. This article is flagged with just about every warning template already, but the truth is that it's fundamentally a bad idea for an article. There may be some small amount of information that warrants merging into Star Wars, but consensus should first be established on the worthiness or otherwise of the article itself. Soo 13:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per the precedent set by the deletion of a similar article related to Star Trek: Enterprise. 23skidoo 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOV, Smacks of WP:OR, and falls short of WP:V. I did get a very good laugh out a post someone made, stating that in space ...you'd expand and eventually explode, because your skin and organs aren't tough enough to keep their shape under no pressure at all. Also, you'd freeze to death within minutes, as it's lower than -100C out there -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 15:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Actually, then it's definitely a violation of WP:OR or WP:RS, since neither of the above assertions are. WilyD 17:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 16:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per everyone. Recury 20:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as 100% unrefererenced OR. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 21:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, unsourced original research. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 22:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Most of this is sourcable (heck whole books have been written on this), so OR and RS are not issues. Someone just needs to go through and source it. JoshuaZ 01:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If the article is deleted, any information not already in the Wookiepedia article on the same subject should be copied there first. I haven't done a point-by-point comparison of the two, but my impression is that while the Wookiepedia article covers more issues, it doesn't have as much in-depth information about the ones listed here. -- Icarus ( Hi!) 01:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Hadn't thought of that, good idea. Soo 09:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Shovel and delete ... as above. This belongs in Wookiepedia. Ronabop 03:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Completely WP:OR. The ones that are worthwhile are already mentioned elsewhere, and others ("Vader knowing about Tatooine" stands out as an example) aren't exactly major continuity issues and probably shouldn't be here at all. BryanG (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Maclaine 15:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • i say keep it. i like it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.153.188.49 ( talk • contribs)
    • Fourth edit from this IP. Soo 16:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete bad precedent although imdb has tons of this stuff. On balance, that's probably where it belongs, not here. (more than 4th edit from me) Carlossuarez46 06:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There has been some research, from books, et cetera. I do not want to do this research. I am glad the writer did.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.232.196 ( talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Johnny Baracoa

Doesn't meet creiteria for a speedy but looks like its fails WP:BIO as well as WP:NOT crystal ball as well as it appears that it can only be original research. In short doesn't justify an article now but could be recreated once the subject has achieved some notability. Spartaz 13:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as nom -- Spartaz 13:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. The subject does not appear to be notable. Ohconfucius 05:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- per nom. GBYork 13:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Mad Mental Motor Missions

very non-notable, one or two hits on google. Was previously deleted via WP:PROD, but the author contested the deletion Kungfu Adam ( talk) 13:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Only mention in Google is the Wikipedia page, and this AfD. Leuko 19:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - a search on "M4" and "Shetland Islands" doesn't seem to turn up much of anything either. Pretty close to a vanity article. John Broughton 23:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - See above. 06:29, 16 August 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planetary ( talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Mersey reds

English 5-a-side football club; below notability threshold. NawlinWiki 13:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • I have added a link to the wikipedia pages about indoor football and futsal so this is just a link from those as an example of a 5 aside team also their is a link to the official league page is their anything else i can do to try and stop the page dfrom being deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean P ( talk • contribs) (article author)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, no context. Kimchi.sg 14:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Darvin and dagmar

Provides no discernible context, produces no Google hits. Was speedied as {{db-context}}, tag removed by author. Speedy delete -- Huon 13:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete. I think that sd tags can be restored if an author removes them. (And the remover should be warned with a {drmspeedy} on his/her talk page.) -- Merope 14:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Dr. Daniel J. Garguillio

page had been marked prod, potential Vanity and autobiography Doc ♬ talk 14:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I'm hesitant to decide whether it meets WP:BIO. The original author's username is DrGargoyle, so I think it is an autobiography. WP:VAIN says, "The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created. If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them." -- Gray Porpoise 14:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • delete looks too much like an ad for my tastes. - Steve Sanbeg 16:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Do Not Delete Article is honest, including both negative and positive information on the subject, hardly like an "ad" or autobiography (making it quite doubtful that the origin author is the same individual as the subject). Garguillio is well-known in the demonological/occult field and should be the subject of a Wikipedia article at the very least.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.27.2.44 (Talk) ( talk • contribs) 12:12, 14 August 2006
Comment the above unsigned remark appears to be from none other than the originator of the article DrGargoyle. Doc ♬ talk 17:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment the above unsigned user, removed my previous comment and moved his/her "vote" to the top of the list.
Comment the above user under another ip has removed the last comment and removed notices from the namespace article as well as vandalising my talk page. Doc ♬ talk 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Userfy and Delete. The article is not referenced and verified by a reliable source per WP:V. However, seeing his line of business of the occult, it would seem impossible. Notwithstanding, he does not appear to be at all notable per WP:NN "Dr Gargoyle" scores 1850 Ghits, and "Daniel J. Garguillio" scores 46 Ghits. Other than wiki, there are only a few self-placed profiles and forum chats on the subject. "Daniel Garguillio" scores 0 Ghits.
In addition, Dr Gargolye should familiarise himself with wikiquette. He may not have been aware of the convention of placing messages at the bottom of a page, but I would say that the first message to Doc's talk was intimidatory, although he has since apologised. However, removiing tags like "unreferenced" or "NPOV" without having put the article right can be considered vandalism. Retaliation by changing comments on this page without proper notification (transparency) is also vandalism and unacceptable Ohconfucius 05:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment The appology is accepted, and the vandalism has hopefully now stopped. There is both a message at the top of my talk page and a template to put new messages at the bottom of the page. Thanks for your input. Doc ♬ talk 14:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- per nom. GBYork 13:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete While in theory a biographical article should be verifiable, this one has been around unverified for a month and a half. No prejudice against recreation of an article that is not a autobiography or vanity article and is in fact verified from reliable sources, including use of independent reliable sources to establish notability for a biography. GRBerry 15:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not verifiably important. Medtopic 17:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. In the interests of WP:BIO, any unsourced biographies should be redirected to the Panic! at the Disco article and then expanded out as proper references can be provided. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Brendon Urie

Unnotable singer of Panic! at the Disco. Fails all notability criterias, and article doesn't state why person deserves an article. And that other band members have articles is not a criteria for it to be kept. Hence, should be deleted (and possibly merged into band article). Same goes for the remainder of the group, which I am also nominating:

-- HarryCane 14:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy keep for all, appears to be bad-faith nomination. NawlinWiki 14:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Band has hit 1mil+ on album sales, fueling upsurge in personal attachment of Brendon to band P!atD in mag and online media. Article in current form just not well developed, suggest re-nominating after a good cleanup and filling in blanks Hackajar 15:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

:Delete Jon Walker or Merge to Panic! at the Disco does not meet notability criteria. -- digital_m e( Talk• Contribs) 15:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

FYI, this is page for Brendon, not Jon. (Don't know how to mention in nice way with only text, sorry if sounds rude) Hackajar 15:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
All of the articles link to this AfD, so I assume that this is just one big AfD for all of them.
Yeah I saw that and added a Jon Walker below (maybe you can migrate this converstation down there (as you started it), I don't want to get hand slapped by HarryCane for moving your Jon comments Hackajar 16:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

:Keep meets the notability criteria laid out at WP:BAND. -- digital_m e( Talk• Contribs) 15:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Comments: About the bad-faith nom, that's not the case at all. I'm actually a pretty big fan of the band, just don't think the band articles qualify for notability. This is a combined Afd for all the aritcles mentioned in the nomination (as proposed on WP:AFD), so there's no need for an extra section for each seperate article. And lastly, the criterias from WP:BAND apply, yes. But only to the band, not its individual members. That's a major difference which many of the articles' editors don't seem to realize, as they are recreted/made redirects/recreated/etc. every now and again. Especially since the articles don't state their notability, it would be reason alone to delete them. -- HarryCane 17:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Alright, I think that merging them all would be an acceptable solution.-- digital_m e( Talk• Contribs) 17:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment. Being a verifiable member of a major, notable band seems like an assertion of notability to me. I see nothing in WP:BAND to dispute this. Irongargoyle 17:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Brandon Flowers of The_Killers_(band) along with all other band mates of that band have pages. I picked this band as example because a.) they are both from Las Vegas b.) they are both rock bands c.) they both started gaining popularity between 2004-present d.) Killers wiki page and associated articles is example of well organized band on wikipedia. Hackajar 14:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Yet, as I also said in the nom: The fact that other band members have pages does not justify the necessity of the Panic! at the Disco articles. And those striking similarities between the bands... well. Just because somebody is in a Las Vegas rock band does not make him notable for a Wikipedia article. -- HarryCane 14:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
In that case please address two concerns I have 1.) What has another band (we can take my example of Killers) done to get forked pages, that P!atD has not. You can also provide an example of a successful AfD for band member page. Then point out what worked for that band and bring it here. 2.) Opening AfD with "The fact that other band members have pages does not justify the necessity of the Panic! at the Disco articles" as a means to circumvent WP:BAND requriments tested before seems to be 'Framing the debate' and intentionally attempting to crimple any argument to support sub-pages, such as individual band member pages. How can you justify that statement as not an attempt of 'framing the debate'? Hackajar 14:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I'm not framing the debate, I'm merely pointing out that every Wikipedia article has to stand for itself. Each article must state why the subject is notable. Referencing other articles in the sense of "If this guy gets an article, so should I!", is not a valid criteria for notability on Wikipedia. That's the whole point I was trying to make with the statement you quoted, you see. I hope this clears up the concerns. -- HarryCane 19:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all. Change in band members has drawn press coverage and considerable controversy. I would say these are all notable (and verifiable). Irongargoyle 17:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all - Being a member of a majorly notable band makes you notable. -- PresN 20:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Panic! at the Disco
  • This comment was added by 70.161.99.170, not logged in user Hackajar 13:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Keep them, fans of this band want to know their members. Since panic is now big-status, it makes sense to have a page for the band members.

  • This comment was added by 68.38.68.244, not logged in user! If you want this to count please login and re-submit your request! Hackajar 15:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I am assuming that these past two comments were not changes in your votes Hackajar, the way they are worded and signed makes them a bit confusing. Irongargoyle 16:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Irongargoyle, yes, this was just to clear up "Above comments are not signed, and were place here by IP address, not user". Usually comments by IP addresses are not weighted same in AfD's as they could just be sock puppets for someone else ;) Hackajar 16:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Hackajar, you can simply use {{subst:unsigned|68.38.68.244}} to avoid all confusion. :) -- HarryCane 19:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all, obviously worthwhile members. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 11:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect Brent Wilson & Spencer Smith to Panic! at the Disco as both articles fail WP:V miserably. No predjudice against recreation of articles at the namespace (or keeping them) if someone wants to take the time to actually source these articles. Keep Ryan Ross & Jon Walker. At this point, they meet WP:BIO and the articles are adequately sourced.-- Isotope23 14:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. I have done my best to reference all the band member pages. There is plenty of verifiable information out there for people who would like to add more. Irongargoyle 22:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Keep all They are a highly successful band. If their pages are deleted, then they will just be re-added as time goes on —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captainjames ( talk • contribs) .
  • Merge and redirect all to the Panic! at the Disco page until sources are provided, fails verifiability policies as stated above. Yamaguchi先生 08:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep all, they are all members of a very obviously notable band. -- musicpvm 20:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I have cleaned up Brendon page, added citations, and more information, removed bogus information, and asked for citations on two comments I cannot confirm. I have also tried to put article in Wiki Bio format as close as possible, and ask others help as I hit a brain block on how to go further. With this said, article is (IMHO) within Wiki Bio guidlines, meets WP:BAND, and has most citations referenced. Doing a google search (as suggested by Wikipedia:Notability_(people)) shows 109,000 English hits on Brendons name [16]. Finally, Google trends shows his name on an uptick [17] as compared to Brendon Flowers of The Killers (band) Fame. Hackajar 17:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Here's another chart with k-Fed [18]
  • Speedy Keep Like it or not, these guys have grown to a point where they meet WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Yank sox 20:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • keep all. panic! are one of the rising bands of the year, if not the biggest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.20.184.208 ( talk • contribs) .
  • Comment People should read this comment in regards to Notibility in general when dealing with AfD's. As it was suggested by the main AfD page. Hackajar 21:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, merge possible. W.marsh 18:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Sheffield University Theatre Company

Delete. This is a non-notable student theatre group. The result of the AfD discussion for similar student theatre groups has been delete. For instance, see here and here. Marc Shepherd 14:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. See also WP:MUS. -- Ssilvers 15:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete student groups are generally not notable Dlyons493 Talk 20:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge into an appropriate article on the university or its student life. Information is valuable to Wikipedia; group might or might not merit an article of its own. Fg2 06:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge into article on Drama Studio, University of Sheffield. Company is notable for its (internationally reknowned) alumni, in particular Stephen Daldry. Comparison with the two student theatre groups cited above is arguably not justified. Jaa02vts 00:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC) (Page's creator.) reply
  • Merge per above. Notable, but not two-article-notable. ~ trialsanderrors 01:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep - Drama Studio, University of Sheffield is an article on a building, and one in which only 40% of the productions appear to be associated with the university (much less suTCo), so it would not be the best recipient for this material. It could possibly be merged into the University article as per Fg2, but this can be done with a {merge} tag and discussion when someone actually takes up the task, and there seems to be no harm in keeping this as a stub article until that might happen - it doesn't seem to be a puffery attempt by suTCo fans. - David Oberst 07:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 19:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

MIT Musical Theatre Guild

Delete. This is a non-notable student theatre group. The result of the AfD discussion for similar student theatre groups has been delete. For instance, see here and here. Marc Shepherd 14:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. See also WP:MUS. -- Ssilvers 15:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge into an appropriate article on the university or its student life. Information is valuable to Wikipedia; group may or may not merit an article of its own. Fg2 06:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete NN group. Nickieee 07:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Visviva 02:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Appraise-It

Spam giving no detail on the NN product apart from where to buy it and links to vendors Nuttah68 14:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Tragedy on screen

This is a companion article to "Comedy on screen," which was proposed for deletion earlier with the result: delete. The list is non-notable, and is simply a few people's opinions of tragedies on screen, listing a few of the many, many screen tragedies that have been filmed. Marc Shepherd 14:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as listcruft, ORcruft, and a waste of space. Rather useless, really. -- M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ( T | C | @) 19:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete ICI (indiscriminate collection of information) ~ trialsanderrors 01:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete/create redirects. W.marsh 18:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Werepyre, Moglin, Mogleet

Three articles of uncited fancruft, can be merged with AdventureQuest if editors really want the information to stay. Peephole 14:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Speedy delete by User:Toddst1, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 23:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Jim Samuel

Jim Samuel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

This article is a complete hoax, fails WP:BIO and WP:N, this is obviously a fictional character as there are no google hits and the myspace is a dud.-- TrU Co -X 22:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Unsourced and unreferenced - clearly a hoax. Dreamspy ( talk) 23:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete The fact that nonsense like these needs to go through an afd to be deleted shows there are obvious flaws in the deletion system. -- Scorpion 0422 23:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Thundersley United F.C.

17th-level English football club; nonnotable per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#2nd_revised_proposal. NawlinWiki 14:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 15:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete 13 divisions below the professional level. Oldelpaso 18:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Simply not notable. - Pal 18:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom; no claim to notability. Qwghlm 18:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions.
  • Delete Does not appear to be a club playing at, or having played at, a sufficient level for which notability could be claimed or verified. -- Alias Flood 20:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. aLii 09:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Nandesuka 23:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

2010 Formula One season

Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball..while the 2010 season will almost certainly happen, nothing can be said about it that isn't wild speculation/original research GrahameS 14:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. As the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research (see "crystal ball" link above) is direct criteria why such articles should not be written this far in advance, so to does this criterion hold for a racing season four years from now. -- CPAScott 15:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as crystal balling. It can be recreated in a couple years. BoojiBoy 20:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We don't have similar articles for Nextel Cup or the Indy Racing League. Re-create in 2008 or so. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 22:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball, its a bit too early to forecast the 2010 season, especially considering how much the FIA likes to change up things.-- danntm T C 00:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep if the Bridgestone fact in the article is true, otherwise delete. The Bridgestone fact excludes it from the crystal ball criterion. -- Koffieyahoo 02:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. Probably there is nothing to tell about the 2028 presidential election and 2032 Olympics, but in F1 there are already discussion for next years (long term contracts). So if there are interesting news about future season, let keep it. But I think we need some experts to give opinion (or to add relevant content to article). Cate 14:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete - The tire fact is true, but is on the 2008 site, since the agreement starts in that year. The 2009 article exists, but with good reason as the Formula One Management has made announcements about 2009. I think that until they make news specific to 2010 (which could be next summer?) we probably don't need this one yet. -- Brian G ( Talk) 23:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment we have 2024 Summer Olympics, is F1 not doing anything 4 years ahead while the olympics are doing it 18 years ahead? The issue of deleting is not that important, because we will have this article sometime (assuming that F1, WP, the earth still exist); but those who believe that AfD's have precedent value can hang on to this one and speedy the recreation of the article for all eternity. Carlossuarez46 06:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Unlike nearer F1 years or other future sporting events there just isn't much to say about this one yet - as evidenced by the lack of content. I can't remember any announcements relating to 2010 having come out yet. If anyone's got something solid then fine, but I don't think there will be for a little while yet. -- 4u1e 07:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Besides the Bridgestone fact, article could include Grands Prix, teams and drivers that have contracts that go as far as 2010 and are thus semi-confirmed. The new engine development freeze was supposed to last until the end of the 2010 season, but it was changed to 2007-2009. This shows that there are rule changes made by FIA that go as far as 2010, and these can be published at any time. The article is not crystal balling and might prove useful. Prolog 00:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Oh good lord. Get rid of it. The humanity! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.180.24.50 ( talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. W.marsh 18:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Softether

Contested PROD. No clear assertion of notability, verifiability difficult to establish since the linked web page is written in Japanese, closed source product with no claimed advantages over OpenVPN. "Softether" does get a huge number of Google hits, quite a few in Japanese, if that matters. At first glance, even the ones in English are not very informative. Phr ( talk) 15:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Open to persuasion but it looks like a delete to me so far, as nominator. Phr ( talk) 15:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • delete doesn't claim notability, and not even available in English anymore. - Steve Sanbeg 15:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I have added an English reference. -- Kusunose 13:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Kusunose 17:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. SoftEther appears to be very popular in Japan and judging by a (rather limited number of) reviews/papers in English is considered to be a sort of national technological wonder. Perhaps the article needs to be reworked to focus on this fact. Researching products/services in VPN area inevitably results in SoftEther hits, so it's definitely a keep. Alex Pankratov 00:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I would've thought to delete it, except, assuming Alex Pankratov's comments are accurate, it has enough to establish notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by SneakyTodd ( talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Premier Manager. There really isn't anything to merge since it reads more like an ad blurb, but there's no real reason not to delete the history if someone feels they can improve the main article with it. - Bobet 19:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Premier Manager 2006/2007

Not notable. Reads like an ad for an unreleased game. Link on bottom of the page says it has not been released. User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 15:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

The software package has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself -- Nope.
The software is so well-known that its trademark has suffered from genericization -- Nope.
The software is among the core products of a notable software developer or vendor -- Nope.
The software is included in a major operating system distribution such as Debian or Fedora Core, and the maintainer of the distribution is independent from the software developer. -- Nope. -- CPAScott 15:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Thanks I should have thought of that. User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 02:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Common phrases based on stereotypes. – Rob ert 13:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Irish confetti

A somewhat notable slang term, I move to delete or transwiki to Wiktionary. Te ke 03:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, — Mets501 ( talk) 15:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per WilyD. No merge is necessary, as it's already listed there. -- Icarus ( Hi!) 15:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per above. Yomangani talk 17:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, it's generally a bad idea to write about anything that you have any kind of self interest in. When this reaches the proper level of "notability," it will be recreated and should remain an article. However, as of right now, it has yet to reach that level. Yank sox 17:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Bitweaver

Previously deleted via AFD. It was recreated, and I deleted it as a repost. The deletion was appealed, and the author contested it, so I thought another round of AFD would be fair. Neutral vote for me. Kungfu Adam ( talk) 15:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. No evidence of notability. -- Dweller 15:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I can not see how the article passes WP:V. Where are the Reputable, Independent, Third-Party sources (websites and personal blogs are not acceptable under wiki's policy for primary or secondary sources). I don't see how this passes any notablility. Last thing is if you repost an AfD, it is helpful if you also post a link to the old AfD. Since the old AfD was contested, please provide a link to that as well. -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 15:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, original AFD here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitweaver-- Kungfu Adam ( talk) 16:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The result of the old AfD was "Delete". The article was recreated immediately and deleted again with a {db-repost}. If the result here is Delete once again, then the title should be protected to keep us from having to do this every couple weeks.-- Satori Son 21:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete - it doesn't establish notability. A quick google suggests to me that it could do, but I'm not in the mood to do it, and if the author is keen enough on it to appeal the AFD, they should do it themselves. Yomangani talk 16:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, As mentioned in the previous delete history, bitweaver is mentioned in an interview with RedHat and Lulu founder Bob Young in this newsforge interview - search for Tiki (was around the time the product was renamed). Bitweaver also powers high profile and high traffic sites including viop-info.org and viovio.com. We have also updated the contents of the Bitweaver article. We hope our google backlinks as well as our alexa ratings are enough to count as notable. Please let us know if this is adequate, thanks -- Xingg 19:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: This article has been deleted twice in the past few weeks, and the current content still does not assert sufficient notability. Wikipedia:Notability (software) states that a software application is sufficiently notable if "The software has been verifiably the subject of non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software developer, such as a major media news piece, a book, a peer-reviewed scientific publication, or an article in a reputed technical magazine." (Although WP:SOFTWARE is a proposed guideline, the above requirement is essentially identical to the general requirements set forth in the Wikipedia:Notability essay and official policies such as WP:CORP and WP:WEB.) Note that the software must be the subject of the coverage, not just "mentioned in". When this software program achieves the required level of notability, I'm sure someone who is not an employee of the company will write an article about it.-- Satori Son 21:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Commment It seems as though an extremely unfair standard is being applied to this page when there are MANY other similar pages listed on Comparison of content management systems. This project has significantly more notability than most of the projects listed on this page. Why is this inequity being applied to us, and not the much poorer and very incomplete pages for applications listed on that page? Almost none of those pages meet these standards listed above. Also, there is no corporation, it is a community based project involving hundreds of people, and many dozens of developers, just like the very mediawiki software you are using right now. This page is similar to all the others listed on that page, howver we have worked very hard to make it high quality with balanced information for those seeking information on Content Management Systems. For those following the edits, there were some, er, over-zealous, members of our community contributing information, and Xingg and I have done our best to temper their enthusiasm and present a high quality page to offer information alongside the dozens of similar pages. If someone with edits in the open-source and content management system realm, please speak up. -- Spiderr 23:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The 'here are some equally bad pages' argument doesn't cut the mustard. Quoting examples of other pages that fail to meet standards is only a good way to get them listed for deletion too. A few external links or references on the article to show that Bitweaver mets the notability guidelines would probably save the article. Yomangani talk 23:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Well, while the interview mention is OK, the others aren't the most compelling proof of notability I've ever seen, but my point was: they need to go in the article. I think WP:SOFTWARE may have a built-in bias against open source projects, but at least have go at establishing notability IN the article. Yomangani talk 09:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I'll have to admit, after looking at the Comparison of content management systems article I can really understand the fustration of Xingg and Spiderr. What a mess! That article has links to literally dozens of articles on software programs much less notable than this one. I'm not saying we should keep this Bitweaver article, but it does appear that the notability guidelines are not being uniformly enforced. Maybe after the WP:SOFTWARE guidelines are confirmed as official policy we can do some real house cleaning. -- Satori Son 00:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The rules are being enforced whenever somebody has the time to enforce them. That this happens for one article sooner than for another does not constitute preferential treatment for the latter article. — xyzzy n 01:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Absolutely true! I agree wholeheartedly with xyzzy's comment and I certainly did not mean to imply otherwise. I was simply observing that I understand why the creators of this article must be confused and frustrated. If anything, this AfD should motivate all of us to help clean up the numerous software articles that do not meet the standards. -- Satori Son 02:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I don't understand why it is acceptable for individuals with apparently little topic knowledge to make the decision to "house clean" and wipeout an entire topic area. The people who have been building that page, including a few measly edits by me over the years, have spent a lot of time sorting data and fending spam to get a decent, definitive list of information together. Those of us who write and use this software find this list extremely valuable. Should the entire body of CMS knowledge be wiped clean - even though a year ago it was fine? I really would like to see some insightful commentary by those with real knowledge of this topic area. CMS web applications hardly existed 5 years ago, and now are overly abundant - the are the genesis of wikipedia itself. I think the pillars should be adhered to - all biased information should be removed, and we should ignore all rules. Most of these applications are written by geeks in basements like me, not large corporations. For all the WP this and WP that, this body of knowledge is at the center of changing our species. Wikipedia should have a definitive guide to this, since it is what wikipedia is in itself. What I find abhorrent are people with clubs who come in and knock over blocks that other people have been collecting over the years and shove "policy" in people's face. I now feel compelled to go re-read Animal Farm. I know all have the best intentions and want to improve quality, however deleting knowledge is not the best means to acheive this, especially when those shouting "delete it" have no topic knowledge. I make a third request for someone with real knowledge of the CMS space to offer some insight. -- Spiderr 05:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The assumption that nobody involved in the debate (with the exception of the supporters) has any knowledge of CMS is slightly rash. Aside from that, it is acceptable for the continuing existence this article to be challenged by non-experts because WP has guidelines and policies which they can apply without expert knowledge of the subject. The coverage of the CMS subject area on WP will be considerably better if the non-notable products are removed: as you say, there are a lot of systems coded by geeks in basements, but that doesn't entitle every geek in a basement to the right to an article. If the article can't establish notability then it is correct to conclude it isn't notable, expertise in the subject not withstanding. Yomangani talk 09:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Now I feel pretty stupid for sympathizing with Spiderr. I originally thought he was just frustrated about the appearance of spotty notability standards enforcement, but now I see his hostility springs from a complete and fundamental misunderstanding of what the Wikipedia project is. If only those people he mentions would have spent all that time and energy developing their own CMS directory website, instead of trying to hijack part of this one for their pet project. -- Satori Son 14:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC) I may have spoken too early, there. Many of the editors on that page have been working hard to keep it spam free. I think they're just a little overwhelmed, and I apologize if I sounded harsh. -- Satori Son 23:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Satori, I am sorry you are frustrated, and feel compelled to make such disparaging comments. In your 6 months of being here, I am skepitcal you have learned the true essence of wikipedia enough pass judgement on others. This kind of comment comes across as someone less interested in the usefulness of the information, and more interested is "rules and regulations and policies and debate", none of which help people like myself who greatly appreciate a source of information for something they use personally and professionally and helped build. I am sure there are areas about attorneys that I might not find useful, but I certainly don't feel it my place to go and judge the worthiness of the content, such as you do here. I would like to know why you think the vulnerability evaluations are insufficient. Your motives appear personal at this point, and thus your vote has devalued merit, in addition to your lack of knowledge about what qualifies as notability in this debate. I know you want to make wikipedia better, so instead of thumbing through pages and deleting accumulated knowledge, offering to make a *positive* contribution would be much more helpful. If I have misunderstood, I would appreciate clarification. -- Spiderr 20:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Wikipedia is very much not the place to accumulate knowledge. The purpose of the project is to document knowledge that is already accumulated elsewhere. If knowledge has been accumulating here that ought to have been accumulating elsewhere first, removing it serves Wikipedia's primary goal of being an encyclopedia (i.e., a tertiary information source). — Saxifrage ✎ 00:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, Spiderr, you have misunderstood somewhat. I am not at all frustrated because I do not take lively AfD debates or their outcomes personally (even if they may result in some uncivil comments from time to time). But thank you for your apology and concern. No hard feelings. -- Satori Son 18:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This is an encyclopedia, not a trade magazine. We have inclusion criteria that go beyond ‘CMS falls roughly within our scope and the vendor will pay us per word.’ Expertise in the topic is occasionally useful, but definitely not a requirement to note an article’s failure to meet the criteria. (By the way, we’re talking about the article, not about the CMS.) — xyzzy n 15:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment (Trying to help) Are there any verifiable stats on how many users this software has? -- Dweller 10:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - got fed up and edited it myself. I think the fact that it is notable enough to have been the subject of security alerts from well-known security advisors was the clincher (there's lots of them but I only referenced one, as I wasn't going to sort through them all to see which were unique). The involvement of Bob Young/Lulu could do with filling out though, as could information on the userbase as mentioned by Dweller. Yomangani talk 12:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- Per reasoning of Satori Son. The guidelines do not appear to be applied consistently. Housecleaning may be in order but treat all equally. GBYork 13:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC) per having read additional comments and reviewed article today. GBYork 11:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: That is a mischaracterization of my opinion and reasoning. I stand by my Delete opinion. Several of the other articles mentioned above are also now in the process of being reviewed for the very first time. -- Satori Son 13:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The entire body of currently verified content in the article is: ‘Bitweaver powers a large number of websites including high profile and high traffic sites such as viop-info.org and viovio.com, and is used extensively by Lulu. Interest in advancing the project has come from Bob Young, co-founder of Red Hat. In March 2006 it was discovered to have an HTML injection vulnerability.’ Unquantified assertion of notability and no context. — xyzzy n 15:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This is ridiculous. There are no unsubstantiated claims, and much of the article is technical specifications and capabilities, which are enitrely verifiable and [ verified]. Specification centric content is common for technical articles. Comments like this by people who apparently have little concern if this article exists are not are overly damaging and unjust. -- Spiderr 20:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • ‘Advanced’, ‘open source’, ‘feature rich code base’ etc. Everything must be cited, even specification-centric content. — xyzzy n 22:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Topic area knowledge appears crucial to this particular debate, and I have requested those with a vested interest to speak up. In both deletion debates, the hinging argument has been on notability, and both times, it has been mentioned that having multiple top tier application security site evaluations and notices about the software, as well as mention on Newsforge, a huge technical resource for software developers, was more than sufficient for it to have received enough notability. The two delete's from Santori and yzzy_n fail to address why that is insignificant notability. My consensus, based on their edits, is they have little to know first hand knowledge of what makes a "notable" web application. I have a vested interest, not only in this page, but all of the pages on list of content management systems. It is my desire for the community that BUILT that topic area to be the ones to determine it's future, not the self-appointed thought police who were never a part of building that knowledge. This whole thing feels spainfully orwellian. Yomangani did a fine job editing the pages to add more notability to address concerns-- Spiderr 20:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • ‘To speak up […] about why these pages are useful’ [19], to be precise. Regarding notability, it is the job of those who want the article kept to establish it; it is not the job of the others to prove there isn’t any. As for which community decides what happens to CMS articles, if you want to narrow it down, start your own CMS-oriented wiki. (Oh, and thanks for the ‘Orwellian’ label. It’s so original.) — xyzzy n 22:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • COMMENT Spiderr, to be honest, Wikipeida has rules, guidelines and standards that apply to all articles. It doesn't matter if an article has been here since wikipedia's inception or was just created a minute ago. The same rules apply. Regardless of what you 'believe', WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV need to apply to all articles. Those are rules you can't ignore.
Wikipedia's three content policies are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research and Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus
A few things to point out is We hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of published sources to enrich our articles, bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia. (from WP:OR) So while you can call in 'specialists' their opinions hold no more weight than that of any other user nor does it mean that only 'specialists' may decide what is or is not notable or if an article passes all of Wikipedia's standards.
This AfD is not about censoring anything as you are hinting to with your Animal Farm refs. This is about determining whether or not the subject of the article is notable, verifiable, and meets all of wikipedia's policies for inclusion in an article of it's own. Suppose I had a friend who wrote a book about wikilawyering. He wouldn't be notable enough for an article of his own, nor would his book be. However, if there was an article on that book about various aspects of wikicommunities, it might have a factoid that reads "Newbies often use repeated, outlandish proposals, often failing to convince the established members of the community. For example, wwwolf wrote a book "Wikilawyer for Hire" (2008, O'Ridley & Patrons), where he states (pp. 42-43) that melodramatic polemic is 'the oldest trick ever in Wikipedia AfD debates' and won't win you any friends." See? Facts can exist even when they don't have articles of their own. Hence, comparing this AfD to censorship, or even book burning (if I recall Animal Farm correctly) is silly to say the least.
Wikipedia is not a publisher of original information nor is it a free webhost either, as stated in policy. If the history of the website in question is available here but not on the site in question (or some other website that has researched the background of the site), then that is backwards. Wikipedia articles are to cite multiple, Reputable/Reliable, Independent, Third-Party sources who can present 'pre-chewed' pieces of information, and condense that information to something that tells the uninformed people with one glance on what this stuff is about. This article fails on all counts -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 21:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment The problem with the Newsource article interview is it is not focused on Bitweaver only. That makes it a 'trivial-source' per the stated Policies (read them if you disbelieve me). We do not have Multiple, Reliable, Independent, Third-Party sources that mention this software exclusively. We have an article with a passing reference, and a handful of security warnings from a software security website. Nothing that would denote a passing of WP:V. -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 22:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment In my opinion WP:V isn't really the issue here. Any claims about third parties that are made in the article are referenced and WP:V specifically allows self-published sources to be used in articles about themselves. As I see it notability is the problem, and it is important to remember that, despite earlier claims, WP:CORP and WP:WEB are only guidelines and not policies, and that WP:SOFTWARE is not even a guideline. As a proposed guideline it should be treated with a great deal of caution - a criterion that it puts forward may be the opinion of no more than a couple of people, and may be gone tomorrow. The wikilawyering by the article's supporters isn't helping, but I'd ask everybody to look at the article again and ask yourself whether you would nominate it for deletion if you came across it at random. I'm not arguing in favour of it because I fixed it up (I've fixed up articles and still argued for them to be deleted), but because I think the bar for notability here is being set too high when compared to other articles we've kept (kept after AFD, not kept because nobody has put them up for deletion yet). Yomangani talk 23:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment The only thing I want to point out is there are limits to what is acceptable as a self-published source (From WP:V) Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party news organizations or publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on a professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. Hence the reason I said this fails WP:V -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 13:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Comment But if you continue to the next paragraph: Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as:
          • It is relevant to the person's or organization's notability;
          • It is not contentious;
          • It is not unduly self-serving;
          • It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
          • There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.
I read that as in this case the Bitweaver site being an acceptable source for the article's claims. Yomangani talk 16:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Yomangani, I completely respect your opinion in this matter and thank you for keeping civil discourse when so many would fall into feeling this was a personal matter. Again thank you! To continue the debate, the reason I failed to mention this part is because I believe their personal website fails because it is unduly self-serving and with the comment about the "bitweaver vs 'the man': Will takes on NYC cronies" it involves claims about third parties and events not directly related to the subject. I am not seeing how their website is also relevant to their notability. I'll be happy to keep an open mind in this matter and welcome you to correct any errors in my thinking in this matter -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 16:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Ah, it appears that we have interpreted the policy in different ways - I looked at those rules as applying to the material directly used in the resulting article, whereas you seem to have applied them to the source material in general. Unfortunately, when looking again at the policy it doesn't seem clear (at least to me) which is correct, so I can't very well continue trying to convince you of my point when I could be wrong. Just for the record, I was never claiming that the material from the site established notability, just that it allowed the article to be exempt from the requirement for additional third party sources when refering to itself (and hence not failing WP:V or WP:OR). I stick by my Keep for the reasons I've already stated (and thank you also for engaging in a civil exchange). Yomangani talk 17:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Ah, now I understand where you are coming from as I wasn't clear on it before. So, Yes, I can see how you would be correct in that sense. Thank you for clearing this up! BTW: as a side note, I have given you a Civil Discourse Barnstar. Check your talk page. -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 17:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I second that Barnstar to Yomangani, and thanks to all who have remained civil during this sometimes heated debate. -- Satori Son 16:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Passing mentions in articles and interviews doesn't constitute multiple substantial independent publications, and so this doesn't meet our criteria for notability. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - and that goes for everything listed on List of content management systems - " By arguing over what should be kept/deleted, we lose information. We lose readers. We lose editors."-- Spiderr 05:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • That essay is about the stupidity of deleting and keeping mindlessly. Its argument is that non-notable articles should be merged, not kept or deleted. So, what are you suggesting this be merged with? — Saxifrage ✎ 07:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • That's an argument for deleting nothing. Ever. Great, we'll have an encylopedia full of vanity articles, nonsense and other gibberish. I'm off to write an article about my slightly gungy big toe nail. -- Dweller 09:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • CommentThis AfD is not about mindless deleting or inclusion. The problem with your arguement is that this AfD is about if the article passes all of WP's Standards. If it does, GREAT! If it can not be proven it does pass all the standards then it does not have a place on Wikipedia. So far, it does not pass two of the main pillars of Wikipedia... WP:V, WP:OR (Possibly WP:NPOV but perhaps it's just how I preceive the tone the article takes) -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 13:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I agree with Brian - if you can't make reasonable arguments based on the policies or guidelines, then your "Keep" is worthless in the face of the arguments to delete. Yomangani talk 16:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • My point in making this reference is not to promote the mergist philosophy, though I find it a useful approach, but to reiterate this well made point that all this fighting simply makes people frustrated and they leave. And this is particlularly true when critcism is offered without matching constructive feedback. This not a debate i started nor wish to be a part.-- Spiderr 12:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply

CommentI made some edits to attempt to address WP:V, WP:OS, and WP:NPOV, and address Yomangani's nicely laid out issues on the Talk page. If anyone has any has a constructive suggestions, please make a positive edit and add specific suggestions.-- Spiderr 12:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Spiderr, the article STILL is lacking proper sources. All that was done was a bit of rearranging. The links haven't been changed or added to, nothing has been done to satisfy any of posted reasons for deletion. -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 13:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Brian, Apparently we are not able to communicate well. The shifting sands of WP:this and WP:that, not to mention the "highly contentious" notability guidelines throughout this dialog, without making specific reference to the exact information at issue is very unhelpful. Yomangani has done a great job listing his issues on the Talk page so they can be addressed and that works very well. Please list very detailed criticisms of what you consider at issue on the Talk page, or better yet, please make a positive contribution to the article so it can meet your standards. Both of these actions require some time and effort on your part, however since you are advocating removal of knowledge, I certainly would appreciate some elbow grease to convince me this information should be removed, or as I said, i would love if you could lend a hand and bring it up to your own standards. Thanks -- Spiderr 16:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Some of the notability discussion is now way over my head. I strongly believe that editors shouldn't weigh in when they don't understand and I don't plan on proving myself a hypocrite. I've struck out my "delete" opinion above and am happy to leave resolution to those who can follow the tech jargon. In any case, I strongly commend the efforts of the editors fighting to keep this article and hope that they will contribute elsewhere to the Wikipedia project. We need people who will fight for issues without losing their rag. -- Dweller 17:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Spiderr, that isn't something I have to do. You are more than capable of reading all the reasons listed above without me having to rehash them for you. No, I don't wish to contribute to the article. The Authors of the article in question are the people whom have to prove to the rest of Wikipedia that the article should be kept...not the reverse. You're word twisting will not work here. The case has been proven and the closing administrator will see that the arguements for delete have not been addressed -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 17:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I was really trying to stay out of this since my participation seems to anger Spiderr so much, but I really have to back up Brian on this one. Wikipedia:Verifiability, under the "Burden of evidence" section, clearly states that "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Volunteer editors, whose financial interests are not tied to whether this article stays or goes, should not be browbeaten into doing the job of Bitweaver's marketing department. -- Satori Son 18:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete apparent vanispamcruftisement. Just zis Guy you know? 13:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • JzG - Thanks for your participation. I appreciate all the edits you have made on software technical articles. I would request a re-consideration of VSCA if you have time for a recap of how we got here. I am a leader in this project, though with 60 developers, and tens of thousands of downloads, this is not my personal project. After the initial AfD, community came and tried to improve the quality, however, their, er "over-exuberance" led to a rash of non NPOV edits. After a delete, it was quickly recreated by someone else with a copyvio. So, Xinggg and I tried to step in and avoid the "help" of the community, to make a fair, and complete article that would sit well along side articles of sibling applications so the uninformed can understand how these applications compare in design, functionality, and purpose 1, 2, 3, etc. In light the frequent unhelpful recent re-edits, we have done our best with what we feel is in the best interest of Wikipedia, and hopefully set a good tone and model for future edits. Thanks for your time. -- Spiderr 21:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • You appear to eb editing content in which you have a vested interest. That is a bad idea. Just zis Guy you know? 11:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - added more reference links. woo, listed on smarty.php.net now. -- Spiderr 05:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per Satori Son's reasoning. GBYork 11:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Is very useful software, people should know about it. Stalin.P҉G 01:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. alphaChimp laudare 03:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Doctor's Guide

This article is a non-notable, commercial website. Recommended for deletion under WP:WEB, wikipedia is not a web directory. ju66l3r 15:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. -- CPAScott 15:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 16:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as nom ReverendG 20:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- Infodg2006 17:59, 15 August (UTC) - this site is notable; please see following link for awards and recognition: http://www.pslgroup.com/awards.htm.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.211.65.202 ( talk • contribs)
    • Comment. This link for "awards" is hosted on the consulting group that publishes the website in question. Some of the award images (rehosted by pslgroup.com as opposed to linked to actual awarding bodies that might be verifiable) are for "awards" like "PHP Included"(?). Other awards are handed out like trinkets to multiple sites per day (USA Today "Hot Site" award). Others are not even given out any more and were likely awarded to the site over 10 years ago. I attempted to look up about half of the awards and could find few if any Ghits for the awards themselves (probably due to age of the award). The PSL group website also claims that Doctor's Guide receives over 1,000,000 hits per month, but Alexa doesn't even show enough traffic to track it at all. ju66l3r 03:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. per nom. — dima / sb. tk/ 21:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- Mnodonnell 16:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Doctor's Guide is notable within the physician community (and with nurses, pharmacists, and other healthcare professionals). It does show up on Alexa. reply
User's only edits are to this AfD Srose (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: My apologies. The site has so many root-level domains that link to it, I chose the wrong 3 to search for on Alexa. Looking at its Alexa data suggests any notability it had simply by being on the internet has disappeared since 2003. It still remain unnotable from the standpoint of an encyclopedia and not that of a web directory. ju66l3r 21:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is a non-notable, commercial website. It provides no independent sources. Srose (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - Independent sources added to listing. -- Mnodonnell 17:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - The "independent sources" are web directories. They do not say anything about the article and are not considered non-trivial works. Srose (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment/Keep - The content found on Doctor's Guide is peer-reviewed medical literature. Its the same stuff one would find at a medical library. If that's the criteria for "independent sources", then I would suggest the site is worthwhile. TSBrenner 17:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply

User's only edit is to this AfD ju66l3r 21:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: If containing peer-reviewed medical literature were enough to be notable on the web, then any website parsing the PubMed RSS feed would suddenly warrant an article here. Also realize that link provided by Srose for independent sources is for a source discussing the article's subject matter in question, not for what the site includes on it. Peer-reviewed medical literature discussing Doctor's Guide would actually be a potentially independent source. ju66l3r 21:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete (both). W.marsh 18:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

International Pencak Silat Federation

non-notable, reads like an advert for a martial arts academy. Also consider Pentjak Silat Anak Serak; not sure if that's nonsense, but clearly related to this. - Steve Sanbeg 15:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as one whacking big copyvio lifted from this site. -- Whpq 20:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment and for Pentjak Silat Anak Serak, the stuff is lifted from this site, another whacking big copyvio. These should have been submitted through the copyvio process instead of listing on AFD. -- Whpq 20:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both as copyvio. JPD ( talk) 11:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. It is unfortunate that so many people's first experience with Wikipedia is AfD. We have nothing against the show. It just does not meet the notability requirements we have for articles. Perhaps it will in a couple of years. If anyone is puzzled by the outcome: AfD is not a vote, though it may look like one. I'm sorry for the confusion. -- Kjkolb 19:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Israelisms

Questionable notability, reads like an advertisement Dsreyn 15:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I'm not sure what the notability requirements is for podcasts at this time, but with an Alexa rank for the website pushing 2,000,000 this can't be too close. StuffOfInterest 16:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Preserve Wouldn't the popularity of the show (in the form of a high Alexa ranking) prove the need for Wikipedia to be involved in giving information to others? DrumIntellect 22:32, 14 August 2006 (EST)
Comment. The Alexa ranking indicates that the show / site is NOT popular and has extremely low traffic (for comparison, Google.com has an Alexa ranking of 3). Wikipedia is not an advertising platform to "get the word out". Dsreyn 12:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment. Since you felt the need to add the big pink box lower down the page it seems that traffic is flowing to wikipedia. Therefore, I think it's fair to say that this is not an being used as an advertisement, but a way to share information - which is my understanding of what wikipedia is supposed to be about. I've learned a lot about the show and its creators by reading this page. I would hope that if given a chance there will be an episode by episode account - similar to what was done with many television shows. DrumIntellect 18:34, 18 August 2006 (EST)
Comment. The "big pink box" was added because of the flood of single purpose accounts that have been voting here. That's generally considered questionable, and is usually a sign that somebody is trying to "stuff the ballot box". Dsreyn 03:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment. The following message is now on the Israelisms web site:
IMPORTANT!
By the way....someone wants Israelisms taken out of Wikipedia. So PLEASE go to the Wikipedia Israelisms entry
and help Israelisms stay in there.
So this would seem to explain why so many SPA's have been "voting" here. Dsreyn 03:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Preserve This is a podcast that I am a fan of. I enjoyed learning more about the show from reading this. If it wasn't for this page I wouldn't have known what I now know about the page. Keep it for future listeners and fans. -chad, California — Possible single purpose account: 66.214.142.238 ( talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Preserve I am also a listener of this podcast and I am glad to have wikipedia offer more information about television, radio and podcasts that I may watch or listen. Please do not delete. As more listeners are added, they may want more information also. Thanks, -- Staceyferguson 13:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment. It is generally considered good form to indicate when you are a primary contributor / author of the article being proposed for deletion, as you are in this case. The same goes for User:DrumIntellect - I notice that both of you have no edits prior to August 5, and have virtually no edits other than this article. Dsreyn 13:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment. As much as I would like to take credit, I am not a primary contributor to this article. Most of my edits have been minor and grammatical in nature. DrumIntellect 18:34, 18 August 2006 (EST)
  • Preserve I am regular listener and also a member of the same podcasting network. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, but I have seen listings here for radio shows, so I would think that rules for a podcast would be similar. Also note, Israelisms has an active forum board, so this is more than just a podcast. As far as I know, Israelisms is the only podcast of its kind that provides a man (and woman) on the street perspective of current news events in Israel. I think it has value. The listing as it is currently written doesn't sound overly promotional to me. -- Mfogarty 15:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Mfogarty ( talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. reply
  • Preserve The Israelisms Podcast is unique in that it brings perspectives on Israel to the world in a way that is not available through mainstream media. My family and friends use the program as a starting point of discussion on political and moral issues. In that sense, it is an important Podcast. It seems like a user here has an issue with the listing being promotional, a grievance that may be better addressed by suggesting an edit, rather than a deletion. — Possible single purpose account: Sgersh ( talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.


  • Preserve Why on earth would you delete this page? This is a well-known entity. It is notable. It is not transient or temporary. Even if it was terrible (which it isn't) it does, in fact, exist and is public, and people might want to research this to find out more about it -- which are all pretty good critieria for having an entry on Wikipedia. -- Ron in Croton — Possible single purpose account: 64.115.214.26 ( talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.


  • What issue I have viewed the wikipedia entries for The Closer,Hell's Kitchen,JawBone Radio, and I fail to see any issue that would cause this article to be nominated for deletion Other than the Fact that the name for the entry is Israelisms. I have looked at all the guidelines about article deletion and find no disparity against said guidelines. I am not a contributor or a user therefore I have no biased opinion except for the facts that are spelled out by Wikipedia users. This is a new site - I see no issues with it compared to any other site except for someone's personal bias. It would benefit the administrators to look into all the other sites mentioned above before issuing their decree upon this article. -- John M. 21:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Gigasr ( talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. reply
  • This is a single purpose account. After all, I just created it. The longtime editors can ignore all new voices as "Single Purpose Account" all they want to, and ignore the fact that once upon a time, THEIR accounts could also have been tagged as "Single Purpose" but the fact remains -- just because this is the first time I have felt the need to say something doesn't mean that I am not a Wikipedia user. It simply means that this is the first time I have been aggravated enough to SAY something. It's clear that everyone arguing in favor of keeping the page are using "Single Purpose" accounts, and that they are Podcast listeners. What is not as clear are the motives of the "editors" who have seen fit to comment on the legitimacy of this page. Editors acting in good faith would actually address the questions raised by those here -- how is this page different than others referenced above that have not been challenged? How can the page be edited to make it more closely conform to Wikipedia policies? Ycartreel 03:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)ycartreel — Possible single purpose account: Ycartreel ( talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. reply


  • Preserve I hope that the AFD will please be tolerant of the posts listed here. I know there are a lot of first time contributors and others (myself included) are new contibutors. And, I know that the Israelisms web site asked for help in maintaining the article here in Wikipedia, but in all honesty - we are all amateurs in the Wikipedia process and are learning. Please know that the Israelisms site receives no funding for its podcast and we pay nothing to listen. And I know that the Israelisms article may not have a huge readership, but a small crowd is valuable too...yes? I would ask that the contributor who is asking for the deletion please help us instead to change the wording or make it a better article. In fact, I would ask that all who come here would please help us to do a better job. Thank you, -- Staceyferguson 11:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment. You already "voted" once previously... Dsreyn 14:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment. But, as is pointed out in the "the big pink box" we are not " voting" we are " discussing"... -- Staceyferguson 15:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Preserve I too am a first time contributor and have come here because, as a listener of the Israelisms podcast, I have been made aware of the fact that someone is challenging the right for Israelisms to have an entry in Wikipedia. It is not like this is the first podcast to have an entry. Two of podcasts I listen to - Extralife and Jawbone Radio - have entries and I have read all three entries again before making these comments and I really don't think that the Israelisms entry is any more an advertisement for their show than the other two. Therefore I really must question Dseryn's motives for singling Israelisms out. Alex-w 13:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Alex-w ( talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. reply
Comment. I didn't "single out" Israelisms; I stumbled across it while doing some disambiguation. However, your point about the other podcasts is a good one - perhaps those should be scrutinized also. And note that it's not always safe to assume that every existing Wikipedia entry establishes a precedent for others. Dsreyn 00:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete this article has done a better job than some at asserting notablity with the section Awards and Featured Articles, however I still think it fails WP:WEB. I also think that most of the article in Category:Podcasts should be deleted and should not be used as a precedent. Jon513 18:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply


  • No delete' Thanks for the comment Weak Delete: we agree 1 criteria has been met.Podcasting at best has been main stream for only about 18 months,[check Adam Curry's wiki]I say why kill off an entire growing industry,let alone one podcast out of 123 Category:Podcasts.The community has set this precedent not the One but the many. The Web! Tell me what's a webby award or a blogger award.These are Products created by those to foward their creations ie Blogging software,web site design etc. These also are niche awards for the few do they deserve a Wiki. This i can say the birthing pains of an industry are tough enough to overcome,But the narrow mindedness of a few over this one article is intolerable. Should we accept the rough guidelines a few recklessly use as their athority the wiki would count in the 10's of thousand and not the millions.Israelisms should no more be deleted than the first bloggers or the first web designer placed in this community. This is growing repository of fact and knowledge lets keep it that way-- John M. 20:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Gigasr ( talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. reply
It is ettique on wikipedia when you comment a second time (you commented above as "What issue") to mark the second statement "comment" and not "vote" twice Jon513 23:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Preserve Questionable notability for this deletion seems to be it is considered Advertising. Wikipedia defines advertising as "Advertising is the commercial promotion of goods, services, companies and ideas...". Israelisms is NOT a commercial enterprise or affliated with any commercial enterprise. Israelims does NOT promote goods or services. Therefore the Advertising basis cannot work. Dlutchner 23:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Dlutchner ( talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.. reply


  • Preserve There are many entries in Wikipedia for "pop culture" items that wouldn't be the subject of a traditional encyclopedia - I kind of thought this was the point of Wikipedia - it can be more current and responsive to new trends than a traditional encyclopedia. Yes the article could have some information added but what is already there is accurate and would be helpful to people who are looking for background information about the show. As others have said there are articles about other podcasts, radio shows, books, tv shows etc that are similar in style and content to this one and unless we're going to rid wikipedia of them all there is nothing to separate the Israelisms entry from those others. Oh and yes I have just created this account - I last contributed to Wikipedia a year ago and I don't remember the password I had then. But why should someone have to be interested in more than one wikipedia article in order to have what is considered a valid opinion? Why isn't the wikipedia community seeing this as an opportunity to engage a whole swag of new participants? How can an article that generates lots of 'single purpose accounts' be considered an article that there is no interest in (I'm reliably informed you cannot have your cake and eat it too) BSquaredInOz 03:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: BSquaredInOz ( talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.. reply


  • commentI believe enough has been said about this Article, I also see that it has been cleaned up in many ways, thanks to the newly found editors of the wikipedia.May you live long and edit in an unbias manor. Unlike some Eds please don't bite the Newbies.Its time to put this old dog to rest and send it to the Old Pages Pile,Oh Admin Oh Admin...-- John M. 22:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply


  • Preserve

Firstly I am a First Time Poster, but I would like you to consider my point of view. I did become aware of this discussion, through mention of the website, but I am here voicing my own opinion. This is not about winning a Vote.

Please consider keeping Israelisms, in your Wikie Encyclopedia. Their show may be controversial to some, due to their point of view, being Jewish.

Although their opinions, may not match other people's, Ideals, it is none the less valid, because it is the perspective of those living within Israel, today.

This makes them Unique, and I challenge anyone to find another Podcast, that compares to it. It is their Uniqueness, that should qualify them to be in your Wikie.

To what I am aware of, they at no time, try to attempt to sell anything, while I have been listening to them. It is seems more of a Political Show, that reflects what it is like to live in Israel today. I fear, that the questioning of Israelisms, in the Wikie, may be more about Censorship, than concern about Advertising. I enjoy listening to their show, because I get a Window into their world, that I could not obtain through other means, including the various News Broadcasts.

Thank You Rob of Phoenix AZ — Possible single purpose account: IchibanRob ( talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

  • Delete I can't find anything on Newsbank or Lexis-Nexis. If there were an article on the Hebrew Wikipedia, but as it is the article lacks reliable sources. ~ trialsanderrors 01:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
There is no reason why there should be an article on the hebrew wikipedia - the podcast is in english. Jon513 08:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was G4 speedy deleted. Fang Aili talk 19:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

BigFooty

Already been deleted by consensus once for non-notable and commercial. Previous AfD result was delete ( Archive is here) ju66l3r 15:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • speedy delete as recreated. - Steve Sanbeg 15:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as re-creation of deleted material -- Icarus ( Hi!) 15:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • {{db-repost}} tag added. Afd tag remains. (Is this proper protocol?) -- CPAScott 15:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Yes. However, deletion via CSD without closing AfD is not. I have placed a message on Fang Aili (the closing admin)'s page asking her to close the AfD. ColourBurst 19:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - yed I ignored the IP shenanigans . Blnguyen | rant-line 02:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Patrick M. McCabe

I can't find references to this author online, nor can I find this author's books in libraries or bookstores. Also, it appears the editors who create articles about McCabe, his characters and his stories make very few edits to Wikipedia not relating to this author. I'm not knowledgeable about contemporary Australian literature, so I would like someone to correct me if this figure is indeed notable. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Add Daniel McCabe to the list. Ansell 02:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Add People_You_See_On_Trains, another imagined story by this non-existent author. This user is entering multiple articles on non-existing subjects. This is presumably a joke on his "solipsist" user name. - Corporal Tunnel 16:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  ATTENTION!

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

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


  • Delete the lot!. Unverifiable probable hoaxes. Dlyons493 Talk 20:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I can't find any evidence of this author having any significance. Capitalistroadster 02:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all. Hoaxes due to their unverifiability. Ansell 02:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. 21 Ghits for "Patrick M. McCabe"of which 2 relevant - both from wiki. Not to be confused with an Irish writer Patrick McCabe. Note that the page Australian literature was modified by User:58.84.69.110 to link up that page to McCabe, with no other history of edits. Ohconfucius 04:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Don't Delete. As an Adelaide resident with interests in the short story world, I have indeed heard of McCabe. Admittedly he is not incredibly well-known, but this page is NOT a hoax. All facts and stories listed in this article are completely true. Solipsist3 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.80.185.196 ( talk • contribs) .
  • Don't Delete. Being an Adelaide resident, i often spend my time reading short stories by unknown authors, i find reading stories from fresh talent refreshing, Patrick M. McCabe is definitely one of the best new talets lately and many people i know have read his works. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.80.185.196 ( talk • contribs) .
  • Don't Delete* I have read both of the remarkable works by Patrick M. McCabe, 'The Journey' and 'People you meet on Trains', and i must say that the fact that some ignoramus would put this page up for deletion is an insult to those of us who actually have any knowledge of local literature. murrajm006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.80.185.196 ( talk • contribs) .
  • Further note from Solipsist3: I'm sorry, but I don't understand. If this was a hoax wouldn't it be a little more, well, funny?
    Note: multiple votes by same user. User: Solipsist3 is the creator and main editor of the article in question. User:murrajm006 does not exist, signature is forged. -- Canley 03:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Hoax or so non-notable as to be unverifiable. Add to that the deception attempted by the article creator and main editor and you have the makings of a good delete. ju66l3r 03:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Don't delete. I can verify that this author does exist. His work is not widly published and wouldn't appear on many search enjines. As for your book store may i suggest that you venture past your local K-Mart literature section, and into a more eductated book store —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.80.185.196 ( talk • contribs) .
  • Don't Delete. I just finished mentioning how glad I was that Wikipedia finally has an article on McCabe, my literary hero, in the discussion page. Now, to find that the page is threatened with deletion, I am utterly enraged! Why would you assume something is somehow unworthy of Wikipedia fame just because you haven't heard of it? McCabe is one of Adelaide's finest writers, and it is a great insult to the city and to this great man to remove this article. If I find that this article is deleted, I will never use Wikipedia again, and will ask all of my friends to do the same. Don't delete it, please! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.80.185.196 ( talk • contribs) .
  • Don't delete. Delete this clown. Patrick M. Mccabe is a hoax. I confridently confirm this with reference to the background research i executed on this character. His acclaimed works as an Australian short strory writer are lies to say the least. DELETE!! DELETE!! DELETE!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.80.185.196 ( talk • contribs) .
  • Comment: Six "Don't delete" recommendations from the same IP address, including one insulting the subject? This is looking less like ardent defence of the article, and more like straight out vandalism. -- Canley 06:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Don't delete I am the original creator of this article, and I would like to apologise for some of the above comments. I know it looks quite suspicious that all these messages were sent from the same IP address but there is a valid explanation. I am a high school student and a fan of the admittedly little-known author Patrick M. McCabe. I was a relative Wikipedia novice and was pleased to create this article and see it accepted by the Wikipedia community. When it was nominated for deletion, for reasons which I am still unsure of, I was upset and asked various school friends to help save my article from deletion by sending messages of support. I did not realise that apparently every computer in our extensive school network shares the same IP address. Also, as can be seen, some of my friends did not take my request seriously. Some insulted me; some insulted McCabe and others insulted other Wikipedia users. My apologies to any offended Wikipedia users. However, some friends did take this seriously and their points are legitimate ones, not to be dismissed simply because they came from the same IP address. I hope this dispels some of the suspicion my article has aroused. I assure you that Patrick M. McCabe is a real – albeit little-known – short story author. I would dispute the claim that he is too obscure to warrant an article, after all, even ‘Big Brother’ contestants seem to be worthy of Wikipedia articles. The article and related articles contain no lies or deception other than the natural bias that may have surfaced due to my being an admirer of McCabe.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.84.67.187 ( talk • contribs) .
    To put our predicament here simply, we have absolutely no way to know whether what you are saying is right... or wrong. There is no evidence of this person existing as an australian author that any of the contributors here could find, and most authors have their books reviewed in journals, or have them on amazon even. The fact that none of that exists means that the central " neutrality" policy that we are guided by here cannot be fulfilled because not enough people have put forward outsider comments on this person. Ansell 11:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't delete.Mr. Patrick M. McCabe is a beacon of success. I was fortunate enough to meet him at one of his very exclusive book signings in his home town. I think Patrick would find it greatly offensive his position on Wikipedia is facing deletion. Recommended to me by a friend, “People you see on trains” would have to be Patrick’s most famous short story, and personally my favourite. This is a request for Patrick to not be deleted from Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.80.185.196 ( talk • contribs) .
  • Don't delete. I have read Mr McCabes Stories, i believe that short story writers get to little publicity and this is due to articles like this being deleted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JunkFilter ( talk • contribs) .
    • This is the editors only contribution to Wikipedia. Ansell 02:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • everyone needs a first edit, that proves nothing, i have only just dicovered wikipedia myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiWebUser ( talk • contribs) .
  • Delete. The works of Patrick McCabe are unverifieable. His alleged works of art are imaginations of the mind, infact he is a demented little boy who takes delight in fooling other people. I would support the deletion of his article from wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.80.185.196 ( talk • contribs)
    • this guy is clealy just having a joke, he give no evidence of this and this should just be considered vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.80.185.196 ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete The "admittedly little-known author Patrick M. McCabe" has no place here until he is the much better known author Patrick M. McCabe, and the article writer knows this. Probable hoax, and whether it's true or not it utterly fails any test for notability. - Corporal Tunnel 14:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Baseball,Baby! balls• strikes 01:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

P-P-P-Powerbook

If a joke eBay auction is considered notable just because it got some fleeting media coverage, then everything that gets a little media coverage is notable. And that's just not so, according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines for notability. wikipediatrix 16:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Oh, whoops, you must have forgotten: There aren't any policies or guidelines for notability. 66.82.9.81 17:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)This post was made by -- Chris is me (user/review/talk) when he was unable to log in reply
"Oh whoops" yourself, you must have forgotten, for instance, WP:MUSIC which states in great big bold-face letters at the top: "This page is a notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia". There's an entire category for these policies and guidelines you claim don't exist. It's called Category:Wikipedia notability criteria. wikipediatrix 22:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
No, User:Some Random IP is right - WP:MUSIC is a guideline for music, not for notability. WP:N is neither a policy nor a guideline. WilyD 19:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Um, I know it's a guideline for music, what's your point? It's also about notability in music. Maybe you should remove the giant boldface phrase "notability criteria guideline" from WP:MUSIC then, and several other guidelines as well. And I didn't say anything about WP:N, that's something you brought up. wikipediatrix 20:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
My point is that its not a guideline for notability - it's a guideline for music. It establishes certain guidelines pretaining to music, and uses the term notability, but doesn't establish any guidelines about notability. There are no notability guidelines. It may be a somewhat semantic point, but the net result is that notability isn't important for P-P-P-Powerbook. WilyD 20:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
If it doesn't establish any guidelines about notability, why does it say "This page is a notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia"? Why does it go on to say "This page gives some rough guidelines which we might use to decide if a musical topic is notable"? And why does it have a column on the right listing many other articles, under the header "Notability guidelines"? Yes, you do indeed seem to be making an extremely semantic point, as does the anon IP. wikipediatrix 20:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The upshot of it is that notability is not, nor is it supposed to be, a grounds for deletion except in specific cases (i.e. where we need to combat spam). Which is why notability is not a criterion for deletion in a huge variety of fields, like math, science and so on. If you think WP:MUSIC is about notability, you've missed the point of it entirely. WilyD 21:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Now you've changed the subject and are arguing about something else entirely. Since you didn't address my point, just pretend I cut and pasted my above paragraph all over again. wikipediatrix 21:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I have addressed the point you're making, if you've missed it, you'll have to read my comments again. Notability is not a criterion for deletion. WilyD 21:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Also, this is (at least) the third nomination, not the second as advertised. WilyD 18:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. -- Nlu ( talk) 16:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. And what's wrong with keeping everything that gets a little media coverage? Its existance isn't hurting anyone. jgp T C 16:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
"Its existance [sic] isn't hurting anyone" isn't a Wikipedia-policy based observation. My Uncle Ned was on Fox News for winning a shopping spree in a workplace lottery. So you're saying he gets an article too?? wikipediatrix 16:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as lame as the internet meme is, it is pretty encyclopaedic. WilyD 17:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Hell, this is the finest example of the internet strikes back ever. Dev920 18:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WilyD. hateless 18:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Recury 19:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as one of the few notable internet memes. BoojiBoy 20:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, totally unnotable, no reliable sources, and nothing attesting to its notability outside of one little Internet forum. Brian Peppers is far more notable than this. Ashi b aka tock 21:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable at all. just a silly joke amd full of {{fact}}s Spearhead 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The facts are not a big deal - they're all covered in the references. WilyD 21:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as an accurate article covering one of the most notable Internet phenomena. Also perhaps one of the best examples to date of Internet vigilantism. Add sources. -- Czj 22:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Addition: Also, if anyone thinks this is NN forumcruft, I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree. Sure, it started on SomethingAwful, but it has since spread to just about every corner of the web. A Google search for "P-P-P-Powerbook" (in quotes) yields 24,800 results. If you want to count common misspellings of the term, "P-P-Powerbook" (one less "P") has 1,940 results, and "P-P-P-P-Powerbook" (one too many "P") has 4,450. -- Czj 22:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Important comment: FWIW, this is actually the third, not second, AfD nomination for this article. While it reached no consensus on the initial AfD last October, it survived by a long shot in April here. I wasn't aware of this until just now. I have moved the AfD page accordingly. -- Czj 00:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep It was an internet phenomenon at that time and it is relevant for the advance fee fraud and also escrow scams. -- Ageo020 00:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is an awesome story, and it deserves to be in this Wiki. Remember, this is an online encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.125.28 ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep This is one of the only online pranks I've ever heard of. -- Liface 21:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as probably one of the top 2 or 3 SomethingAwful-spawned pranks. Needs to establish importance, though. -- Dhartung | Talk 22:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Among internet vigilantes this is a classic. I heard about it long before I read it here.-- Esprit15d 21:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As mentioned above, searching for this meme in Google yields thousands of results. Ben 18:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I being the one who went through all of this, I would like to see it stay. I will edit the page and give it a little bit more detail to maybe make it a little bit more acceptable. Also, this wasn't just an internet prank, this was an operation that spanned from Seattle to London! A huge internet collaboration should be noted. Message me on AIM if you dissagree. MyNameIsJeph - I can add sources, I have the emails along with headers, and I have pictures of recipts and video from inside the shop. What else can I add?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.77.208 ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep and cleanup. Fairly notable Internet meme. AgentPeppermint 21:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. 1ne 03:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Group into new article First of all, this isn't a meme, and calling it that is a wild misuse of the term. That being said, it is a notable prank. Wouldn't it be better to create a single page along the lines of "Internet Pranks" or "Ebay Pranks" and file this in there? P-P-P-Powerbook can just redirect to that article along with all the other internet pranks that may not be notable enough to stand alone in an article. Vesperal 04:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • One problem with this proposal: This is not a prank. This guy almost got scammed and then turned it around on the scammer. The person had every real intention of just going on eBay and selling a Powerbook until he realized he was about to get bamboozled. This, my friend, is vigilante action.-- Esprit15d 12:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There is no reason for this to be deleted. Sven Erixon 13:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, for all the reasons above.
  • Keep, this is a useful report of how a fake scrow scam works. — Rotring 19:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Omgbbq

While a google search shows that this term does exist within certain internet forums and such, this violates Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, as there don't seem to be any reliable sources on this. If a reliable source can be found which merely defines the term, then we still couldn't keep this as Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but the definition could go to Wiktionary Xyzzyplugh 16:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep notable internet slang. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 16:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • "notable" doesn't address the fact that it violates WP:NOR and WP:V. Are you arguing that it doesn't violate these, or that these policies be abandoned in favor of notability? -- Xyzzyplugh 18:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • I'm not convinced it violates WP:NOR, and I have my suspicions that we could find some verifiable sources with a little effort, given its widespread use. I don't think deletion is the answer here. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 18:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
        • From WP:V, "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it". -- Xyzzyplugh 05:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
          • Yup, WP:V's number one flaw. If i'm able to do so before this concludes, I surely will. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 11:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
            • (I'm getting a bit off topic here, but it's something I'm interested in) How would wikipedia function properly if WP:V didn't work like this? If people had to prove that something was not verifiable in order to remove it, it seems to me this would be a disaster. I could write an article about Purple Candy Striped Unicorns from the planet Neptune, and claim my source was Ye Olde Booke of Little Known Animals, out of print since 1762, my copy of which was sadly destroyed years ago in a fire. And then say, "Try to PROVE the book and the unicorns don't exist!", which of course no one can do, as proving things don't exist tends to be impossible. While my example is silly, people believe in vast numbers of unproven and unprovable things, which we are fortunately able to keep out of wikipedia due to the current state of WP:V. -- Xyzzyplugh 13:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
              • It would work better than you think it would. In cases like this, we obviously know the term exists, and that there's some information, we're merely hamstrung by the somewhat archaic trappings of WP:V. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 00:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • merge into List_of_Internet_slang_phrases#O or transwiki to wiktionary. Either way it doesn't need an article in wikipedia. ju66l3r 16:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Kill. Dicdef. -- Angry Lawyer 16:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Neologism StuffOfInterest 16:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not nearly popular enough to deserve a WP entry, considering stuff like "rofl" or LMAO don't even have their own entry (not that they should). GrahameS 18:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • OMGBBQ Delete! Notable, I guess, but not as notable as say, LOL. Violates WP:NOR. -- M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ( T | C | @) 19:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Can you imagine a non-trivial, reliable source on this? Maybe Dateline could do a special on it or something, I would watch that. Recury 19:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:WTFOMGBBQ WilyD 20:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- Koffieyahoo 02:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:WINAD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:V and WP:NOR RN 21:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Smerge to List of internet slang per Uncle G. -- Dhartung | Talk 22:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Internet slang (See OMGWTFBBQ). No mergable information; reads like Urban Dictionary. -- jeffthe jiff 11:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WilyD, WP:V and WP:NOR. I know the term exists (heck, I've used it), but without sourcing, it doesn't belong here. I will reconsider my opinion if someone can find a reliable source for this.-- Isotope23 14:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot 07:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Overheard in New York

non-notable blog. Getting mentioned in Slate isn't enough, I can name hundreds of other blogs that could make the same claim. wikipediatrix 16:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Strong Keep There is no question that this is a highly notable website that garners over 1.3 million hits on Google, won a Bloggie for 2006 Most Humorous Blog, and has spawned a book. -- Birdmessenger 16:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Just a few quick checks shows that this one meets notability with no problem. StuffOfInterest 16:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This site is popular. I've definitely read print articles about this site.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep ONY is a huge site, commonly-read and often blogged. It's been featured on NPR and in many other media outlets, and a bunch of the content was published in book form (as noted by Birdmessenger, above) by Chamberlain Brothers (an imprint of Penguin) earlier this year. Or late last year. One of those. - Corporal Tunnel 17:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per Birdmessenger. -- Lazybum 18:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above. Site has also inspired a few spinoffs (Overheard in the Office, Overheard at the Beach) and has inspired similar sites for other locales. Sertrel 21:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep The site has also been featured all over the mainstream media, including articles/programs in the NY Times, CNN, and many major newspapers, magazines, and TV channels, and was one of the Top 50 Web sites of the year (2005, maybe?) according to Time Magazine. A book version of the site was published by Penguin, one of the largest publishers in the USA. Also, according to Technorati, it is the widely linked-to humor blog on the Internet. -- CityWanderer
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge into Sydney Grammar School. Baseball,Baby! balls• strikes 18:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Sydney Grammar School Cadet Corps

It would appear to me that a school cadet corps is not sufficiently notable to warrant its own article, and I don't think there's enough there to merge. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 16:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 16:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into a section of the Sydney Grammar School losing details. Capitalistroadster 01:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per Capital. Gizza Chat © 03:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into the Sydney Grammar School article. ( JROBBO 03:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)) reply
  • Keep The school has "the oldest Air Force Cadets organisation in Australia, an Army Cadet Corps which pre-dates the existence of the Australian army" [20] We should be able to find enough sources to make this page viable on its own. Its not like the school isn't ancient enough on its own to put its "notability" out of the question. Ansell 08:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge not notable on their own, and sets a bad precedent. The JPS talk to me 10:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • In what way are you using the notability concept. They fulfill every policy (although the current page does not demonstrate this), why should they be forced to fulfil a further requirement. The precedent for long-standing cadet corps is not too far out from the common pool of human knowledge for me. Ansell 11:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joelito ( talk) 19:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Manatee meat

Article appears to be a complete hoax Wildthing61476 16:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Obviously it's not a complete hoax. The sentence that someone, somewhere hunted manatees is true. Everything else is the 4th attempt from the same user to recreate an article on this topic, with copyvio content collected off some websites. Seealso Talk:Manatee meat. Also discussion merged from here into Talk:Manatee#Eating Manatees. Femto 17:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC), 11:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - no evidence it is a hoax. Try googling for "manatee hunting" Yomangani talk 16:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
OK, Delete on the grounds it is recreated previously deleted material. Yomangani talk 18:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Somewhere between a hoax and an advertisement for a non-notable website. StuffOfInterest 16:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • KeepMerge into manatee, not a hoax, though the last few sections need to either be sourced better or deleted. Topic may not need its own article though, maybe a few sentences merged into manatee would be sufficient. Recury 16:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Refer to this website and notice the similarities. This article is definitely a joke. Lawilkin 16:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Just because info is on a joke site does not necessarily mean it is false. This article comes to the same conclusion as ours does, and they actually factcheck their stuff. Plenty of other sources are available on google that concur. Recury 17:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • The article you cite is simply a discussion of whether manatee meat is red meat or white meat. There is no legitimate reference to eating or hunting manatees. There is one quote from a person who has apparently tasted manatee meat, which is not a standard or notable practice. I had a steak recently; is that in the Wiki? No, it is not, and for good reason. - Corporal Tunnel 17:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Huh? It's right there, "Manatees are protected throughout their range in the world but are still illegally hunted and killed in remote areas." And of course steak is in the Wiki. Recury 17:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • And where, pray tell, does it say anything about eating them? It doesn't. You are correct in spotting my poor phrasing, where "eating or hunting" should have been "hunting and eating." As for steak being in the Wiki - yes, of course it is. But MY steak isn't in the Wiki. Neither is manatee steak. That's as it should be. - Corporal Tunnel 17:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
        • It says that in the other article that is referenced. I won't follow up on your weird non-sequitur about individual steaks not having articles, if thats OK with you. Recury 17:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Just because info is not false does not necessarily mean it needs an article and every content on the topic created by anybody must be kept. Femto 17:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
          • Of course not, and its a damn good thing no one's claiming that. Recury 17:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
            • IF manatee meat is gone, then by the same rules, beef should be erased too. I have a verifiable source. I"m looking for the book i borrowed from the library from which i got the idea for manatee meat, so please bear with me. THIS IS NOT A HOAX! This is as much as a hoax as dumplings are.-- Adam Wang 01:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This article has been deleted twice before, which should be reason enough. As it stands it's link spam and contains copyrighted material, and if you remove the spam and the copyright violations all that will be left is "manatees are made of meat, and sometimes people eat them." Which is pointless, since people eat everything. The joke here is lame and, if you will, in bad taste. - Corporal Tunnel 17:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, and this time let's make sure it stays dead. Femto 17:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Spam. --  Tivedshambo ( talk) 18:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete because of the copyright violations. -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 19:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP. Talk to Yamla. I'm trying to fix the copy vio. Bear with me please. I have a very busy life. -- Adam Wang 20:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I am not casting a vote at this time but I can confirm that MUBOTE is trying to fix the copyright violation. I suggested that really the only way of doing so is to scrap everything and start from scratch. That copying even a few words can be problematic. Also, that the article needs citations and evidence that it is not a joke article. But my comments here are to confirm that MUBOTE is working to fix the copyright violation. -- Yamla 20:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. If you read his talk page, it's clear he is trying to fix the copy vio. Also, the article was in WP: UNDEL and it was saved. It was deleted the second time by accident because Yamla didn't know about the Undeletion review. Read his talk page. --Alex Defalco 20:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • In reading his Talk page and browsing his contributions, the main thing that comes through here is that he's in ninth grade and has a certain understandable lack of perspective in his past Wiki projects. His zeal is admirable, but I believe there is no call for this article to exist, whether or not the copyright violations are resolved. - Corporal Tunnel 21:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • I'm in grade 10 now. How is this a hoax? You have admitted that there is a shred of truth. Yes, monkeyspit was a hoax. I didn't know it was a fake site. So im' getting rid of the stuff from that site. This is knowledge. Wikipedia doesn't censor. Just because the average american male may not find eating manatees particularly attractive, its the truth, WITH some verifiability to back it up. I'm currently going to the library to look for the book that i got the idea from. -- Adam Wang 01:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Let's assume you just didn't know that deleted talk needs to be archived, but why did you remove great parts of your talk page now, among it all manatee-related discussion? Femto 12:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
          • I'll put that back. I was just clearing stuff up becuase it said my talk page was too long. -- Adam Wang 01:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete, this is an ongoing hoax possibly connected with the elephant vandalism, as admins can see from the history of Eating Manatee. That article was illustrated with a T-bone steak photoshopped onto a picture of a manatee. Gazpacho 01:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, speedily would be OK. A hoax to promote a website. -- Pjacobi 13:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete, for the reasons Corporal Tunnel said. -- pIrish 16:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • What happened to my sources? It included books, and websites. Obviously, due to the extent of books written on this subject, it won't be a hoax. Promoting a website? I removed the information from Monkeyspit, and I'm fixing copy vio. Why delete? -- Adam Wang 16:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • The question should be "why keep" (respectively "why create" in the first place), not "why delete". I merged the details on sources into Talk:Manatee#Eating Manatees, as a central place for not directly deletion-related discussion, and left a pointer at the top of this page. If you want to convince other editors, start there. Those sources aren't cited on this page (beyond the basic fact that "manatees are made of meat and sometimes people eat them"). Instead, your 'taste' section still copies wholesale from Monkeyspit.com. There are two links to eatmanatee.com. Unless you consider a PO address selling books and t-shirts a reliable source, the details in that section are dubious too. Remains the reproduction of an unencyclopedic hunting travelogue. Fix it all, and there is nothing left. Femto 21:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I'll add the lists of books and websites into the sources. Why did you delete them? -- Adam Wang 00:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete per an incredible failure of WP:RS, WP:SPAM (probable promotion from eatmanatee.com), and possibly WP:HOAX. Oh, and it's been deleted multiple times before. Srose (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I have never been assosciated to any of the websites I used as sources, ever. First, why would I promote their website? I am in 10th grade in Canada, not a college idiot with nothing to do. You may think, "If Mubote isn't affiliated with the websites in any way, why does he care so much?" It's becuase I have pride. Personally, I'm proud of starting the article. You may think otherwise.

Secondly, what would be my initiative? I don't think I'm a moron. I just ran across something interesting, and put it on wiki. Of course, wiki isn't only for "Interesting Things," you need sources. Which I have. There is no evidence that it is a hoax. True, it has been deleted twice, the second time by accident by Yamla. I recreated it after Undelete said I could. Yamla didn't know, and he let me remake. Manatee meat is just as much a hoax as beef and mutton are. Just becuase most people don't eat it, doesn't mean it isn't good enough for wikipedia.

Finally, if wikipedia truly does not censor, then why is this being deleted? I'm sure there are many joke articles on many other meats. Wikipedia has many arcane articles, and manatee meat is one of them. Manatee meat has sources, I'm fixing copy vio, I'm borrowing the books I have listed from the library, and I'm putting it on wikipedia. So please, consider my statements, and vote keep. -- Adam Wang 00:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Adam, you have now voted twice here, which is in keeping with your continuing disregard of the rules and practices of the Wiki. You have also failed to identify yourself as the author of this article. Voting twice is cheating.

    You have added completely unacceptable sites as "support" for an entry that boggles the mind with its irrelevance. While you have removed the most bizarre and ridiculous of your subsections, the two remaining both fail as Wiki material. One is quoted in its entirety from a single unsupported web source which is a memoir column written for a tourist site, and the other is based on a joke website that exists only to sell t-shirts and "cookbooks." Your inclusion as an external link of a page on rexcurry.net, which appears to be a repository of undocumented paranoid ravings, is another instance of your failure to read and identify your sources. Your "educational site" is an email quoting a wire-service article about a single instance of illegal manatee meat sale - poaching, not cuisine. The "brochure" on the manatee is a management report which simply reports occasional poaching. The Thinkquest.org citation was written by elementary school students, complete with pictures drawn in crayon.

    It appears that you do not understand the difference between a reference work, which exists for the edification and use of the greater public, and a blog or MySpace page, on which you can work out your obsessions in your own private circle. The standing article on manatees already has a sentence on the hunting and eating of manatees, which is more than sufficient for this pointless topic.

    This entry utterly fails the first of the five pillars of the Wikipedia: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is not a collection of source documents or trivia, a dictionary, a soapbox, a newspaper, vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory. It is also not the place to insert your own opinions, experiences, or arguments — all editors must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy." Please familiarize yourself with Wiki policy before you post any further articles.

    You are sustaining an argument here as your own personal private joke. It is beyond trivia, pointless and irrelevant in the extreme. Your inability to distinguish between the relevance of beef in worldwide civilization and the relevance of manatee meat is rather alarming.

    As far as your argument that "I'm sure there are many joke articles on many other meats" - any such articles will be deleted as they are found, and even if there are others it does not mean that this one should be permitted - especially since you have now freely admitted in the open that this is a joke, which is not permitted here. - Corporal Tunnel 01:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • First off, I did not admit that this was a joke site. I admited that he monkeyspit site that I recognized that Monkeyspit, a site I unknowlingly used, is a joke site. All information from that website has been removed. Secondly, I did not mean to vote twice. I was just trying to sway other people to vote twice. Thirdly, this article is not random trivia, a dictionary, a soapboax etc. etc. It is encyclopedic fact. Eating manatees is "irrelevant" as "beef" is to cows! I can distinguish the difference between beef and manatee meat. Please don't insult me. Manatee meat is part of a culture, just as beef and other meats are. I have not freely admitted anything whatsoever. I have sources in books. I realize now that yes, my topic is too short for its own article, but no, I don't think that "manatee meat" should be removed completely. I agree with Yamla's idea below to double the existing article in Manatee, which I added, and keep like that. When I reffered to Manatee Meat as arcane, I meant that it isn't as hot an article as the United Nations is. I wrote most of The Conservative Party of Norway. It isn't exactly the most popular article, yet it isn't irrelevant. I would be satisfied by a merge. I do not write joke articles. I am not a vandal. I am not an immature high schooler. Thank you. -- Adam Wang 01:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. Although I seem to be in the minority, I'm not convinced that this is a joke article. So (for this paragraph, anyway), let's assume this is a legitimate topic. I just don't see enough content to warrant an entire article. The article on manatees has a single paragraph noting that they used to be hunted and that the commercial meat farming has been suggested as a way of preserving the species. This seems to be a relatively recent addition (wasn't there at the beginning of June, for example), so I suspect this article has already contributed to enhancing the main article. I'd like to see us look at the rest of the content and perhaps add some of it to the main article. I'm not talking a huge section, mind you, but we could at least double that section in Manatee, I'd think. -- Yamla 04:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Blank Verse 05:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Marilyne MacLaren

Another failed election candidate, although at least she does hold elected office as a councillor. Precedent is to delete these, but No vote at the moment. [see below] -- Mais oui! 16:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - non-notable and won't be contesting national elections again, article says. Martín ( saying/ doing) 16:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I would agree with deleting most articles on councillors, but I believe that Marilyne MacLaren is notable. She very nearly got elected at the last election (one of the most marginal seats in the country?) - as well as being notable for getting one of the worst ever results for the Lib Dems in the Hamilton South by-election, and has contested 3 other parliamentary elections. She is fairly well known in Edinburgh - especially among the student population - due to the HMO quotas proposal, which did spark a fair bit of controversy at the time. -- Vclaw 16:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. There are no prizes for coming second. Ohconfucius 04:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom (but there are prizes for coming second, everywhere from the Olympics to most lotteries). Re Vclaw's comments, she didn't seem to generate much in the Scotsman beyond routine reporting, which suggests that she isn't that important locally. She's certainly not Eric Milligan. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per arguments above. If her claim to notability rests upon "being notable for getting one of the worst ever results for the [insert party] in the [such-and-such] election", then all dire performances would automatically elevate the perpetrators to Wikipedia fame! -- Mais oui! 23:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - in response to Mais oui - when was the last time a Lib Dem candidate lost their desposit (and finished in 6th place!) in a Scottish election? I'd say its a fairly unique occurence. Anyway, I wasn't saying that was the only claim to notability, just a small part of it. May I just a comparison to, for example Angela Constance, a shorter serving councillor and parliamentary candidate once. I note Angus McLellan voted keep on that, largely on the basis of mentions in the Scotsman etc - I note MacLaren has 4 times as many unique hits. I would also suggest comparing to other councillors / candidates Peter Kearney or Laura Love who have not been listed for deletion. Of course, their party political persausion has nothing to do with this... -- Vclaw 00:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Mmmm... that last comment there is near the borderline to failing WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Kearney's claim to notability seems to rest upon his prominent position as a public face of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland. Love's notability is more contestable. Feel free to AFD if you so wish: I would probably vote Keep for Kearney, but Love? ... I am open to listen to all arguments. No hard feelings about comment by the way, let's not fall out over trivia. -- Mais oui! 10:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Hi all. I created this article way back when, and occasionally wondered if it would ever get AFDed on a "no wins, no notability" basis... Vclaw, thanks for letting me know it was listed. MacLaren's notability is not great, but it's a cumulative thing. She's contested five national elections (albeit two of them on a list); one of these was remarkably bad (Hamilton South - I don't know of a worse LibDem record) and one remarkably close (Edinburgh South 2005). She's held Party office, and she's been on the council of a major city for twenty years. None of them necessarily things which give notability in and of themselves, but I'd argue that when applied to the same individual they're reasonably notable. (I wouldn't have created the article if I didn't think she was!). Incidentally, if councillors in the main aren't notable, it might be an idea to clean up the redlinks at City of Edinburgh and the like. Shimgray | talk | 08:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge into Al Snow. Baseball,Baby! balls• strikes 19:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Pepper the Dog

Very minor wrestling storyline, not significant for a separate entry Dsreyn 16:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. the wub "?!" 22:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Scottish inventions

Making a page about a certain country's/people's contribution to humanity (arts/sciences/history) is one thing. That's acceptable and is precedented. However, now we're pushing the boundaries. The transistor, motion picture, Calculus are now asserted as "Scottish inventions." Sure, a Scottish innovator probably was very revolutionary in the creation of motion picture, but because of that motion picture is a SCOTTISH invention? Give me a break. The dozens of other countrymen to contribute wouldn't be pleased. If anything, a lot of reliable information on this page should be kept and moved to Culture of Scotland (and Culture of England) under a Discoveries/Innovations section (much like in Culture of the United Kingdom). But purporting some pretty outrageous claims and somehow attributing an invention to a single nation.. especially when many other men contributed to its creation... is inching upon nationalistic or ethnic pride. Furthermore, we can't say that just because "discoveries" are often miscategorized as "inventions" we should list them as such (note the material on English inventions). Something should also be done about the categories Category:English inventions and Category:Scottish inventions. There are English and Scottish inventors and innovators and undoubtedly a lot of these inventions will be attached to their name. Nonetheless it's a different story to call them [Enter Nationality Here] inventions. We wouldn't do it for any other categorization. The Turing Machine is a Gay Invention?

Included in this nomination is the Scottish counterpart.

Both were created around the same time and have no other counterparts like German inventions. Both were mainly edited by a small handful of editors: ...And Beyond! 16:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - the proposers' arguments sound more like reasons to rename and re-focus the articles, rather than to delete them. This is a very well covered area: there are absolutely tons of websites and books listing Scottish inventors and inventions. All of the entries ought to be referenced, and I am sure they could be, but it does take a lot of time. I know less about how well English inventors/inventions are dealt with in good sources, but I would be extremely surprised if there was not a wealth of source material. Of course if a claim is false it ought to be qqualified/explained; or removed altogether; but if the false claim is well-sourced then that in itself is a notable phenomenon. -- Mais oui! 17:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It's not simply that the claims are wrong. It's the attribution that an invention is somehow tied to a nationality or affliation enough to call it a BLANK invention. There's no such thing as "Scottish inventions," "Mormon inventions," or "Gay inventions," and we shouldn't attribute the entire invention to just one association. Especially most of the ones listed on this page - telephone, motion picture, etc.. Furthermore, the argument supports deletion because a separate page is unprecedented and unnecessary as any claims for discovery or innovation by a nation is put in that nation's/people's Culture page or the page for the people themselves Culture of Germany/ Culture of the United Kingdom. ...And Beyond! 17:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - these articles need improving not deleting Aquilina 17:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • This is by no means a prerequisite for my keep vote - but how about a rename to "History of science in Scotland" or "Landmarks of technology in Scotland" or some such combination? Gives a bit more scope for expansion too, and more accurately reflects the contents. Just a thought... Aquilina 21:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - A list of inventions made by Scottish people. What's wrong with that? If there's something incorrect, edit it. Don't delete the entire article. --  Tivedshambo ( talk) 17:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
What's wrong with that....what I mentioned above. A category of Scottish inventors or a section in Scottish culture mentioning some innovators in Scotland is a different story from what this article is doing. We can easily say "one of the inventors of TV technology was Scottish." but this would be completely different from saying or implying "Television is a Scottish invention." Furthermore, we can't pin discoveries as the same as inventions. "Noble gases" is an invention? ...And Beyond! 18:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The Scots invented and discovered loads of shit. Live with it. -- Tess Tickle 18:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Well with neutrality like this, it's no wonder people call wikipedia bias and unreliable. ...And Beyond! 23:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
So I should just shut the fuck up and agree with you? Hogwash and bunkum. The point of this page is so that people can express their viewpoints on wether or not the article should be retained. If you don't like that idea, you're in the wrong place.-- Tess Tickle 01:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment - You haven't heard the half of it. Try out:
... or, even better:
As you can see, this topic is pretty much a national hobby. (Mind you, the Basques deserve a wee bit of the credit too!) :) Mais oui! 19:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
There's a lot of evidence for us inventing soccer (in its present form). As Scottish author Christopher Brookmyer pointed out, English claims to inventing footie rest on their establishment of the FA, meaning the English didn't invent football- they invented football bureaucracy :) Lurker oi! 12:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Changing opinion, see belowKeep. England and Scotland were in the vanguard of the Industrial Revolution and therefore there's some claim to this being a coherent topic and more than just a celebration of national pride. It's different from Gay inventions or African-American inventions ( Benjamin Banneker, George Washington Carver, yadda yadda). It would be nice if the article went a little deeper into the reasons why Scotland has this engineering tradition. Besides, the article is worth keeping just because of the restraint shown by the editors in not mentioning Scotty. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. And och my gudeness, doon't that laikness o' Baird luke th' pairfect spittin' image o' th' "dour Scot?" Dpbsmith (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment French wines: legitimate topic. Scottish wines: bogus topic, despite the Cairn o' Mohr Winery. Scottish inventions, legitimate topic. French inventions, bogus topic, despite daguerrotypes and Jacquard looms and fuselages. I don't want to go overboard on national characteristics and/or stereotypes, but historically nations did have national specialties. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • There's plenty of inventions by a French national, but French inventions? What is a French invention? Photography purely because of the daguerrotypes? ...And Beyond! 04:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The nominator is right about dubious claims, though. The motion picture? Nonsense. Everyone knows it was invented by Friese-Greene. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep- Surprised this article has been listed- although some "inventions" are dubious, the article should be modified rather than simply deleted. Astrotrain 21:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Let's not be silly. This most certainly is not any more speedy keep than Gay Inventions. ...And Beyond! 23:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Regardless of whether or not pride in invention is an important element to scottish nationalism, I don't think we really want to get WP into pissing matches over, say what "people" or what "nation" invented what [21]. In addition, a great deal of the current entries are patent (if you'll pardon the pun) nonsense. A scot "invented" cornflour, which had been created and used several thousand years before the scots even had corn (Did they "invent" rice, too)? They "invented" popular use of a decmial separator, traced back to arabic culture and in use since 850? And of all things, they "invented" CALCULUS? Sheesh. Next thing you know, Jesus is Japanese, [22], and we'll have to suffer endless, stupid, nationalism wars on whether a significant person like Copernicus was "Polish", "Austrian", "German", "Prussian", or *whatever* (we do [23]). Somehow, I really don't think Wikipedia is the right place for nationalism rallying. Ronabop 04:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, Ronabop has convinced me. There could be an article about the History of Scottish engineering and invention, but this isn't it, this is yet another almost entirely unsourced list, and the information in it is so dubious that it isn't a usable starting point for a proper article. Due to the Scottish role in the industrial revolution, "Scottish inventions," like "French wines," could be a legitimate topic and not just national boosterism, but this article is just national boosterism. If this article had been entitled List of Scottish inventions I would probably have said it should have been deleted right away. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Mais Oui and rename per this suggestion by Astrotrain. -- Cactus.man ✍ 07:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but this needs to be cleaned up in a big way; I am surprised to learn that bridge design was a Scottish invention. Gee, I knew the Romans must have learned it somewhere. :-) Carlossuarez46 06:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment - read the article. It does not claim that the Scots invented the bridge, simply that some Scotsmen developed or improved some variations of bridge design. Having said that, I agree it is in need of cleaning, and getting rid of some claims, but this is not a reason to delete it. --  Tivedshambo ( talk) 11:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep It's interesting, its a worthy topic. Article could do with a cleanup, and more verification, but no reason to delete Lurker oi! 12:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If you disagree with a claim made in the article, please it, rather than saying its wrong but letting it remain. It's our job as editors to ensure that articles are as accurate as possible Lurker oi! 12:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
It's not my "job" to do anything to Wikipedia - I produce and update articles which interest me and I have a knowledge in. I don't have enough knowledge to edit this article, or to check every claim it makes. I only state that some of the claims need to be removed, but I don't have time to investigate which ones. --  Tivedshambo ( talk) 13:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Well, in order to make a start on this, I'm going to mark the items which need source citations... which is to say all of them. I don't intend to do all the work of going back and checking to see which of the linked articles actually contain valid sources, copying those sources into the article, but I'll spot-check a few of them in due course. The work of providing sources of course is the responsibility of the people who want to retain items in the article. NPOV requires that disputed or questionable claims of priority be mentioned. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
One verification for the cynical - see Fundamental theorem of calculus.--  Tivedshambo ( talk) 21:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete - horribly broad, both in what counts as 'Scottish' and what counts as an 'invention'. Includes foodstuffs, 'popularising' something, the work of various engineers, discoveries, 'pioneering work', etc. It's pure jingo, in other words. There's a good article or series of articles to be written about this subject. This isn't it.-- Nydas 18:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep in fact substantial additions could be made - as well as a few deletions I think I agree with Nydas above, except that I would work with this article. One further point I would like to make is there is a current trend to deny innovation on largely picky grounds - TV is a good example Baird did in fact invent an early TV system which was produced and was used, fair enough it was a development of other work - which this does reduce the significance of his achievement. However by that arguement no-one invented anything.-- Eek10bears 19:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - the expansive criteria used to decide whether an invention is 'Scottish' (by a Scot or by non-Scots in Scotland) mean that Baird's television is also an English invention, as are Lister's antiseptics. Either have a list of Scottish inventors or a list of things invented in Scotland - having both in the same article is a recipe for mayhem.-- Nydas 07:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete as trivial, unverifiable (for many inventions) and an edit war magnet. Who invented things and what nationality (or ethnicity or religion) they should be counted as is very frequently disputed. For example, sometimes multiple people claim that they each invented something. Some inventions are so old or their history is so poorly documented, that it is unclear who invented it, yet some people claim that their ancestor or countryman invented it anyway. Also, many things are invented (especially many of the important modern inventions) as a result of multiple people's work, who may be from different countries, have different ethnicities or religions. Finally, it is unclear what nationality, ethnicity or religion someone should be counted as. For example, a person with a German mother and an Italian father may have been born in France, grew up in England and created his invention in the U.S., which he moved to at 18 years old and stayed the rest of his 90-year life. Which country or countries should he be counted under? As each group (Ukranians, Muslims from India, Chinese Americans, German-Irish, Latter Day Saints) gets its own list, the problem grows exponentially. Creating, maintaining, edit warring, dispute resolution, blockings and bannings resulting from the articles takes time and manpower away from far more important articles. -- Kjkolb 19:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Unilever. – Rob ert 13:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Heartbrand

article is already fully reproduced inside the Unilever article maf 17:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Jim Montross

Hoax. Worthy of speedy deletion? -- DeLarge 17:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Trnj2000 17:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Author has been posting vandalism on various pages today. - Corporal Tunnel 19:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Silly. - Umdunno 19:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 20:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as a hoax, possibly speedy as vandalism. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 22:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:HOAX WP:V, or simply WP:NN. Possibly so exclusive he doesn't need to advertise.... 20Ghits, gave several Jim Montrosses, from home services to Peach growers. No autocars. Ohconfucius 04:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, I hate hoaxes. NawlinWiki 14:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • delete per nominator its hoax probably Yuckfoo 18:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per all above. -- Satori Son 19:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete. No one has argued to keep this trash, so get rid of it. RFerreira 21:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

K8tie

Delete - Advert and/or vanity article.   Tivedshambo ( talk) 17:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as per nom -- DeLarge 17:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • How can we verify the contents of this article? How can we verify this person's place of birth? How can we verify all of the rumours that the article mentions? How can we verify the history of this web site, including the arrivals and departures that are listed, that is given in this article? Uncle G 19:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as woefully unverifiable. The excessive bold text hurts my eyes. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 22:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Del8. -- M @ r ē ino 23:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Ohconfucius 04:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I own the site I can verify the information is correct Jonoway
    • First edit by this user. Sertrel 21:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Don't know who Jonoway is, except he's not the NY Times, and so unfortunately, still does not satisfy reliable third party verification. Ohconfucius
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete Yank sox 23:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Chris Bender

The article is not about producer "Chris Bender" which link to this, nor does the person in the article seem to be any notable. According to this message User talk:Cskoney it was already speedy-deleted once. Jestix 17:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete as reposted content and A7 (the original reason). Tagged for SD.-- Kchase T 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- Alf melmac 21:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

List of celebrities and musicians with a MySpace profile

And:

Not useful or encyclopedic. Similar cats deleted: here and here. Delete. Crumbsucker 17:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Useful only if you're a spammer. Lazybum 18:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the first article, Keep or Merge the second two. A broad, highly inclusive list is a spam and self-promotion magnet. However, a List of famous people on MySpace seems somewhat useful given the enormity of Myspace as fad/cultural phenomenon (however, I think it would be important for editors to keep this list limited to very famous people).-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I can definately see how, if you were looking for infomation about someone, knowing if they had a myspace thing or not would be useful. Having this list and linking to it from the individual's article would serve as a sort of "see also" guide for the general wikipedia user who is just looking stuff up to learn more about it. I really don't see any reason for it to go except that it would never be all-inclusive, but when is anything wikipedia has ever all-inclusive? ONUnicorn 19:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Having a MySpace is not an encyclopedic trait worthy of lists. It's close to product promotion, in fact. It'd be like making a list of people who drank Pepsi or had an I-Pod. Crumbsucker 19:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Not really. What does the fact that they have had drunk Pepsi or owned an I-pod tell you about them? If, on the other hand, they have a MySpace page, then noting that fact and linking to it in their article is almost the same as linking to their non-myspace-website, or citing their auto-biography as a source in an article. It gives the general reader and researcher someplace to go for more information. ONUnicorn 20:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
There's a difference between linking to a MySpace and making a list of people with them. We don't have a list for people who have non-MySpace websites. Crumbsucker 20:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete we might as well have List of celerities who use AOL as their ISP -- Doc 19:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unmaintainable Dlyons493 Talk 20:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Useless, unencyclopediac. ReverendG 20:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, it's no longer an interesting point that some bands have websites, blogs, or MySpace accounts. Ashi b aka tock 21:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Who cares about a "NO LISTS" policy? If the list is interesting, I say keep it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.34.14 ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep and merge: I have a different view of this it's videly known that Musicians can easily have their own my space accounts on the sites but what about normal celebrities. I should point out for example I know at least 10-12 voice actors who have myspsace accounts and it is really useful to use. I would suggest merging all of them together.-- Jack Cox 00:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Everyone has a MySpace it seems. - Diabolos 01:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:OR. Also as a magnet for link spam. -- Koffieyahoo 02:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Unencyclopedic, unmaintainable, inherently vulnerable to unverified additions... If a celebrity has a MySpace page that is verified as actually being their own official MySpace page, add it as an external link in the article about them. Nothing beyond that is necessary or desirable. -- Icarus ( Hi!) 04:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Icarus. NawlinWiki 14:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Oh god, not myspace. ...And Beyond! 16:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all, per Icarus3. Jayjg (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 06:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, Diabolos, Koffieyahoo, Icarus3, ...And Beyond!, Ashibaka, and whoever else introduced an original point ST47 19:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep i like WWE and this would be the 1st place i check to see if a new WWE superstar have a my space account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don.-.J ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete them all. Don't get me started. RFerreira 21:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Vary | Talk 16:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Fratch

Neologism, article states, "The term can be categorized as a neologism and its use is mostly confined to the mid-atlantic region of the United States," but this is unverifiable. Deprodded. Accurizer 18:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • I am working on finding verifiable uses of the term outside of conversation. Also, perhaps instead of a permanent deletion, transfer the article to Wiktionary? Claymoney 18:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as unverifiable. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Not Transwiki material. -- Visviva 01:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unsourced. ~ trialsanderrors 01:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

List of German bands

No threshold so limitless list. Duplicates category. Delete all.

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Best Damn's Top 50 Outrageous Sports Moments

See also Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 February 4, Best Damn's Top 50 Unforgettable Sports Moments ( AfD discussion), and Best Damn's Top 50 Sports Blowups ( AfD discussion).

Crufty - not an article Delete - Doc 18:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Archspace

Non notable webgame, fails WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Additional info: Archspace gets 33,300 google hits and the Archspace's website has an Alexa ranking of 163,423. Peephole 18:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Peephole 21:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: This article has mostly been edited by the users DarkArchon & Agod Kenshin (article's creator). Both of these users have only done edits on this article in the wikipedia name space. Looking at the first version of this article, it looks like the sole purpose of it was to have wiki for this game. As such, I'm saying delete on the basis of Wikipedia not being a free wiki provider. Mitaphane talk 21:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Archmage, Archspace's predecessor, won MPOGD's game of the month a couple times and was mentioned in numerous gaming magazines in Korea (as was Archspace). Historically both these games were very unique for their time, and also I have not seen a single browser based game that paralled the AI of either of these browser-based MMORPGs. However, this is not "notable" enough to be listed on Wikipedia. I’m going to look for a video game Wiki to post this up on, and am also going to post it up over The Encyclopedia of Speculative Fiction in case anyone wants the original text. :) -- Ariad o ss 01:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. The count was 27-25 keep, counting 2 Redirect comments and 1 Merge All comment as Deletes. With this many commentators, raw totals take on greater importance in determining consensus, in my opinion. No way am I going to close this as a Delete with that many Keep comments. On the other hand, neither numbers nor strength of argument is enough to make this a clear straight-out Keep. Herostratus 05:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Abdul Muneem Patel

I don't know how to Multi-Delete, but I want this to be an AFD for all the suspects. It should be deleted because, while notability has been established, thats all we have. If any extra details become available they should be dealt with within the article on the plot. Havinf this one line of text pages for all the suspects serves no obvious purpose. Irishpunktom\ talk 18:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • per nominators' wishes, all the suspects now nominated:
  1. Abdula Ahmed Ali
  2. Cossor Ali
  3. Nabeel Hussain
  4. Tanvir Hussain
  5. Umair Hussain
  6. Assan Abdullah Khan
  7. Waheed Arafat Khan
  8. Osman Adam Khatib
  9. Mohammed Usman Saddique
  10. Ibrahim Savant
  11. Amin Asmin Tariq
  12. Shamin Mohammed Uddin
  13. Waheed Zaman
  14. Shazad Khuram Ali
  15. Umar Islam
  16. Waseem Kayani
  17. Abdul Waheed
  18. Assad Sarwar
  19. Tayib Rauf
  20. Rashid Rauf
Ohconfucius 03:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep article will need to be kept to document current event. I think someone trying to blow up almost ten planes and causing the aviation industry in Britain to implode is notable enough. Dev920 18:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As only being notable for the event, and since the article tells almost nothing, the same content can be provided in the event article. StuffOfInterest 19:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete nn clutter -- Tim1988 talk 19:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Nothing useful released about the plotters yet. This page may be useful at some point in the future, but not at all now. -- Fxer 21:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all. Innocent until proven guilty. So far, we have no info on these people, bar one, but nothing in Abdul Waheed's background makes him notable in his own right. Ohconfucius 03:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The only one I'm working on and know about is Abdul Waheed, and it's turning into a nice article. He's notable, of course, for the arrest, and in addition his sister, Heather Stewart-Whyte, is a famous supermodel, and his late father worked for the Conservative Party, both of which make his story more interesting that it would otherwise be. It's well-referenced, and there are no grounds for deletion within the policies. Bear in mind that more information is likely to become available about all these individuals; if charged, then via the courts; if not charged, then probably via them telling their own stories. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Having a model as half sister and a politician for a father aren't notable points, even that article boils down to one item of "being arrested", which is not worth an article in itself. I would also dispute that it's well referenced, I do not regard "a newspaper reported that an unnamed neighbour said" as very reliable, for example, expecially as WP:BLP required "high quality references". Also, "more information is likely" is very crystal ball. Failing notability, WP:NOT, and WP:BLP concerns are all grounds for deletion based on policy. Regards, MartinRe 12:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The notability of all of these individuals has been established, they tried to arrange a major terror plot that has been extensivly covered by media all over the world. These articles are obviously justified.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Any details for the suspects should be placed on the plot page, not in individual articles. -- Stretch 07:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. AfD nom is too soon, but if stubs don't become articles within a month, nominate again. — Viriditas | Talk 08:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge all into a list and split off notable individuals later.-- Peta 08:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Simply being arrested for questioning about a terrorist plot does not give any person instant status as an international figure who should be covered by an encyclopedia. Whether they are innocent or guilty, such notoriety is inappropriate. Ming the Merciless 10:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep - as per Slimvirgin. -- Leifern 10:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep so long as they're policed enough to keep them strictly factual. There names are all over the news, which should be notable enough. -- Joshdboz 10:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per SlimVirgin. -- Nearly Headless Nick 14:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per SlimVirgin.-- Coffeesuds 15:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep These people are notable terrorists. Bakaman Bakatalk 16:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Abdul Waheed and any others about which something substantial is known. Given only a name and age, delete or redirect to 2006_transatlantic_aircraft_terrorist_plot per Peta. A name mentioned in the news may be notable but it doesn't necessarily merit a separate article. Gimmetrow 18:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete None of these men have more than a line of text to say about them. Unless further information is released about them, we are better off with the list of names on the terror plot page. (which in fact currently provides more information than all of the individual pages put together) -- KPWM_Spotter 18:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As stated above, almost no of these articles have more than a line of text within them, but Keep Abdul Waheed and Tayib Rauf since they have more text.-- Otsego 19:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per precedents of terrorist events. Even those who are mistakenly accused for the September 11 have their own articles. It is likely that charges will follow in one way or another, so there is room for a lot of organic growth as well. - Mailer Diablo 19:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment precedent would suggest deletion, as previous articles on suspects (subsequently shown to be innocent) were filled with what proved to be unfounded gossip and harmful material because some wikipedia editors think that "a newspaper said that a neighbour thought that the suspect did X" is a reliable source. Regards, MartinRe 12:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As the nom says, they are notable. They need expansion, not deletion. -- Elliskev 20:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per SV and Viriditas. Jayjg (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per Viriditas. -- Bletch 00:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep terror suspects are notable even if they end up proven innocent -- as opposed to just not guilty. (see Richard Jewell, e.g.) Carlossuarez46 06:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wiki not a news agency, if all are convicted then it's worth one page at most, not one page for each. Cf with Big Brother Series 7: all members, past and present are on the main story page. Escaper7 09:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep because major anti-terrorism arrests followed by major regime changes in UK airports by a named group of individuals is most definitely not analagous to to some folks on Big Brother. (<humour>Unless Nikki goes out of control, I suppose<nothumour>). Budgiekiller 21:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete- this is a page containing little information. a page on the event would be more useful and appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.124.83 ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 16 August 2006
  • Keep. Meets WP:V and WP:BIO. Surely these articles will be expanded and improved as events continue to unfold. -- Satori Son 02:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete. There is no reason to create stubs for everyone arrested as long as they haven't even been charged. There names are listed in the main article, which is more than sufficient - and in many countries it would be a violation of privacy laws to publicly name people before they have sentenced, let alone not even been accused (i.e. charged) for anything. What if it turns out that all or most of them are totally innocent? Would anyone of you who say "Keep" like to have your own name forever linked with a false arrest on one of the most read websites in the world? As many people always think that a mere arrest means that a person must have done something, this could very effectively ruin the rest of your life. So, as a compromise, let's keep the names in the main article but delete the stubs. The fact that Slimvirgin has managed to put together a tabloid type gossip article more suited for The Sun about one of the arrested persons is no reason to keep it. Thomas Blomberg 14:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per Thomas Blomberg. I think it is premature to have articles on all these men which have not even been formally charged and tried. I think that it suffices to have their names listed in the main article. Nrets 14:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per Thomas Blomberg -- Oblivious 16:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per SlimVirgin - Aleichem 22:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep - as per Slimvirgin. Bunts 00:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per Thomas Blomberg. Crumbsucker 04:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all and Improve because nature of unfolding event means more is likely to be added. In six months or a year, if still stubs consider merge/redirect. Rich Farmbrough 11:05 18 August 2006 (GMT).
  • Delete per Thomas Blomberg. What we have been told by authorities is that this group planned a terrorist plot. Where is the evidence of this plot beyond the statements of law enforcement that the plot has been foiled? Perhaps when there is evidence presented in a court of law these people might merit inclusion in a single entry. Marklemagne 02:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Thomas Blomberg and Ming the Merciless. Webmink 05:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep all. These are people in the news for being acused of a major crime. If all or any are not charged then consider deleting them. In the mean time they need improving. Billlion 09:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - In the light of recent false arrests, police apologies, and the media circus, the entries should be deleted. If convicted, then Stet Pimdip 18:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom and above. This is Wikipedia, not Wikinews. This is not supposed to be a news database. These suspects are not encyclopedically notable enough for their own articles at this time. There's no need for in-depth profiles on them. If some of them prove to be key terrorists, then maybe for those people. Bwithh 02:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, arrests made [24]. Maybe re-list those who are turned loose. But I have a funky feeling those are going to be furiously argued to be kept because obviously they prove the evil scheming police keep arresting the wrong people :-) Weregerbil 16:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all These names are widely discussed on the web, and should be discussed here. Hopefully the article will grow to include significant information.-- Robcotton 18:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Slim Virgin and MailerDiablo. The names are widely discussed by the media and on the web. RFerreira 21:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now, if no more info will be availble ina month period, merge them all to a single list abakharev 03:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Reluctant Keep All of these eventually can/will be filled out with more information, and at the least are fine as valid stubs. Deleting them all now just means more work later, and they serve no harm and a good baseline purpose now as stubs. rootology ( T) 03:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all the only claim to notability is being arrested/charged, which is not sufficent for individual articles, even if more "padding" is added to lengthen them. They may become notable in the future, but wikiepedia is not a crystal ball, neither is it a news outlet. Also, as is common in breaking news stories, newpapers report comments by relatively unreliable people ("A neighbour/friend/eyewitness") which are often sensationalist, and later retracted/overridden. Wikipedia should not be in the business of repeating gossip immediately without allowing a reasonable time to elasp and check whether it was unfounded or not. As an encyclopedia, we should act like one with calm, measured, and unhurried actions, and not act like a tabloid newspaper trying to get the "scoop". In short, by failing notability, WP:NOT, and having WP:BLP concerns are all be grounds for deletion based on policy. Regards, MartinRe 12:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all On BBC Radio 4's World Tonight news programme yesterday evening (21 Aug 2006), a criminal lawyer expressed concerns that media coverage and speculation would make it difficult for the suspects to have a fair trial. If you think the suspects may be guilty, you'll agree that a fair trial is essential for them to be convicted and sentenced; if you think they may be innocent, you'll also agree a fair trial is essential so they can be released. Strongly disagree with expanding the pages now: whether they are innocent or guilty, second-hand speculation based on flimsy media reports ("neighbours said he looked a bit shifty") doesn't help the suspects or the aim of justice. At the moment, the pages are too minimal to be of any use... and anyone who wants the suspects' names can get them elsewhere. It would be more appropriate to list them if they are actually convicted. Marcusswann 13:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all, morons!: It is very important to keep record of the acts of this fascism and manipulation of the public mind towards the real 1984. Would you keep the records of the Jews murdered by Goebbels around? I think so. The tired argument that this is not encyclopedic relies on the empty argument that this space we are working in is anything like the ridiculous hardbound volumes of drool hoisted upon us in our youths by "experts" who "knew" more than we, as a collective consciousness, did. Holon67 14:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note to closing admin Should all these AfD'd pages be deleted, you may want to delete Mehran Hussain also. Or if that seems out of process, give me a holler and I'll {{ db-author}} it. Weregerbil 15:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete all per Thomas Blomberg. These articles are nothing but clutter right now. Let them be created in the future as events warrant. — Michael Hays 16:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all, mention in main article is ample at this stage. Mrsteviec
  • Redirect all to 2006 transatlantic aircraft terrorist plot. As of now, it's the event that is newsworthy, not the actors. ~ trialsanderrors 01:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect all per trialsanderrors - Todd 03:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: as all parties seem to have agreed that content has in fact been merged, then clearly the article needs to be kept in some form, whether a redirect or a separate article. Redirecting is up to those doing the merge - no part of merging is governed by AfD. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Shi'a view of Ali

Shi'a view of Ali was nominated for deletion on 2006-05-14. The result of the discussion was "no consensus. You don't need to use AFD for suggesting merges". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shi'a view of Ali.
  • The discussion was not no consensus, it was "Uncle G accidentally misunderstands what Dev920 is thinking and closes AfD". Mr G, I think you have the wrong end of the stick.
    • That is not a closure notice. Uncle G 01:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

In preparation for nominating this article for deletion, I have recently added all salvagable material to Ali, as can be seen here. This means that Shia view of Ali is now an unnecessary POV fork (because the original article can hold the good material just fine), and should be deleted. Dev920 16:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as redundant; I would also recommend cross-linking to your new section from Shi'a Islam and Misconceptions about the Shi'a. TheronJ 21:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Merge. On reflection, I think Uncle G is right. TheronJ 02:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Done. Dev920 21:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Deletion is not the final stage of article merger. Uncle G 22:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I don't want to merge it; I want to delete an uneccessary POV fork. I've just taken out the useful bits. Dev920 23:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • I refer you to the first four words of your nomination. You clearly do want to merge it. So do the merger properly, and complete it in the way that mergers are to be completed. That is not by nominating the article for deletion. Uncle G 00:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
        • I think "I don't want to merge it", was rather clear about whether I do or don't want to merge the article, but I will change it. Dev920 00:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
          • The fact that you have already done the first part of the merger, per the diff that you yourself gave above, indicates that you do. Uncle G 01:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • To clarify, I DO NOT WANT A MERGER. I want to delete a POV fork that is unnecessary because the section in the original article is not large enough to warrent. A merge would result in an equally unnecessary redirect, and there isn't much to merge anyway. So the articled should therefore, IMO, be deleted and not merged, and so this discussion is very much valid and Uncle G shouldn't have tried to close it because he has misinterpreted my intentions. Dev920 00:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I've already pointed you to Wikipedia:Merge once. Please read it. If you wanted this article deleted, you should not have begun merging its content into another article. Once again: Deletion is not the final stage of article merger. Uncle G 01:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • And I've read it! And I've said twice, I don't want to merge it! Tell me, what should I have done when I saw a POV article, sat around and waited for a dozen merge and redirects, when I want the thing deleted? Instead, I have an admin who insists I've started down the road to merging, WHEN I DON'T WANT TO MERGE IT. Merging means a redirect, which is pointless in this case and the entire thing should be deleted, obliterated entirely. The reason there is no overwhelming consensus is because, Mr G, you have insisted I am halfway through a process I am not. How can there be any kind of decent consensus when you have shut down the AFD? The only voter before you came demanding I want a merge when I don't supported my plea to delete - that is hardly no consensus to me. Dev920 01:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Dev, your edits are very good, but I think G is right - merger is the right policy. You found "two or more edits that are a large overlap." I don't see the Shia view of Islam page as a POV fork - the editors aren't protecting themselves from the alternate POV by creating the page, they just have more pages than they need. As I said, I think your pages are great, but I would go ahead with the merge. TheronJ 02:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I went to ANI for a second opinion, and they said that because I didn't write the information I added to the article in my own words, despite it being free content to the world, deleting the page it originated from is effectively stealing the content and claiming it as my own. Having now been told this (and it would been nice if Uncle G had explained it himself), I realise I have no choice but to create a redirect, despite my misgivings, whatever my original intent was. I will do so now, and will refrain from making the same mistake with my next AfD. My apologies to Uncle G for apparently wasting his time - but please don't bite the newcomers to AfD attempting something new... Dev920 11:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep as nomination is now moot. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Brave New Girl

Disambiguation page with only 1 blue link, rest are red links. Suggest Redirect or Delete until such time when articles needing disambiguating are written. Leuko 19:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Though obviously it would be nice if someone would create the articles it disambigs to. Dev920 19:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect until the other articles are made. 11kowrom 19:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Provisional that someone can actually establish that there is a song, book, and film (at least in the works). I'm a bit surprised that all are redlinks at this time. StuffOfInterest 19:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect until the other articles are actually made. I think there's a speedy delete criteria for redlink only disambig pages but a redirect is fine. ColourBurst 21:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Articles are created so speedy keep. ColourBurst 21:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep I created two of the articles and found the song article buried in history. Credit User:Homie 01 for that one. Took care of disambiguation link repair as well.-- Kchase T 21:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. notable internet meme/personality. -- Madchester 15:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Geriatric1927

It fails WP:BIO. The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.) only one coverage by Yahoo does not make him notable. Local TV news coverage is cited but unverified. Lonelygirl15 ( AfD discussion) was mentioned once by the New York Times but was removed due to failing WP:BIO. -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 19:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)I edited this to correct the LG15 link reply

  • Delete, Oh geez, seconded. Completely non-notable. Just a senior citizen with a webcam. Wikipedians, once more into the breach. The battle with the rest of the internet has begun in earnest. Detruncate 19:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Commentit was a story on BBC news earlier today. Old m
    • Comment if that is so, please provide a Channel/provider, date, time, the show/segment it was on. Also provide a link to that newcast if you could. Otherwise it's unverifiable -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 19:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, Maybe not to people across the Atlantic in the US, but here in the UK this chap has been mentioned in several newspapers (hold on while I get a hyperlink to this piece of paper infront of me...), radio broadcasts, and on BBC News at 18:00 14th Aug. (you don't get a time slot on the worlds largest media corporation's News program for being a 'senior citizen with a webcam'). BTW Detruncate, 'Wikipedians VS the internet'? How obnoxious can a single person be? Spud
  • Keep, he is an internet meme now, and enough of one to get non-internet news coverage. Recury 19:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If it can be Verified. Just saying this isn't enough. People said LG15 had all that coverage as well but never provide proof...now her page is gone. Please provide links to Independent, Reliable, Reputable, Non-Trivial, Third-Party sources. For those across the ocean, we can't just take your word he has been on the BBC. It must be verifiable, hence links and all the information previously questioned. I would remind Spud to refrain from personal attacks -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 19:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Just look them up. Recury 20:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment But Recury, they are basically Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event. They only count as one coverage per WP:BIO. Even the Washington Post article is close to the same as the others: almost to the point I have trouble deciding if it would fall under 'muliple similar stories' or not. -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 20:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Here are some Independent, Reliable, Reputable, Non-Trivial, Third-Party sources:
      • UK
        • Channel 4 News Channel 4 is a major broadcaster in the UK Alexa Traffic Rank: 585
        • The Guardian The Guardian is one of the major nationwide newspapers in the UK Alex Traffic Rank: 298
        • Reuters UK It is from Reuters, enough said (written in the US) Alexa Traffic Rank: 2,549
      • Elsewhere
        • Washington Post geriatric1927 on the WP website, probably on print too. Alexa Traffic Rank: 202
        • CNET NewsHuge technology website CNET writes about geriatric1927 Alexa Traffic Rank: 81 Spud
  • Comment Spud, while I applaude your effort, The Guardian, the UK Reuters, and the Cnet articles are word-for-word the exact same thing. These count as one single source (reuters news) -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 20:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • The Guardian page doesn't appear to be written by Reuters Spud
  • Comment...as is the Channel 4 report.. I don't know how to call the Washington Post article as it's an opinion column -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 20:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep quoting from BIO: "just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted". I may reconsider if no new news coverage surfaces in the next five days.-- Kchase T 20:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - So what if the Guardian, Reuters, and Cnet articles are the same? Any one of them makes him notable, especially the Guardian and Reuters. Also, Spud- I added the links to the page, where they should have been in the first place. -- PresN 20:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment So, you are saying WP:BIO should be ignored? -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 21:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • No, the point is that WP:BIO is written as a guideline for inclusion. If a subject meets any of the criteria, BIO strongly suggest inclusion. If he or she meets none of them, then the argument becomes more subjective, as here.-- Kchase T 21:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep He's an internet phenomenon like the "Star Wars Kid" (who has a looooong wiki page). Interesting enough to keep and add more information. He already has fans you know...( Mikadoo 03:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)) reply
  • Delete... for now. Too new, it may be just his "15 minutes". If, in two/four/six months, it becomes something that would be important or interesting to know in 100 years, Keep then. Ronabop 05:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Way way too early to tell if he will last the notability distance. So far there are good signs but that is just speculation. My opinion is to wait at least another couple of months before considering this topic notable. Remy B 06:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete recentism - this guy just happens to be the current fad and was reported in the UK press (notably the London Metro) but it's not a notable phenomenon and is only here because it's currently going on. MLA 10:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep If you are notable even for 15 minutes you have been or are notable. It's like saying Elvis was notable once but not anymore! I say keep the wiki and if he really does lose popularity over the next few months then delete then. It should not be the other way around - there are way too many geeky idiots with too many self interests who should let authors (like the one who wrote this) get on with it and not serve as just a 'notable' nuisance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Str8hing ( talk • contribs)
  • Comment Please refrain from making personal attacks. If something just happens to be a current internet fad, it's not going to be the same as Elvis. Not every emailed in-joke or forum highlight is a notable phenomenon. Wikipedia is systematically biased in favour of these sorts of things, not against them. Also please use sign your comments using four tildes ~~~~. MLA 11:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Because he was completely unknown about one week ago? Remy B 12:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Featured on GMTV (UK breakfast TV programme) morning of 15th August. Also, can youtube stats count as a 'reliable' source. Over 1 million views of his videos is pretty large, is it not? In addition, the BBC newscast is now featured on youtube (verifiable...) as are reports from major news sources / media outets in Brazil, Germany (Der Speigel) and Holland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.33.102 ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete Changed to weak keep, see below Srose (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC) - I think this may be a case of recentism... He was featured on a Massachusetts news channel last night, but who's to know if he'll just fade away? I asked myself if he will be remembered in 50 years, and so far, I think that's a big no - other than by friends and family, of course. If he proves that he has staying power or has an impact in some way on youtube, I may switch over to keep, but for now, it's too soon to know. Srose (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Can't see any real reason to delete. Has received a lot of media coverage. These people saying 'will he be remembered in 50 years' and 'recentism' to you I say so what? I find it notable based on it being reported in dozens of papers, on dozens of tv stations and radio stations. Localzuk (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep I think something needs to mentioned here. Even if an article in a major newspaper is just a repeat of a Reuters article says something... it should count for something. Why? Because it means a major newspaper decided to use it, meaning the editors of a major paper thought it was somewhat important. I can understand not wanting to count small-town news paper repeats, but if the ohter major outlets carry it, then it is something more. Dave 16:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as Reuters and the Washington post have covered it. Besides, if Emmalina gets an article that survives an AFD, why not this guy? – Andyluciano 17:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
By the way, I'd like to point out a quote from WP:BIO:
Notability can be determined by:
...
  • A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following
Sure, youtube does not count as "well-known films or television productions" (which is the rest of that quote), but I'd say that it is verifiable that geriatric1927 has a large fan base and cult following. (His subscriber list and massive number of responses demonstrate that. He is one of the most-subscribed-to users on the site.) – Andyluciano 17:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - QFT above Old m 17:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, he's interesting, has a huge number of subscribers and will continue to provide accounts of his life in future vlog submissions. Those accounts will provide additional material to add to his Wikipedia page. --Jason Huebel— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.6.219 ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep - I'm usually against having articles on YouTube phenoms, but this guy's different. As BBC reported, he's been viewed by half a million people in just under a week, certainly a strong foundation to a cult following. -- Brazucs ( TALK | CONTRIBS) 22:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Even if he does fade away and still produces work wat about all the other fads listed on this encyclopedia. He has made an impact and because of that it should be kept.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.191.1.151 ( talk • contribs)
  • KEEP Consider the arrogance of people who think this should be removed. He has been mentioned in reputable news organisations around the world. He uploaded his video to youtube, and the response was enormous. That ALONE makes him worthy of inclusion. Aaarrrggh 23:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Although I think it should be Wikified extensively-- DethFromAbove 02:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep William Hung still has a Wikipedia entry! Why not Peter. The Internet does not provide chances for cross-generational communication, but Peter has struck a nerve. YouTube users have been moved to tears by what he is doing - this is a phenomena. Watch it! Something important is happening.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.70.212 ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep i agree with the person above... if william hung gets one so does geriatric 1927. this guy has been on more than one news chanel and more than one form of news, that qualifies him if u ask me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.139.56 ( talk • contribs)
  • Total thusfar So far its 21/5 in favor of keeping— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.139.56 ( talk • contribs)
AfD is not a vote
  • Keep Numerous articles, tv news coverage in several countries, and in less than 2 weeks he has the second most subscribers all-time on youtube. I think that's notable. Siradia 03:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep; also, I feel Lonelygirl's AfD should be revisited based on the resounding keep vote we are seeing here. Everyking 03:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
*Comment - No, I don't think so. Lonelygirl is much different than Geriatric - she's certainly not a fad. -- Brazucs ( TALK | CONTRIBS) 18:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Fad-y, but he's is receiving quite a bit of coverage. Notable. — TheKMan talk 06:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep; This guy is more than a fad, he hss been reported in Australia on various news channels as well. In any case, he has become a phenomenon, a poster of how the internet is connecting all walks of people, and his stories are truly touching, even more so, the way he is taken back by being so well recognized (as the bloke is 79, lost his wife years ago). He's probably the oldest person to become an internet HIT! IMHO, if GOATSE is an entry on wikipedia, geriatric ought to be as well! -- Unleaded— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.73.206 ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep; The article should be kept, he has been on the news in several countries across the world. You don't get coverage like that for nothing. If interest in him dies down in a few months, then delete it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.128.201 ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep; Reasonable national and international coverage. Encyclopaedias are supposed to be comprehensive - this is the first notable case of youtube autobiography. Blogging is age old - internet memoirs are not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Womblette ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep; Peter is a celebrity. The only criteria for being a celebrity is that they are reknown. Peter is reknown. I'm sure more people have been to Peter's wiki entry than, say, Matt Pinfield's.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.103.1.44 ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep for now, mildly notable. Relist at a later date when the hype/craze has died down, possibly under semi-protection to avoid Youtuber's from swarming in.-- Andeh 15:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Switched to weak keep per Andypandy. If, as I suspect, the craze does die down, it will be relisted in several weeks or months. I'm going to assume that due to the huge amount of traffic he's getting right now, he might have more than 15 minutes of fame. Also, as a senior citizen making an impact on YouTube, he's definitely unique and may pave the way for a longlasting trend. Srose (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; none of the autobiographical information in the article is verified, it's merely a repetition of geriatric's videos. Phaedress 17:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This guy has been on BBC news, Channel 4 UK, Australian news, and is huge all over the internet. — Mets501 ( talk) 18:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Washington Post, CNet, Guardian. What else do you want? 24.31.9.226 19:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (for now). Notable. (IMO we should consider re-AfD-ing in a few months if his notability has declined.) -- Billpg 22:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. My overall preference would be for a page of video bloggers. If such a page existed, I would favour listing him there, along with others who are just-a-bit-notable such as Nornna, Emmalina and Renetto. If he sustains his (IMO) high-notability after a few months, the page could then be "promoted" to a whole article. That option isn't on the table right now, so my Keep vote above remains. -- Billpg 22:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP - What length of time qualifies for notable? Peter has been in the news for weeks now and has millions of views on his historic(if personal) broadcasts. Some entries on Wiki have been added even though the actual event only lasted hours. The only way to decide whether to keep an article or not, is for Wiki to provide explicit requirements or metrics to confirm notability 80.192.244.102 23:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Stew reply
  • Comment. Agree with previous comment. I think this guy is a noteable, not as a celebrity but as an event in Internet evolution, showing how effective these tools are for reaching out to large audiences, and as a first to span the age gap and gain wide acceptance just by talking about life. He should be at least mentioned in a youtube article. xlynx 11:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP. This man has just surpassed Brooke Brodack as the most subscribed to individual on YouTube. Furthermore, he has just made a video stating that he is aware of websites that exist with his YouTube handle, but he does not endorse them (they are fan based websites). Finally, in that same video, he acknowledges that the media has reported on him, yet he will not subject himself to traditional media outlets and shall remain exclusively on YouTube. - Shirley Grace 19:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP. As already stated, you have a article for Brooke Brodack who was previously the most watched person on the site, why delete this guy if he has surpassed her. If you delete him, then DELETE Brooke Brodack as well!! Raerth 23:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I think we've reached consensus.-- DethFromAbove 23:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • DELETE! Do any of you realize why this is up for deletion? This guy does not want fame; he doesn't want his phone conversations with the press recorded without his permission, he was not want his privacy invaded. The people saying "Keep" are just saying that because "he's incredibly popular"; they completely lack the knowledge of this situation; they're only making this worse. Gah, what's wrong with you people? You haven't reached a consensus! This is horrible! -- Zaita 00:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC) (P.S... sorry for all the italics, but it's hard to express myself with the smilies I've become to accustomed to using) reply
    • It's just a question of covering notable and verifiable information. It would be worthwhile to be particularly strict about it in this case, sure, but deletion on these grounds shouldn't be considered. Many people are famous who don't want to be, and we still cover them. Everyking 11:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment. Privacy concerns (especially for a non-public figure like Geriatric1927) must adhere to WP:BLP. -- Madchester 15:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep and cleanup At the moment, he's a notable internet meme, though his hits have fallen off somewhat over the past few days. -- Madchester 05:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • KEEPwith half a million hits on youtube, he is notable and many people like me, might hear about him from the news and would want to know about him in more detail and quickly from wikipedia. Since I found many interesting information on "Salam Pax" in wikipedia, I've felt that the main advantage to wikipedia is that it is up to date and doesn't only cover TV celebrities. And since one criteria for notable personalities contains "large fan base" for TV personalities, I don't understand how TV personalities would be more important than You tube personalities. And finally even if he does die away, his importance will always be in his age.
  • KEEPif he doesn't meet the requirements for an autobiography, I think the 'geriatric1927' phenomenon itself should be recorded in wikipedia somewhere, whether as a full article or as a prt of another. This is good enough for now. I read about him in a newspaper coming home on the train, and looked for him on wikipedia when I got home. Surely there is a need then... Tompee 14:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Please sign your comments with ~~~~ - otherwise your comment is far more likely to be ignored in the final decision. Remy B 13:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • KEEPIt's one thing to keep his name/phone/address private, but this is not in the article. However the article might be modified to describe this issue
    • I have done this. Perhaps other wikipedians will want to emphasize it more, but it is in there. Tompee 00:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • KeepWithin a week, he has become the most subscribed-to video uploader on youtube, as the article says. My suggestion is simply to keep the article up for now. He has had millions of views, and some of those people may be looking for some background information about how an unknown retired person became the number one youtube contributor. theAnarch 1:18am 19 August 2006
  • KEEP A definate keep, G1927 is now a 'household name' in online circles. He's been reported globally, and his has been an impact - that may prove critical to the future successes of YouTube. Something, which could well have a lasting impact. This article, is relevant indeed.
  • keep please does not fail bio guideline geriatric1927 has major cult following on and off youtube plus notable press coverage Yuckfoo 20:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP As someone before said he does not want publicity, well he already has it, He went out to tell his story and people are hearing it. By keeping this page new viewers can get that needed info on this verry no celeb Skeeve KAM 05:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP I don't understand Brian's insistence of verifiable and more media mention of geriatric1927 considering Emmalina was a Keep with less media coverage, fewer viewers and did nothing notable. This man is the most subscribed to user on YouTube, has had International media coverage and most important - he's captured a worldwide audience that spans four generations, that alone is quite notable and an amazing accomplishment. He won't soon be forgotten. If he is, then take the page down then, like Emmalina's should be considering she's no longer on YouTube and never accomplished anything noteworthy. [[User: ErnieJamie 07:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Best Damn's Top 50 Unforgettable Sports Moments

See also Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 February 4, Best Damn's Top 50 Outrageous Sports Moments ( AfD discussion), and Best Damn's Top 50 Sports Blowups ( AfD discussion).

Derivative listcruft. Not an article (see also Best Damn's Top 50 Outrageous Sports Moments below Delete - Doc 19:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Why is this "Derivative listcruft"? This list was put together by the sports show Best Damn Sports Show Period and lists an interesting collection of moments in sports. It can also be considered as an episode of such show. Mtxchevy 19:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete if it's the Best Damn Sportshow's list, then they can keep it. We do not need an article for every list compiled by a TV program, or newspaper, or radio show. -- Whpq 20:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment neutral so far. This is a decent list with links to all the events in question. Other than the fact that "The Simpsons" are way more popular, I don't see much difference between deleting this and deleting a Simpsons episode article.-- Kchase T 20:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete another one? ReverendG 20:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as NN and possible copyright violation -- Alias Flood 21:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Alias Flood. Carlossuarez46 06:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Just when you thought you'd seen it all. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Michael Hirschbeck

I'm a big Indians fan, but their batboy doesn't need a page. He only gets 88 Google hits, another sign of non-notability 11kowrom 19:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Notablility can not be had by association -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 19:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Maybe a someone can make a page with a list of all the batboys. Just a thought Meatman22 20:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless there's some way this guy meets WP:BIO, and even then I'd be skeptical.-- Kchase T 20:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • not Bat Boy? delete per nom. speediable, as notability is not asserted. Ohconfucius 03:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Isn't he the son of John Hirschbeck? Not that being the son of a famous person confers notability, but still... Irongargoyle 16:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

The Webcomic List

A website that lists webcomics. ~113,000 Alexa ranking, no claims of notability, and otherwise not meeting WP:WEB. Delete as a nn website. Wickethewok 20:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - I've since added more details about the notability of the sight. Also it is notable. If you enter "Webcomic" into Google it is the first entry. ISD 21:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment It is important to note that the top google hit for any search is usually the one with the most relevant domain name, and doesn't actually signify importance or traffic ranks. Ardent † ∈ 22:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, unless someone adds some good source citations to reliable sources that testify to the importance of this site. (Presently, the only sources cited are the site itself!). Who, exactly, says that this site is important? Dpbsmith (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Starry Eyes 20:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the article cites zero reliable sources, and "Top google hit for X" isn't a good point on notability. WilyD 20:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 21:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Also, only has 4 distinct google hits, 2 of which belong to the website itself, one seems unrelated to the topic, and the other is a dead link. Seems like a fairly new site. Once it has gained notability a good article could probably develop, but as for now it is non-notable. Ardent † ∈ 22:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Interestingly, there are more sites linking to it than there are mentioning it by name - probably down to webcomics using graphical links to it which display that comic's ranking (e.g. this comic). It's quite common for webcomics to link to rankings/listing sites in this way. - makomk 21:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • If it's really important, it should be possible to find a published comment in a reliable that describes it as "important." That's would be a lot more convincing to me than Google hit counts, which are subject to search engine optimization and so forth. Websites like to do link exchange for mutual self-promotion, inflating the apparent importance of both. Does anybody say anything about it in Wired? Slate? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete webcomic cruft that is unverifiable through reliabel sources. WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Nero (band)

This article survived its first deletion attempt. The votes were 5 for delete, 1 weak keep, 1 keep by a then-new user (who signed their name manually), and 1 keep by a now-blocked user. The band's one release was self-produced and self-distributed and they are now defunct. One rationale for keeping was the band has been on an "international tour"...inasmuch as a date in Vancouver if you live in Oregon counts as an "international tour". This is the one criterion in WP:MUSIC where Nero's standing is anything beyond clear-cut failure, and even there they fail by the spirit, if not the letter. Starry Eyes 20:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) (PS: Note a recent prod attempt by User:Femmina, revoked because of its dubious survival on AfD.) reply

  • Delete as nominator. Starry Eyes 20:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Seems to have good detail, and only went defunct because their lead vocal was killed in an accident. Dev920 20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Yes, lots of made-up detail. You can't use the death of your friend as an excuse to keep an advertising page on wikipedia. -- Femmina 23:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Article still does not cite it's sources. Does not verifiy what tour they were on. No Reliable Sources cited. Fails all points of WP:Music. Looks very much like a vanity page. -- Brian ( How am I doing?) 20:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)I used three `~` instead of four when I signed this last time. Self-edited to correct my signature. reply
  • Delete fails WP:V as it has no reliable sources. WilyD 20:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:Music Spearhead 21:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete vanity page for a non-notable band. 100% original research. -- Femmina 23:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Note that the only criterion they might possibly meet is "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in notable and verifiable sources." The editors who support this article would need to come up with sources to support the description of the band's tour. I would consider a show in Vancouver, British Columbia to be an "international tour" for an Oregon-based band only in the most technical sense anyway. -- Metropolitan90 04:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, notability may have been questionable in 2005, but definitely not present now. NawlinWiki 14:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. International tour, and several CDs listed at http://neroband.home.comcast.net/newnero/order.html
      • CD 1: Live at Ina's Spider House. Show recorded 7/21/05
      • CD 2: Nero. Album recorded December '03
      • CD 3: Live at the Black Forrest. Show recorded 11/24/04 (2CDS) TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 10:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Is that a joke or what? "The following CDRs are available. They are all homemade. See below for ordering instructions." That's what the page says. Oh, and... TruthbringerToronto... What about stop stalking me? -- Femmina 13:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No way should this have survived; Unvertifiable, vanity and een falls below the risibly low standards elaborated in WP:MUSIC. Eusebeus 15:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator. Time to fix our mistake. RFerreira 21:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Best Damn's Top 50 Sports Blowups

See also Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 February 4, Best Damn's Top 50 Unforgettable Sports Moments ( AfD discussion), and Best Damn's Top 50 Outrageous Sports Moments ( AfD discussion).

Another one (see above) Delete - Doc 20:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - no need for an article for every list created by a TV show, magazine, radio program, etc. -- Whpq 20:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both as listcruft and possible copyvio. BoojiBoy 20:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as listcruft. The nominator is referring to this AfD.-- Kchase T 20:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. ReverendG 20:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete NN. These lists are often copyright protected. -- Alias Flood 21:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per my earlier votes on the similar articles. Carlossuarez46 06:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Trainer Tower

Totally NN part of a Pokemon game. No context as of this writing, and not even notable enough for a merge. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 20:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - per nom. Wickethewok 20:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. It's essentially a subpage of Shiny Pokémon, which is the only page that links to it.-- Kchase T 20:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Don't you think there should be a page for this though? There should be a page for trainer tower, to describe what it is and strategy to get through it.

0-172 1.42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment No, I do not. See WP:NOT. This is not an indiscriminate collection of information. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 20:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • In fact, gaming strategy is never supposed to be including in a Wikipedia article, regardless of the location/scenario/dungeon's notability. I wouldn't claim to be any sort of authority on the notability of this particular article, but strategy is right out. Icewolf34 20:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Somebody created a link to this page, therefore intending fore there to be a page about this topic. So I created it. Now, I do admit to having meager information on the particular subject. I also have to admit, that with having meager information about this subjct there really is not point in making it, but there was a link to this page, so I decided to create this page for anybody curious about this subject. But the page seems to be in violation of some rule, so I am not clear about what to do. 0-172 1:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 20:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete- It shouldnt' have been linked in the first place. It's too non-notable for there to be any non-game guide information about it, and WP:NOT a game guide, so that's right out. -- PresN 20:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If it is at all relevant to this discussion, I was considering also making a page for Trainer Hill of Pokemon Emerald, but due to the reaction of and discussion over the Trainer Tower page, I am finding that as not such a good idea. 0-172 2:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Yeah, that would probably be a very bad idea since they're almost identical concepts. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 21:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment From where I stand right now, the Trainer Tower article is unnecessary, but still needed. How about merging the information I provided about the Trainer Tower with the Seven Island section of the Sevii Islands article. 0-172 6:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note I do want to delete, but here's what should happen: Trainer Tower becomes a dab to Sevii Islands and Pokemon Emerald, and information is consolidated into new or existing sections of this article. TrackerTV ( CW| Castform| Green Valley) 03:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Thats what I just said . 0-172 1:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep. PT ( s-s-s-s) 21:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Antiseen

Band dubious notability. Per WP:BAND, the burden of proof is on the article, and the article doesn't claim or cite notability. Prod removed citing amazon and walmart presence. Fireplace 20:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - 747 unique Google hits, entry on AllMusic.com, media coverage in multiple zines (including MaximumRocknRoll), 24 years of national and international touring, played with GG Allin, and their work has been covered by Hank Williams III, who put out a record with them. PT ( s-s-s-s) 20:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete research shows they are somewhat notable, but the article makes no mention of this. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 21:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep per below. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 21:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Nathan Future

Lack of notability, irrelevant links, possible farce. ReverendG 20:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete No notability assertion. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 21:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, nonnotable small-time wrestler. NawlinWiki 14:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Wrestled indy starting in 1999 and ending in 1999. WP:NN Ohconfucius 07:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Resume-oriented programming

This article is about a new word that has yet to find wide circulation and thus isn't notable enough for inclusion RicDod 20:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom: neologism. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 21:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as nonsense Spearhead 21:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Nonsense is not a speedy deletion criterion. Please do not abuse the speedy deletion criteria. Uncle G 23:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Sounds more like something for a geek version of Urban Dictionary. Shadow1 22:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. The "geek version" of Urban Dictionary is the Jargon File, though it's not user-edited. ColourBurst 22:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The only mention that I can find of this concept is this, and that is more a critique of the over-use of Enterprise Java Beans than it is an explanation of resume-oriented programming. This concept has not gained any traction at all in the world at large outside of its coiners, as far as I can determine. Notability isn't the issue. This is, simply, original research. Delete. Uncle G 23:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Real and annoying phenomenon, but kind of soap-boxy and unencyclopedic. -- Xrblsnggt 01:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom Carax 03:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete, incoherent nonsense. Pavel Vozenilek 03:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was -delete - and the arguments presented by the sole keep were neutralised effectively. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Matthew Okine

Non-notable comedian/actor who has appeared in four films. Of those films, three of them are extra parts and the one as the main character has yet to be released and it will most likely be an Austalian-only release. Other standing information may not be able to meet WP:BIO either, since music is freely distributed through Okine's webpage. The "high profile" Raw Comedy finals searched with Okine yeilds no hits on Google.com besides the Wikipedia page and the person's MySpace page. Unique searches for "Matthew Okine" result in 703 hits. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 20:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply


*Keep I contested the prod on this. He's appeared in 4 films. In 2 as extras (See No Evil and House of Wax), one speaking role (Aquamarine) and one as the main character (Sweet FA). Raw Comedy is a national competition which was shown on national television. He also appears to have toured the country as a comedian and competed in a number of major comedy competitions. Drett 22:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to Delete Drett 19:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. There has been one reference to "Matthew Okine" in the Australian media referring to a goalkeeper in a school soccer match. Capitalistroadster 01:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Once again Capitalistroadster is turning to the media to base his decision. One reference in the Australian media DOES NOT CONLCUDE Matthew Okine is not of notoriety. You seem to neglect to remember what an encyclopedia is - AN ENCYCLOPEIDA NOT A MEDIA DATABASE. This guy is an actor in high profile films and Raw Comedy is a MAJOR competition. Try searching Raw Comedy and see if it satisfies your urges for a 'media profile'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelgsta ( talk • contribs)
    Please sign your posts, Nelgsta. Capitalistroadster's access to the Australian/NZ media database has been a very useful verifiability tool in WP:AFD when the article itself lacks sufficient verifiable references. I find his contributions very useful, more so than your assertions given here: for example, participation in a notable competition or minor appearance in a film does not automatically make one inherently notable. -- Canley 03:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment on database. Using the Factiva database, "Matthew Okine" gets 9 hits - one on an irrelevant soccer play, the rest mainly very brief mentions of this comedian, mainly in minor Queensland papers (and a minor mention in the The Toronto Star, and a short article on him in the South West News, no idea what sort of paper that is). "Matt Okine" gets 19 hits, mainly with brief mentions/gig guides in minor newspapers. He does get quoted in The Courier-Mail one time (5 July 2006), and there is also a once sentence mention in The Courier-Mail. I don't have any conclusions about this. This summary is probably misleading, so beware. I can take a better look at this if you need me to, just ask.-- Commander Keane 06:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The South West News is a suburban weekly from Brisbane. What's the reference in the Toronto Star? If it's any good, I would assert that international press coverage means he's slightly notable as a comic. Otherwise, I guess I'll admit defeat. Drett 20:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The Toronto Star mention was just a cast listing at the end of a film review, so nothing really. I probably should have said that most of the database hits were just mentioning his result in a couple of comedy competitions, so he is probably more notable for comedy that film.-- Commander Keane 06:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete He's appeared in 4 films. Let's see: his role in house of wax is so minor that it is not listed on the IMDb, his one speaking role in Aquamarine is the 15th listed on the credits on IMDb for a D-class movie. His first main role is in a small production whose main article was recently deleted on Wikipedia. I'm not sure why it is so wrong to use media searches to help determine whether or not someone is notable. People arguing for keep seemingly ignore the WP:BIO standards. Even if you feel that this guideline errs by being overly strict you have to agree that this guy falls way, waaaaaaaay below the criteria. Also it is important to point out that the claims in the article about the notoriety of the comedy competitions are a bit dubious. Let's also point out that the creator of the article is probably Michael Skelton who directed the movie Sweet FA (the only "important" role of Matthew Okine). The sole contributions of User:Mickskel were to articles related to this film and the corresponding production company. (You can't see that anymore because these articles were speedied.) Pascal.Tesson 12:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
extra comment His official site pretty much sums up the state of his career. Looks like a dcent guy but franky I think even he would agree he has no place on Wikipedia... Pascal.Tesson 12:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete does not meet WP:BIO yet.-- Peta 03:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete does not meet WP:BIO for any of the counts, whether standup comedian, actor, or musician. 742Ghits, of which almost all related to the films "See No Evil" and "Aquamarine". Clicking deeper reveals a dearth of information on the subject. So he's not even a blip on the radar. Ohconfucius 04:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Actually, there were no delete votes. Basically, there wasn't a quorum. But the four editors who did respond all wanted the keep the informationm, the only question was whether thru Keep or Merge. So I chose the least destructive, Keep. But since there was no quorum, I called it a No Consensus. I could have relisted the article, but I didn't think this was necessary as no one (except the nominator) wanted to delete the information. Herostratus 05:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

OmenServe

I don't think filesharing scripts deserve their own articles. Sysreset, Polaris, etc. don't have articles. If anything, this should be merged into Internet Relay Chat or MIRC script.

See also Wikipedia:Notability (software) Ashi b aka tock 20:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Merge into one of those. If it's used by 90% of listservers, then it's notable enough for a merge. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 21:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I kind of doubt that statistic but of course there is no reliable source for anything :/ Ashi b aka tock 21:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • As do I, but alas, WP:AGF. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 21:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. I see no need to merge the article with IRC or mIRC scripts - both are already overly cluttered. Also, it meets #2 in proposed Wikipedia:Notability (software). OmenServe has spawned various clones ( [25], [26], [27]) and translations ( [28]). DLX 11:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. As an mIRC user, I find Omenserve to be one of the best serving scripts around. I think the article is necessary and needed, and will, when completed, help newbies and general file sharing users to find and use one of the better scripts available for mIRC.
  • Merge, it will help the average person find the article. And if the article grows then it can be seperated, I highly doubt it will become that big though. BadCRC 19:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Bobet 09:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Samantha 7

Fails WP:Music having released just one album (threshold is two) and that was a flop. See here. Delete. BlueValour 21:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - OK, it looks like we need to rethink these guidelines; for an obviously failed and non-notable band to be considered worthy of an article is plainly nonsense in any serious encyclopaedic terms. BlueValour 21:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: You are certainly welcome to suggest changes to the WP:BAND guidelines, but I don't think that this is the proper forum. As for me, I have simply applied the existing guidelines as best I can, whether or not I completely agree with them. Cheers. -- Satori Son 22:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per two famous members. Personally, I do agree with that guideline, Blue, because it allows fans of famous musicians to track where they go and where they started. Srose (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. Herostratus 04:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Kendal Choral Society

Very little context, and only 11 ghits. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 21:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply


What is a ghits? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.131.114.45 ( talk • contribs) .

  • Comment, it's a google hit. ColourBurst 22:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep The Google hits are pretty bad., but the hits that they do get look solid. They seem to be listed in the british national archive. I think this bears further investigation and some better assertion of notabiliy and references. Irongargoyle 22:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep, could do with some expansion and sources. JPD ( talk) 11:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, context is not extensive, but descriptive and clear. The topic is encyclopedic and Google hits are a poor indication for subjects like this. I'll wikify it now. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Another weak keep For a performing group they produce very few Google and news hits, but I found a news item that details the history of the society, and I'd say this one goes in based on history not WP:MUSIC. ~ trialsanderrors 01:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Church of All Nations (PCUSA)

nn parish church; article tone is more of what might appear in a parish newsletter than an encyclopedia article Carlossuarez46 21:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. No notability assertion and reads like a flyer. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 21:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as nom. Carlossuarez46 21:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Enigma (UCLA Club)

Non-notable club. The article gives no information that anyone outside of UCLA would ever seek. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 21:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. No references/citations (i.e. fails WP:V; not verifiably important. - AED 21:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. rhmoore 22:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Enigma was highly invovled in the LARPY awards, well honored, and instrumental in some of the growth of Theater Style gaming in the California Area, having spawned multiple forms of Live Gaming, a semi-popular subject. The article should (and will) have this information added, but is absolutely interesting for LARP fans outside of the scope of UCLA. rizwank
  • It should also be noted that Enigma is not soley a club for UCLA students; it has a sizeable active membership of people who are alumni or unaffiliated with the university. Thus, it is at least as relevant as several of the listings on the Category:Science_fiction_organizations page, such as MCFI, UniSFA, SFera, or MISFITS. 71.232.105.50 01:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Randbot reply
  • Delete minor club not even known well at UCLA -- at least not by me or anyone I knew. Carlossuarez46 07:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete as nonsense. Yank sox 22:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Baseball Hall of Shame

Pure Vandalism Yankees76 21:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Strong speedy delete Was already tagged for CSD as patent nonsese. Why bother with AfD? (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I retagged it. To the nominator: Next time, uncontroversial speedy candidates don't need to come to AfD if you agree that they should be deleted. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 22:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE, although I did merge some of the info into Adarsh Hospital. Herostratus 04:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

M.Nagappa

I cannot establish that this physician is verifiably important. AED 21:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete the only notability assertion is that he is "famous". Which he is probably not outside of his small town. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 21:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non-notable. rhmoore 22:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect Delete nn. Is it common practice in Indian English to write a name this way? I haven't seen it in British English.-- Kchase T 23:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    Yes it is common in South India. (with a space that is) =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    This is the way Names are written, especially in Suuth India. In this case the person's name is Nagappa and M denotes the first letter of his father's anme See here for more information (especially the last para of that section) Doctor Bruno 09:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    Thanks both for the answers. Interesting read. I'm also comfortable with a redirect, perhaps merging a bare minimum of relevant content.-- Kchase T 19:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Director of a teaching Institution Doctor Bruno 09:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect - Non-notable on his own. But perhaps a redirect to Adarsh Hospital might work. -- thunderboltza.k.a.D eepu Joseph | TALK18:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete without sources to confirm he is a doctor or notable, I don't think wikipedia should include him. Nickieee 07:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I think a mention in Adarsh Hospital might be enough. Being the director of a hospital, even if it is the largest within a small district from India isn't enough to establish notability on its own.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

V of Doom

I'm not sure this really deserves it's own article. Much, if not all of the information appears to be in Logos of Viacom. Also, the second half of the article qualifies as a bad joke, seemingly perpetrated by a sock puppet. Dave314159 21:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete as nonsense. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 21:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per above. rhmoore 22:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete. If this isn't patent nonsense, it's very close. Worthy of BJAODN. -- Core des at talk. ^_^ 22:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 22:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, clear consensus that article violates WP:NOR. Nandesuka 23:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Black Cop

Delete This should NOT be on Wikipedia. I signed on specifically so I could get rid of it. A friend's acquaintance wants to prove the site is useless, and had tried writing fake articles before. For some reason this one stuck. It was written as a joke - it's already received far more serious treatment than was ever deserved. -- Mirrorstone 20:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Note This is effectively the nominating statement. I have moved it to the top and fixed up the nomination to the standard format. Also this article survived a previous AfD discussion as no consensus just a few days ago here Gwernol 21:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Mirrorstone, as nominator please list the Wikipedia policies that you believe this article is in breach of. Thanks, Gwernol 21:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

OK, I'm new to Wikipedia, but so near as I can tell, this article violates policy in that (1) it's based on original research, and (2) it's racist. While the "black cop" is an archetype (meaning that many such movies and TV shows have them), it is not, to the best of my knowledge, a stereotype. The examples listed usually play into the "cop" stereotype in general, not a variation of it. And calling attention to the colour of any police officers is, in my opinion, wrong. . -- Mirrorstone 21:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Legitimate article that is growing naturally, I have no idea why MrBlondNYC has decided to put this up for deletion a second time so soon. I shouldn't be the one starting this debate either, where's his justification? -- Stukov 19:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Evidently this joke tuned some wikipedia editors onto a real phenomenon. The primary issue in the previous AfD was sources. There's the Ethical Spectacle article, which isn't much, but enough.-- Kchase T 23:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Delete SiobhanHansa is right about the remaining source. Without good sources, this is original research. It may be real, but it needs sources to stay, and a concerted effort to find them hasn't turned up the necessary ones.-- Kchase T 22:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The way this article is now, it still isn't very encyclopedic. The Ethical Spectacle article is an opinion piece on a vanity site (I don't mean that in a derogatory way, just that it's no different from a blog). One might look at the Black Cop article and say 'yeah, I've seen black cops on TV, it must be a real phenomenon' and you might be right. There might be something real there. But if there is it hasn't been shown from reliable sources in the article, so it's still original research. -- Siobhan Hansa 01:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete First, it should be noted that User:Stukov is the creator of this article so his vote should not count. Now, I'll just repeat my reasoning from the first AfD: Does everytime a black actor play a cop automatically make them a character type? Or does the "black cop" have to exhibit certain traits? I could maybe see gruff black lieutenants or captains being considered a "type" ( 48 Hrs., Starsky and Hutch, Homicide: Life on the Street) but even that's reaching a little bit. But just any cop who's black regardless of personality or rank is automatically a stereotype? Any black person with a badge is a stereotype? Come on. I could make the page "Black Doctor" and list just as many examples of black actors that played doctors. MrBlondNYC 07:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • User:Stukov has as much right to express his opinion here as anyone. Being creator of an article does not mean your vote does not count. Gwernol 10:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • This is a discussion, not a vote; and it is not who is making an argument that matters. It is whether an argument is a well-reasoned argument that is based upon our policies and guidelines that matters. The argument that you propound makes no mention of, and doesn't even address, our policies and guidelines, for example. Kchase02's and SiobhanHansa's arguments above, on the other hand, address the issues of verifiability and original research, and the sources that underpin the article. Uncle G 12:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Unless we plan to have all sorts of lists of racial/profession combinations in media showing up. LactoseTI T 12:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • If they are verifiable stereotypes that are not original research, then indeed Wikipedia should have them. Editors have pointed to a source that appears to document this stereotype. Uncle G 12:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A search of "Black Cop Stereotype" gets numerous hits on Googles and several informative articles on the subject of this particular film archetype. http://ace.mu.nu/archives/188958.php is one such site. 74.120.134.192 17:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
This reference does not substantiate the article. As with the Ethical Spectacle, this piece is not from a reliable source. It's from the Ace of Spades HQ, a self-published political blog with a heavy handed agenda. The blog posting doesn't mention black cops. It's about large black women stereotypes on TV, or more particularly about PC outbursts against large black women stereotypes. A comment on the blog mentions black cops, but WP:Reliable sources specifically states that comments left on blogs should not be used as primary or secondary sources (as well stating that self-published blogs are generally not reliable). While a Google search for Black cop stereotype turns up a lot of hits, most of the ones I looked at were about real life race discrimination by police officers.-- Siobhan Hansa 17:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Speaking of guidelines, Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article is part of the guidelines regarding AfD. OK? I did skip the first part of my comments in the first nom which was: "Original research, lack of reliable sources and most of all ill-defined". The Ethcial Spectacle, though well-written, is a person's vanity page. The Narc review is from a blog and the "black cop" is mentioned very briefly in one sentence. The link provded above is an article about the "sassy black woman" stereotype and is also from a person's vanity site. The "black cop" stereotype is only mentioned in posts by readers responding to the person's comments on it. From this it is apparent that some people, myself included, feel that the black police captain is a type. But there has yet to be a reliable source about this. MrBlondNYC 21:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fails WP:OR and WP:RS to begin with, is poorly scoped (e.g. gruff black looey example) and bizarrely attributes the beginning of the phenomenon to 1988 (a role that was, IIRC, in fact colorblind casting). -- Dhartung | Talk 22:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Can see no reason for the nomination-- Tess Tickle 02:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. fails WP:OR and WP:RS. -- Madchester 23:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as original research per SiobhanHansa. Gwernol 20:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Based on the lengthy list of characters that meet this perceived movie archetype, I believe it warrants surviving a second nomination. 74.120.134.192 19:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    Note this user has already expressed their opinion here. Gwernol 19:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Herostratus 04:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Summer of Sonic

Placed on CSD, CSD was contested. Article has been deleted once before. While having Masahiro Kumono, Shun Nakamura, and Richard Jacques comment on the event is very impressive, it's also unverifiable because the only interview sources are the Summer of Sonic website itself, and it does not constitute a reliable source. There needs to be reliable sources about the event to make it pass WP:WEB. ColourBurst 22:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

The only other website (that I know of so far) is http://news.sonicstadium.org/story/190/ and a forum topic http://boards.ign.com/sonic_the_hedgehog/b5224/123339129/p1/ UnDeRsCoRe 22:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. Please read reliable sources. Sonic News cannot be considered "independent" as it is part of the TSS network, the host of Summer of Sonic. IGN forum posts are also wholly unverifiable because anybody can post. ColourBurst 22:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, there is this. http://www.sonic-cult.org/newsx/fullnews.php?id=100 I don't know if it's reliable... http://sonichq.mobiusforum.net/newsite/ it has a small thing saying to visit it. I still can't find websites that are classified as "reliable" such as IGN or Gamespot, or even SEGA etc. UnDeRsCoRe 23:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

This is pretty recent; shouldn't we give someone out there time to write something on it? Anyway, Jun Senoue, an muscian who works at Sonic Team, has something about it on his site. Besides, Sega recognizes it as a significant event and gave permission for Sonic Stadium to use the "15th anniversary logo" (which is usually only granted to sites like IGN). Also, interviews with Sonic Team staff were placed on SoS rather than their usual place at Sonic Channel. This is a big event, much more than Hedgehog Heaven. (I think you should know that "no evidence of notability, therefore not notable" is denying the antecedent and an irrelevant conclusion. Know the logic behind your own policy, for goodness sakes.) -- DavidHOzAu 02:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. You don't wait for someone else to write about an item to justify its existence here. It needs sufficient outside source first. Wryspy 07:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep- It is clearly a notable event! It has, as stated above, been recognized by Sega (of Europe, to specify.) It was even handed prizes, such as signed copies of Sonic Advance, and Adventure 2! It is recognized as a large fan event. And official event if count Sega's participation in it. And besides, why would Masahiro Kumono, Shun Nakamura, Richard Jacques, and Jun Senoue allow an interview with them if they do not recognize this event. UnDeRsCoRe 20:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply


August 20

I don't know what happened here. The article didn't have an AFD tag on it, this AfD was never closed. I'm recreating the AfD and relisting. This site is non-notable, as proven by the enormous list of nn handles of forum contributors. User:Zoe| (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Not notable, possible forumcruft, and possible advertising. Alexa Count is 827,456. -- real _ decimic 04:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Wryspy 07:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang ( chat/ patch) 12:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, not notable. Listing forum contributors doesn't really inspire confidence. RandyWang ( chat/ patch) 12:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete- per nom.-- Peephole 13:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Any reason for the 2 same AFD notices on the page? -- real _ decimic 20:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep- It is clearly a notable event! It has, as stated above, been recognized by Sega (of Europe, to specify.) It was even handed prizes, such as signed copies of Sonic Advance, and Adventure 2! It is recognized as a large fan event. And official event if count Sega's participation in it. And besides, why would Masahiro Kumono, Shun Nakamura, Richard Jacques, and Jun Senoue allow an interview with them if they do not recognize this event. UnDeRsCoRe 20:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no reliable sources. If it's deleted, be sure to remove the redlink from Template:SonicFeatures so as to discourage recreation by a well-meaning third party. - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 12:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment- Just because it does not have an official source dosen't mean it isn't an event. That would be like saying that a tv show dosen't exist just because no website has talked about it. UnDeRsCoRe 16:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
If it doesn't have any official sources and none can be found, it doesn't meet WP:V. If it doesn't meet WP:V, we can't/won't/shouldn't keep it. - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 19:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete If the world at large (read Newsbank and Lexis-Nexis) don't care then we shouldn't either. ~ trialsanderrors 01:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Wing Chun Teahouse

Fails WP:WEB, only 50 ghits (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 22:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, no reliable sources indicating that this site meets WP:WEB, Alexa of 3,308,870. -- Kinu t/ c 22:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, does not pass any bar as per both comments above -- Deville ( Talk) 23:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, meets WP:WEB, The content is distributed via sites that are both well known and independent of the creators through an online publisher and an online broadcaster. The article itself needs work, however it looks to be a starting point from which to build. It provides proof that its subject meets Wikipedia criteria via an "External link" section. -- yipman 23:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
How, specifically, is the content "distributed via sites that are both well known and independent of the creators through an online publisher and an online broadcaster"? (If there is no reply, count this as a delete per failing to prove compliance with WP:WEB.) Sandstein 05:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 09:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Stephen Celuch

A Google search returns only 7 or so relevant hits. Not notable. rhmoore 22:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, nn as per nom. I seem to get maybe more than 7 hits after you subtract mirrors, but some of those are not relevant, and none of them are links to any art references, online magazines, whatever. Seems that the only web presence is the artists' page of a particular gallery, and Celuch's own site. Maybe one day, but not now. -- Deville ( Talk) 23:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, nn as per nom. The fellow is an art student. "Stephen John Celuch" scores 2 Ghits, "Stephen Celuch" 25 Ghits. I have dug some more, and found as follows:
he claims to have won 4 prizes, but there is little information on 2 of them
  1. Wardine V. Frazier Memorial Award (3Ghits). It genuinely seems he has won this prize from the National Arts Club, but it is reserved for students. The award is for $100.
  2. Valerie Delacorte Scholarship (10Ghits). Prize from National Academy of design.
  3. ASL Merit scholarship (1Ghit) not relevant
  4. NAD First prize (0Ghits)
I would suspect that these are student prizes or awards, which in all likelihood would not qualify him under WP:BIO. He appears to have exhibited. The one trace I could find was Art Red spot, a gallery near Westport, CT. Conclusion: not notable yet. Ohconfucius 04:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 09:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Jose V. SuarezHoyos and Tampa Pathology Laboratory

Non-notable lab run by non-notable physician. "Pathologist of the Year by the Florida Society for Histotechnology" = non-notable award by another non-notable organization. Advertisement/Self-promotion. Both articles were created by User:Suarezisaza. AED 22:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was DELETE. - Doc 11:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

FHM lists

FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 1995 was nominated for deletion on 2005-08-01. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 1995.
All of these lists were bulk nominated for deletion on 2006-04-19. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 1995 (2nd).

These are copyrighted lists by a single publisher, and there's a growing consensus on Wikipedia that it is a copyright violation for us to replicate as bare content (forgive the pun). If deleted, they can be linked from the FHM article without violation. -- nae' blis 22:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Addendum: Here's some prior discussions of deleted copyrighted lists: Top_100_U.S._thoroughbred_champions_of_the_20th_Century, 100 best movies of the cinema of Mexico, The 100 Greatest Marvels of All Time, Guitar World's 100 greatest guitar solos, Bravo's 100 Funniest Movies, and before that several lists from Blender magazine. There is an archive of some discussion on the copyright/legality of the FHM lists, which deadlocked at Village Pump and Copyright problems in April and May, here. -- nae' blis 00:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Pages in category "FHM lists"
  • Delete every last one. BoojiBoy 23:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is cruft of little worth, but I wouldn't vote delete for that reason, based on stare decisis of the previous discussions. But its copyvio and so must go. Herostratus 00:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete the 95 one as it is a copyvio, it's editorial opinion rather then a reader poll. Weak Keep the rest, the results have been refrenced and mentioned in many other media, a bit crufty I must admit so only a weak keep from me. -- E ivind t @ c 00:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per nom. Also someone will have to delete the list in the 'sexy women's' article. -- Ageo020 01:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all as unencyclopedic and wikipedia is not a primary source. -- Koffieyahoo 02:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Has it been a month already? Well, at least this time we're having an actual vote. As always, keep. To answer the specific issues, this is not copyrightable information - a magazine cannot copyright the results of a poll even if it conducted the poll. This list is no more copyrightable than a list of Academy Award winners. The list is not compiled by editorial opinion, it's a poll of the readers' votes. This information is encyclopediac - if you think otherwise, give me an definition of what you think "unencyclopedic" means and I'll show you a hundred other articles that meet it. And if your sexual issues are so extreme that you consider a list of women's names offensive, I recommend you see a therapist. Sorry if my response seems flippant, but all of these issues have already been repeatedly raised and discussed. Based on history, the next stage will be somebody's decision that these articles are so wrong that they need to be speedily deleted by unilateral fiat. MK2 03:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment easy now. It is unencyclopedic as it essentially a copy of a primary source and and encyclopedia is by definition not a primary source. You can change it into a secondary or tertiary source by adding additional information on the persons in the list. However, the subject of each of the lists makes it impossible to add such information, as it was not published in FHM or a definite copyright violation. -- Koffieyahoo 05:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • It can also be changed by including discussion of the lists in the articles. In the previous AFD discussion, several sources for such discussion were given. Your argument appears to be that this is encyclopaedic if there is scope to expand it beyond the simple list data. Per the citations in the previous AFD discussion, that appears to be the case. Uncle G 13:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Yes. However, looking at the provided citations, I'm not seeing those go beyond: "This is the new top ten" and "these people aren't" in the list anymore. The first is void, as it is covered by the lists themselves. The second can only applies to very few of the people in the list, which would make for very flimsy, never beyond quite stubby, articles, which makes it sound much more attractive to add that info to the articles of the respective people. -- Koffieyahoo 02:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Thinking about this a bit more: what about ditching these articles in favour of one article for each of the editions of FHM presenting such a list? Filling these articles with a sourced discussion of the lists, criticism, changes, etc? -- Koffieyahoo 03:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all Articles of these lists as long as they remain simple lists. The lists, in there current unannotanted states, provide no annotation, added value, or description of the bacground or impact of these "Sexiest Women" lists. I must further note that I make decision as to {{ FHM Sexiest Women}} or Category:FHM_lists because those are outside the jurisdiction of Articles for Deletion, and must be handles by TfD and CfD respectively.-- danntm T C 03:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Scope for expanding these lists, such as the reaction to Britney Spears disappearing from the list, was given in the prior AFD discussion. From what you write, you want the articles to be expanded beyond mere lists. So expand them! Deletion is not the way to do that. AFD is not cleanup. Nor is it Wikipedia:Requests for expansion. AFD in fact prevents the very expansion that you want to happen. Uncle G 13:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • My concern is that any article should be more in the vein of the articles about the Rolling Stone magazine lists, as noted by nae' blis below, instead of simple regurgitations of the lists. I, personally. do not care to rework these lists because they are not my area of interest, but if another editor is willing to fix the articles, more power to them. I would certainly support an article on the FHM list along the lines of the Rolling Stone lists.-- danntm T C 16:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all for the valid reasons explained above. Eusebeus 04:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per WP:NPS. If the primary source material is removed, there's nothing left. This is inappropriate content, and no amount of editing will resolve that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Please note that The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, The 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time and The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time (famous and long-standing list/articles from Rolling Stone magazine) have now removed the lists themselves and gone to a commentary-based model. -- nae' blis 15:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Personally, I say these articles are a good example of why the FHM lists should remain as they are. Wikipedia is supposed to be a useful reference site. So if somebody is looking for information about the FHM sexiest women polls, what are they going to be looking for? The list of names and the rank they were in. Wikipedia has that information and the reader will get the information he or she wants. Now suppose somebody is looking for information about the Rolling Stones list of greatest songs. Does anybody think they want to read a commentary about the list? Of course not. They're going to see the wikipedia article on this subject is useless and go look somewhere else for real information. We have to remember that this site was not built for those of us who are contributors; it was built for users and our job is to provide information people will be looking for in an accessible manner. MK2 02:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • We are a useful reference site; that doesn't mean we're supposed to a) copy the Internet/sum of all human knowledge, or b) infringe on anyone else's copyright. Even if we do/did get permission to replicate FHM's lists, they just become vandal magnets for people wanting to switch the list, and without images or annotation, there's no value added over having the list linked. I'm all for mentioning notable placements on these lists in the articles for these women, as it's easier to keep an eye on there. -- nae' blis 15:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all as primary sources, copyvios, listcruft, etc. Stifle ( talk) 23:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete all as copyvios. For full disclosure: I nominated a bunch (maybe all) of these on the April 2006 go-round. Carlossuarez46 07:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Sorry, copyvio as above, gotta go. — MrDolomite | Talk 16:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • What's annoying is that several people are claiming they're voting to delete because this is a copyright violation. So let me repeat - this is not a copyright violation, you cannot copyright a compilation of facts. This is a list of women's names ranked in the numerical order that they received votes in a survey - it is a factual list and cannot be copyrighted by FHM or any other entity. It would be like the Motion Picture Academy claiming that they had a copyright on the fact that Crash won the Best Picture Award in 2005 - once they release that information it's public knowledge. FHM can copyright the text they wrote with their published articles and can copyright the choice of pictures they used as these are editorial content that was added to the factual listing. But none of this editorial content was included in the Wikipedia articles. (I will concede that the 1995 list was created by editorial decision and not as a result of a survey; therefore it may be copyrighted.) MK2 06:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Remember: this is not so much a vote as a discussion. The closing administrator isn't supposed to just count votes, he/she is supposed to read the suggestions and make a decision based on those suggestions. -- Koffieyahoo 07:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • I have no problem with the principle of consensus decision - I just feel that it should be bound with the limits of the facts. If people were voting to eliminate the article on Millard Fillmore because he was a relatively unimportant President, I'd argue against that decision but I would accept it if that was the way the consensus went. But if people were saying they were voting to eliminate Fillmore's article because he was a fictional character, I don't care what the consensus is, those people are simply wrong. If you start ignoring the facts and treating your opinions as if they were reality, you'll just end up invading Iraq. MK2 16:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Tyrenius 01:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply

V S Kudva

Company president. Not certain that he is verifiably important. As is, fails WP:V. The only reference states: "Information and image provided by the estate of the Late V. S. Kudva." AED 22:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. I added two references which confirm some of the details in the article. I wish I had access to a copy of Who's who in India or a similar title to confirm the rest of the details. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 13:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - One of the founder directors of Syndicate Bank, a reputed bank in India. Doctor Bruno 09:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Reference exists in another wiki article National Institute of Technology Karnataka, where U Srinivas Mallya and V.S.Kudva are credited.-- PremKudva Talk 09:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep- While I am unable to provide weblinks to the other details I have provided a reference to the official Syndicate Bank site that mentions Vaman Kudva as one of the founders of that bank. The Syndicate Bank wiki entry too credits Kudva as one of its founders. Unfortunately this part of the country not much information on the cities founder fathers are stored online.-- PremKudva Talk 04:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD attack criteria. -- light darkness ( talk) 22:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Snownigger

Wikipedia is not an urban dictionary; prod tag was removed without comment. Source cited in article does not mention this term. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep all - AfD does not govern merges and it is up to those supporting a merge to actually carry it out. -- Sam Blanning (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply

10th Kingdom character articles

Each of these articles about characters from a television movie is written almost completely from an in-universe perspective with no citations. Each has one or more sections devoted to trivia, "facts", speculation, and extraordinarily banal quotes. Attempts to remove such sections are reverted by the articles' author. One of the articles is a duplicate. These articles should all be deleted and merged into the main article, The 10th Kingdom, which could use some work itself. Chris Griswold 22:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Neutral. These aren't high-quality articles, but I know for a fact that 10th Kingdom has a fanbase. I'm not sure how big it is, though. In any sense, "merge and delete" is not a valid vote because it doesn't comply with the GNU Free Documentation License. Though AFD is unnecessary if the goal is just to merge the articles, I support keeping the AFD live to develop consensus on 10th Kingdom's notability and the suitability of keeping the individual articles, because a consensus to delete could very well emerge. szyslak ( t, c, e) 00:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Stubify, merge and redirect per Vary and MacGyverMagic. szyslak ( t, c, e) 09:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all There needs to be a compelling reason to extend daughter articles for material that is, in and of itself, rather obscure. Review of these articles does not provide that kind of substantiation, making this essentially fancruft. Eusebeus 04:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (See addendum below) Too long to merge into one article (except the duplicates for Virginia, of course). Add {{ unsourced}} and cleanup templates as necessary, and try to establish communication with the chronic reverter on talk pages to discuss removing trivialities, but use Wikipedia:Resolving disputes if said reverter refuses to cooporate. Deletion at this point in time would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If they're ultimately pruned enough to be merged without excessive length, go ahead. Otherwise, no big deal. Plenty of major characters in fictional stories have their own articles. -- Icarus ( Hi!) 04:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Addendum: Keep or merge. They're long enough that I'd prefer for them to be cleaned up and then re-evaluated to see if they've become short enough for a merge, but I'd rather see them shortened and merged (prematurely, in my opinion) per Vary than than deleted altogether. -- Icarus ( Hi!) 16:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all Shorten, merge and redirect. I loved "The 10th Kingdom". I actually applauded at the end of the final installment. The performances were superb. But Wikipedia has no articles on Natasha Rostova, Andrey Bolkonsky and Pierre Bezukhov. No way should there be individual articles on the characters from "The 10th Kingdom". Gildir 23:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I'm not familiar with War and Peace, but if those are main characters then they certainly could have articles here. Plenty of main characters from classic works have their own aricles (e.g. Winston Smith, John the Savage), so why not them? More applicable to the 10th Kingdom, many contemporary characters have articles too. I don't see why certain characters not having articles (yet, at least) means that other characters shouldn't, either. -- Icarus ( Hi!) 19:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Vary | Talk 16:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Relisting: two deletes, one neutral, one keep, one merge (the nominator). -- Vary | Talk 16:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge intros only Stubify and merge into 10th Kingdom characters, and Redirect; merge and delete violates GFDL. The 'Official Bios' which take up most of the pages are copyvio from the official web site for the series, which now appears to be offline. Character info from The 10th Kingdom should be merged there, too - that'll go a long way towards cleaning up that page. -- Vary | Talk 16:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Do you know where there's an archived version of the official website so we can know exactly which parts have to be removed/re-written? -- Icarus ( Hi!) 19:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Calling it a "TV movie" is a bit of a stretch, as it's like 12 hours long or something (I have the DVD and it takes up 3 discs). It's at least a miniseries or a "limited series". I'd say the character articles are reasonable, as they're too big to be merged. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge - Only basic character info, no "trivia". The fact that these articles are long is just bceause they're filled with a re-hash of the plot and worthless trivia about the characters. Wickethewok 19:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Stubify and merge, and redirect per Vary. For characters that have only been in one work of fiction there does not need to be an entire article dedicated to them unless there are substantial claims to their importance. These articles do not have that. -- Mitaphane talk 01:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Wikipedia is not a paper dictionary, and can easily accomodate having these entries. Having specific character entries for a story can often help aid the reader in understanding the story better. The Virginia Lewis page should be redirected to the Virginia Lewis (10th Kingdom) page, and the Huntsman (The 10th Kingdom) should be restored (somebody deleted most of the content from it), though. - Todd 03:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment the content removed from Huntsman (The 10th Kingdom) was copyvio, taken from NBC's official site. -- Vary | Talk 03:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Well, then I think we should keep these articles iff the author can write versions that don't violate copyrights. Is there any way to vote accordingly?
  • Delete all. First of all, we don't know what is and what is not copyvio. Second of all, re-writing all these articles into short paragraphs for a merge takes time. It just ain't worth it. Neither is working with the ostreperous editor through dispute resolution etc, which a couple of commenters have suggested but not volunteered to do. Finally, IT IS CRUFT. Smashy. Herostratus 03:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Slaps Herostratus with a wet fish. Not everything fictional is cruft you know. Besides, most cruft can be dealt with by excising extranuous info. - Mgm| (talk) 09:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • No, but this is cruft. This is not a great work of literature we are talking about, here. It's a TV miniseries that will presumably be utterly forgotten in five years or less, except by people fishing the bottom of the $0.99 bargain bin. Herostratus 16:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Shorten, merge and redirect into a List of 10th Kingdom characters per WP:FICT. While they may not warrant separate entries, there's no reason to delete them instead of merging them into a collective article. - Mgm| (talk) 09:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I haven't changed my mind, and I'm not really keen on being asked to change my vote. -- Chris Griswold 09:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. - Doc 11:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Mike Caracciolo

Sad, I like this guy, but not notable enough Nick Catalano contrib talk 22:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Strong keep Also nom withdrawn. Tyrenius 01:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Martha Hill

Nicely recently wikified article, but no nobility is asserted. Being a teacher is important, but just a teacher is not-notable enough to have their own article. - Royalguard11 Talk My Desk 23:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, after seeing the latest rw, I see that she is quite notable. I will then withdraw my nomination, and bring this to a speedy close. - Royalguard11 Talk My Desk 18:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I don't know about no notability asserted. She actually seems reasonably notable to me. She started this Benington dance school (essentially Benington's dance department at the time) and then brought it with her to Connecticut College. Then she started Juliard's dance program and merged modern and ballet. These all seem like impressive enough accomplishments to me to keep the article. It'd be nice if the doctoral dissertation were properly referenced if it's kept.-- Kchase T 00:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. She wasn't "just a teacher". She taught at a pretty advanced level. She influenced a lot of dancers. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 00:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - first director of dance at Julliard? Sorry Royalguard, she is clearly notable. However, I'll grant you this article does look malformed somehow... I'll try and see if I can't improve it. -- Deville ( Talk) 01:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I have partially re-written it, putting her achievements into a more obvious light, and asserting her notability. From the information therein, it seems that she has been very influential in her role, and her achievemnts have a lasting impact. Keep per Deville. Ohconfucius 02:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    looking a lot better now -- Deville ( Talk) 03:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

CMS Lebanon

  • Delete--Obvious advertising, product is nothing special, not meant for Wikipedia. -- Palffy 23:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, no indication of meeting WP:CORP. A few things, Palffy: usually you don't say "per nom" if you're the nominator, as it means delete per the nominator's reasoning, which in this case is your own. Also, please have a look at these instructions about completing an AfD. You missed step one. I tried to finish it, but I can't get the page to link up for some reason. Could somebody help me with that?-- Kchase T 00:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no assertion of notability, this could probably be a speedy A7, but in any case clearly spam -- Deville ( Talk) 01:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Gentle Mouse

  • Delete --Obvious advertising, product is nothing special, not meant for Wikipedia. -- Palffy 23:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This Afd is a revolutionary new development in page removal technology. Not only does it enable the page to be deleted, it is ergonomic and user friendly to lepers, penguins and headless ferrets. Blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah.... -- Xrblsnggt 00:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, clearly spam -- Deville ( Talk) 01:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Like the sound of the product - original not notable, though, but advertising enough to vote against it. Ohconfucius 02:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - not notable. Reads as advertising. — ERcheck ( talk) 02:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Tyrenius 01:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Grant Lawrence

This person is non-notable. We have deleted articles about many radio personalities, radio shows, etc. that were more notable. The Wikipedia is not a directory. Ich ( talk) 23:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete radio personalities aren't generally notable.-- Kchase T 00:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I'll have to defer to our truthbringing Canadian friend and go neutral. I'm not too familiar with Canadian radio.-- Kchase T 18:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. He is a significant Canadian radio personality, heard across Canada, not just in a local market. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 00:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I have to agree with Truthbringer here. Not only does this Gsearch return tons of relevant hits, the first link makes the scenario pretty clear: if you've got a page on CBC.ca, I have to say you're more than notable. -- Deville ( Talk) 01:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment we still have deleted articles on regional broadcasters, cbc page or not. See: what Wikipedia is not. Ich ( talk) 01:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I think you're misreading that section of WP:NOT. That someone happens to be contained in such a directory doesn't mean they can't be individually notable.-- Kchase T 01:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete He's an obscure radio presenter. Eusebeus 04:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Cricketweb

Seems like a NN vanity website (creator was Cricketweb. Garners only 50 distinct google hits, most of which are irrelevant or from the website itself. Ardent † ∈ 23:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Keep no consensus. It should be noted that reservations were expressed about the current state of this article which needs a clean up. Tyrenius 00:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Ygnition

Cable/brOadband Company, no indication of meeting WP:CORP. Article is full of OR and written more as a consumer advisory than an encyclopedia article. -- Celithemis 23:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete fails CORP.-- Kchase T 00:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. 150,000 apartment units across nine states sounds like a lot of customers and hence a lot of money. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 00:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • How much money a company makes is irrelevant to whether it warrants an encyclopaedia article. Editors below have used WP:CORP. You will notice that they are discussing sources of information, not corporate income. Uncle G 12:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, NPOV cleanup This is the only news item I found related to the company, but it does satisfy a WP:CORP criteria. I noticed this article when it was initially created, as it read like a soapbox rant against the company. I've asked the creator to try to tone it down and follow rules of verifiability, but I see that the current version is only slightly improved. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I noticed that too, but CORP requires multiple works. In any case, unless there's more, I don't think that is enough to do an NPOV article.-- Kchase T 01:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I'm learning my way around wikipedia and revising and filling in.. I can see problems.. google ygnition and all you get are their ads, reports of their finacial mergers and movements or complaints. Complaints start at @11th entry Dragongrey 04:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and clean up. The best way to avoid POV may be to prune it down to a stub since most of the references to Ygnition on the web are either advertising-speak or complaints from extremely bitter customers. Thatdog 04:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC) (Disclosure: I'm an extremely bitter ex-customer!) reply
  • Delete fails WP:CORP. Eusebeus 04:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Co-branded partner with Vonage, which is certainly listed on NYSE. Forbes reviewed Vonage as "viable" [30] Dragongrey 06:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Being listed on the stock exchange is not a criterion for inclusion. And the existence of a Forbes article on a completely different company has no bearing upon this company. Uncle G 12:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. (nn-bio) — ERcheck ( talk) 02:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Prem

Not notable Gamesmaster G-9 23:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Lebanon/Temp

POV Content Fork. Promotes a fringe right-wing view of politics and demographics. Nimur 00:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

The goal of the original author is to re-write most of the Lebanon Article distinctly from the main article; this will subvert the standard WP editing process. The factual accuracy is highly disputed; citations are all from POV sources. This forked sub-page should be deleted in accordance with Wikipedia:NPOV; in general, it is bad policy to use a /TEMP sub-page to make major page changes to an article. Nimur 00:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

This is not merely a content-dispute. This is an attempt to use a sub-page to fork content. Such actions violate WP:POV_fork:
A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies.
For this reason, this /Temp sub-page should be deleted. Contributors to /Temp should not attempt a total re-write, but should instead use the standard editing procedures. Furthermore, WP:POV_fork#Temporary_subpages states:
New drafts should be written in the "user:" or "talk:" namespace and not in the main namespace.
Please accept these as valid WP:DP citations. This is not an "abuse of AfD." Thank you, Nimur 14:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
Thanks for referencing valid policy reasons. In view of the above arguments, delete and userfy (no userfy needed as talk copy made). Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply


I am also a bit confused about the organization here. It seems that the creators of the /Temp pages duplicated the article twice - once as a sub-page, and once as a sub-page of the Talk namespace. Both of these appear to be content-forks:

Please consider this AfD as a nomination for the deletion of both, since they are equivalent. Nimur 14:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I see now that the Talk: page is an attempt to "talkify" the page, as per the policy. User:Francis_Schonken copied to the Talk space in anticipation of a deletion. Sorry for my earlier confusion. Nimur 15:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I created the page earlier. I never attended to make it a POV fork. I just wanted to make a working ground for editors to completly rewrite an awful article. If it is against policies, I'll just move the work to my user page. CG 10:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as copied to Talk: space. JPD ( talk) 11:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_14&oldid=1116878506"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE