Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 25

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Secularization of Christmas

• This is religious propaganda. Conspiracy theories. --Ravingatheist 10:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The previous debate is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secularization of Christmas. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-25 10:14Z

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring Holiday. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-25 10:25Z

and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secularization of Christian holidays--Arktos ^talk 10:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep why is an article on Christian beliefs not deserving a place on Wikipedia. Last I heard Wikipedia was not censored. No grounds given for deletion of a referenced article. Note related nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring Holiday--Arktos ^talk 10:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, or merge to secularization of Christian holidays along with Spring Holiday. What part of this article do you consider to be religious propaganda, and if so why not correct the article? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-25 10:27Z
• Keep. They're conspiracy theories, but they're notable conspiracy theories. The article needs significant revision, of course, as "Censorship" is a different topic and this article has far too little detail on the actual process of secularization. Powers ^T 14:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Powers. It was the religion-related cause celebre last winter and received signifcant media coverage. SliceNYC 22:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Nomination amounts to a claim that the article does not have a NPOV. The article does have a NPOV tag on it at present. If we look at Talk:Secularization of Christmas#Highly Questionable NPOV, Talk:Secularization of Christmas#POV, the former is more properly a citation/reference issue and the latter is to my eyes a legitimate decision based on the time horizon. Even if there were current major POV issues, having a POV issue is not a reason for deletion unless the article is irredeemably biased, which this is not. There are plenty of sources out there folks, just very little attention is paid outside the holiday season. I see no other eason for deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GRBerry (talk • contribs).
• Keep. This is an important cultural topic. Rohirok 16:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article is non neutral, but I did hear of the term in American and British media last X'mas --Ageo020 19:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per GRBerry. Zelse81 09:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it's actually an issue in society. It's not a POV article, but rather a reality. It's not saying that the trend is good or bad, but rather that it's happened. This page records an actual cultural event - just like the Women's liberation movement, or any other shifts in views. - Themepark

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spring Holiday

This article is based on Christian beliefs and deserves no place at Wikipedia. Easter is a secular holiday anyway. --Ravingatheist 10:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secularization of Christmas (2). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-25 10:28Z

and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secularization of Christian holidays--Arktos ^talk 10:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep why is an article on Christian beliefs not deserving a place on Wikipedia. Last I heard Wikipedia was not censored. No grounds given for deletion of a referenced article.--Arktos ^talk 10:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, or merge to Secularization of Christian holidays. Important topic. You can argue whether Easter is a secular holiday or not in the article and also in Easter. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-25 10:23Z
• Reluctant keep. I still think the article needs serious revision, but I will admit that having some article on this topic is good. I think it goes into far too much detail on the supposed controversy, but a brief article discussing what "Spring Holiday" often means in this context is useful. Powers ^T 14:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all of the above. I am unnerved by the fact that the nominator, named Ravingatheist no less, objects to the article on the grounds that "this article is based on Christian beliefs." Wikipedia is not censored, and, for what it's worth, Wikipedia is not the Bill of Rights, separating church and state. Religious articles are perfectly fine as long as they stand up to the pillars. SliceNYC 22:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep not a legitmate reason to delete. --Edgelord 22:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Nomination amounts to a claim that the article lacks a NPOV. However, the article lacks such a tag and there has been no discussion about the issue recently. There was on June 30 a claim that the title was inherently lacing in a NPOV, but not one that convices me, given that the title is the proper noun for what the article is about. Currently lacking a NPOV would not be a reason for deletion, only irredeemable bias would be, and that is not an issue with this article. GRBerry 01:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There has been lots of discussion about the issue recently. Talk:Spring Holiday#Strawpoll for removal of neutrality tag. Powers ^T 16:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I hope we don't start calling it the Spring Bunny - but an encyclopedia isn't here to make judgement calls! - Themepark
• Keep - as Powers says above the extensive material on the naming controversy may belong elsewhere, but we still need an article. -- Beardo 23:39, 28 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 keep. - Bobet 11:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amalgamates

College a cappella group which does not meet the notability standards of WP:MUSIC. Already mentioned in Tufts University. Claim to notability in article is a vague claim about touring nationally. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• keep the article sounds notable, talk of recording albums and being featured in compilations. mathewguiver 19:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep for a large bunch of Google hits, nine albums and many mentions in college publications from across the country. It's borderline, but they seem to be pretty active and well-known in that booming musical sector inhabited by the college a capella crowd... Tony Fox (arf!) 20:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but needs expansion. Meets WP:MUSIC via placing at least one song from their last five albums on Best Of College A Cappella compilations ("won or placed in a major competition"). Having said that, article does not properly assert notability (which I am working on now). ~Marblespire 17:55, 30 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RuneScape holiday items

I believe that this Wiki is probably one of the most fancrufty in the RuneScape series. I nominate a Delete per WP:NOT, as this is not an in-game guide for RuneScape. Who wants to learn about what items were dropped in a game so many eons ago when the information can be found on the main site? This kind of information doesn't belong here.Makoto 00:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yeh, delete. Irredeemably crufty in my opinion. That tip.it article might fit onto the community page though. Hyenaste ^(tell) 00:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom and Hyenaste. Quick overview of this in RuneScape economy should suffice, and i'm sick of the vandalism, nonsense, OR and speculation in this worthless article. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 00:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this is likely to only interest the people who play it. It's more of a list and is rather uncyclopedic.--Andeh 01:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's obvious that quite a bit of effort went into this, including animated GIFs! But this level of detail about a game is simply not encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

  Comment But I thought the proper definition of an encyclopedia is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge according to this artice. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT, if any of the contents are very very special and important then they can be placed in the main article. --WinHunter ^(talk) 02:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic gamecruft and speculation. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 03:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT the RuneScape FAQ. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Andeh. —Khoikhoi 08:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Only joking! Delete per nom and per the massive fancruft warning on the article's talk page. This would be a fine article for a fan wiki but not an encyclopedia. --kingboyk 13:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• I simply added those notices to every article in Category:RuneScape, I didn't stop to judge the quality. They do seem to be working, however. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 23:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I didn't mean any implication to the contrary. Let me rephrase "and also because it breaches the fancruft warning" :) It's a nice article though so I hope it's get sent to another wiki. --kingboyk 14:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• No worries. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This would be fine on a personal/gaming wiki, but it's just not right for Wikipedia. --Wafulz 14:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, hopefully we won't get an invasion from the RS Army :P.--Andeh 15:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey, the nominator is in that army, and so are CaptainVindaloo and I, the first two supporters. Hyenaste ^(tell) 20:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'd call us more of a Company than an Army. :-) CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 23:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Still a pretty generous title. Cult, maybe? Hyenaste ^(tell) 17:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. fuzzy510 16:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete after making sure the most important points are covered in the article on RuneScape economy. The rest can be transwikified to the appropriate WikiBook. Anton Mravcek 18:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: What "important points"? Placing information about these items would be deemed fancruft, and they'd be removed. Makoto 19:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I agree, the article is not right for wikipedia mathewguiver 19:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, rinse, and repeat Not on Wikipedia.--Planetary 22:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all other "delete" votes--Ed^{talk c E} 01:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment:I've put it at Wikia:RuneScape:Discontinued items and holiday drops/Wikipedia, so the transwiki is complete for those that suggested it. Hyenaste ^(tell) 17:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. We don't really need it here. It would do much better on the RuneScape Wiki, and some of it, such as the external links, could be added to RS economy and community. Dtm142 20:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as fancruft and per WP:NOT in my backyard. I would have added 'merge' to that but I'm no longer convinced that throwing articles at the RS wiki is helping anyone. The information here can be obtained on fan sites no trouble, and its presence acts as a fancruft magnet. QuagmireDog 01:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Already merged by Hyenaste, and looking good, disregard above comment RE merging. QuagmireDog 01:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Take it to Wikibooks or some similar Wikia site, but not here. RFerreira 06:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You say that as if it hasn't already been done. Are you even reading the comments before yours? For shame, for shame. Hyenaste ^(tell) 20:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm wondering how many people here who are going Wikipedia is not a game guide actually read the article.....there's acutally a decent amount of background information on the topic, for being a bizarre topic. I'd suggest merging what's notable and then deleting it. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:50, 30 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 deleted by Mailer Diablo. - Bobet 11:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canine Performance Events

This is a dog of an article. Fails WP:CORP. Delete. BlueValour 00:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; few ghits and amateur official site is further evidence of its inappropriateness for inclusion. (|-- UlTiMuS 00:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the google test outputs 2k hits but the vast majority are sites which use the term as a description of some type of events and are not reffering to the organization in question. There are also quite a few hits which are related to wikipedia and their mirrors. Therefore I believe that the article is nothing more than spam on an obscure organization which struggles to have merit on its own. --Mecanismo | Talk 11:51, 25 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Flexible Learning Framework

Seems like nothing but an advert to me. No useful information, just ad jargon. (|-- UlTiMuS 00:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I would use the term "government propaganda" rather than "advertisement". A lot of money is being spent on this project, but I can't find much in the way of independent coverage. I would like to keep the article as an answer to the question of what Australia's governments are doing to promote e-learning. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Educational program. Capitalistroadster 04:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but needs work--Prof.Thamm 08:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 04:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but needs some work mathewguiver 20:01, 25 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Emrys Smith

Unsourced vanity page. Was deleted by me as CSD A7, but after some more looking at it, I think the only thing making this article delete-worthy is a utter lack of sources. Please don't tag this as a repost. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I added some external links. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

  He doesn't look more notable than an average academic, going by WP:PROF. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The article is lousy, but the Sunday Times ran this on 12/12/2004: "Swansea Institute senior lecturer and economics guru Dr Charles Smith is to lead an economics seminar in partnership with the Economics Editor of the Sunday Times. The training event will take place in Wakefield on February 23. Dr Smith has been asked to lead the seminar with Dr David Smith of the Sunday Times. "It is an honour and something which I am looking forward to," said Charles." If the Sunday Times thinks he is notable, I'm not going to argue with them. Uucp 14:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Given that the other leader will be an editor of the paper running the blurb, I read that more as advertising/boosterism by an involved party not as an evaluation by an independent source. GRBerry 01:46, 26 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shuli

I nominate this article for deletion. It was created about a year ago, however the name only gets 150 google hits [1], neither does "shuli": [2]. By all accounts he is a funny guy, but not notable in any way. juicifer 01:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Have you considered using newsgroups such as Usenet. Using google should not be the only criteria used in analysis. You should consider the limitations of search engines here according to this section. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• (completed incomplete nomination) NawlinWiki 01:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep despite the low Ghit count, seems to be notable per Howard Stern appearances, but I'm not an expert on Howardania. NawlinWiki 01:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm with Nawlin. Depspite the low Google presence (I went with "Shuli"+"Howard Stern", which got 646 total and about 160 unique G-hits), I think he's sufficiently notable based on years of past (and present) appearances on Stern's show. -- Kicking222 02:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Any regular listener of The Howard Stern Show knows who this guy is as he has a news segment that plays every single day. Even with Stern's smaller Sirius Satellite Radio audience, the numbers of regular listeners are still in the low millions. If millions of people know the guy - that's notable enough for me. CindyLooWho 04:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep see above--Prof.Thamm 08:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with The Howard Stern Show and Delete. The article's subject doesn't hold much merit to deserve a separate encyclopedia article. --Mecanismo | Talk 11:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep if he is on the howard stern show every day then I think hes notable enough for an article, and the google test is not the only indicator of notability... mathewguiver 20:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - --Philo 10:34, 28 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Robertson (Canadian politician)

• Delete. Unnotable municipal candidate for 2006 Toronto municipal election. Never been elected. Fails to meet WP:BIO criteria. Atrian 01:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, so he was elected in Etobicoke, a minor suburban GTA district. Atrian 15:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. fails WP:BIO in the literal sense, but has more notability than the average afd bio. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for failing WP:BIO for being merely an candidate as the highest archevement. If new (previously unknown) information about this person surfaces then I will be happy to reconsider. --WinHunter ^(talk) 02:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. He has already been a city councillor in Etobicoke (a former municipality which was merged into the new city of Toronto) and chair of the Etobicoke Board of Health. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per TruthbringerToronto. Wiki consensus says elected (or formerly elected) city councillors in major cities such as Toronto are notable. He also would have received a significant amount of press coverage in his lifetime. He would therefore also pass WP:BIO under "major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage". CindyLooWho 05:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Was elected in Etobicoke pre-merger not Toronto. I've heard of him only cause I saw one of his signs near William Osler Health Centre, not because of press coverage -- Samir धर्म 10:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The fact that his 13 years as Councillor ended a few years before the official merger doesn't mean anything to me. The six merged municipalities were all unofficially considered by GTA residents to be part of Toronto for decades before the actual merger. The spirit of the Wiki consensus is that "big city municipal councillors pass the WP:BIO test". He was a big city councillor - just as North York, Scarborough, (etc...) city councillors were. CindyLooWho 15:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • What "wiki-consensus" are you talking about? If you mean WP:BIO, it says: Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature. are to be included. Not municipal councillors. If you mean Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Local politicians, no consensus was ever reached -- Samir धर्म 00:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
        • CindyLooWho is correct that actual AFD precedent has traditionally permitted city councillors of major metropolitan cities such as Toronto, Ottawa, New York City, Chicago or San Francisco, while generally going against councillors in smaller cities. Precedent, of course, isn't the same thing as policy, so this isn't necessarily binding in all circumstances — and in this case, because pre-merger Etobicoke is in a bit of a grey area as effectively both a smaller city and Toronto at the same time, either precedent could be invoked with equal validity. That said, I'm personally more inclined to keep on the metropolitan precedent. Bearcat 19:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, meets WP:BIO criteria. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 10:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Changed to delete. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 08:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pandering for votes for the upcoming election! All it needs is the "I'm Dave Robertson and I've approved this message" tag at the bottom. Nice guy, but a ward councillor for Etobicoke is *not* notable. Yet. -- Samir धर्म 10:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete. Electioneering. Where's your objectivity gone???? The subject is no more than a politician of a minor conurbation, however you look at it. It's a major stretch to suggest that Etobicoke city council has the same status as Toronto municipal council, even though it is now merged into Toronto, a decade on. That was then and this is now. He may have generated press coverage, but its significance needs to be proven. Without press coverage, all politicians are dead. "Significant" per WP:BIO means "well above the average for a person in his position". Ohconfucius 22:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Insufficient coverage by third-party sources per WP:V. --Satori Son 23:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no assertion of notability, unverifiable. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 08:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Although all opinions expressed here should be considered, I think it should be pointed out that there are 5 users here who can be identified as being from Canada and who would likely have a much, much greater understanding of what 'Etobicoke' really is, it's population size, the number of people that an Etobicoke city councillor would represent (the real deciding factor in my mind), and the city's pre and post-merger relationship to and within Toronto. Of those 5 users, the opinions expressed are currently 3 keeps and 2 deletes (one of those deletes being the nominator). BTW, I don't know the exact number of people that a former Etobicoke councillor would represent, but it would be in the tens of thousands - not anything like 1,000 which would be a 'small city' BIO-unworthy councillor in my opinion. CindyLooWho 04:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia is a global creation. All articles should meet this standard and not be judged on some colloquial local standard. Suttungr 14:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: To give a better idea, Etobicoke would have had over 320,000 citizens at the end of Robertson's era. If there were, say, 6 councillors (the same amount they have on the current Toronto city council), that would mean he was representing 53,333+ people. If there were 8 councillors, that would equal 40,000+ constituents. I doubt the old city of Etobicoke would have had more councillors than that (if anyone has the actual number let me know). Combined with the city's officially-unofficial position within Toronto, those are big city level representation numbers that I think qualify for keep under AFD precedent. CindyLooWho 05:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: It is possible that there may be a partisan interest in the Canadian votes ;-). I don't think the save/delete debate should hinge purely on the numbers of people represented, as this ignores the electoral system in place, and also the qualitative element of the importance of minor conurbation vs a major city. Right now he is a minor figure, but it would be a lot more difficult to deny the subject a page should he win his contested seat. Ohconfucius 07:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment nah, there's no partisanship in Canadian municipal politics... out of curiosity, does anyone know who the Toronto municipal councillor was who made it through Vfd? -- Samir धर्म 10:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment:Samir is right in that, on the municipal level, Canadian politicians do not run under a party banner. However, many politicians do have a known history supporting one or another federal/provincial party as does this one (a fact that I only know from reading his Wiki page). I'd just like to point out that I live in Toronto but not in Etobicoke, I do not know Robertson personally and I am neither a supporter or a non-supporter of the party that he supports outside of the municipal level. I am voting for keep here based on unbiased grounds so if there is a "partisan interest in the Canadian votes" its not coming from me. Also, I never said that 'number of people represented' was the only factor. It is a deciding factor for me because, as someone who lives here, I already know that the former city of Etobicoke was (for an intents and purposes) the city of Toronto (so he already meets the 'big city' criteria in my mind). Pre-merger, 70% of all city services (police, ambulance, transit, etc) in Etobicoke were provided through Toronto. Suttungr, my judgement is not based on some "colloquial local standard". Having City of Toronto police and ambulances on your streets and TTC busses on your streets (along with a TTC subway line below them) means you live in Toronto. Etobicoke was far more Toronto than it was Etobicoke and an Etobicoke city councillor would, in a way, be just as much a Toronto city councillor as they would have a degree of power over those "Toronto"-wide services. CindyLooWho 15:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• I was referring to your reference to voters you identified as Canadian - these being somehow worth more than non-Canadian votes. Wikipedia votes are co-equal, by my count it's 8-3 in favour of deletion (Strong keep, doesn't count as double). That being said, none of your points has anything to do with David Robertson. Let the article stand (or fall) on his merits, not on the relative importance of Etobicoke. Suttungr 16:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• 1. I didn't count 'strong keep' as double. 2. AfD is not a vote. Majority does not necessarily win. If 5 people say delete and back it up with poor or no reasoning and 1 person says keep and backs it up with very solid reasoning, keep can "pass". Regardless, as AFD precedent has already said that 'big city' councillors "pass" and should not be deleted, that is what I am basing my case on. I believe non-Canadians are very unlikely to have sufficient knowledge of Etobicoke/Toronto to know that Etobicoke is and was part of Toronto (a big city) and therefore, as a past concillor, the Robertson page passes under AFD precedent without needing to provide any more citation of notability regarding Robertson as an individual. Also keep in mind that AfD etiquette suggests Wikipedians should "consider not participating in a AfD discussion if a nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar." Although the issue might look clear cut to non-Canadians, I have pointed out that the people who presumably have stronger knowledge of the specific subject matter (not just general AfD policy as everyone here has) generally find this page to be in a very grey area re: deletion policy and currently are slightly supporting 'keep' over 'delete'. I don't think there is anything wrong with pointing that out. CindyLooWho 18:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. As per Ohconfucius, remove article now, restore when he becomes a (current) Toronto councillor, if ever. Suttungr 14:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete until he's on Council, then reconsider a new article. Far as I'm concerned, candidates for any position who aren't already in one should not have articles, unless they have another reason for notability. Even after election, I have issues with anyone but the mayors of major metropolitan areas having articles, but that's just me. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:38, 29 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 speedy delete CSD G1. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erfyl

Total hoax; no visible relevant ghits, no images can be found. A real animal would have both. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, patent nonsense, so tagged... I hate hoaxes. My guess is that this is an attack on some friend of the nominator's, named Erfyl. NawlinWiki 01:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment by nominator, do you mean me? (|-- UlTiMuS 01:15, 25 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rod Vaughan

NZ newscaster allegedly dogged by paedophilia scandals. Tagged as db-attack, but I thought it'd be reasonable to bring it here for a consensus, since it lists "references". Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Under condition of a complete rewrite. In this state it reeks with POV, even if it does have a few references. (|-- UlTiMuS 02:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Grutness...wha? 03:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Appears to be still working in New Zealand, and I'm not seeing anything on this on the internet.--Limegreen 03:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless rewritten without unsubstantiated allegations. He is notable enough to warrant an article. The New Zealand Herald reported on 14 February 2004 "Television New Zealand has reached an out of court settlement with its former senior journalist Rod Vaughan. Vaughan, made redundant last September after the axing of current affairs programme Assignment, said he took a personal grievance case against TVNZ which remained unresolved after mediation.

This week the state broadcaster offered him the settlement, which he accepted." Capitalistroadster 04:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as attack page.-gadfium 05:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above (will rescind if content can be verified; even then it needs to rewritten from a more balanced perspective). Heimstern Läufer 05:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 08:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, attack page, can be recreated if reliable sources are put in and written in a neutral tone. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 10:26, 25 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 08:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Persistent Systems

A DRV consensus overturned the previous deletion of this article through this combined AfD, determining the closure was improper. Please review the DRV before commenting here. The matter is submitted to AfD for new consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 01:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as advertising for just another a non-notable software company. --Xrblsnggt 01:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - This company has in excess of 2,300 software professionals (large for a software company), offices in India, USA, Europe and Japan and significant inward investment. It is providing technology for blue-chip companies such as Google. Plainly notable. I have copy-edited the crap out of the article and added some references. BlueValour 02:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I was the nominator for this article in its previous AFD. At that time, the article did read like an ad, but now it just states the fact and also gives it some notability by being cited in Deloitte's report and also for developing software for Google --Ageo020 04:03, 25 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 no major consensus = keep — FireFox ^(talk) _{16:28, 30 August 2006}

[edit] 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium

First Deletion Reason -- delete and merge into 9/11 Truth Movement, meetings subsection[3]. This gathering is not notable enough by itself to have a separate page. There's a place for it at the Neo-Con Agenda Symposium here[4]. I also question that we need 12 Alex Jones forks on Wikipedia, of which this is one. See Alex Jones (radio), Prisonplanet.com, 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium, InfoWars, Infowars.com, America Destroyed By Design, TerrorStorm, Information Clearing House, Martial Law: 9/11 Rise of the Police State, 9-11: The Road to Tyranny, Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove, Police State 3. Morton devonshire 01:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Very notable, given it's breadth of media coverage. Washington Post, Reuters, and a bunch of international media not enough? Also please note this user has been on AfD Spree, based on his personal beliefs (sorry Mort). As for other smaller ones, if on their own they're not notable enough, merge them in. This one has legs based on all the international coverage and interest. rootology (T) 01:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• strong keep: Per above, previous AfD rationale. Ombudsman 01:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per Rootology; large amount of media coverage from notable sources.--TBCTaLk?!? 01:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete and merge into 9/11 Truth movement or reynolds wrap or someplace that is a larger overview. Not notable as a separate article. This is a conference of the "truthers". Cover it there. --Tbeatty 03:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of all the media coverage? rootology (T) 03:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say the event wasn't notable as a part of 9/11 Truth Movement. It just doesn't need it's own article. A one or two paragraph blurb in anohter article that is covering the same stuff is sufficient. This is a form of '9/11 Truth Movement' spam. It will be cruft once everything dies down. Let's merge it now before it we have all these dead cruft forks. Let's put it this way: GWB takes a vacation every year. He makes speeches all across the country. They ALL receive considerable media attention (more than this conference) but they are included in Wikipedia in the many broader articles that cover the administration and Bush. We don't have articles that are "May 9 Bush Speech to Veterans in Kansas". It's too arbitrary a collection. Consolidate this into the broad overview of "9/11 Truth Movemment" and be done with it. --Tbeatty 03:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge this into 9/11 Truth Movement...we don't have an article on every conference held worldwide...what makes this one so special? Nothing.--MONGO 03:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Tbeatty. CRGreathouse (talk | contribs) 04:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Very notable indeed. This article is being attacked (in a biased campaign for deletion against anti-bush topics) for the POV of the subject matter, independently from the POV within the article. Note that this campaign is being done in the name of NPOV, while clearly attacking only a specific POV is POV in itself. PizzaMargherita 05:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per PizzaMargherita and others. —Khoikhoi 08:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Turnkey event in 9/11 Truth movement attracting unprecedented media coverage and attendance over one the most politically contentious issues in the world. SkeenaR 08:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep Important! --Prof.Thamm 08:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not sufficiently notable for an independent article given the massive over-representation of Alex Jones articles. I question whether PizzaMargherita's comment helps the keep cause as topics that are anti-X are inherently POV. MLA 10:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You are confusing a POV subject matter (which is perfectly acceptable in WP) with a POV presentation of the subject matter. Some serial AfD proponents (as well as yourself, it would seem) do not understand that the former does not imply the latter, and that their fixating on nominating only articles that focus on a specific subject matter is instead POV. I hope this clears things up. PizzaMargherita 11:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is also looking for balance. 1 article on the round earth theory vs. 15 on the flat earth theory, regardless of how NPOV the 15 are presented violates Wikipedia policy. Proposing a merge or delete of the 15 articles down to one is to be commended and strived for.--Tbeatty 17:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • You are confusing science with politics. On the same grounds, you could candidate for AfD the articles about the various religions and have all God-theories in one "Religion" article. (Besides, personally, so far I have seen more science in the so-called "conspiracy theories" than in the official report about 9/11.) PizzaMargherita 17:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
        • No, I am not. It should be about science and yet some are striving to increase their political voice by spamming the encyclopedia with dozens of articles that are not independant scientifically, politically or religiously.
• strong keep is this not vandalism? --Striver 15:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You raise an interesting point. PizzaMargherita 16:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Who is the vandal? Where is the vandalism? --Tbeatty 17:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well... the nom has vandalized 9/11 conspiracy related articles before [5]--TBCTaLk?!? 20:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Let's merge them into one article and save him some time.--Tbeatty 23:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
        • This has nothing to do with Morton's vandalism. PizzaMargherita 06:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No, making twelve pages on Alex Jones is not vandalism. Just excessive enthusiasm. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per rootology, PizzaMargherita. CindyLooWho 16:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • New account.--Tbeatty 17:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Provide evidence, else AGF. PizzaMargherita 17:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Provide evidence that they are a new account? They have less than 50 edits and established 5 days ago. Pointing out they are a new account is not a negative thing. This is not a vote and new accounts may be discounted when determing consensus. --Tbeatty 17:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Could you please point me to where it says that new accounts' [opinions] may be discounted? I must have missed it, thanks. [moving the rest of this thread to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/CindyLooWho]. PizzaMargherita 19:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Not surprised you missed it. Here's the template that is often applied. {{subst:Newvoter}} --Tbeatty 22:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Tbeatty. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep theories on 9/11 are very interesting, this article is extremely informative! --Frogsprog 20:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per Tbeatty ♥ FaerieInGrey 22:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge There really isn't that much information in the article when you cut out the massive quotes section, which strike me as excessive and an attempt to convince, rather than inform. Sxeptomaniac 23:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Not remotely signifigant. Rmt2m 00:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per Sxeptomaniac Ergative rlt 02:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Tbeatty, but Keep this article. Derex 04:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Nice personal attack. --Tbeatty 01:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Those long quotes are unencyclopedic, as per Sxeptomaniac, and should be deleted or moved to Robert M. Bowman and William Rodriguez (or to Wikiquote?). The remaining content will make an unremarkable single paragraph and should be merged as per Tbeatty. CWC(talk) 14:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete Per Nom and Tbeatty. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 03:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep per rootology on this one. Well-covered crank gatherings are worth including. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Adds little to wikipedia. Kim FOR sure 11:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Media coverage seems sufficient. Gamaliel 16:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Sam 21:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a meeting that happened, even if the things said in the meeting were factually erronous.
• Delete not notable, possibly merge into "truth" movement article--Peephole 00:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. notable and a key event in the history of the 9/11 Truth Movement. The info on here cannot possibly fit onto the truth movement page. bov 00:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with 9/11 Truth Movement. If this gets an entry, then my birthday party gets one too. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{blah • I'm a hot toe picker • WP:NYCS}} 02:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)'
• Delete per TBeatty --Mmx1 03:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge-this info needs to be on Wikipedia somewhere, but probably doesn't justify having its own article. Jaganath 09:02, 30 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 speedy keep as a bad-faith nomination. It is clear that the nominator is a single-purpose account or sockpuppet, and the item in question appears to be notable. If an admin believes this should go forward, feel free to reopen it. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 03:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Little Cleo

Delete. Unencyclopaedic. DeleteLittleCleo 01:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I don't fish and have no idea if the Little Cleo is noteworthy or not, but I sure don't like the idea of single-purpose-user accounts for deletions such as the nominator here. If you think something should be deleted, nominate it under your primary account name. NawlinWiki 01:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Notable product, widely available for over a quarter of a century, and named by Field and Stream as one of the 50 Greatest Lures of All Time. Reason this is a speedy keep instead of a regular keep is that this seems to be nominated by a sock (see nominator's user name). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per starblind. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Looks like notable product, nom looks like bad faith. Fan-1967 02:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep I am not sure about the notability of the product but the very act of creating a new account to nominate an article for deletion makes me question the faith of nom. --WinHunter ^(talk) 02:49, 25 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 speedy delete.--Andeh 02:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dragonship

Non-notable band that fails the WP:MUSIC criteria. The band hasn't been featured in any reputable media, won any awards, released any albums on a major label, or gone on an international concert tour. No allmusic profile [6] and not a lot of relevant Google results [7]. Also nominating the following related articles:

• Brady Cole
• Danny Behm
• Dan Farrell
• Flex Bacontrim
• Matt Doe

--TBCTaLk?!? 01:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete all, main article tagged (and rest are just "see alsos" redirecting back to the main article), no assertion of notability. (Releasing a four-song demo and playing at local venues are not assertions of notability.) NawlinWiki 02:00, 25 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fear blankets

Smells like a hoax? Get real it is an attempt at humor, I guess the author may not realize this is suppose to be a place for serious essays. Anyway it was funny. 9:19 PM EST

• This was written by the article's author and sole contributor, FYI. Wavy G 18:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Smells distinctly of hoax material, alleged "Copertawrapaphobia" gets zero ghits. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. "Fear of blankets" apparently did come up in a recent Monk episode, but I can't find more than a handful of other references elsewhere, and there are no sources other than the Monk episode. Not notable. Mike Christie (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Did anybody take time to read the article? It's a complete joke. Take this, for example: ...we fully anticipate the word to be added to the lexicon (I using big words like lexicon)... No need to even discuss it here. Very funny, though. Wavy G 17:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

  Comment yeah read top to bottom before nom. The thing is, though, that the tone is so inconsistent, going from medical jargon to an opinion essay to whatever else, that I couldn't just decide what it was. But that's what afd is for, right? (|-- UlTiMuS 18:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

  Well, I guess make my vote a Delete, then. (Am I allowed to vote? Because I'm voting) Maybe, in the future, something like List of fictional phobias on Monk might be necessary. Wavy G 18:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This article is an attempt at humor rather than an encyclopedia article. --Metropolitan90 14:44, 26 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monolith (Novel), and Terra War

Article is about a non-published novel. I am also nominating the author's other works in this AfD as well. The Author currently has a speedy tag on his article as he is an UNPUBLISHED author. Wildthing61476 01:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Please do not delete this book. I would post more, but RC Duggan has advised me against it due to copyrigt issues. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Commanderaminius (talk • contribs).
• Comment Added Terra War to this AfD. Wildthing61476 01:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • comment added the links to the header for you LinaMishima 02:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all Not published, not reviewed, non-notable. (|-- UlTiMuS 02:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment They are not review because they are not published. They will be published probably within the next year.--Commanderaminius 02:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Which is EXACTLY why they need to be deleted. Once they are published, reviewed and have notability, THEN reproduce the articles. Wildthing61476 02:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Exactly; if that's the case, then it should be deleted as crystal-balling. (|-- UlTiMuS 02:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Publish first, get notice second, Wikipedia article last. (Did I miss something, or is there no mention here of a publisher, which is usually kind of needed?) Fan-1967 02:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia isn't here to haruscupate on future success or be a springboard for fame. Get the fame, then come back. 'Til then, Delete —ExplorerCDT 06:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as obvious reasons above.EgyptianSushi 09:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --WinHunter ^(talk) 12:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Fan-1967, among others. ♥ FaerieInGrey 22:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Important Comment: The Gate is the name of a notable novel by Natsume Soseki. I'm changing the stub for The Gate over to reflect this and the pending delete above. Dekimasu 02:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed The Gate from this AfD and will remove the tag now. Thanks for the change Dekimasu! Wildthing61476 12:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - MakeRocketGoNow 19:34, 29 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. 1ne 21:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arte Mecco

At best, the non-notable style of a single artist. At worst a hoax. Rmhermen 02:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete vanity/hoax article which is a pet project of some user. Google test outputs 237 hits, being the top result the wikipedia article itself and the following a stream of wiki articles. --Mecanismo | Talk 12:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete per WP:NFT. "Art Mecco" scores zeeero relevant Ghits (outside wiki). Fewer than 25 relavent Ghits out of 581 for "Hugeaux", and the Ghits almost exclusively linked to that style. The Artist's style borrows heavily from Art Deco and Gustav Klimt, and has clearly also borrowed the "Art deco" moniker in order to create a new identity/category for his art. The artist appears to have the endorsement of the 'National Conference of Artists of New York' (3 relevantsites linking to) and the Art Deco society of Washington (about 10 relevant external sites linking to). The NCA is headed by Margaret T. Burrows, who appears notable enough her bio here. On the surface, the wiki article also seems to be a copyvio of this page, but its main author is infact User:Hugeaux, and who has no edits other than this article, so it also falls foul of WP:AUTO, and WP:V. I would conclude that neither the artist nor the style are notable. Ohconfucius 04:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

PS If someone know how to and cares, a proposal for deletion of wiktionary item of the same spelling would appear in order. Created by the same author. It has already been tagged "rfv'"Ohconfucius

• Delete Page from personal website adapted into encyclopedia article by changing first person to third person. See http://www.hugeaux.com/historyofartemecco.htm Khatru2 23:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Restore==Arte Mecco on deletion review==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Arte Mecco. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.

• Undelete. This is a nomination for undeletion. This article is not a hoax or an attempt to self promote. Thank you to all the editors who have help this article to look and appear better. Please continue your efforts. Arte Mecco is in its adolescent stage as with other genres of art throughout history (Art Deco, Cubism, Avant-Garde, etc.). It is recognized by several art associations and artists. Never in the history of art has an artist fully documented a concept which uses natural pigments and theories. This is the reason many viewers see the article on Arte Mecco as a cognitive method for explaining an art genre during their time and their research. A special thanks to the editor(s) who has change the name: History of Arte Mecco to Arte Mecco to make for better Wikipedia research. You are true troopers.Hugeaux 06:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not here as the promotional tool for an unnoteworthy 'artist'. Nunquam Dormio 09:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete include is an paster statement and earlier editor assisted in support of the article. It is as follow:Please remove the tags from the article. Thank you Khatru2 for directing me towards, Wikipedia:Autobiography for assistance. I hope that this statement within its confines shall validate the article, because as a reference it pretains to my purpose:

One thing which you can do to assist other Wikipedia editors is, if you already maintain a personal website, please ensure that any information that you want in your Wikipedia article is already on your own website. As long as it's not involving grandiose claims like, "I was the first to create this widget," or "My book was the biggest seller that year," a personal website can be used as a reference for general biographical information. As the Wikipedia Verifiability policy states: Self-published sources and other published sources of dubious reliability may be used as sources in articles about themselves . . . so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by other published sources.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiograph64.12.116.66 21:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Hugeaux 21:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Please vote only once. Thank you. Khatru2 23:40, 28 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 - although we might be able to use an article on virtual airlines in general. Do we have one? DS 23:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eastern Virtual Airlines

nn webforum, alexa ranking of 4,490,720. And apparently they can't agree on what the name of the forum is. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, no WP:RS indicating this site meets WP:WEB. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Eusebeus 20:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - only if other virtual airlines articles are to be kept.--Tomtom9041 20:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - because I saw the website and is a organization that records Eastern Airlines

timetables, route maps, anual reports and newspaper ads. I think that is a good website to learn about a great airline that is no longer flying. 19:03, August 27 2006 (EST)

• • Comment: WP:ILIKEIT rarely if ever works. Wikipedia is not a web directory for every website that might be considered "useful" by someone. Please explain how this site meets WP:WEB and I might be willing to reconsider my recommendation to delete. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No notability established, with the forum as only source for the article. ~ trialsanderrors 09:08, 30 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, authors request Allow repost later if verifiability resolved. Shell ^babelfish 05:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rho Epsilon Zeta

15 ghits, therefore non-notable. Quote: although there is no proof that it exists, therefore unverifiable as well; delete (|-- UlTiMuS 02:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Verifiability is difficult--am still working on that. Feel free to delete for now... I can re-add it once I find a reliable source. nafisto 02:20, 25 August 2005 (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 Speedy deleted by User:Shell Kinney under CSD G7. BryanG^(talk) 06:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jamo's law

Violates WP:NOR (to which page author agrees) as well as WP:HOAX (the math is simply not right). Irongargoyle 02:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete 16x18=288. Fan-1967 02:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Now, call me a math major, but this is the stupidest damn thing I've ever seen. First of all, even if it wasn't made up, one should surely realize that this "law" being only for two-digit numbers makes no sense, as multiplying xxx3 by xxx4 will always result in xxxx2, no matter how many other digits are involved. In addition, this nonexistent law doesn't work for 6, as the terrible article states- 2x6=12, 4x6=24, 6x6=36, 8x6=48. I'm getting really worked up over this, but only because it's so idiotic. -- Kicking222 03:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

yes, ok, i made a mistake, please delete it!

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serbia Liberation Movement / Army (SLM/A)

nn website, nn organization, copyvio. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Did you tag it yet? I had to tag it. Please be bold in updating pages! I also want to delete it. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 02:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Serbian Liberation Movement and Serbian Liberation Army Wildthing61476 03:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per above --Musaabdulrashid 07:12, 25 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Best Of Geri

Nonexistant album with a "rumored" track listing. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT as crystal balling, unless a source is given. (|-- UlTiMuS 02:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above --Mecanismo | Talk 12:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, four of the rumored tracks don't even have titles. NawlinWiki 13:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Looked it up and couldn't find any reliable source. Zephyr2k 14:08, 25 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. Mangojuice^talk 05:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United-SF

As per talk page, not verified, nor notable, and vanity article AndrewRT - Talk 21:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.--SweetNeo85 21:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Reply - United-SF was written in order to inform the public and to give an example of a groups and parties that are trying to organize. United-SF is a party I know in particular and its very active in the Somali Community in the Twin Cities here in Minnesota. I don't think it should be deleted, however, I think it should be removed as an example in the Somalia article as an example. I do not know how to verfiy this group actually exisits since they have not decided to create a website or something of that nature.

--Samantar Abdirisaq 05:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete — I'm not convinced the webpage is referring to the same group as the last two external links. They seem to be just one of many armed groups in control of the independent state of Somaliland but I can't find any information on them except that they're small and don't seem to have any significant news mentions - Peripitus (Talk) 11:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Reply -- I am sure its not part of any Somaliland group. Actually I think the United-SF is part of a variety of new Somali Groups/Parties like Somali Social Union Party which is based over in Europe. I have decided to call one of the members of the United-SF here in Minnesota to contact him about the party. he told me they were still working but were not as active. Perharps we can use the Somali Social Union Party. I forgot to add, The Leader of the group, he told me, was a guy in Somalia named Samantar Jabar Ahmed --Samantar Abdirisaq 05:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Teke 02:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep being written by a supporter of the group does not make it vanity, and almost any armed political group is notible. Verifyibility is an issue, but their website is enough for now. --Musaabdulrashid 07:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep A Google search of "United Somali Front" brings up several mentions of the organization in a variety of websites, but nothing in the news- probably due to Somalia not being big news in North America though. However, the organization certainly appears to be known around the world. --Wafulz 15:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment This should be renamed to United Somali Front - who would look for United-SF? Eusebeus 20:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Clarify From what I can tell the United Somali Front is a completely different organisation from the United-SF. The former is an armed group based in Somaliland (which probably does deserve an article), the latter an unarmed group with nothing but a website which doesn't even name the leader! Thanks for doing the research, Samantar, but please remember the Wikipedia:No Original Research policy when it comes to wikipedia content. AndrewRT - Talk 20:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • • In that case it should be deleted since the references provided are all to the United Somali Front and this would be in effect unverifiable. Eusebeus 21:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spunky Dunker Donuts

Fails WP:CORP by about a light year. Fan-1967 03:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Scottmsg 03:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Actually fails WP:CORP by a parsec. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 03:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per above. Would speedy, but CSD doesn't have the appropriate criteria. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I love donuts as much as the next guy, but please... ---Charles 04:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Lost me with first sentence, but the address at the end didn't help, either. Daniel Case 04:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 08:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Name+address+business type+telephone number. A classic business directory listing, with a little personal opinion puffery added on top. Get thee to Yellowikis! Wikipedia is not a business directory. Delete. Uncle G 11:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a collection of "nice little donut shops". NawlinWiki 13:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: It appears that we are dealing with more and more corporate advertising stubs every day in AfD. Could we be any clearer that this sort of thing isn't alowed on the 'edit new page' screens? Oh and delete per wp:corp --Amists 14:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete does not meet WP:CORP --mathewguiver 20:17, 25 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greenberg Nicoletta &Stein

No concrete assertion of notability, no sources given. Reads like an advertisement as well. Delete. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ---Charles 04:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and also Greenberg Nicoletta & Stein LLP (there is some error in that AfD, I think) Fram 11:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam of very obscure law firm --Mecanismo | Talk 12:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both, nonnotable law firm. NawlinWiki 13:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam. Stormbay 19:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable mathewguiver 20:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per all above. Orsini 05:34, 26 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 Speedy Delete CSD A7. Not notable and no assertion of notability as far as I can see. kingboyk 15:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flora Petersen

Article appears to claim notability, but further research can give no information on this person. Doing a search for Vogue and Flora Petersen turned up no hits. Previous tag removed, sending to AfD Wildthing61476 03:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete; Notability claim is rediculously out of place and in contrast to the topicality of the rest of the article, and I also could find no hits. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ok let me get this straight. she is the daughter of a person who is the friend of the pope. And she has an article because she came up with a 'SUGGESTION' to install barriers next to Metro stations, so that people wouldn't fall on the track and get killed by the train (how will people get into the train if there is a barrier!) . Anyway, searching for Robert Petersen on google gives a lot of hits, none of them showing that a particular person is famous. --Ageo020 04:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. She's not notable, and platform screen doors is already here. Daniel Case 04:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn —Khoikhoi 08:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. NawlinWiki 13:55, 25 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. - Bobet 11:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simona Fusco

Pretty, aspiring model? Yes. Notable enough yet for an article? No. Eusebeus 03:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep Has some credit to her name, though it is certainly questionable. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I am mainly basing my weak keep on the fact that she was a WWE diva search contestant. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep She has seven IMDB credits. Doesn't that qualify? Uucp 14:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Her credits are very, very minor. The most important one that actually made the cast listing is "Flashing girl". --Wafulz 15:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Exactly. Simply having a few entries at IMDB is not necessarily grounds for notability. She has a few, extremely minor, bit parts. See WP:BIO for an outline of generally established criteria. Eusebeus 15:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I believe her roles in the Diva search (eliminated second) and assorted movies were too minor to merit much attention. --Wafulz 15:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete She is not even near the top of the castlist in any movie she's been in, not notable --mathewguiver 20:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Sorry, did someone say "contestant" and "flashing girl"???? Say no more: Delete per nomination. Ohconfucius 22:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The IMDB has been used as a golden standard around here and that she is on it is also notable.Lan Di 01:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete You have to be kidding me, having a page on IMDB means you get an article here? What a load of crock. A few bit parts do not make someone notable, usually, and certainly not here. Renosecond 23:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Has done a few things, but nothing notable yet. James Duggan 07:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bit parts, 2nd to be eliminated, not notable yet. ~ trialsanderrors 09:12, 30 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 Speedy Delete as a copyright violation of a copyrighted web page. The article is a straight copy and paste of the "about" page on the company's own web site, which is copyrighted and not GFDL licensed. This application of Copyright Judo is stretching the copyright speedy deletion criterion slightly, as it might be argued that Staffoffshore.com (talk • contribs) was implicitly dual-licensing the text. But in order to have an encyclopaedia article about this subject we'd need to both completely rewrite the article from sources and move to the article a proper title. We might as well start from scratch without any concerns over copyright or corporate autobiography. Uncle G 17:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Staffoffshore.com Offshore Staff Leasing

Standard corp advert article. No assertion of notability, and I see no need to try to find one in light of the completely spamish tone of this article. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, pure spam (article name gives it away, really) Fram 11:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • In light of this and Bones for Life -- Wellness through Movement Intelligence (AfD discussion), I do wonder whether a new law akin to Geogre's Law is in the making: There is a strong correlation between the inclusion of a marketing slogan or potted business summary in the title of an article about a company or corporation and the failure of its subject to satisfy the various criteria for encyclopaedia articles on companies and corporations. Uncle G 17:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Fram ST47 12:52, 25 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. - Bobet 11:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WebShop 2.0

9k ghits, however almost none are in English and I couldn't find a single one that looked reputable. Therefore, fails WP:SOFTWARE. Delete. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom ST47 12:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The fact that the name itself is an external link is a giveaway that this is corp spam. ~ trialsanderrors 09:15, 30 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phil Gray (Gaven)

Notability assertions everywhere, but none are up to WP:BIO. Article can't decide what it wants to be, and even if it were to be kept, it would need a complete rewrite. Delete. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Phil Gray has recieved Centenary Medal (awarded by Federal Government), has streets named after him, and has demonstrated awards and services - how is this not a notable person? He's one of the most decorated non-military persons in the Gold Coast and Hinterland region. Search Hansard for citation in Parliament regarding his services. Has various monuments to him in stone and bronze in Studio Village/Helensvale region (Northern Gold Coast). I'll check the BIO requirements in a sec... Johnpf 05:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

After looking at the WP:BIO policy, I find 61 links from Google on him ("Phil Gray" Helensvale), including links to all the major TV channels (7, 9MSN, ABC and 10) Newspaper articles from as far afield as Townsville and Newcastle (1500 and 800km away each - not everyone gets noticed that far from home!), Sydney newspapers (different State!). I didnt include his entire record in Education - he has been a major voice in policy and standar disation in Queensland over a 38 year period. He has impacted on the lives of at least 100,000 people directly, and about 6 million indirectly. I'd also point out that the WP:BIO tests are as follows:

The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field

Education and Community Service, awarded Centenary Medal, so is nationally recognised as notable, including by Federal Government of Australia

Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage

in by-election last March 2006

Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events

for his work with Westfield Helensvale.

Google Test

as above, with specific search for '"Phil Gray" Helensvale'

I guess the issue is whether WP is a global resource or not. This man is important and notable to about a third of Australia's 6th largest city. I accept the point that the article is not well written, and it was something I was intending to rewrite over time. I didnt expect it to be put up for deletion within 3 hours though! Keep and Clean Johnpf 05:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN, political career isn't that far yet and he isn't a Mother Teresa as far as service goes --Musaabdulrashid 07:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, if being like Mother Teresa was the standard there'd be what, 10 or 11 bios in wikipedia! Johnpf 11:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Everything on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable using reliable sources. Any sources for the information in the article? Currently it has none. If he is notable it should be easy to come up with sources. Weregerbil 12:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ST47 12:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: one in 1,200 Australians got the Centenary medal, hence the 5 Google hits for "Phil Gray" "Centenary Medal". Person is doing valuable local work, but is not up to the standard Wikipedia should have (though, of course, it often does not live up to that standard with other articles). Fram 13:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment A search for Phil Gray shows he has received some coverage in the media. However, he lost the seat of Gaven for the Labor Party in a byelection and Antony Green's assessment is that he is unlikely to win it in next month's election. (Antony Green is one of Australia's leading political analysts). [8] Further, it reads like an ALP brochure at the moment so it would need a rewrite. Delete unless rewritten with verifiable information and in an NPOV form. Capitalistroadster 01:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've removed all references to the ALP, and done a little tidying up. Johnpf 05:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Deuterium 01:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. RFerreira 08:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite so it isn't a labor campaign page. If he isn't elected after the election in two weeks time maybe his current contributions are not viable but he certainly fits a few WP:BIO categories right now so from that viewpoint it is not a reason to delete either way. Most notably he fits in terms newspaper coverage so we can easily find a neutral representation for the page. Ansell 12:00, 28 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tour de Kits

A bike race of uncertain notability, no sources cited for its existance. Was speedied (improperly) by me as CSD A7, then re-created. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 04:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete (I nominated it for speedy.) Appears to be some guys doing a pub crawl on bikes. Five participants the first year, four the next. May be "challenging" (it can be hard to ride when drunk), but not notable or verifiable. Fan-1967 04:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Not notable?!?! Listen folks, the Tour de Kits is simply in its beginning stages. You need to give it time to grow into a beautiful flower. You know what else wasn't 'notable' or 'verifiable' for the first couple years after its birth? Jesus. Had wikipedia and you editing-nazis been around 2000 years ago the world may never have seen the growth of Christianity and all that is good associated with it (i.e. Christmas). Leave well enough alone. Give the Tour some time. I guarantee this year's Tour will be the best ever and have more participants. Just give it time to grow.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eboli (talk • contribs). Note Mistagged, actually entered by 154.20.119.196 (talk • contribs)

  Is whatever there is in the article verifiable? In other words, are there any reliable sources (e.g. newspapers, magazines) that have already covered this race/tour? If the answer is no, Wikipedia cannot have an article on it just yet. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 04:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

  That was a pretty rediculous comment, Eboli, and it goes contrary to WP:NOT a crystal ball. Your personal opinion aside, there are several policies that directly shoot down the grounds you cite for keeping this article. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per myself above. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:V, suspected WP:VANITY, WP:NOT a crystal ball for something "simply in its beginning stages"... maybe it'll be as notable as Jesus someday, and then it'll get an article. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kinu. CindyLooWho 05:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete until it evelvoes into a major world religion. --Musaabdulrashid 06:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• I was going to just pass this over, but that mind-boggling "beautiful flower" comment could not be ignored. Delete as a textbook failure of WP:NOT. Danny Lilithborne 07:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kinu. —Khoikhoi 08:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• It's obvious that this page is going to get killed without my say, but since the article is so awful, and since Eboli decided to call us nazis, it gets one more request for deletion. -- Kicking222 12:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ST47 12:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and submit rebuttal to WP:BJAODN. Seriously, comparing a bike race to Jesus? --Wafulz 15:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Let's be completely honest: comparing a drunken bike race to Jesus. Fan-1967 15:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete since the only user voting keep needs to resort to cheap shots and bad analogies to make their case that means that they obviously having nothing worthwhile to offer to this debate. On a personal note I am positive that Jesus or Christianity would not have stopped their mission if an acient version of Wikipedia did not find them notibale at one point in time. --Edgelord 17:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Having been witness to the creative and impressive planning and execution of the Tour de Kits I would argue that events like this do deserve to be where people can access and learn more about the feats of its participants. The Tour is a challenging adventure that can really only be described as a Journey for those who participate. It ultimately comes down to mixing the achievement of personal goals with the emotional and intellectual bonding between men and women of all backgrounds and beliefs. The participants listed are only a few of the many people who have participated in the event at various stages, sharing in the successes and travails of those biking. The Tour de Kits exemplifies the kinds of challenges that go beyond drunken nights with random acts of ridiculous behavious. The Tour de Kits is an impressively executed race at which only true athletic intellectuals will find themselves victorious. ~Tour Enthusiast~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.82.21.122 (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment: No, nothing really "deserves" to be on Wikipedia if it does not comply with policy, such as WP:V. Reliable sources carry significantly more weight than impassioned claims around these parts. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Along with the notability and verfiability problems, I find it hard to keep an article of a subject whose defenders insist You need to give it time to grow into a beautiful flower. Wikipedia is supposed to list events that are already notable, not those that you think could be. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 18:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and remind me not to be in Kits during the next time this event takes place, lest I wind up with puke on my shoes. *headshake* Pub crawls are not notable, kids. (Does this make me an editing Nazi? That'd just round out my week perfectly, that would.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Just wanted to say that I didn't call you Nazi's I edited that comment to put the bullet in and it assigned it to me. I vote keep though. Eboli—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.19.182.195 (talk • contribs).

:Please not above user has already voted. This vote need to be disrgarded. --Edgelord 02:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly. The earlier comment was from a totally different IP. Eboli just tagged it as a Keep. I've updated the tag. Not that it matters. No way the article's going to be kept. Fan-1967 03:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. Please disregard my previous comment. --Edgelord 17:55, 26 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Petersen

Non notable musician. Searching for him on google gives a lot of hits , none of them which are related to music or bands. searching [9] with the bass added to the query, turns up wiki and its mirrors. Ageo020 04:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per failing WP:MUSIC. (|-- UlTiMuS 05:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and ultimus ST47 12:51, 25 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 Speedy deleted by User:MONGO as nonsense. BryanG^(talk) 06:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rain of a thousand foxes

Article on an event from an rpg claimed to be "the most epic event evar [sic] to happen there involving foxes." I have little doubt of that, but I'm not so sure about its meta-vulpine notability. Only two Google hits, both to the rpg forum [10]. I am not a gamer so I'll leave it to the community. Prod contested in body of article.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Violates WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR...need I say more? Well, doesn't follow, WP:CITE, WP:RS, nor bring up any contention of notability. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 05:56, 25 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of World of Warcraft

Appears to violate WP:OR and cannot help but be a magnet for POV. This is not an article, it is a list of grievences. Indrian 04:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep - there are sections (the gay players issue, for example) which can be supported with media references etc and which are as I understand it (not being a player or gay) quite controversial. The rest of the article doesn't read like a list of grievances to me in its current incarnation, although I agree that it could become one. BigHaz 06:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge with World of Warcraft. TJ Spyke 07:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I have been against this article for a long time, but I still want to keep it. Stating WP:OR is wrong, seeing as the points in the article right now have citations. The ones that don't are clearly marked with ^{[citation needed]} . Yes, it is a POV magnet, but so is George W. Bush, Microsoft and a whole slew of other articles, so that again is a silly point to bring up. Havok (T/C/c) 07:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Havok (T/C/c) 07:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of Warcraft deletions. Havok (T/C/c) 07:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. original research problems, if any, can be fixed. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-25 09:08Z
• Keep per Quarl ST47 12:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I agree wholeheartedly with Havok's comment above. Viper 14:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and improve citations. My guess is that this is already a split off article from the very large World of Warcraft article -Markeer 13:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup article, sources need to be improved and can unverifiable ones can be removed. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 14:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment — The current title made me suspect it would be an essay. Although it's a subtle change, I think that "Criticisms of World of Warcraft" makes it sound more like a report. But whatever. — RJH (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Just fix the sourcing. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep please this is not original research there are references cited Yuckfoo 12:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -Derktar 00:14, 30 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 Deleted. Material copied from published survey and WP:OR.. Shell ^babelfish 20:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] COMPUTER USE AMONGST DOCTORS IN AFRICA

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of data abakharev 04:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. When Wikipedia has ten million articles, this might be a valid subtopic, but right now this is an essay. Daniel Case 04:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to fix capitalization and Keep. Article was created by a new user who is striving to make good faith contributions. Medical issues in Africa (see recent global AIDS conference) are very important and therefore notable. Quality of article is weak but could be salvaged. Deet 12:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per title and WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information ST47 12:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT a publisher of original thought. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 13:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, maybe these data are useful somewhere, but not in an essay that seems to violate WP:OR, has no citations, and only provides one link to another article about a group that doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG. --Kinu ^t/_c 13:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge rewritten version with health informatics, which already has sections by region but nothing on Africa. There is a fair amount of useful information here, though the author should be requested to retrieve the references. The presence of inline reference numbers tends to suggest a possible copyright violation, which needs to be checked. Agree with Deet that medical issues in Africa shouldn't be neglected. Espresso Addict 18:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per Espresso Addict -- good information in article that is worth preserving. ♥ FaerieInGrey 22:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Espresso Addict. ColourBurst 00:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or {{sofixit}}. ~ trialsanderrors 09:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - Blood red sandman 22:52, 1 September 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 Speedy Delete applying Copyright Judo. The article is a straight copy of the company's own advertising blurb on its web site, which is "Copyright 2004 Itwerkz Global. All Right Reserved" [sic!] and not GFDL licensed. Uncle G 17:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ITWERKZ GLOBAL (ASIA PASIFIC TRANING DIVISION)

Between the terrible title, formatting, and content, there are a handful of reasons why this article shouldn't be here, but for the sake of simplicity, delete as failing WP:CORP. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as I was trying to tag it before it got nominated. Daniel Case 04:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nominator. -- RHaworth 05:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete—Jesus Christ. —Khoikhoi 08:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable corporation and unsalvageable article. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-25 09:05Z
• Delete per title, without even clicking ST47 12:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:CORP. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 13:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:CORP, no WP:RS, reads like barely coherent WP:SPAM. --Kinu ^t/_c 13:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• It gets tiring the amound of corporate advertising spam appearing on Wikipedia. it fails WP:CORP, burninate it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amists (talk • contribs).
• Delete per Khoikhoi. Fan-1967 14:17, 25 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 Keep per Pagana's information on notability. Redirect lowercase to uppercase article. Tag for cleanup.. Shell ^babelfish 20:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Northstar at tahoe

Developer flogging upcoming ski resort project. Plenty of facts, and perhaps it's notable in some way or could be but I just don't see it. Daniel Case 04:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and as per WP:V ST47 12:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The Northstar at tahoe entry has been edited to address your concern. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tahoetracy (talk • contribs).

• Uh, no. I don't see more than ad copy, basically, just what you might find in a brochure or website. All the editing did was make it look nicer. Daniel Case 17:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - see also Northstar at Tahoe. User has been creating various non-notable location articles. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both incarnations. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both. Ral315 (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep this article does sound like an ad, but I do agree that this is a topic worthy of a wiki article I've been hearing their ads on radio for years now... mathewguiver 20:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: There are several other small-to-medium ski resorts linked from Lake Tahoe: Alpine Meadows, Diamond Peak & others presently red-links. Perhaps a page of 'Lake Tahoe ski resorts' could be created with brief summary info for all the non-major ones? Espresso Addict 20:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I agree the present tone of the text is a little brochure-ish, but in terms of notability I don't think there's any question. Northstar-at-Tahoe (it usually has those dashes) is a massive, long-established winter resort, one of the most popular of its kind in Northern California. It was particularly notable for being one of the first resorts to embrace snowboarders, at a time when others were kicking them off of the slopes. As a result, Northstar is often referenced in writings on snowboarding. It's also a regular venue for competitions, and is frequently in the media. I just got 276,000 ghits on a quick search. --Pagana 21:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable. If kept move to Northstar-at-Tahoe which appears to be the accepted spelling. Vegaswikian 07:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge the salient parts into Lake Tahoe wintersports or somesuch. Notable, but this is a Wikitravel entry. ~ trialsanderrors 01:20, 1 September 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 09:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] East Coast Seafood Centre

Ad, more or less, for Singaporean restaurant. Given that I had to click the linked mall to find the most basic fact in a business where location is so much, i.e. where it's located, I doubt that there is any notability about this place. Daniel Case 04:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: It is not a restaurant, it is a hawker centre, a rather unique cultural element in Singapore One of the better-known ones, might I add. 206.255.1.73 23:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete advert. --Musaabdulrashid 06:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no reason for a government-built facility to advertise itself. Its the tenents who do so....to their own outlets.--Huaiwei 03:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not particularly notable even in a local context. It's just a conglomeration of some big restaurants, nothing more. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 12:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:SPAM ST47 12:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT a great place for tasty seafood the Yellow Pages, looks like WP:SPAM for a non-notable location/business. --Kinu ^t/_c 13:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the new version. Thanks for the cleanup, sourcing, and dePOVing! --Kinu ^t/_c 17:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect, article is generally advertising. I must admit this place has been popular with tourists since its opening. It houses a few of Singapore's best restaurants imo, Jumbo Seafood and Long Beach, the more renowned ones. However, not notable enough for an encyclopedia. A redirect to East Coast Park will be the best option and some information at the article will be good. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 14:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, article has been rewritten into an encyclopedic term, needs expansion though. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 15:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I am not too sure how many of the above voters are actually Singaporeans, but I must say from a local perspective that this food centre is certainly well reknown for its collection of some of the most celebrated seafood restaurants in Singapore. The quality of the article may need some spring cleaning, but to delete based on allerged non-notability dosent quite fit the bill in my opinion.--Huaiwei 15:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Then please look for, and put, some sources like Straits Times articles or whatever in the article to bolster this argument. Daniel Case 17:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I dont think I can fish for a Straits Times article now, for why should it suddenly talk about a well-known eating place which has been around for decades? It needs no introduction to locals. Have you tried doing a google search, and see how the Singapore Tourism Board markets it [11]? Or how about an article like [12], which was published in the Sunday Times, for something more convincing? I could easily find these sources within two pages in google search, so I find it difficult to believe that you can make such a quick conclusion on its non-notability. Where is your evidence, on hindsight?--Huaiwei 03:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to show evidence, you do. Daniel Case 05:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

And which I did. It seems cosier being a deletionist, is it not? ;)--Huaiwei 05:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Link one is simply a listing. The Sunday Times article is a different matter. But it seems to be about disputes between restaurant owners, not the center itself. Daniel Case 05:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Link one is an entry in the STB's website about the East Coast range of eateries as a tourism site. A country's tourism agency bothers to have one page just for one hawker centre (and not for most others). I would like to see you arguing the non-notability of small countries next, I suppose. The Sunday Times article talks about "disputes" between eateries in a very sought after location, even when rents where increased almost two-fold. You appear to ignore every other comment on the location in the entire article which repeatedly underscores its popularity and notability at lease in the local context and to tourists.--Huaiwei 05:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

First, please remember to assume good faith. Second, I repeat: link one is a listing. Listings cannot by themselves establish notability. As for the Times article, it has some promise there.
What would convince me is some citations from guidebooks saying "Visit this place ...", or writeups from food or travel writers outside Singapore. As it is, you're just asking us to take your word for things. Daniel Case 06:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I would hope everyone may assume good faith here too. What kind of "guidebooks" will fit your expectations, Mr Case? I suppose Vitual Tourist [13] and Explore Holidays [14] are too low-end for your taste? The New York Times too cliche for consideration [15] (even thou it was quoted from Fodor's)? The Sydney Morning Herald probably arent culinary experts [16]? The folks from The Times got their taste buds all wrong when asking folks to go to this place for hosting a restaurant considered to be one of their best in 2006 [17]? I found all these links and more within four pages in google search. Do you intend not to lift a finger and do any research yourself, while wasting time for those who have to show notability even in a clear-cut case like this?--Huaiwei 11:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Now these are the kind of refs that might establish this place as a notable tourist destination.
I would consider withdrawing the nom but for Huaiwei's attitude, particularly as expressed above. First, the burden is and always has been on those advocating keep to supply references supporting a claim to notability. Second, to complain about this is something I fully expect (and have gotten) from single-purpose accounts with no interest in Wikipedia beyond getting their article about some subject of dubious notability on, or people who make things up in school one day, but to see it from a veteran, established editor is particularly dismaying to me. It's conduct unbecoming a Wikipedian IMO.
Those who have been asked to supply sources in AfD discussions have earned respect by doing so without complaint. Here, instead, Huaiwei sulks resentfully and seems to be more interested in getting in anti-deletionist jabs than reaching a consensus, suplied refs notwithstanding. Daniel Case 21:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, I'm not sure that's a helpful characterisation, even if true. I agree that someone who cares enough about this article ought to be adding the refs, true, but there's no need for anyone participating to be upset about the process, you, Huaiwei, anyone... I'll add them myself if I have time and no one beats me to it. Making an article useful and preservable is more important than proving a point. Sorry to pick on you alone as I think everyone could benefit from that view. ++Lar: t/c 23:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added the references given to the article, it was just a quick cut and paste job so maybe they could be further improved. Many of the references I spot checked were one or two line mentions in an article about Singaporean cuisine reather than in depth articles about this facility, but the guide book entries are more comprehensive and focus on the facility. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 04:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Amists 18:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Huaiwei. —Sengkang 01:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, yes, it's a popular tourist spot. I suggested once about bringing Jimbo there. --Vsion 06:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. - SpLoT 10:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Surely the delete camp can see where Huaiwei is coming from. To locals, this is more than notable; it meets WP:CORP - and thus KEEP. – Chacor 13:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• I came to Singapore as a tourist (although technically on business I did get some time to enjoy things) in 2005. Many many people told me I needed to go to ECSC to try the food there. That's anecdotal evidence and not admissable, but does suggest refs for notability are out there if one tries to find them. And Huaiwei has... I see above that Huaiwei has no less then 5 apparent references, some from very notable sources. Let's get those vetted (as more than brief mentions) and actually INTO the article (a pet peeve of mine is that info developed during the course of an AfD doesn't always make it) and then this clearly is a Keep. Note: Without any slight to the original nom, the original article was a delete, and the way it is now is STILL a delete, absent the adding of notability refs given above. ++Lar: t/c 13:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 04:58, 27 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 as failing WP:BIO.. Shell ^babelfish 20:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tonnis H. Venhuizen

An anonymous user listed this article on the AfD log but did not post an AfD notice on the page and could not have completed the nomination. I am just completing the nomination processs but not giving a recommendation at this time. --Metropolitan90 07:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, a student member of a state board of regents isn't notable; nothing else asserted. NawlinWiki 13:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete If the BoR membership was an elected position, I'd vote for keep... but it's not. Irongargoyle 00:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the student member of the SD Board of Regents has as much power and responsibility as the other members. SD Board of Regents are responsible for a budget of $527 million dollars, compared to the total state budget of $3 billion. The regental system has 30,000 students and employs 5,000 people--that's half of South Dakota's state employees. For reference, the South Dakota Attorney General manages a budget of $21 million. Finally, the fact that not all the regents have yet had articles written does not mean that they are not significant - it means that no one has written an article yet.jaredwiki 16:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Besides Mr. Venhuizen, only the chairman of the SD Board has his own article at present, and he's notable for being the CEO of a hotel chain. NawlinWiki 15:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it seems to me that this guy is certainly as deserving of an article as this guy, or this one. Both of these gentlemen were Truman Scholars as well. One serves on the local county commission. The other works at a Venezuelan newspaper. My point is that, while not "famous" on a National scale, Mr. Venhuizen is certainly within the scope of an encyclopedia as large as this one. Additionally, South Dakota being a small state (in population) doesn't make her governing individuals any less important. Russvdw 19:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete far below notability. Fails WP:BIO per no significant press coverage. ~ trialsanderrors 01:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, for notability issues. I don't think winning a Truman scholarship makes you automatically notable (for the same reason that not all Rhodes scholars have articles). Being a student member on a state board of regents doesn't confer notability. The aggregate does not either -- Samir धर्म 01:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, subject adequately covered on South Dakota Board of Regents page. Does not seem worthy of additional space. ~Timberjim 01:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect to Late Registration. Shell ^babelfish 20:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crack Music

While a song from a notable album, it is not a single, nor does it hold any significant value to have its own article. Ted87 04:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Agreed completely. (|-- UlTiMuS 05:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Late Registration. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-25 09:02Z
• I also like a redirect here. It's not as if someone would search WP for "crack music" in hopes of finding something else. -- Kicking222 12:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ST47 12:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect. P.s. what does "delete per nom" mean? Shawn88 13:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment "Per nominator", basically meaning for the same reason as (the nominator)". --Ted87 20:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect No reason to delete given. ~ trialsanderrors 02:00, 1 September 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 —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-25 09:03Z

[edit] The Derek Tonin Show

Either a hoax or WP:NOT crystal balling. Take your pick. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. Fails every test. Not notable, fails WP:V, etc... CindyLooWho 05:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per above. Leuko 05:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 07:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 08:40, 25 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Correa

Speedy removed and replaced with hangon by article's subject and likely creator, bassist for unsigned band. Claims of importance to regional hardcore scene are not cited, nor anything else. But it wouldn't matter because nothing there indicates any WP-worthy notability, neither under WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. Daniel Case 04:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I am also adding

• Hit or miss

the band in question, since with three self-released CDs it fails WP:MUSIC. Daniel Case 05:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both. fails guidelines and probable vanity. --Musaabdulrashid 06:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete both, one as db-band and one as db-bio (both are A7, correct?), as neither article asserts even the least bit of notability (and, incidentally, are vanity). -- Kicking222 12:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I've speedied the band because it's a group of people with no assertion of and no apparent notability. The bio is a little more assertive so let it have it's day... --kingboyk 12:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per musaab ST47 12:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete so he knows lots of red links, belongs to a red link band, lives in a blue link and plans to move to another blue link, not very notable. Carlossuarez46 00:37, 26 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kirit Shelat

Administrator with no claims to notability. Books mentioned in article are published by nn, probably vanity press. Article basically unchanged since July 2005. Hornplease 05:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Unchanged article for a year is no ground for justifying deletion. His latest book, "Mapping development" reviewed in The Hindu, a respected newspaper. If a one-time MLA or a high court judge is notable for purposes of WP, Kirit Shelat, given his experience of over 40 years in administration as an IAS officer and in authoring books would be notable enough. Also, the info appears to be verifiable. --Gurubrahma 06:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability is not the issue, notability is. As I noted below, he is not an IAS officer, but a Gujarat service officer. WE cannot assume that the thousands of state administrative officers across India are notable simply for serving out their careers. That his book is reviewed in the Hindu is not as indicative as it could be, because the book page of the Hindu relies on submitted rather than commissioned reviews. THe review was written by a former teacher at an Ahmedabad college, and is one of only two reviews by him. The book itself is not on record as being possessed by any library in the WorldCat system - an theres no systemic bias here, thousands of locally published Indian books turn up in academic libraries across the world - and is not available for sale at any major Indian online bookstore. He simply does not meet notability criteria, and is not a senior enough government official to be encyclopaedic. Hornplease 05:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as an author of multiple books and as a senior government official. There is no evidence that the publishers are vanity presses. One of his books was inaugurated by Gujarat's chief minister, which is a good celebrity endorsement. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The publisher of his book on development is the same as the publisher of his book on Yug Purush Swami Maharaj - and doesnt seem to have any record on the web of having published anything else. He's not an IAS officer, but a Gujarat Administrative Service officer, which means he has to do something more than serve his tenure to be as notable as an HC judge. However, if he's Narendra Modi's advisor, which has been added without citation to the article in the last few minutes, then he may- repeat may- pass over some bar of notability, as Modi himself is so very very encyclopaedic. (Indeed, some months I seem to have done nothing on WP but discuss things Modi may or may not have done.) Hornplease 07:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Hornplease 06:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Could someone check whether there is a corresponding article in the Gujarati-language or Hindi-language Wikipedias, and add any relevant details from those articles to this one and vice versa? And please do the same for Narendra Modi. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I cannjot find articles in either WP, but perhaps I am spelling his name incorrectly there. Hornplease

• Keep per above. Sufficiently notable. Heimstern Läufer 07:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, subject is notable and meets WP:BIO criteria. Author of a few notable books meets the criteria. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 15:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The books are not notable by most standards. A WorldCat search of libraries reveals no copies in participating institutions. THe fact that one was released by the CM of Gujarat does not in itself make the book notable, especially if the officer in question works in the CM's office. Hornplease 05:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Truthbringer. Bakaman _Bakatalk 17:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Terence Ong, this person meets WP:BIO criteria. RFerreira 06:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any reason to suppose that the books are notable? Hornplease 10:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Only persons of Indian Administrative service can become Secretary, Energy Department. He may not have been a direct IAS recruit. He would have been conferred IAS Doctor Bruno 15:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the writer is mistaken. Secretaries of state-level departments do not have to be IAS. Hornplease 07:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note - Hornplease seems to be Fundy-Watching this AfD.Bakaman _Bakatalk 17:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, hooray. Whatever that means. Hornplease 07:48, 30 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 speedy delete (A6) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-25 09:00Z

[edit] WORMFACE

Protologism with unpromising Google results and nonexistent Wiktionary page. NFT as well. Daniel Case 05:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Leuko 05:29, 25 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. - Bobet 12:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mahesh Pathak

Very non-notable administrator, at the lowest level of the Indian Administrative Service. No claims to notability in the article or available through looking around a little.Hornplease 05:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

District collectors are certainly not the lowest level of the IAS. In fact collectos are sp,e of the most powerful positions of the IAS. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

They are neither the lowest level nor the highest level. Doctor Bruno 15:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete He is certainly the district collector of Mumbai. But it must be said, that the government's influence over public life is waning, so is the importance of district collectors. --Ageo020 05:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out [18] and [19] I am not able to understand the difference between these two discussions

• Delete No claim to notability made. --Gurubrahma 06:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. He was quoted in a newspaper story about preparations for flooding, and mentioned in another about civil servants taking jobs in the private secyor. Being responsible for tax collection in a city the size of Mumbai is significant. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Do we have any other articles for tax collectors? Is NYC's tax collector given his own page? How about Mexico City's or Tokyo's? Hell, the tax collector article itself lists two- one from the Bible and one whom has been dead for 550 years. -- Kicking222 12:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

    He is not just a tax collector. He is the highest executive authority in a district. Have you read the article on district collector? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Gurubrahma. -- Samir धर्म 06:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Hornplease 06:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Ageo. -- Kicking222 12:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ST47 12:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:BIO. --Satori Son 22:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Not notable. In the article about preparations for flooding, he appears as the local authority's spokesman informing about the existence of shelters, the second one mentions he has be assigend to the airport as "officer on special duty", whatever that means. He could be more important than he appears in the article due to systematic bias, but we have little else to go on. Ohconfucius 04:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Nichalp Doctor Bruno 15:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no claim of notability, as above. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The old lady up the road was once quoted in my local newspaper. That doesn't mean she should have an article. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:47, 30 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 speedy delete (A3) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-25 08:57Z

[edit] Christmascarnivals.com

Site is a spam hub, and certainly fails WP:WEB as well. (|-- UlTiMuS 05:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - pagerank link spam. Leuko 05:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam --Musaabdulrashid 06:48, 25 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 keep. - Bobet 12:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ghislain Sauvé

Vanity entry, non-notable. Michael Dorosh 05:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. MBE recipients are probably notable. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per TruthbringerToronto. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-25 09:14Z
• Weak Delete MBE is a fairly common award, though admittedly not to Canadians. The article just seems routine to me.Michael Dorosh 13:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep on condition of more sourcesBakaman _Bakatalk 17:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with Michael Dorosh above that the article is pretty bland, but the MBE being somewhat uncommon to Canadians gives it a nudge towards notability. I must note, though, that the MBE is the lowest level of this particular award, and does seem to be a regular presentation. Very, very weak keep unless someone comes up with more sources as to this person's notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Despite low rank of the honour, a Canadian with this honour is a rarity. Agent 86 18:00, 30 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 per discussion for failing notability and WP:V.. Shell ^babelfish 20:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Barr (Canadian military)

Non-notable. Michael Dorosh 05:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Perhaps we need separate notability standards for military personnel. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my nomination. Commanding a regiment should not alone be sufficient for notability, but that's a discussion best made by consensus - I'd suggest bringing up that point, Truthbringer, with the Military History Project, I'm sure they would appreciate your input.Michael Dorosh 13:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If we let this page stay, then we'd have to let the million other people in militaries worldwide have their own pages. This should be moved to a userpage.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tyson Moore (talk • contribs). 18:16, 25 August 2006
• Strong Keep. Should we also delete the equivalent US military biography? Somehow I think that wouldn't even be a consideration. This person is notable as a senior officer in the Canadian Forces. NorthernThunder 22:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in the article suggests he's done anything notable, other than be named as "designate commander" of CSOR. Why is it you specifically feel he is notable? Simply because he is in the Canadian Forces with a rank higher than captain? I thought the reason we had notability requirements was to prevent every Tom, Dick and Harry from having an article. Can you cite a US "equivalent" article you feel is on a par with this one?Michael Dorosh^Talk 22:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not familiar enough with the US military structure to know what the equivalent position is. NorthernThunder 00:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not what I meant, sorry for the confusion. I meant can you cite an example of an article on a US officer such as the ones you listed as an example? You asked if we should delete similar US articles, but never gave an example of one. It is quite possible we should look at deleting them as well. Can you provide and example of one of the articles you were referring to?Michael Dorosh^Talk 01:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as insufficiently notable. No coverage from third-party sources per WP:V. --Satori Son 23:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Canadian Special Operations Forces Command ~ trialsanderrors 02:02, 1 September 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 Merge to List of Wal-Mart brands. Shell ^babelfish 21:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great Value

This article has been deleted twice before (see deletion log), and continues to be recreated. Request is to either outright delete, or merge with List of Wal-Mart brands. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It exists & tons of people buy it in the United States. Could use some more information, maybe. Its a brand, but its written alright. Other speedies didn't seem to cite anything anyways. Kevin_b_er 05:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Merge it into the list of wal mart brands article. Plan on doing a merge of Ol' Roy there too. Kevin_b_er 20:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment So then what policy are you quoting as the basis of your argument? Because there are plenty that are against your point. (|-- UlTiMuS 05:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as G4, request protected delete as well. In the extremely unlikely (0.05% chance) event this thing ever becomes notable enough for the likes of WP:CORP or similar, going through deletion review would be a worthwhile sacrifice over going through afd a 4th time. (|-- UlTiMuS 05:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Though perhaps a note on List of Wal-Mart brands is acceptable. (|-- UlTiMuS 05:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge content of all of the "Wal-Mart brands" articles listed in the {{Wal-Mart}} template into List of Wal-Mart brands, delete all of those brand articles, and then move List of Wal-Mart brands to Wal-Mart brands (currently a redirect) or Wal-Mart brand (usually prefer the singular in titles anyway, right?). --Rkitko 05:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge content of all of the "Wal-Mart brands" articles into List of Wal-Mart brands, and then rename List of Wal-Mart brands to Wal-Mart brands, per Rkitko. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-25 08:56Z
• Merge per Rkitko. —tregoweth (talk) 11:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per the previous deletions. This has been deleted twice already so why must we keep on doing it? Can it be protected against recreation? --Amists 14:26, 25 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heather Erxleben

Notability not proven. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michael Dorosh (talk • contribs) 05:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Her claim to notability is being the first female Canadian infantry solider. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - I tried to expand this article once, but found absolutely nothing else about her except that she used to be either a truck driver or lumberjack, depending on the source I was looking at.--Nobunaga24 05:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete has some claim to fame, but it's pretty rediculous if her notability rests on her being the first woman soldier in CAF and nothing else. WP:V per above, too. (|-- UlTiMuS 05:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete while her claim to fame is unique, perhaps it is best included as a blurb in the Canadian Army article? She isn't as notable as say Rosa Parks, Jackie Robinson, or Alan Shepard, John Glenn, or Neil Armstrong and I don't recall an article on the first Female US Navy Combat Pilot, or first Female US Navy sailor. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 06:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Bschott ST47 12:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my original nomination - I agree she is notable, but since there is no information about her in the public record, she merits a mention in the history articles but not her own article.Michael Dorosh 13:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and mention in History of the Canadian Army, for the fact that it would be absurdly difficult to find any information on her, and that her only claim to notability is being the first woman in the infantry. If there was a court case or massive controvery surrounding it, she could have her own article, but from the discussion and what I've found, it doesn't look like that's the case. --Wafulz 15:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per TruthbringerToronto. I found a few things about her and added them. Also, Erxleben being the first female Canadian infantry solider is as notable as Nichola Goddard being the first female Canadian solider killed in a combat situation. Not every "first" is a Neil Armstrong, some are a Helen Sharman. There should be an article on the first female US Navy Combat Pilot, along with other nationalities. The closest I could find was Kendra Williams, First American female pilot in combat (Iraq in 1988), a Notable alumni of the Singapore American School. The List of famous women in history makes for good reading.--EarthPerson 04:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Srong Keep per EarthPerson. The Helen Sharman parallel is very fitting. Heather broke the gender barrier in the Canadian infantry which makes it intrinsically tied to the notability of Nichola Goddard. Agne 15:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per EarthPerson --Rob 17:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's a stretch to call this person famous or even to compare her to Helen Sharman. Sharman is notable because she was an astronaut, not for being a chemist. I point out that there is no article for Kendra Williams. Suttungr 16:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Canadian Forces - I don't think she really requires her own article at this point. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per EarthPerson. 4 references - minor references in each case, but she's sought out by reporters to get a quote, that's worth something. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Not every breaking of a gender barrier is necessarily notable, but I would think this one is enough to merit an article. If it is to be deleted, at the very least the article should be merged into History of the Canadian Army. Agent 86 18:06, 30 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Hero

WP:SPAM , WP:NN and WP:CVG. CSIN 05:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games has to do with this article. However, this is a chain of sandwich shops with 94 locations by my count, all of which are in Ohio and at least half of them in the Cleveland area alone. It could possibly be notable in the local area, but the chain is not famous outside Ohio according to the article itself. No vote yet. --Metropolitan90 08:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The article's in decent shape now; I could support a keep. --Metropolitan90 01:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - There are many around here in Cleveland. I think the guideline to be investigated is WP:CORP. It seems like it is probably notable, but some reliable sources would be nice. As it is, the article is pretty not good. Wickethewok 14:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as U.S. regional restaurant chain since we have a whole category of them, some smaller than this (note guidelines which say as few as two can count), and cleanup per my tag. Daniel Case 17:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, I did the cleanup, put an infobox in and tried to add some info from the company's website. I think it can be kept now. Daniel Case 17:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 94 locations? Definitely notable. Zagalejo 17:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a relatively old chain with 94 locations. Regional chains pass notability, and thanks to Daniel Case's cleanup, it isn't spam. SliceNYC 21:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. Just withdraw the nomination. RFerreira 06:54, 29 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I-BANGI.COMmunity

nn website. spam. CSIN 05:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete quoting previous prod: Non notable website (Alexa > 2,000,000); Furthermore, wrong-language -pedia. (|-- UlTiMuS 05:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per my reason for prodding. MER-C 05:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable website, not english. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-25 09:11Z
• Delete per nom ST47 12:44, 25 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greenberg Nicoletta & Stein LLP

WP:CORP, WP:NN. CSIN 05:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom ST47 12:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and per WP:SPAM. Seems like a pretty ordinary real estate law firm. Ohconfucius 04:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Orsini 05:35, 26 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 Keep per discussion passes WP:CORP.. Shell ^babelfish 21:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dubai Fencing Club

Delete. Not notable. Article reads like an advertisement. See also Talk:Dubai Fencing Club for ongoing notability discussion. Twisted86 05:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Dekimasu 10:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ST47 12:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, passes WP:CORP with multiple independent coverage including a BBC feature [20], an article in TimeOutDubai [21] and a KhaleejTimes interview (5 March 2004), google cache is here: [22] Kappa 17:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the article desperately needs cleanup but this is the first of these clubs in the mid-east and therefore might deserve an article here. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - A little cleanup would do the job.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] East Coast Swing

Needlessly technical and non-notable article. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 05:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, and expand/make it more accessible if needed. The subject is notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-25 08:52Z
• Delete - WP is not a "how to dance" guide. Apart from two mentions of its connection to Lindy hop, it is a list of dance steps which are seemingly original research. A mention in the Lindy hop article may be appropriate if cited. Yomangani^talk 12:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Yomangani ST47 12:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - East Coast Swing was probably the most popular style of swing dance during the swing dance fad of the late 1990s, and it remains a staple in most U.S. dance studios. I would venture as far as to say that the large majority of people who learned swing dancing in the past couple of decades probably started out with East Coast Swing. That seems pretty notable to me. The article as it is written is very poor, but that's reason to improve it, not to delete it. --Cswrye 14:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the article currently sucks, but the topic, East Coast Swing, is still a cornerstone of swing dancing around the world. The only reason to delete it would be to re-incarnate the article with a fresh start. Everyone who take swing or ballroom dance classes learns ECS, there should be a Wikipedia article on it (though, a better one than there is now).--Will.i.am 00:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. The topic is valid and notable. --Elonka 21:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Why is this even under discussion? If it's a poor article then fix it, but deleting it would be seriously moronic given its popularity. Ninti 07:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - As Cswrye already pointed out, nearly everyone who has learned any amount of swing in the past ten years started out by learning East Coast. This article is very notable to the social dance scene, it's sad to see this even under discussion. Utopianheaven 19:22, 31 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dellosso and Greenberg

Spam. nn. CSIN 05:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Pure spamvertising becomes clear when you read We are NYC-based and focus... (|-- UlTiMuS 05:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-25 08:51Z
• Delete per nom. Dekimasu 10:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ST47 12:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, spamvertising, created by User:Esearch@dellossoandgreenberg.com. NawlinWiki 13:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, blatant WP:SPAM, no evidence that this company meets WP:CORP, despite their efforts to "target a lifestyle change." --Kinu ^t/_c 14:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as spam for a non-notable company, and to think that I warned the author about using their e-mail address as a username because it might attract spammers, too!  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  20:01, 25 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 SPEEDY KEEP. WP:SNOW take this to the relevent talk pages, or try WP:RfC -Doc 13:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weber and German politics

This was an 11Kb section in the Max Weber article. The section was created when the article appeared on the Main Page in Dec 2004 and has grown over the years to this length. This section is part of the reason the article was brought to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Max Weber. Because the section was so big (and troublesome) I split it off onto its own article (where we can add whatever template tags we want without harming the feature article) and attached a link to it in the Max Weber#Sociology of politics and government section. I nominate the new article for deletion to ensure (a)it belongs as a separate article (b)it is not original research (I do see a thesis statement in there) (c)all the appropriate template tags are added (needs {{fact, {{citecheck}}, etc.) and (d)that it should exist at all.}} Maintain 05:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Question Are you actually nominating this for deletion? AFD isn't for checking and reviewing articles, you want RfC or Peer Review. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I am nominating this for deletion. I actually wanted to just delete the content from the article. Not being that bold, I transferred it to its own article and nominated it for deletion so that this crowd can delete it, correct what I have done, or do something totally different. Failing its deletion, I trust this process will deal with it appropriately. Maintain 08:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Wrong forum this is a content decision - discuss it on the talk page of the relevant article, not here. Or try WP:RFC, which waa made for these discussions.--Doc 08:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as nomination is in the wrong place. Yomangani^talk 12:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per Yomangani ST47 12:42, 25 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 Keep. Shell ^babelfish 21:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University of Applied Sciences for Business and Technology

2 ghits, so fails WP:CORP. (|-- UlTiMuS 05:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. This is a university, not a corporation. 100,000s of Google hits for the German name, "fachhochschule wiener neustadt". —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-25 08:44Z
• Keep. The name in German is Fachhochschule Wiener Neustadt, which gets 71,000 ghits. I am not sure what the English-language article should be called. The German-language article at de:Fachhochschule Wiener Neustadt says the official English-language name is University of Applied Sciences Wiener Neustadt. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per arguments above. --Wafulz 15:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• In that case, I instead support a Move to Fachhochschule Wiener Neustadt or some other official German name. That's what confused me. Apparently, almost nobody calls it the University of Applied Sciences for Business and Technology and there is no need to translate the name for the purposes of the article title. Other then that, it seems like a good candidate for translation from the de -pedia. (|-- UlTiMuS 18:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I can see arguments for both sides. I think Fachhochschule Wiener Neustadt is not notable enough for English speakers to put its English name in Google search results, but still easily notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. Technical University of Berlin is named by the English translation (compare the 200,000 Google hits for "Technical University of Berlin" to the millions of Google hits for "Technische Universität Berlin". On the other hand, Technische Universität Braunschweig is named by its German name (there are a couple in Category:Universities and colleges in Germany with German article names). All articles in Category:Universities and colleges in Austria have English names. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-26 09:16Z

• First of all, this is a public school, not a company! The quasi-official translation "university of applied science" for Fachhochschule is very unfortunate IMO because in German, a Fachhochschule is clearly distinct from a "Universität". It would probably be better to call it something like a "technical college". In any case, I think the article should be kept, but the title should be changed. It is completely unknown under this name in Austria! It should either be "Fachhochschule Wiener Neustadt" or "University of Applied Sciences Wiener Neustadt" (this is also how it is called on the English version of its website [23]). Siberl 11:06, 28 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mercury 1 wrestling

A small wrestling promotion that simply isn't known enough to be on Wikipedia

• Delete- Non-notable. Wikipedia simply can't have every little promotion be on here, otherwise it would get flooded with every little wrestling promotion out there. RobJ1981 05:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. (|-- UlTiMuS 05:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per RobJ ST47 12:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. NawlinWiki 14:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 22:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. -- bulletproof ^3:16 21:16, 26 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Margalit Tsan'ani

The most notable ghit she gets is her myspace profile. Fails WP:MUSIC. (|-- UlTiMuS 06:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Musaabdulrashid 06:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ST47 12:40, 25 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] പശു

Cow is a cow is a cow. Why do we need a special article on Malayan cows? abakharev 06:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, although the article mentions the Malayalam language, rather than the Malayan region. BigHaz 06:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The only thing in the article besides the simple explanation of what a cow is is the significance to Hindus, but this belongs in Hinduism or a similar article. Heimstern Läufer 06:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). As a second choice, redirect to Cattle. --Metropolitan90 07:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The content of this article is covered in detail at Sacred cow. The article title seems to be "cow" in Malayalam language, so it's not appropriate to redirect to Sacred cow. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-25 08:41Z
• Delete per Metropolitan90. Yomangani^talk 12:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete yay for cows. the title isn't even english. slaughter. ST47 12:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No point in having a Cow's article when only the title is changed to malayalam. [24] and Sacred cow do show the importance of cows in Hinduism. --Ageo020 18:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Metropolitan90. ♥ FaerieInGrey 23:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Is this supposed to say "???" (question marks) or is my browser just not picking this up properly? RFerreira 08:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The title's in Malayalam script, so it's probably your browser (it should display as a collection of curly characters). BigHaz 09:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete wikipedia is neither a dictionary nor a tranlator - Blood red sandman 15:05, 27 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maggie Ausburn

Though a winner, Maggie has done nothing else signifigent in her outside life. Drew Daniel, season 5 winner, was also deleted even though he has a small acting career and thus is tchnically more significient. Comedy240 18:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep obviously. She was on a hit show with around 8 million viewers. She was on for the whole season. TV actors (or characters) with far less viewership/success get articles consistantly. The standard is to keep Big Brother winners, despite the odd inexplicable exception, here and there. This person easily meets the requirements of WP:BIO, regarding independent coverage from multiple sources. Unfortunately, we seem to have a problem where certain genres of entertainment popular amongst Wikipedians (i.e. science fiction) get one easy standard , and genres unpopular in Wikipedia (though hugely popular outside) get a tougher standard. The notion of measuring her "outside life" is silly. We don't require an athlete be known outside sports, an actor outside acting, a politition outside politics. She's tops on a top show. That's enough. --Rob 06:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: you're certainly right about the tons of sciencefictioncruft all over Wikipedia. Still, at times it is (I presume unintentionally) funny: "Wow, real human beans actually spend their times this stuff?!" -- Hoary 14:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Winners of major reality shows seem worthy of inclusion, regardless of what one AfD previously said. AfD shies away from precedent and looks at each article's subject's credentials independently. That being said, I would have argued for a keep on Daniel, too. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 12:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, a reality game show winner is not worthy of an encyclopedia article, in my opinion. Once she has additional accomplishments, like substantial acting credits, she might be notable enough. -- Kjkolb 12:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Rob. NawlinWiki 14:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kjkolb. -- Hoary 14:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for the reasons Rob stated. -- ArglebargleIV 16:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep reality show contestants/winners have posed notability problems for a while, and standards probably are needed. However, Rob's argument, Maggie is sufficienty notable due to winner BB6.-- danntm ^T _C 16:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• weak delete. I had contemplated putting an AfD on this one, but the fact that she won half a mill made me reconsider. However, how many lotto winners do we have listed in wiki? Thinking about it a bit more, I'm inclined to go for a delete as she was only part of a successful TV show, and she was not the main winner of the round. Her main field is an ER nurse and she's probably the only one without a huge mortgage. Not known outside BB. Her entry could be merged into BB6, along with the rest of them. Ohconfucius 22:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you please clarify what you meant by "she was not the main winner of the round"? How are you using hte term "round" here? I think of a "round", as one of multiple parts in a competition (e.g. ten rounds in a boxing match). In Big Brother, a week or broadcast episode could be seen as a "round" (e.g. each opportunity for elimination). She surivived all the weeks/episodes/rounds up until the final one, which she was the winner (2nd prize being a tenth in size). At the end, there were only two contestants, which millions of people tuned to see. She wasn't just another part of the show. As for lotto winners, I suppose if a TV show was dedicated to a loto winner, giving them top prime time coverage, for an entire season of episodes, with millions of people following their every move, with lots of independent coverage, then maybe they should get an article. --Rob 23:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• I stand corrected about the "winner" part. I had misread the reference to $1m, thus thinking it was a second prize, although that was probably why I didn't nominate he when I first came across the article. I am sticking by my other comments. Ohconfucius 04:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination, or merge and redirect with Big Brother (USA season 6). _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 23:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, or m/r until she does something notable. Even if she meets WP:BIO, there is very little interesting things to write about. It is all cruft: "she was friends with..."!!! If that's the level of content, then it's not worth having. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Thivierr (Rob), the subject already has done something notable. RFerreira 07:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep please being the winner of a major show ie jeapordy or american idol is notable Yuckfoo 00:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Definatly keep. Without biography pages, the reality show pages would get terribly unorganized and lengthy. As of now she has pleanty of links to websites about her and those would get lost if merged with Big Brother. Also, she has done/said pleanty of controversial things that wouldn't fit into the Big Brother article. She is DEFFINATLY significant enough to have her own article. Irkedpenguin 03:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep She's the winner of Big Brother 6. When people are looking through Big Brother pages, they'll probably want to know more about Maggie since she is the winner. A-Supreme 03:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If people want to know more about Maggie, there should at least be something to know that isn't already on the Big Brother article. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 08:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, after all she was the winner of Big Brother. bbx 08:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment/question: And that's all she was, it seems. The article appears to say nothing of interest whatever other than that she won Big Brother. So why keep it? -- Hoary 13:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Maggie is a well known and notable personality so the deletion vote criteria are not very appropriate. Unitedroad 12:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: I don't understand that at all. What do you mean by "deletion vote criteria"? -- Hoary 13:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect The article is a complete violation of WP:BIGBRO standards. Besides, a redirect would stop newbies from re-creating the page. Geoking66 00:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Rob. Maggie was a winner of a popular television show and meets the standards for notability.--Benjaminx 04:48, 31 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Ivies

non-notability, neologism, just another list ExplorerCDT 06:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Rationale for nomination: This is a term that appeared in an article in Newsweek magazine LAST WEEK. I don't believe it has been around suffienciently long enough to be inherently notable. It is pretty much a marketing gimmick Newsweek does to sell magazines, so this time, instead of calling the article "Hottest Schools" like they usually do, they named it "New Ivies." Thus, it's technically a neologism This is not a group of schools like the Ivy League, the Colonial colleges that have been around for a long time and as such the term and their association becomes notable. This is a term invented last week, and aside from one magazine article (reported also by their coverage partner MSNBC), it has no longevity backing it up. If this were an article titled "Hottest Schools", it undoubtedly would be deleted. This is academic boosterism. Lastly, Wikipedia is not intended to be a collection of lists of loosely associated stuff, a reporter of news (since we're just pushing forward Newsweek's article), and considering we are not here to haruscupate, extrapolate, speculate, etc., we should not be determining right now by giving this article credence, whether this term "New Ivies" will experience longevity or be a new force in higher education. How do we know next year's list won't be "Newer Ivies"? If it's not a "flash in the pan" after a few years, the article would be more than welcome. Right now, it's a newborn, and unless the newborn were the Prince of Wales, the Second Coming of the Messiah, or the next Panchen Lama, this enumeration of "New Ivies" hasn't been around long enough to do something worth noting here. —06:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• DELETE as nom. —ExplorerCDT 06:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. If this were "Newsweek's list of Movers and Shakers" or something along those lines, it never would have been created, but because the title of the list is tied to the Ivy League, it's maintainted an inch of traction here. The nom said that it's not Wikipedia's job to report the news, but I'd go even further: this isn't news anyway, it's simply editorial opinion, Newsweek's scholastic truthiness. If, in a decade, this has gained such traction that other sources of media anticipate its coming and report on Newsweek's new New Ivies findings, then fine, it deserves a place here. But as it stands, it's not ready for article space; it's merely boosterism. JDoorjam Talk 07:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism from a single magazine. --Metropolitan90 07:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per very complete nom. Yomangani^talk 12:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ST47 12:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• If I see more cites elsewhere, I'll reconsider. But as long as Newsweek is the only organization neologizing this, delete. Alba 12:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per various comments sensing that the word "Ivies" was just a publicity gimmick. These colleges are highly selective, as are the Ivies, but other than that there's no given definition of why these schools are Ivy-like. SliceNYC 21:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep Inherently notable concept. The nomination chargesthat this concept was 1) invented by Newsweek to sell magazines (a tautology in the sense that everything Newsweek does is with the intention of selling magazines) 2) That this is "boosterism" of the specified schools (so what? Does it delegitimize Newsweek's coverage of any other notable institution to label that "boosterism") 3) That this will be a "flash in the pan", an argument of the form, "It's of note now, but won't be in a year" (if I created articles on "Hula Hoop" or "Barbie doll", could those be listed for deletion on the grounds that "Nobody will care about this in a year?)

• Since all of these arguments are silly we should keep this interesting article around. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi

• Delete as listcruft born of the publicity machine. And yes, if hula hoops and Barbie dolls had just been invented and only one magazine had spoken of them, there's a strong chance I'd vote delete there, too. Anville 20:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete If we listed every random neologism anyone found in a magazine... LaszloWalrus 01:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I've heard the term used before and I think the entry should stay, if for nothing else, to explain the term and its origin and usage. NoRCaLD503 18:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Was it used before with this specific meaning, or just an informal description of some up-and-coming or under-appreciated set of schools? DMacks 20:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Could we have a source citation for its prior use? Dpbsmith (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Only source cited is Newsweek, which originated the term. This should not be considered until there are other good, verifiable sources meeting the WP:RS guidelines that show that the Newsweek's list has achieved general recognition as a legitimate grouping with a convenient name. By a good source, I would not include individual universities' publicity offices news releases announcing their pleasure at being a New Ivy. I would include college guides that reference this group as a group, or a reference in a novel or short story or biography--"I went to Kenyon College, supposedly one of the 'new Ivies,'" etc. (And I don't think the term is likely to catch on, because this is a dogs-breakfast of miscellaneous institutions with nothing in common but Newsweek's liking of them. I suppose Newsweek can define "ivy" any way they please, but to use it to refer to an unaccredited institution whose 0.04-century history has barely allowed time for grass to grow, much less ivy, seems premature at the very least. Come to think of it, I wonder what possible objective definition of "ivy" could include Olin but exclude Babson?) Dpbsmith (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Cornell Rockey 19:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DMacks 19:20, 30 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 per discussion as failing to meet WP:V.. Shell ^babelfish 21:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 88MPH Studios

delete ill-fated, non-notable company appearing to fail WP:CORP. Nothing notable but its failures, in short, nothing that notable Ohconfucius 06:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd hardly say this is grounds for deletion, an encycleopedia is meant to report something and I think that should be regardless of whether it is out of business or not.

People would likely want to read about what happened so I think the grounds for deletion are highly unjustified. Yes, the article needs work per the Wikipedia standard of formatting but it's questionable standards if other articles for relevent companies have been deleted due to them appearing to go out of business.Kingpin1055 11:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• comment deletion was proposed because no notability was asserted, and that there was insufficient indepently veriable facts about this company's notability in general, and not specifically about its failures. Article not in the wiki format is not grounds for deletion; failing WP:CORP is. Ohconfucius 22:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom ST47 12:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• At any rate, I believe a case should be put forward explaining the nomination, should the nomination exist simply because of the non-wiki template, then such should have been mentioned in the 88MPH discussion page before the warning was placed. This would've given any editors ample time to begin planning a large-scale re-write to conform with the standards and practices. Kingpin1055 13:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• You still have four days. Fan-1967 16:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• A small consolidation I suppose... another member has proposed condensing the article into a 'Reader's Digest' style entry fit to the Wiki format. Hopefully this'll prove satisfactory so that the article can be expanded properly according to the Wiki standards at a later date.Kingpin1055 20:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Ill-fated companies often suck poop. --Nintendude ^message 00:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence that this site meets WP:CORP. WP:V is also a problem, since there are no reliable sources in the article (a web forum and a blog do not count). --Kinu ^t/_c 05:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• A web forum doesn't count, despite it being the company's forum? Now, I apologise if I get the next section wrong, but it's difficult to fully understand the WP:CORP based on the way it's written. Because 88MPH has only published comics in collected and singular form, that they haven't been commented greatly outside of online news sites and 'blogs', and that it isn't a chain then it fails the guidelines of WP:CORP and as such isn't deserving of it's own Wiki page? I think the link to Adam Nichol's DeviantArt page as that's the place where he proved something. I would like it if he hd a more official place for posting it but some of this stuff isn't made hugely public. 88MPH has bee involved in a number of serious issues, and the full removal of the article will only serve to make things worse. Please give a list of criteria that needs to be filled so that the 88MPH page can be retained.Kingpin1055 13:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The article continues to be trimmed and reworked to meet Wiki standards, and is a valuable piece of information as a publisher of independent comic books. There is still work to be done, but this is a company who has released several products commerically. To delete this page would be akin to deleting Dreamwave Productions or NOW Comics. Reverend Raven 19:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The article is important to be retained for those who wish to find out what has been going on with 88MPH Studios Inc. With little updates on the news page and a mountain of posts on the company forum a site browser can easily look up the page and find out what exactly has happened. Despite the issues 88MPH Studios has released a number of products and it is yet to file Chapter 7 bankruptsy so, even in it's state it is still technically in business. There is also a ongoing legal case which can be reported here as soon as a result has been reached.Kingpin1055 20:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Per WP:V, Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Unfortunately, a company's own website and forum are first-party sources. The reason this caveat exists is because it is not too difficult for someone to spend five minutes writing a website in the hopes of getting a vanity mention on Wikipedia. (I'm not accusing you of this, of course... merely trying to provide examples of the potential abuse that could exist if WP:V was not policy.) You should check out that policy, along with the recommendations at WP:RS, in order to see what can be used to properly source the article. It is entirely possible that an article on this company would encyclopedic, and I have no prejudice toward changing my recommendation if it can be properly sourced. Thanks! --Kinu ^t/_c 20:16, 28 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 per discussion as failing WP:BIO, notability outside television show not established. Shell ^babelfish 21:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syed Ahmed

This article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Ahmed with the consensus of all nine participants to the discussion. It now seems to have been re-created without a deletion review (in clear violation of our policies) and amazingly has survived a subsequent AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Ahmed2.

Syed was a contestant on The Apprentice (UK series 2), and a perfectly adequate biography of him is provided in that article. He was not the winner, nor has he obtained (to my mind) any notability outside of the TV show. Media coverage of Syed seems limited to media speculation about his private life (almost exclusively in the Tabloids). Our precedent for shows such as Big Brother, whose contestants also received such media coverage, is to include a biography only on the programme's page. I therefore propose a delete and redirect to The Apprentice (UK series 2). _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 07:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep one of the most notable fly-on-the-wall reality show participants in UK history with current and ongoing media coverage much as I attempt to ignore it. MLA 10:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and perform deletion review ST47 12:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Contestant in the Apprentice. Politely I could call this person a salesman, but objectively, he's nothing more than a liar and a cheat which are commom as muck. Not a contest winner, no notable achievements afterwards. Ohconfucius 22:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and per policies to not encourage violations thereof. Carlossuarez46 00:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep if you look around the uk press you will see that he has recently achived yet more notibility and therfore should be kept Benon 00:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• a few mentions of his private life in the tabloids does not constitute sufficient notability per our policies! _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 07:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO. Game show contestants are not notable, and unknown-contestant-based reality shows like The Apprentice are essentially game shows, as opposed to documentary-style reality shows like The Osbournes and Gene Simmons Family Jewels. wikipediatrix 23:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, merge anything useful with The_Apprentice (UK_series_2)#The Candidates. Xdamr^talk 14:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems plenty notable to me.--Myles Long 05:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable in the UK, people will come looking for information on him. bbx 05:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - These contestant pages are getting out of hand. This is an encyclopedia of knowledge, not pop culture literacy.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 clear consensus but article is well sourced, future name change not difficult.. Shell ^babelfish 21:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hilary Duff's fourth studio album

WP:NOT a crystal ball. Reporting on a soon to be released album is fine, but when we don't even know what's it called...??! kingboyk 07:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Yomangani^talk 12:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ST47 12:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Hilary Duff. The "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" policy specifically refers to unverifiable speculation, whereas everything in the article is supported by references. There's some useful material here that could be placed in the main Duff article, and that could be incorporated into a separate album article once the title is announced. Extraordinary Machine 13:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Extraordinary Machine. It's verified as coming out (according to sources, anyway), but its title hasn't even been released. A brief mention in the Hilary Duff article should be sufficient until the CD is named and a release date set in stone. Srose (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge verified information into Hillary Duff, Delete the rest.-- danntm ^T _C 16:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per danntm. ♥ FaerieInGrey 23:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per danntm Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 14:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, of course. Not having a title yet is irrelevant. We'll just move it when it gets one. Everyking 00:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Article can be created when the album has been released. --Yamla 14:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep until the album has a confirmed name. 220.255.226.51 07:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Why Not? until name is confirmed.--Luckystars 02:28, 31 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 Redirect to Krayzie Bone. Shell ^babelfish 21:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thuggish Bone

Album not due for release until next year. Pointless one-line stub. kingboyk 07:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Krayzie Bone. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-25 08:36Z
• Delete per WP:NOT a crystal ball ST47 12:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Krayzie Bone as "R with possibilities". Fairsing 04:31, 27 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 redirect to Trey Songz. - Bobet 11:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trey Day

Not due for release until December. Also a pointless stub violation of WP:NOT. kingboyk 07:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Trey Songz. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-25 08:36Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-26 08:35Z

[edit] Ashwath Sundarasen

delete non-notable actor, who only played in a minor part on a sci-fi series, and who has not done anything notable since.Ohconfucius 07:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: Ashwath Sundarasen is listed as a "main character" in The Tribe, and the actors for all other main characters of The Tribe also have articles on Wikipedia. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-25 08:34Z

Ashwath had a main role in The Tribe for a total of 3 years to. (Raintheone 14:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)).

• Keep per info given by Rain and Quarl.Bakaman _Bakatalk 17:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Nomination withdrawn. Ohconfucius 04:49, 26 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 Merge to The Walt Disney Company —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-25 08:28Z

[edit] Mousewitz

Does not deserve a separate entry, should be merged to Walt Disney Company abakharev 08:05, 25 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.. kingboyk 15:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seekexperience

Not a notable site (a grand total of 9 unique Ghits for "seekexperience", 3 of which are wikipedia!). In violation of WP:SPAM, WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Article created by a single purpose account. Prod contested by an anonymous editor (also his single edit). Pascal.Tesson 09:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. Dekimasu 10:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- JPD (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. fast. please? ST47 12:35, 25 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese settlers in New Guinea during 1919-1940 times

First should be deleted as OR, and second as an article about a small group of people, each individually non-notable, most of whom have 0 Ghits. Dekimasu 09:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as an OR essay which is extremely hard to understand. I am not convinced that the topic itself is completely non-notable. JPD (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- JPD (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Weak delete - the version as currently presented isn't that bad and someone who knows more than I do (read "who knows anything at all") about the topic might well be able to brush it up and give it sources. That said, it may well be a wild goose chase. BigHaz 10:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as mostly incoherent OR essay.--cj | talk 10:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, if POV and OR qualms could be addressed. --TheM62Manchester 10:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I think it's doubtful that the OR problems can be addressed by other sources when the people involved have 0 Google hits. As an aside, I find this a somewhat interesting topic... but I also find it to be so esoteric as to be cruft. To fix the article, I think someone would also have to explain the notability of the topic in the lead. Dekimasu 10:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This is just an idea, but it might ultimately be that this particular group of settlers aren't notable, while a broader group (1900-1940?) are. BigHaz 11:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for now, unless secondary references are included that substantiate notability, then maybe, if you can find me, I'll change my vote. Addhoc 12:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR ST47 12:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The title made it sound like an interesting article between the poor writing, the Original Research and the lack of notability, I can't see a reason to keep it. --Roisterer 15:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It isn't surprising that this has little presence on Google given the period we are talking about and that Papua New Guinea isn't a first world country. However, it lacks any other sources and fails to establish importance of the topic as it seems to be referring to a small group of people. Capitalistroadster 01:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and ruthlessly edit. Rich Farmbrough 09:20 27 August 2006 (GMT).

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bottalk

Non-notable website. 660 Google hits. Prodded but prod tag deleted so coming to AfD. Mike Christie (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Stunningly non-notable, delete. -- Hoary 11:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for now, unless secondary references are included that substantiate notability, then maybe, if you can find me, I'll change my vote. Addhoc 12:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ST47 12:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I have only ever come accross one article less noteworthy than this, and that was an article about a rock (17823 Bartels for those of you who are curious). - Blood red sandman 12:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Nuttah68 19:53, 26 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. Punkmorten 12:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Airline Empires

Non notable browser game, fails WP:V, WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Additional info: Alexa ranking is 114,928. Peephole 16:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — per nom. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 17:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Peephole 14:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

 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} 01:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — per nom. BlueValour 01:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Dont forget it fails WP:OR and reads like a game guide (WP:NOT). Cruft per nom. SynergeticMaggot 12:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is neither GameFAQs nor Freshmeat.org, and reviews are disallowed anyway. This is in addition to the fact that the game is not mentioned in outside media. Geogre 13:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not notable, and fairs poorly according to WP:GOOGLE. --Nishkid64 20:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Angelbo 21:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable and reads like a game guide. Fairs poorly on WP:GOOGLE too. All these compelling cases point that this article should be deleted. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 01:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. StuffOfInterest 19:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As per nom. --Cooper-42 00:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• This is a page of helpful information for new players to the game. Its what made me the AE player I am today - Alex Stankevitch, CEO of Metroline Airways. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.5.250.47 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 23 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 Redirect to Niagara Falls - shopping facilities as content is already moved there and fails WP:CORP as a stand-alone. Shell ^babelfish 21:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summit Park Mall

As I understand it a shopping mall is not noteable. Blood red sandman 23:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Actually some shopping malls are notable enough to warrant articles. I don't know enough about this place to cast an informed vote, however, so no vote. 23skidoo 02:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. At 800,000 square feet, it's fairly big, and the external links show verifiability. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Verifiable or not, it just isn't remotely germaine enough to justify an article. Legis 16:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Malls are businesses. This fails to show evidence of passing WP:CORP. GRBerry 16:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. WP:CORP "A company or corporation is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." Please review the multiple non-trivial published articles listed as external links in the article. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't see multiple non-trivial coverage. The deadmalls.com site looks like a blog, not a reliable source, so I discount it completely. The Business First of Buffalo article looks like trivial coverage to me, and at most a barely worked over reprint of a press release, so I don't count it as independent, non-trivial coverage. (That reprint requirement is very hard to test, we essentially have to use a "sniff test", which is part of the reason that I think WP:CORP could be improved.) The last, Niagra Gazette article does look like an independent non-trivial article. GRBerry 17:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom... this is a typical mall and nothing, not even the local press coverage, distinguishes it. Personally I don't think WP:CORP necessarily should be applied to a mall. This just reinforces the need for a guideline for buildings and physical locations.--Isotope23 17:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This is a bit upsetting after the RfA. One deletion proponent says that the article doesn't meet WP:CORP, so I demonstrate that it does. And then a second deletion proponent says that WP:CORP doesn't apply. TruthbringerToronto (Talk contribs) 20:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I don't know what RfA has to do with anything... but I said personally I don't think WP:CORP should apply to malls...--Isotope23 17:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I understand that other people don't believe WP:CORP; I seem to be the strongest advocate of that position, as I rarely see it referenced in a Mall AFD discussion before I arrive. That is part of why I usually include an explanation of why it does apply. I also don't see what other standard too apply. I've seen articles for strip malls, and when we count those things there are about as many around as there are schools (in developed countries at least), so we need some standard. WP:CORP isn't perfect, either for suitability to malls or as a general standard for companies, but it does apply better than anything else we have, at least in my opinion. GRBerry 17:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Fair enough.--Isotope23 19:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Their are lots of articles about shopping malls, this mall has a lot of history to it. It is located near a tourist town and tourist's can read about it if they come to Niagara Falls. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 14305 Man (talk • contribs) 22:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This should be merged with the folowing articles: Rainbow Mall, and Fashion Outlets Niagara Falls as a new article called Malls in Niagara Falls —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Waluigi300 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Niagara Falls - shopping facilities; a new article created at the suggestion of the author. I have already merged the content of this article into the new article together with Fashion Outlets Niagara Falls and Rainbow Mall. BlueValour 01:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per GRBerry. Bigtop 04:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see why you need a more thorough discussion. It's thorough enough already. GRBerry has been clear and persuasive (and polite). Delete. -- Hoary 11:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the authors have found a secondary reference that is verifiable and written a reasonable stub. Addhoc 11:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per addhoc. SliceNYC 21:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as BlueValour already merged the content to a combination article. The final step of a merge is a redirect. My understanding of the GFDL is that after a merge redirection is required and deletion is no longer appropriate. If I'm wrong about that, stay with my original opinion of deletion for the reasons given above. GRBerry 01:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep please per addhoc this is notable and verifiable too Yuckfoo 12:41, 28 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.

[edit] RCW Women's Championship

The result was delete Tim! 18:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable wrestling championship. Along with this I am nominating RCW Tag Team Championship. Lid 23:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Addition - since making this AfD another page has appeared at RCW Lightweight Championship and another page was speedied at RCW Internet Championship[25]. I'm adding the Lightweight belt to the list as looking at the website for the belts illustrates it's a small scale promotion and doesn't show any assertion of notability. --- Lid 06:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both per nom. TJ Spyke 23:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because you don't think it's not notable doesn't it's not. Not all indy feds will be as big as JAPW, ROH, PWG, ECCW, Stampede Wrestling, etc.. Mr. C.C. 07:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There has been no assertion of notability, and even the website leads no credence to the notability of the championship. If the only source of the notablitiy is the website itself it also fails to meet the guidelines. --- Lid 07:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for now, unless secondary references are included that substantiate notability, then maybe, if you can find me, I'll change my vote. Addhoc 11:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all ST47 12:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as non notable. Indy wrestling, more or less, always is, and this is no different. I suppose that it also fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Thε Halo ^Θ 16:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - indy feds might get their own articles, but they should definitely not have articles for each title, because we'd be buried in them. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All per nom -- bulletproof ^3:16 21:14, 26 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 per discussion as failing notability requirements and WP:V. Shell ^babelfish 21:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dally in the Alley

This is a poster competition. It scores a couple of hundred Googles. And that, basically, is it. No real evidence of significance and every winner appears to be redlinked with one exception, an unrelated policitican called Glenn Barr. Just zis Guy you know? 23:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I've been to this one. It's an annual fundraiser for a local charity. They have bands, etc., but it's not particularly notable. JChap2007 23:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for now, unless secondary references are included that substantiate notability, then maybe, if you can find me, I'll change my vote. Addhoc 11:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JChap2007 ST47 12:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: I authored this article with assistance from the Dally in the Alley coordinator, Connie Mangalin, employing materials supplied by the Dally in the Alley committee. All of the artists list are easily found in web searches, and at least one of the artists listed wrote his own article, which was chopped. This was Stephen Goodfellow, and if you've seen his work, you would understand how important he is as an artist. BTW: This article has stood one year. So why now the rush to ruin the work of several ernest, Detroit based people. I simply cannot understand how a person can attend the Dally and overlook its signficance. It is an example of a festival that has quite literally saved the community in which it takes place from the wrecking ball. Wmjuntunen 22:26, 25 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] StraightWay

Advertisement for non-notable evangelical corporation, providing no verifiability. Prod tag was removed. IceCreamAntisocial 21:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Their home page is here: [26]. Not sure why that's not in the article. It seems like they ought to be notable, but there's very little web chatter. The only real claims to notability are two letters of commendation from the last two governors of Texas (which politicians hand out like party favors). This is very likely the kind of organization (homeless people, teen mothers, etc.) that doesn't really cross path with the web very much, so I'm inclined to cut them some slack, but not this much. verifiability is the issue. - Richfife 22:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm pulling back to Neutral on this one. Evangelical organizations raise my hackles a bit, so I should compensate for that in my vote. - Richfife 17:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• You did not mention that one of the "former governors" of Texas is the current president of the United States, and the other one is the CURRENT GOVERNOR of Texas. That seems to hold a decent level of verification. Because an organization is not validated through a google search--does this now mean that they are non-notable? The StraightWay ministry is the one which led Karla Faye Tucker to Christ 12 years before her execution. The director has been interviewed by Larry King about the ministry. Several Houston-based news stations have aired reports about StraightWay. Carter89fifteen 06:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Again, verifiability is the issue. What was the air date of the Larry King episode? How long was his segment? The Karla Faye Tucker conversion isn't notable in my book (religious conversion on death row is very common and generally suspect). And again, a commendation from a governor (even a president to be) is nothing to write home about. Follow this link for a reason why: [27] - Richfife 06:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• The bulk of the media coverage was done in 1997, before the execution of Ms. Tucker. The main issue reported was in regards to the organization's ideological opposition of the death penalty. Also... my facts about the Larry King interview were not straight (in fact, they were downright wrong). I apologize for that. While King covered the issue, an interview was not conducted. There were, however, several networks that interviewed Mr. Kirschke (SW director) about the issue because of how controversial it was, including MSNBC. It placed StraightWay very much in the limelight because it was their organization that brought Karla to a place of Christian conversion. Thank you for withdrawing your "weak delete" vote. I appreciate your willingness to admit your lack of objectivity when it comes to evangelical programs, but I am confused about your prejudice against these programs (which you say "raise your hackles"). My question is: If you are a liberal, who by definition is one who is an open-minded person and freethinker, as I am, why are you so intolerant of those of a different persuasion, even if it is Christian-based? To me, that seems to be quite a narrow-minded approach and philosophy to have.-Carter89fifteen 16:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Look, don't get personal, please. In order to show that the organization is notable enough, all you need to do is cite your sources, and provide references that other people can go to and see for themselves why the organization is important enough to merit an article. I hate to link to Wikipedia:Verifiability again, but really that page has the information you need. Also, it is a requirement of every Wikipedia article. The article will not be deleted if it cites reliable sources about its importance. IceCreamAntisocial 03:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete one of a multitude of re-hab centers. so-what? It isn't the Betty Ford Clinic. It isn't notable -- per the article, no notable people have re-habbed here, either. Carlossuarez46 18:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Trim to a stub, merge into Teen Challenge, unless secondary references are found. Addhoc 12:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• It's another nn rehab centre, unver, delete. Edit: Also, if this isnt going to get deleted, please rewrite it. It reads far more like advertising/advocacy than it does an encyclopedia article. You know you're in for a 80's style hard-sell when you start seeing ® and © symbols all over a page. (SWTC --Amists 14:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it's a nicely written article, but I'm not convinced that this rehab center is any more notable than all the other rehab centers out there. Amazinglarry 18:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete and redirect. Don't need two potentially divergent articles about the same thing. Ohconfucius 23:01, 25 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. - Bobet 11:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Podstreaming

Yet another podcasting protologism. Claims to have been in use for a year and a half, but still only 136 Google hits. --Haakon 21:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for now, unless secondary references are included that substantiate notability, then maybe, if you can find me, I'll change my vote. Addhoc 11:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - Sounds like a fad but google hits are around only 300 plus most links are nonsense sites (on google search). The article may be crystal ball.Bakaman _Bakatalk 17:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom (and article not long enough). Cedars 04:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article has inherently notability as describing a new technology. Why should the its length matter? Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi

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

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

The result was Delete per discussion as failing notablity requirements and WP:V. Shell ^babelfish 21:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multi-Age Cluster Class (MACC)

Not encyclopediac, of local (if any) interest only, implicit attack Wtshymanski 21:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  11:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for now, unless secondary references are included that substantiate notability, then maybe, if you can find me, I'll change my vote. Addhoc 12:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• You seem to be saying that on every AfD, even those which are not of notability concerns, could you try to be more specific? ST47 12:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom ST47 12:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Vancouver School Board, and apply some NPOV --17:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as above - interesting concept, but not really one that needs to be broken out. I didn't get a lot of Google action with this either, so it's a bit on the narrow focused side. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speaking as a former MACC student, I believe that this article should stay put, just where it is. There is a MACC website, for whoever "didn't get a lot of action on Google". It is [28]here and is entirely verifiable.

The question that needs to be answered here is whether it is verifiable through reliable sources as being notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. That site would appear to be made by the group in question, not a reference to it from an outside source - which was what I was referring to by my Google comment. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:57, 28 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 Keep per later discussion.. Shell ^babelfish 21:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Planetarion

Non notable webgame. Fails WP:WEB, WP:SOFTWARE and WP:V. I prodded it on august 1 and the prod was removed on august 18. Peephole 18:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It won a minor monthly award, but other than that, it hasn't become notable. No non-trivial independent third party coverage that I could fine. Also fails the nom criteria. --Wafulz 22:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It won that award several times, first time in May 2000, and then again in December 2000, in January, March, April, June, September, October and December of 2001, and in February 2002. Shanes 02:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^chat/_patch) 12:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as it should have been one week after placing the prod. This doesn't really have any reason for inclusion. RandyWang (^chat/_patch) 12:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It was prod deleted, but I speedy undeleted it per exception 2 on WP:UNDEL as I think it was notable enough to warrant an article. I played this game some 5-6 years ago and it really was very popular back then when web based games like this was in its infancy. And it won quite a few awards too, if my memory isn't failing me. Shanes 02:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is an excellent and comprehensive webgame. I tend to give it as one of the top 3 examples of what a webgame is.Theseus321 01:48, 22 August 2006 (EST)This is User:Mike Payne's sole contribution, with a fake signature used.
• Keep Per above. Havok (T/C/c) 09:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:WEB. Whispering^(talk/c) 17:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Whispering ST47 12:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Planetarion is in decline now which ruins its Google test, but it was a big player in the browser-game market several years ago, with lots of derivatives. Tens of thousands of users in its heyday doesn't reflect accurately in its current declined state. Mostly historical. -- nae'blis 12:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• I'm convinced, weak keep per nae'blis and maybe the fact that it's historical / past it's heyday should be noted on the page itself more directly-Amists 15:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above comments. Arkyan 18:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per above Cpc464 11:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. I used to play years ago; it was one of the first web based multiplayer browser based games, and at its peak had 10s of thousands of active users. Certainly worthy of keeping for historical reference. BenRobb 15:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. I played through rounds 4-6 and there was no shortage of players at that time! Perhaps the article could be expanded a little then on its reasons of its decline. I believe it had something to do with Jolt taking over etc... Although deffinitely keep the article even if only for historical purposes.
• Weak delete: I don't believe it passes WP:WEB or WP:RS, but I do remember when it was big - its historical value could make it worth keeping, if it could be expanded/find more sources, but I doubt that can be done. --Mnemeson 12:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know what counts as acceptable review, but I found some old ones still on the net [29][30][31]. There are probably many more, I remember reading about it in print, but it's so long ago that I can't remember where much less find those on the net. Shanes 12:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Shanes. Mackensen (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I used to play this game a couple of years ago so in my world it is notable. bbx 06:21, 2 September 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 Keep as references were provided. Shell ^babelfish 21:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Car dealer auctions

Original research, not suitable for an article. Delete Owen× ☎ 18:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

OwenX,

Please understand that I wrote this article in part based on my direct experience, but to a large extent based on secondary research with the original intent to aggregate information about the subject of car dealer auctions that is not readily available to the public. I tried to keep personal opinion out and still believe in the informational, educational and encyclopedic nature of this article. I'd be happy to provide links to my outside sources, if you think this would strengthen my position, and I would also gladly edit any parts that may sound "not suitable for an article" to you or to other potential readers. I'm hoping that in time other automotive experts will expand and improve on what I originally wrote. I humbly ask that you reconsider deleting it and provide constructive feedback that will be in the interest of the community at large.

--cfherbert 19:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• The problems are several here: first, there doesn't appear to be any sourcing in the article, which are necessary for verifiability; second, policy states that articles must not be previously unpublished. Check out No original research for details. If you can repair those, then great, but as this article is, I'll have to say Delete as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Tony Fox,

Thank you for clarifying. I think two of my sources actually meet the criteria from the policy. I'm not sure how best to source them in the article, but here they are:

1) "Auto Auctions: Prices Influence What You Pay for Cars" by Jerry Edgerton <http://hffo.cuna.org/story.html?doc_id=1170&sub_id=12433>

2) "Chapter 4. Buying A Vehicle At Auction" by The National Auto Auction Association <http://www.naaa.com/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageID=3382>

I hope this will save my article from deletion.

--cfherbert 00:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  12:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete as per WP:OR ST47 12:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rebuild the article using references, removing any claims that cannot be verified. From what I have found in a quick search, the article seems to be relatively accurate. It just needs references and some cleanup. -- Kjkolb 12:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep as I think we can assume good faith of the article creator (who certainly seems to be making a good faith effort to cite the article per his comments above). However, it certainly needs more citations and references. -Markeer 13:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - original edittor appears to be trying properly source the article. Subject matter is suitable for an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq 14:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. It does however suck poop in it's current form.

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

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

The result was Delete per discussion as failing WP:MUSIC. Shell ^babelfish 21:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joaquin Santos

Nonnotable rapper. Bare assertion of notability, but then article says "his dream is to be widely recognized". NawlinWiki 21:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

His dream is to be widely recognized in the Latino Communities in the United States (see article! He is already widely recognized throughout El Salvador. Want some proof? here's some proof.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fat Lui (talk • contribs).

• • Response OK, fair enough, but the article came through in Spanish for me when I clicked the link. Also, it's one music website -- not sure it counts as a reliable source. Any mainstream news articles, hit chart listings, etc.? NawlinWiki 21:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete as unverifiable until there are reliable sources in English. I'm not sure if he'll be notable even if he is verifiable, but I'm going to assume good faith and wait to see some English sources before deciding. Srose (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Countering Systemic Bias, Wikiproject Echo, and even the reliable sources guideline itself has shown that verifiability does not require English sources, as that creates a strong bias towards English-speaking countries. However, they are preferred over non-English sources. ColourBurst 01:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge whatever is verifiable, if anything, into Pescozada, his group, as the information seems a little thin (based on the Spanish language sources and the Wikipedia article itself). --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 22:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep on the basis of the Spanish-language material. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Santos is not an official member of Pescozada, so the article should not be merged. Deleting his article would be like deleting the bibingka article, because even though it is widely recognized throughout Southeast Asia, it is not acknowledged in the U.S. as much. It would also be like deleting the Francisco Tarrega article, because "every interview I found was in Spanish". Look, if you ask me, this is a stupid matter to argue about. Also, if you google search Joaquin Santos, plenty of Hispanic citizens in the U.S. have written about him in myspace profiles, including other rappers you might consider "nonnotable". Furthermore, how come he has his own website in English? Nerdchomper 17:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  13:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Can someone provide evidence, in Spanish or English, that Santos meets any of the WP:MUSIC criteria? For example, has he had a record that charted on the El Salvador music charts, if there are any, or another country? Has he released at least two albums through a major, or significant independent, record company in El Salvador, or another country? If the evidence is in Spanish, I'm sure there would be enough editors on the English Wikipedia who understand Spanish well enough to read it and confirm that he meets the criteria. --Metropolitan90 16:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It's up to the editors of the article to prove notability and they haven't done it. Furthermore, even with verifiable sources he'd barely scrape by on WP:MUSIC anyway. --kingboyk 15:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete. There may be a little systematic bias, but just because an article about him exists in Spanish does not justify keeping the wiki article if subject himself fails WP:MUS, which he appears to do. Myspace is not a reliable source as it is too prone to spamming. Ohconfucius 23:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for insufficient evidence that he satisfies WP:MUSIC. --Metropolitan90 16:06, 26 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Velvet Abstract

A short film that does not exist yet. Unverifiable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Let's wait until it exists and see if it becomes notable. Weregerbil 09:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:NOT ST47 11:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete 99% of short films are not notable after they're made. Crystal-ballism to believe this will be any different. (Looks like this is part of a huge walled garden on James Hughes (Writer / Director), most of whose films are so far below the radar that IMDB doesn't even list them.) Fan-1967 14:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No notablitiy, and fails WP:NOT. Thε Halo ^Θ 16:35, 25 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 Keep. Subject notable, sufficient verifiable information to merit seperate article. WP:NOT does not apply as information presented is much more than simply plot summary. Shell ^babelfish 21:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Warhammer 40,000 universe

An article which is "solely as a summary of the plot of a work of fiction" (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, point 7). Prod removed because "Warhammer 40,000 is very popular", which, while true, doesn't override WP:NOT. Delete --Pak21 08:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:NOT ST47 11:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Warhammer_40,000#Mass_merger. and WP:FICT. Uncle G 13:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• I think this article deserves to be allowed to fix itself up before being deleted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.6 (talk • contribs).

Comment Erm, why? J Milburn 01:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Warhammer 40,000 132.205.93.88 04:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: the content on this page is basically just an amalgamation of content already existing on other Warhammer 40,000 pages (eg Great Crusade), so I have removed the merge tag. --Pak21 08:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Prod the Wikiproject to take a look which I have done. With any luck these guys will know how the page fits into their reorganisation of the articles. LinaMishima 13:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: "we" know about it. There was a previous discussion about creating a "history" page, but it petered out with no decision; this page was created by a new editor without any discussion with the WikiProject. While there may be a need for a history page, this plot summary isn't it. (FWIW, the AfD is already listed at WP:40K). Cheers --Pak21 13:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A history page seems like a good lead in to the other more specific pages we have. "It is a simply a plot summary" is a reason for a rewrite, not removal in my mind. --Falcorian ^(talk) 00:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As per the wishes of the 40k wikiproject. It's their part of wikipedia to organise, so I'll side with them. Seems like all the material is already in other articles already. LinaMishima 14:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: it should be pointed out that Falcorian is also a member of the WikiProject. --Pak21 14:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NOT. Thε Halo ^Θ 16:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all relevant The Haunted Angel 11:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Nerdiness is not an independent grounds for deletion, and the article as written conveys interesting information about a notable topic. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
  • comment it is strongly worth noting that the WP:40K project wants to have the article deleted, as they have already organised this information themselves in a different manner - nothing will be lost LinaMishima 19:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply As a member, I do not think that has been fully agreed upon. --Falcorian ^(talk) 15:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as before. Wikipedia is not a place for plot synopses. --Pak21 08:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Removed: re-vote due to not understanding relisting procedure. --Pak21 12:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Most of the imformation is already contained in other articles (such as the Tyranid stuff, which relates directly to the Nids, and the Great Crusadek, which is a monumental event in the 40K universe), and whatever here that is original looks like it would be best used in other articles. Merge out and/or delete 24.147.252.241 23:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC) (aka Saberwyn)
• Delete. WP:NOT. Read it, then vote, not the other way around. Garrett^Talk 00:28, 2 September 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Sterling Walker

Similar to the ones above, but appears to be even less notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• can't see why the other ones survived AfD. Ohconfucius 04:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete On a Google search for the full name as a string, the top hit is to a Korean war casualty's directory entry. Review of the links on the first page that are about this fellow showed no evidence that he has been published by himself, only as a "new voice" in anthologies. No evidence of winning awards or of having a review about his work in specific. GRBerry 16:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete until he has an independent anthology of his own, or other sole publications, or wins a major award. Espresso Addict 21:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Ohconfucius 04:52, 26 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ICWA World Heavyweight Championship

Non notable wrestling championship with only one listing and no context - also up for deletion are ICWA Womens Championship and ICWA European Championship Lid 06:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Addition - I missed including ICWA Cruiserweight Championship. Adding to deletion list. --- Lid 06:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all three of them. TJ Spyke 22:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all. Should we throw in the main ICWA article as well? –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 18:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I woudl vote delete in ICWA as well. TJ Spyke 21:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't know which fed these related to but now that I do I nominate deletion of that as well. --- Lid 01:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all Non-notable championship -- bulletproof ^3:16 21:09, 26 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 per discussion as failing notability guidelines and WP:V. Shell ^babelfish 21:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intuitive Central

Doesn't meet WP:WEB, non-notable website with an alexa ranking of 1,400,000+, no reliable sources on this that I can find, so violates WP:V. Xyzzyplugh 05:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. per above. Vegaswikian 07:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• It seems pretty clear the site is now closed - see intuitivecentral.com - which would seem to torpedo what notability it had. Shimgray | talk | 10:38, 1 September 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] StorageByMail.com

Doesn't meet WP:WEB or WP:CORP. Google hits all link back to this wikipedia article, or to a PR piece which the company put out and which a few minor websites picked up. The website has no alexa ranking Xyzzyplugh 05:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and as per WP:V, WP:NN ST47 11:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Vegaswikian 07:30, 29 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Codeps

Doesn't meet WP:WEB. Non-notable website, no alexa ranking, no reliable sources on this so doesn't meet WP:V Xyzzyplugh 05:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and as per WP:NN ST47 11:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Won't somebody please think of the children? Its terrible, it has to go. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.180.24.50 (talk • contribs).

• It DOES show up on Alexa. It's the top 4 entries when you search for it. And unsigned needs to install web filters if they don't want their kids reading Wikipedia. If this article gets deleted, then you also need to delete other articles like Al-anon/alateen, AA, Coanon, etc. because they are also support groups. This group is NO less valid a group. Either that, or you need to merge all the support groups for addictions into one article. Madmumbler 15:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC) MadMumbler

• Correction, top FIVE entries -- I just went in today and typed in Codeps and the first 5 entries that come up are for the group (some are for the older version of it, but they are there).Madmumbler 15:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no Alexa rank (per this) is what was meant above. Apart from this, no evidence from reliable sources that this site meets WP:WEB. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:35, 25 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 Keep per notability discussion. Most of the media coverage is trivial, but traffic reports and subculture discussion in the Adbuster article seem to clearly establish notability.. Shell ^babelfish 21:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NikeTalk

This article about a Nike shoes collection discussion site survived a prior AfD as "no consensus" back in March (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NikeTalk), but since then has not been improved one bit, nor has the notability been shown further. It is still my belief that it is nothing more than spam and should be delete. --Nlu (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for now, unless secondary references are included that substantiate notability. Addhoc 11:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, good rewrite. Addhoc 11:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it, just like it should have been in the first place. Blood red sandman 12:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete again ST47 12:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it, just a bunch of spam. Thirdgen 17:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it. This is just plain petty. Scores of fan clubs enjoy uncontested Wikipedia entries.

Let's take a peek at an exemplary wikipedia fan club entry: [[32]] There's something odd about this one. This entry has no sources and doesn't even contain correct grammar, yet I don't see any deletion request. I don't see Nlu calling the entry's notability into question, and yet I can't imagine how THE DOYLE FAN CLUB has more members worldwide than www.niketalk.com. As I don't read any poorly dittoed fright rock "zines," I can't recall the last time THE DOYLE FAN CLUB has ever breached the mainstream media.

I could accept a style critique. The article, while constantly vandalized, was not well written to begin with, and I'm aware that this site's pedantic gatekeepers typically require that each entry be uniformly encoded in pretentious academic jargon - using as many cute latin phrases as possible so as to more accurately indulge the fantasy of actually participating in a real academic journal. If you want to condense this entry down to a banal recitation of verifiable facts regarding the site's traffic, history, and external mentions - go hog wild. We can all live with that.

What irks me is that this has, for whatever reason, become a personal crusade for a wikipedia administrator. Nlu, you really destroyed any shred of objectivity by continually railing against NikeTalk.com's "notability." How did this site require FURTHER proof of notability than VERIFIED mentions in Time, Newsweek, and the Wall Street Journal? The site's popularity may be verified simply by viewing the independently collected web stats. Since I doubt you've ever visited the site, let me give you a hand: [http://extremetracking.com/open?login=ntjordan ] Currently, the site receives between 70,000 and 90,000 unique visitors per day - and this is off peak. Over 4.6 million unique visitors viewed the site in January of this year alone. If that is not notable, you have a hell of a lot of entries to delete.

What's more, you've obviously attempted to narrow the scope of this debate in order to railroad this entry from wikipedia. You DELETED several "keep" votes - which in no way violated wikipedia standards - and then blocked all new and unregistered users from participating in this forum and prevented a TRUE public hearing. The NikeTalk entry has been vandalized on probably hundreds of occasions, and yet after ONE miscreant violates this topic you place it under security? Your motives here are transparent. I honestly can't imagine what your problem is with a harmless online community for sneaker fans sharing wikipedia space with millions of other articles, but you've clearly demonstrated a subjective bias against this entry. You've abused what little "power" you possess. And for what? To keep a sneaker message board from "contaminating" an encyclopedia that enshrines, among other things, warcraft mods and testicle cuffs? This is a resource that is, supposedly, open to the general public.

There is NO standard violated by this entry that has not been violated a thousand times over by entries you continue to allow. If this entry is spam, what of the entry for www.newegg.com? Does anyone really need a wikipedia entry to detail the history of a web store? If this entry is not notable, then what of The Doyle Fan Club or any of the thousands upon thousands of other equally obscure entries?

Look, wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia for the people. It's intended to include topics that stodgy "formal" encyclopedias wouldn't deign to include. www.niketalk.com is the largest online community for sneaker collectors in the world today. Whether that's important to you or not is utterly subjective - and your standards are SUPPOSED to be OBjective. The entry should exist for those all those who might seek it. If you can abide an entry for the Cinderella Stamp Club, (600 members) I'm sure there's a place for the world's largest community of sneaker fans.

Wikipedia users, I'm not asking you to LOVE this entry. I am asking you to be fair - and in this case most of the criticism levied against this entry has been inconsistent and superficial at best. --RakimAllah 03:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

For the records, I reverted to a pre-vandalism version because these anons/newly registered users removed valid delete votes and defaced the AfD discussion itself. See the history of the AfD. Since those votes would have been disregarded anyway (not only as vandalism but also as votes by users who were too new), there is no loss. --Nlu (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Still more hypocrisy from Nlu... First of all, unless you have IP records PROVING that all of those individuals were responsible for vandalizing the site you have NO basis for removing their valid "keep" votes. You have to admit, it all looks both petty and suspect to have cut off ALL "keep" votes and restored all "delete" votes. Altering or deleting votes makes a mockery of Wikipedia's "honor system" - and it appears you're every bit as guilty as those you consider "vandals" in this instance. Even though I clearly want the article kept, ultimately I respect the integrity of wikipedia enough to acknowledge and respect votes that go against my cause. You can't make the same claim - and you're an administrator. What does that say?

Simply because they are new users, you don't feel they have a say in the matter? MOST wikipedia users do NOT register for this site. Shouldn't all wikipedia viewers have a say? If an article is important to someone, shouldn't they be able to voice their opinions and contribute to the discussion? What you're attempting to accomplish is to limit this debate to those who have little to no understanding of the subject matter. Imagine if we put one of your prized articles on Chinese historical figures up for a deletion debate and allowed only Alabamian Klansmen to vote. Do you think they'd consider your subjects "notable?" You appear to have no respect for or understanding of the subject matter - and it's clearly biased your judgment.

Look at the quality of arguments tethered to these "delete" votes. How well supported are these sputtered fragments? "Spam" How so? If this is spam, you have thousands and thousands of other articles that would seemingly fit the same criteria. Wikipedia hosts hundreds of articles promoting businesses both online and off. Is it only spam if the author veils her or his bias behind third person objective? Not that it matters, but NikeTalk.com isn't even a business. All ad revenue above and beyond the site's hosting costs goes to various charities. It's a community that holds a unique position of influence within the sneaker industry, as indicated by all of those sources you fail to acknowledge. If someone can type "newegg" into your search engine and find an article that reads like a brochure, why is it that a sneaker fan cannot type in NikeTalk to find more information? If vandalism weren't such a pervasive problem here, perhaps there'd be a better core article for those interested to update. As it stands, the article can take one step forward and three steps back. Yet you clearly care more about the vandalism of your prized "delete" votes than the vandalism of actual CONTENT. How fair is it that people who have no real interest in this article, yet enjoy feeling as though they're really "editors" of something as ostensibly intellectual as an encyclopedia, are able to impose snap judgments in this space - yet those who actually care the most about the subject of this article are locked out because they had no reason to open an account in the past? Aren't they still wikipedia users? You're simply afraid of opening up the floor because you know that you'll never achieve a consensus delete under such conditions - so you JUMPED at the chance to manipulate the process to engineer your desired result. That's pathetic. You could've simply reinstated the lost "delete" votes, since you're following this so closely.

You have NO case with regard to notability - and you know that. How many other entries are asked to CONSTANTLY add new sources merely to prove their notability over and over again? The site was just mentioned in Time magazine in March. While the EASILY verifiable traffic and membership figures and previous mainstream media mentions should have been MORE than sufficient, the site has since been mentioned in the LA Times and Adbusters magazine. What more do you want? How is it that a stamp collectors club with 600 mentions is notable, but a community with over 50,000 members and 70,000+ regular visitors that has received international media attention is not? What, exactly, remains unproven about the site's notability? Have ezboard.com, extreme web tracking, Time magazine, Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal, the LA Times, the Washington Post, Adbusters, Details, Strength, etc. etc. ALL fallen for some "hoax" here? Visit the freaking site. ONCE. You'll find a community with 50,000 plus members - just as ALL of these sources claim. What more can you POSSIBLY ask for to demonstrate notability?

Compare the NikeTalk entry to other fan club entries. There are NO SOURCES in any number of unchallenged fan club entries - not ONE. There's no source to verify its content. You have XBox live "clans" with wikipedia articles for crying out loud. Go bully them. This article contains verifiable sources from some of the most respected mainstream periodicals in the world and that's suddenly not enough to "prove notability?" You have to acknowledge that you're being a little inconsistent here, to say the very least. While you may prefer starcraft mods, testicle cuffs, fright rock, and stamp collectors to sneakers - that's no reason to try and run a site off what should be a public resource. As with any encyclopedia, wikipedia ought to have the potential to BROADEN one's horizons a bit. Take advantage. It's not just about what interests YOU. --RakimAllah 08:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether those users were vandalizing or not is open to public judgment. I've posted the link to the history of the discussion. I don't think anyone can seriously dispute that they did vandalize this discussion. Your attacks on me just, I think, shows the lack of case for keep (at least prior to Pixelface's rewrite). Even after Pixelface's rewrite, however, I believe this is still a spam magnet.

As for the strawman argument of "but there are other articles more deserving of deletion!" it should be noted that you can propose articles for deletion, too, and if you think that those other articles don't belong, propose to delete them. --Nlu (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

LACK of a case? That's rich. I've posted an actual defense for this entry. You've posted nothing more than a bunch of empty claims. You CLAIM the site is spam, but you make NO argument for it. You CLAIM the site isn't notable, but you make NO argument for it. Have you REALLY passed the bar? For crying out loud, since when has "because I said so" been a valid argument? For the sake of novelty, try to make a point here.