Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 26

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Samir धर्म 06:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logduz

This is non-notable. There are thousands of small villages in Russia, and most of them are historically or georgaphically insignificant. --GoOdCoNtEnT 23:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - per nom --GoOdCoNtEnT 23:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Question Why is this deletion proposal in both the August 20th and August 26th lists (and at the top as well)? -- ArglebargleIV 00:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - it was an accident. --GoOdCoNtEnT 00:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Named places, including villages, are normally considered notable. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Physical town, just happens to be in Russia. (There are thousands of small towns in the United States too) Unless reasoning for it being a hoax, I see no reason not to keep it. Kevin_b_er 03:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's notable. If this article were to be deleted, what of articles like Euljiro 3-ga Station? Definitely keep. — † Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 03:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment While I agree with keep, notability for subway stations is different than notability for small villages, and thus can't be compared. ColourBurst 05:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Definately notable. Bradcis 04:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep In the small county where I live, even Census Designated Places have their own entries in WP. Why not the rest of the world? Seaphoto 04:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep—What's acceptable for 1st world countries should be acceptable for 2nd world countries. Williamborg (Bill) 04:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Second world became an outdated term after the fall of the Soviet Union. Now, nations are reffered to as developed and developing. Russia is a developed nation. --GoOdCoNtEnT 05:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, all real places, tiny or huge, are notable. Not only we should include 1st world nations, but even developing and third world nations. That's the beauty of an online encyclopedia. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 05:01, 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. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MyNCRE (My No Commission Real Estate)

You don't have to be a pirate to find real estate treasure!

Delete. Advertisement for company that does not meet WP:CORP. Twenty-five unique Google hits for the term "MyNCRE". ... discospinster _talk 00:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 00:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. Irongargoyle 00:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, 100% advertising for nonnotable business. NawlinWiki 00:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails CORP. SynergeticMaggot 00:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As per all of the above. Tarret 00:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Another Wikipedia abuse as an advert. As above, also fails WP:CORP and is a small-area business. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 00:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per well written nom. This discussion needs a pirate -- Samir धर्म 01:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as soon as possible. Aplomado ^talk 01:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advert.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, poorly written, does not meet WP:CORP and not suitable for Wikipedia. Cedars 04:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete after I tried to put a PROD tag on a recreation of this at a slightly different name only to find that User:Zoe had speedied it before I could even go to let the author know what I was doing. Quick work, that. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Allow me to state the reasons why this article should be deleted.

  Firstly, this company has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.

  Secondly, this company is not listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications.

  Thirdly, the article is very poorly written as well.

All these reasons stated clearly shows that this article does not meet WP:CORP. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:11, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  18:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BubbleTALK

Contested prod. Bacon, eggs and adspam. Opabinia regalis 00:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. You forgot toast and jam. SynergeticMaggot 00:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ♥ FaerieInGrey 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete — The product/innovation is actually intriguing, yet the article author went about it wrong and has created an adspam. However, BubbleMotion, the company that created this service, might just be able to hold up on its own (barring advertspam) with mention of this in it. Just my $0.02 -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 00:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• "where people can send voice as a message instead of text." Isn't that a phone? Regardless, delete as adspam. It shows scant Google hits anyway, and being innovative is not the same as being notable. Aplomado ^talk 01:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - the article itself is poorly written, probably by a non-native English speaker, but subject of the article has been written about by a mjor cell phone manufacturer Ercisson and made it on to Engadget with only a little bit of research. -- Whpq 03:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Week Delete - semi-Notable subject, badly written, but not that notable. --andrew 04:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Please allow me to point out to you that there is no official policy on notability. Please view WP:N. However, I agree with you that this article is badly written. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable product, albeit "innovative". It's easier to use than voice mail, and yes, at least one Singaporean cellular service provider provides it as an extra (not sure whether they still do, that was last year when I heard of their launching this service). Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 11:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. teh adspam --W guice 16:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete lacks verification in article and reads like WP:SPAM.-- danntm ^T _C 17:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam that doesn't even bother to explain the difference between this and leaving a message direst to voicemail (a long established service). Nuttah68 20:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Congratulations, you've invented the walkie talkie. --Xrblsnggt 02:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 05:20, 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 and redirect to Etagnières.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  18:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etagniéres

Hoax I think. More substantiation in the article's talk page. studerby 00:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I can't find anything on Google that speciffically relates to this other than this article. Tarret 00:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and add Comte d'Orange et Etagniéres to the nomination, more of the same hoax from the same author. Fan-1967 00:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if rewritten. The talk page makes it clear that there is a real Etagniéres - as such, that is what this article should be about. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that the article you are reffering to would be found at Etagnières. Tarret 00:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoops - well spotted. I was going by what was written in the talk page and didn't notice the mistake. In that case, a redirect without any merging seems in order. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — The only search engine hits for this subject are cyclical to this and the Comte d'Orange et Etagniéres page. Again, as with Comte AfD, unless proper WP:RS can be found, this is not verifiable. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 00:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no sources provided, and nothing has tuyrned up that appears to meet WP:V -- Whpq 03:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Etagnières (note the direction of the accent). Karol 08:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Etagnières as likely mis-spelling --W guice 16:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect as above. Nuttah68 20:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Etagnières—good catch on the spelling—integrate verifiable material from this article. Williamborg (Bill) 05:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge nothing from this hoaxish source, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comte d'Orange et Etagniéres. Sandstein 17:52, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  18:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comte d'Orange et Etagniéres

Apparent hoax See the articles talk page for more reasoning. studerby 00:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete For same reasons as in Etagniéres. Tarret 00:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — After reading the talk page and article, I researched the term. There were zero hits across the search engine board. Unless adequate WP:RS are shown, I have to vote delete based on it not being verifiable. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 00:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Kinda sounds like "Count of Orange and Tangerines"? Danny Lilithborne 01:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Without question a hoax. Aplomado ^talk 01:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no sources, and no WP:V -- Whpq 03:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Without question a hoax, no sources. --Barnaul 14:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A hoax - check edit history of author Seaphoto 19:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 05:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per above. Incidentally, Switzerland and the Swiss cantons have always been republics. Consequently, there have never been any "accepted titles of nobility in Switzerland" that I know of, even though the ruling families in some of the ancien régime cantons before the Napoleonic invasion were de facto nobility. Sandstein 17:49, 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 Teke^(talk) 18:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CANICAS TEQUILA and Canicas

^{[Check Google hits]}; 6 of them, so it's hard to say this is a notable product... this is nonetheless a formatting nightmare, and I was almost about to tag it as nonsense. Delete (|-- UlTiMuS 00:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Identical article under the name of Canicas--Wafulz 01:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  So nominated. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — Searching both for the Beverage Tasting Institute and Canicas yields no results of merit, so I am calling shenanigans of product pushing unless WP:RS can verify medals won and how it is "super premium". -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 01:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The brand is actually "Tequila Canicas" which has an identical article (Canicas). The Institute does exist, but the brand is not notable enough to merit an article anyway- even its own "In the press" section is largely ads and trivial mentions. Also, the Institute's website has no results for both "canica" and "canicas". --Wafulz 01:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 03:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom it is a formating nightmare Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 04:18, 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. 1ne 22:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Great Kathmandu

Advertisement. Would have WP:PROD'd but this article has a previous AfD closed as delete here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Kathmandu. The new article has references and pictures, but I don't think this qualifies as a notable eatery -- Samir धर्म 00:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Nomination withdrawn. Article has expanded and, despite the socks, there is assertion of notability that may be substantiated by more information forthcoming from the original author. I'll work on the article with the original author, and if it's still insufficient, I'll re-nominate -- Samir धर्म 12:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Have to disagree with Samir. It certainly is not an ad. the user who created must think it is important and notable. But to me, an Indian restaurant is non notable. --Ageo020 01:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete still not notable, and fails under WP:CORP and WP:V --Wafulz 01:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• KeepWeak Keep 500 google hits and the newspaper award make a fair (although not great) case for notability. I don't see how it fails WP:V. Weak on the WP:CORP count, but it's not spam. Irongargoyle 01:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment where is the WP:CORP in the article? "Winner of the Observer Reader's best Indian restaurant in the UK 2000" does not qualify as multiple non-trivial works published -- Samir धर्म 01:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The Observer has been in circulation since 1791 and was the worlds first Sunday Newspaper so I regard its opinions very highly. Recent modifications should bring this articals WP:CORP up to speed. Harbourcoat 03:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
      • A readers choice poll in any newspaper does not make a restaurant notable. Wikpedia is not a place for people to advertise restaurants. -- Samir धर्म 05:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, just not notable enough. Aplomado ^talk 01:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I feel it meets the WP:CORP and WP:V guidelines. I live in didsbury and know of this establishment. I will see if I can dig up some stuff to add to the page. JasonNox 01:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, first edit ever is to this AfD -- Samir धर्म 01:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think that it will add some more culture to Wikipedia That cant be a bad thing. Ageo020 you comment about the restaurant is not correct I think it is an Nepalese business. I will wait and see what Jason adds to the artical. SmegTronic 01:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment second edit ever is to this AfD. It must be laundry day -- Samir धर्म 01:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - reader's choice awards are a complete hodgepodge and means very little. Something a bit more substantial than that will be needed. -- Whpq 03:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete... listed on several dining websites and winning a reader's choice award adds up to "so what?" as a majority of restaurants can probably make that claim. No evidence that WP:CORP is met. WP:NOT Zagat's Guide or the Yellow Pages. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete i've seen fast food restaurants make flyers more substantial than this article --W guice 16:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The award is from the Observer, a leading national Sunday newspaper in the UK, not a local newspaper different place each week thing. Nuttah68 20:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Nuttah68. Daniel's page ☎ 01:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It should stay I feel. I would love for JasonNox to add some more information to it Harbourcoat 03:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I think it meets WP:CORP and living in didsbury I know how important this establishment is in the North West. Feel some people are on a power trip to shut down anything that is non-conformist to there personal views. The Great Kathmandu is here to stay and I will be adding verious other important articals for my fellow residents of Didsbury and the North West of England. Afterall, wikipedia is international right? MujiKha 19:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment editor's first day and 10th contrib -- Samir धर्म 05:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment There is alot of information about the business on the site now and if you ask most people in the north west about the Great Kathmandu they will tell you of its importance. The detail contained with in is no different to most of the establishments listed on wikipedia and I for one have not heard of some of them either and feel they have less importance then this artical. if you check google the Great Kathmandu has over 900 hits and is one of the first to come up when you type nepalese and Didsbury. The fact that people have logged on just to comment about this deletion shows that they care enough about this artical. I have informed people at the AGM of the Yeti Assoc. The Yeti Assoc is a organisation that tries to promote Nepalese culture in the UK and the world. Expect to see more information added to the artical by its members and suporters. More Nepalese related articals will follow. Harbourcoat 11:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable, unsourced, advertised, drivel.-Kmaguir1 06:09, 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 speedy delete.--Andeh 09:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Larry Totter

^{[Check Google hits]}; about 2C, but only maybe 3 are relevant. Non-notable fancruft. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete reads like nonsense. The last line is "Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox" and if that's true then it's a test page and should have stayed there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not as notable as Barry Trotter or Tanya Grotter. --Ageo020 01:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails under proposed criteria for WP:BK and criteria in WP:V. Zero relevant google hits, no mentions in the news. --Wafulz 01:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fanfic at best. -- Whpq 03:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I've heard of this before, but if every fanfic got it's article, it would be- ugh. Nevermind. Just delete. --andrew 04:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - CSD G2. Tagged as such. MER-C 05:40, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  18:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dumbass productions, Alan Farrey, Dumbass: The Movie

^{[Check Google hits]} about 500. almost all of which are google video/myspace/angelfire/ other nonsense. Delete because it would be impossible to find reliable third-party sources, as well as failing WP:CORP (|-- UlTiMuS 01:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Added Alan Farrey and Dumbass: The Movie to this nom as they are all related NN junk, all of which get only blog/mirror hits. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hi, I understand your concern. May I just clear one thing up, though, Dumbass Productions is not a jackass copycat group of people, if anything it's the antithesis of it. Real films are made by these guys and have been released, admittedly in small numbers, in Co. Leitrim. I really understand your concern and I hope we can find some sort of middleground. Wikipedia is a huge resource of information and I think we can find something we both agree on. Jiei 01:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Also! I know for a fact that the company is undergoing a name change to dispel the very associations which are the basis for you wanting to delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jiei (talk • contribs) .
• Perhaps it would be wise if you read WP:V and WP:CORP so we're both on the same level about what is and isn't acceptable Wikipedia content. And I am not nominating this article because of the title, since that is not a valid deletion criterion. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The reason for deletion is no "Jackass copyism," but rather that the company and its products and staff are not notable enough for Wikipedia at this time. They do not meet criteria set out under WP:CORP or WP:BIO, and are also not verifiable. --Wafulz 01:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Who is to judge what is notable enough? There are very loose definitions and it's impossible to say! I can understand why some of what you say may breach various policies and guidelines but at the same time I feel it's far more notable than some stuff listed on Wikipedia. I shan't argue the deletion of Alan Farrey and Dumbass: The Movie but I request that Dumbass: Productions remains. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jiel (talk • contribs) .

• Who is to judge? The community. Which is what we are doing right here. And basically, what you're saying is: Don't delete, because there is much worse crap hanging around. And if that's the case, please help us and nominate that other stuff for deletion as well. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete all. I seriously doubt any of them will remain, Jiel. You give us no reason to care about the subject of the articles or say to ourselves, "Yes, this is worthy of an encyclopedia article." The best you've given us is a movie that won a monthly award from a random website. You've got to do better than that or the article is going to be removed. Aplomado ^talk 01:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

1. The reason for deletion of the original article is biased because of the connotations of the name, as shown by references to its ambiguity and the quality of similarly named "sites".

2. You do not need to care about it. This article is not relevant to you. I mean "random website" proves it - it's the biggest national Irish teen website. It is worthy of an encyclopedia article because Wikipedia is universal, international site and the article is relevant to a lot of people. This is the problem. It is not relevant to you, therefore you don't care and you have the power to delete it (or to request its deletion ;) ) Jiei 01:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• If the site is relevant to a lot of people, you need to show this. I don't need to care, but someone does, and you haven't proven this. We're not just going to take your word for it. Aplomado ^talk 01:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • How can I prove it? Seriously? Discrimination. Jiei 01:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Check out WP:Verifiability and WP:CITE, and especially WP:CORP. Aplomado ^talk 01:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Don't spout that rubbish. You think I haven't read such guidelines. You read them. I'm not going to convince you because you're prejudiced, most probably American and I don't care anymore. Jiei 02:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm just trying to help. Aplomado ^talk 02:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the lot, speedy A7 Alan Farrey, and stop being such a dumbass, Jiei -- Samir धर्म 02:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I hate the fact that one prejudiced guy can dispute this, and others can simply agree and that's that. Delete away with Farry and the movie, I really shouldn't have uploaded them, but deleting the company would be wrong. Aside from that, your dismissal of SpunOut is really hurtful! I hate that mentality. It's a huge website. What, it's not american? :|
    • I'm sure SpunOut is as popular as you say, but if we start giving out articles to everyone who wins a monthly award from the myriads of teen websites on the internet, Wikimedia is going to run out of disk space.
    • Wikipedia is about building consensus. We're not all out to get you. We don't think the article is notable enough, having been given little reason to think it is. To quote WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Don't take it personally. Aplomado ^talk 02:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and let's not get too touchy here. Crystallina 03:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all -- fails to meet WP:CORP, and WP:V -- Whpq 03:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per WP:V; company fails WP:CORP, individual fails WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Total Dumbasses. --Xrblsnggt 02:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Some stunts in Jackass suck poop; but this article sucks more poop. --Nintendude ^message 00:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - "Alan Farrey" gives 3 google hits, and 2 of them are wikipedia. Not notable in the slightest -Ladybirdintheuk 09:06, 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 speedy delete. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PromptPM

^{[Check Google hits]}, only 3. Fails WP:SOFTWARE, and probably WP:SPAM. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.--Andeh 01:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• "The PromptPM system is a web based Project Control, Organization and Management Toolset that allows all the project stakeholders to come to a unified application platform in order to maximize the returns on a project." Titillating. Delete. Aplomado ^talk 01:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:SPAM - the features are a complete cut and paste off the company web site. -- Whpq 03:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - CSD A8. Tagged as such. MER-C 09:10, 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 & Major Clean up.--Andeh 14:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Characters in Super Smash Bros. Melee

• Delete, the first half of the article is just a list of characters and their symbols, I've added their names to Image:SSBM-SelectScreen.png. The second part is game guide'ish explaining the characters attacks/special powers etc/moves how to do them etc - ". Falco's Up+B and Forward+B attacks aren't as long-ranged as Fox's". Suppose it's also fan-cruft. Not really an enyclopedic article, which is why I've nominated it. Andeh 22:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Good luck dealing with the shitstorm that accompanies all game-related AfDs. Aplomado ^talk 01:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment And I so do wonder why people vote keep. Hmm, might be because most of the delete voters know nothing about the subject matter? Havok (T/C/c) 13:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep w/ cleanup. Even though Wikipedia is not a game guide, SSBM is one of the best-selling GameCube games and ranks in the top 10 on NP charts even after 4 years. It most likely is a Players' Choice title, too. The guidecruft needs to go, however, and should be made into prose. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 01:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  If the game-guide content goes, then it's just a list of characters/symbols and some descriptions of the minor characters.--Andeh 01:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete A list of the playable characters on the main SSB:M page should suffice. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 01:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The SSBM page doesn't actually have a list of playable characters, so that will have to be added in. ColourBurst 03:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment That's what I meant. Move the character list back to the main article. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 03:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I split this page off long ago with the exact intent of getting the cruft off the main SSBM page. Nifboy 03:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Nifboy 03:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Once you take out the cruft, there's not enough left to justify a separate article. Ace of Sevens 04:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and move the list of the playable characters back into the main article. BryanG^(talk) 04:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Clean-up, maybe make it an article covering both SSBM and SSB so it's something like ""Characters from the Super Smash Bros. series". TJ Spyke 07:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or smerge to Super Smash Bros. Melee: the only arguably encyclopedic information here is the actual character list, which could usefully be placed in the game article (which currently has more information about characters that didn't appear in the game than characters that did!). The characters themselves, all being be famous Nintendo characters or cameos from other games, should already all have their own articles or be described in the articles from their respective games, so there's absolutely no point having yet another article about them that will just end up being filled with random trivia and redundant information. — Haeleth Talk 10:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: A list of characters being spun off from an article on a popular beat em up is not unreasonable, but this list fails completely, concentrating on trivia such as alternative colour schemes, logos, redundant information ('Mario from the Mario series') and cameos from minor characters.--Nydas 15:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean-up, as said by TJ Spyke. Rename as "Characters from the Super Smash Bros. series." Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 15:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep and cleanup My reasons? This is a popular game, the characters are important to the game, and I can't forsee any chance of merging it into the main article. AdamBiswanger1 16:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Cleanup As far as I know, all these characters are already present in other games. The main article needs a list of playable characters and the guidecruft needs to go. This would make it concise enough to go back in the main article. Quendus 16:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment More or less what Haeleth said, actually. Quendus 16:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nomination --Mecanismo | Talk 16:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Trim down and Merge with Super Smash Brothers Melee. The character list is essential information and belongs on the parent page in the first place. (It's far more important than the hoaxes or the debug menu, IMHO). Zagalejo 17:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Nominator comment, it appears the main reason to keep is that it's a popular game. But does that mean it can have a game guide and other fan-cruft? Is it a ground-breaking or historical game? I agree with the major clean up and merge with Super Smash Bros. Melee, the characters from Super Smash Bros. are in the main article, surely this could be too.--Andeh 17:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • According to our article List of best-selling computer and video games, SSBM is the best-selling game of all time on the GameCube, which I'd say gives it historical significance as video games go. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean-up Edgecution 21:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up per above. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 01:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Truncate and Merge There is an immense amount of information here that does not belong in an encyclopedic article (e.g. the degree of severity of Link's Up+B attack). There is a significant amount written in long-list style when a comma-separated list would do (like the #Characters symbols section). It seems like there is also quite a bit of original research (e.g. Tingle: A merry fairy wannabe character...). When all of this stuff is cut out, the rest should be merged into Super Smash Bros. Melee (as there shouldn't be too much left). -- tariqabjotu 03:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The characters were originally moved out as they were taking up too much space in the SSBM article. I suppose I'll go for merge them back in and remove all the stupid cruft. Hbdragon88 05:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per. above. Havok (T/C/c) 13:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Nominator comment, OK, I'm all for mass clean up.--Andeh 18:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Needs a little cleanup though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:12, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  18:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RuneScape: Stronghold of Security

pointless content and unencyclopedic Ed^{talk c E} 01:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete, it's a guide to a game, merge with a guide at GameFAQs.com. Made by new user Dudemangm18 (talk • contribs • count) probably not aware of policies/guidelines at time of creation.--Andeh 01:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete as a blatant violation of WP:NOT. Not to mention that this article is being eaten alive by templates. I feel like adding another one for good measure. Aplomado ^talk 01:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Dude, there are more templates than content!!!--Ed^{talk c E} 02:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, yet more evidence that Wikipedia is turning into the RuneScape FAQ. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of game information. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. What's with Runescape fans and clogging up Wikipedia with guides on how to reach the Mystical Fortified Secure Stronghold of Fairy Gold Dust? Anyway, fails WP:NOT in that we are not an indiscriminate compilation of information. --Wafulz 06:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Not even worth merging as it already has a paragraph in RS Mini games. Ace of Risk 14:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete as Runescapecruft. Until every more-notable MMORPG has as many articles as Runescape appears to be getting, Runescape's cruft articles should be deleted. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 01:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh please don't give them any ideas. Aplomado ^talk 06:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Dark Shikari. —Khoikhoi 05:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. RFerreira 06:58, 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.--Andeh 09:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buda Dangol

Non-notable actor/musician. From the musician standpoint, fails WP:NMG. From the actor standpoint, there are no verifiable citations that he was in any films (including Nepalese films) and IMDB does not list him [1]. -- Samir धर्म 01:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as vanity. Aplomado ^talk 01:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:VAIN, and no sources for WP:V. Note that there may be a little bit spamming going on in that The Great Kathmandu which happens to be up on AFD is mentioned twice int his article. -- Whpq 03:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 05:37, 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  18:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yu-Gi-Oh! ETC

^{[Check Google hits]} basically one unique hit, the site itself, and the rest are irrelevant. Failing WP:WEB and WP:V since the only real source is the site itself. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. For future reference, I would prod pages about non-notable websites like these. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 01:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• I know, but check the username: YugiohETC (talk • contribs). In my experience, someone that goes out of the way to make an account for spamming a site won't hesitate to wipe away prods. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Buy an ad. Aplomado ^talk 01:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• I play Delete in attack mode. Danny Lilithborne 02:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 03:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, WP:SPAM, apparently not even notable in the Yu-Gi-Oh! fanverse. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, as per above. --Reaper X 18:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Nuttah68 20:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete —Khoikhoi 05:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a billboard. --physicq210 05:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete what an unnoteable website! - Blood red sandman 15:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete sorry, this was kind of a trial thing. I would like if someone could inform me more about this though, as I wanted to make one for ETC like Pojo has one. could someone inform me what I should follow, as I'm new to Wikipedia.! - User:YugiohETC 12:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete To answer User:YugiohETC's question, we do not put articles up for Web pages such as the one in the said article. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 18:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• EXTREME delete as this website sucks poop. --Nintendude ^message 00:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -Ladybirdintheuk 10:48, 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 Keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  18:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time 106.8

Is this A7? TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 01:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, no, I do not think so. Generally, radio stations are notable. I haven't seen one that wasn't. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• ^{[Check Google hits]} is a bit disappointing, but most of them are completely unique. Against A3 deletion because there is room for expansion. (|-- UlTiMuS 02:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Well, feel free to add content then, but db-empty is db-empty. Aplomado ^talk 02:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. It looks like A3 to me. Aplomado ^talk 01:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete now that it actually has content. I don't think the simple existence of a radio station warrants an article, however, and this article really doesn't assert any notability. Aplomado ^talk 17:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - some content there now (although it could have been A3 before, it was never A7 as that applies only to people and groups). Yomangani^talk 11:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - There are plenty of radio stations on here, right? StevenBao ^(talk) 16:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, consensus appears that radio staions are notable. Nuttah68 20:23, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  18:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Texags.com

WP:NN, WP:SPAM, WP:WEB. BBtec 02:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for all the above -- Whpq 03:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:WEB. Reads like semicoherent WP:SPAM. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Valrith 11:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Mecanismo | Talk 16:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nuttah68 20:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Put down the beer bong and do some homework. --Xrblsnggt 02:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 05:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete totally useless to the project - Burn It - Blood red sandman 14:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete obviously, as incoherent nonsense, although it should be noted that (1) the claim about being the first to expose the Bomar thing is actually true - it was published on TexAgs.com 8 months ago and (2) TexAgs.com is very well known in the college football community and this deletion should be without prejudice. A well-written and sourced article on TexAgs.com would be very much appropriate. BigDT 19:05, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  18:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medrad Inc.

WP:SPAM, WP:CORP, WP:NN. BBtec 02:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I think this is probably spam, but that is a NPOV issue which should generally not be brought to AFD. I think it passes WP:CORP fairly well with 7 instances of independent coverage on news.google.com. There are 60,000 Google hits as well. I think the claims of inventions bear some particular investigation, it would be nice to see them well-sourced. There are a number of lawsuits out there concerning the company too. Irongargoyle 14:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Agree on above, expansion needed. StevenBao ^(talk) 16:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep—Sufficient notability. Williamborg (Bill) 05:08, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  18:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Howard Grubb, Parsons and Co. Ltd.

nn company. BBtec 02:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This company was a very important manufacturer of telescopes. They designed and built the optics for several of the major telescopes around the world currently in use - see the article. The article is a stubb at present as I only just added it . The company sponsored lectures at Durham University [2] (haven't had a chance to add that yet) and there are some great images that can be added when I figure out if they are allowed [3]. I'm sure this article is nn to non astronomers but I assure you that there are few in the astronomy world who will not have heard of them. Sophia 12:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I should also add that there were references to this company in other articles (one a red link) before I created it. Sophia 12:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This link also shows that it is common for telescopes to be referred to by their size and manufacturer [4]. Sophia 13:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and rename Grubb Parsons, which was apparently its common name. -- Necrothesp 14:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment There is already a redirect for this. Sophia 21:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, leaders in their field of expertise. Nuttah68 20:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. studerby 22:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Gaius Cornelius 17:44, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Istegercekler.com

nn website, spam. BBtec 02:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy speedy delete copyvio and not english, so tagged.--Andeh 02:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no alexa data [5], minimal g-hits. So nn.--Andeh 04:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment not copyvio, cited website [6] is a wiki. -- Samir धर्म 03:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Seconded. Aplomado ^talk 02:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Andeh -- Samir धर्म 08:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Mecanismo | Talk 16:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Deeleete zee fureeegn lungooege erteecle. --Xrblsnggt 02:30, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IWebsphere Corporation

nn company, Google7hits. BBtec 02:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. More like 63 hits, but this still fails WP:CORP and WP:V. Irongargoyle 14:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Mecanismo | Talk 16:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 05:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --Improv 14:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Blatant self-promotion.

And whilst we're on the subject, Fahd_Mairaj_Alvi seems to have the same problems. Yandman 14:04, 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 Keep. Zsinj^Talk 00:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delta Broadcasting System, Inc.

nn company, google 0hits. BBtec 02:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• If your Google search turned up zero results then it was wrong. Mine turned up pages such as this, this, and this. Uncle G 15:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep, concensus says TV stations are notable by the fact they exist. Nuttah68 20:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but revise the whole article. Danngarcia 03:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, registered TV stations are notable. Mukadderat 17:00, 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 Keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flooz.com

spam. BBtec 02:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm not sure how this could be spam, since it's a defunct company. Flooz.com was a competitor to PayPal and all the other online panyment companies in the late 90's when The Internet ws expected to reinvent currency. -- Mikeblas 02:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable and with a number of instances of verifiable independent coverage (for example, see here). Irongargoyle 04:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Important part of the history of the dot com bust and has independent coverage. ColourBurst 13:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I have to agree with the other nominators. Flooz was right there at the beginning when they were starting to talk about micropayments as a legitimate internet commerce model. It ended up driving a lot of the discussion, as I remember. I think this article could use some attention by an expert in the subject, which I am not. Captainktainer * Talk 18:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per others, and there certianly is enough published on it such as [7], [8] and [9] found without even trying hard. Certainly passes WP:CORP -- Whpq 19:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 9 references at wired.com alone. studerby 23:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as above. Gazpacho 21:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mikeblas. Spam is an interesting descriptor for a defunct company. RFerreira 06:57, 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 A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Sroka

Fails WP:V, no sources for Tom Sroka. Only IMDB link for the movie 1861 was a movie made in 1911. Scottmsg 02:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A7, and tagged as such. Aplomado ^talk 02:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This guy is real. I watched his movie at a film festival two weeks ago.

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

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

The result was request made at WP:PNT, if no response in 2 weeks, relist -- Samir धर्म 02:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foon yew high school, Foon Yew High School

Nonsense CSD removed twice already, hoping for a speedy here. (|-- UlTiMuS 02:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment will list at WP:PNT; here is Babelfish's attempt: [10]. Usually wait 2/52 until deletion -- Samir धर्म 02:50, 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 and redirect to Daiko Group per later discussion. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daitec

nn companies. BBtec 02:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The article makes little claim of notability, and I couldn't find anything on Google that would help it pas WP:CORP. -- Kicking222 11:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete shameless spam on obscure company --Mecanismo | Talk 16:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Undecided, Daitec as a small division may not deserve an article. However, Daiko, the parent company, does not appear to have an article. Daiko is a multinational, multifunctional Japanese company. Nuttah68 20:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect into Daiko Group, the parent company. There's enough information for a decent section, but not an entire article. Daitec's site says they bring in ¥55 million annually (about $470,145USD as of today), so they really aren't that huge of a company. Not small, either, but not huge. They do appear to be the largest of the subsidiary groups, though. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete.NN.-Kmaguir1 06:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep please until article for daiko group can be created the companies are important by wikipedia standard Yuckfoo 00:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete.Move to Daiko Group and edit a little to make a stub. Alone it is not notable enough. Mukadderat 17:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I create the Daiko Group page, and added the info from the Daitec page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Mwerge per Nihonjoe. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 00:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Daiko Group. Zaxem 05:56, 3 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South Pacific Division of Seventh-day Adventists

• Delete. Not a notable church group at all, No notability asserted. It is regional grouping. Does not seem to pass WP:ORG, which specifically excludes "Individual chapters of national and international organizations". Ohconfucius 02:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Seventh-day Adventists unless article can be expanded by using material from reliable sources. As the only media reference from the South Pacific I could find was an item from the Post-Courier in PNG titled Business Session, that task is not looking promising. Capitalistroadster 03:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ohconfusius.-gadfium 03:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Mecanismo | Talk 16:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:ORG -- Whpq 19:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists links to many similar pages with content, so, hopefully, someone could also add to this one.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because it is no more than a definition of the group. When there is something verified to say about the group it will be time to have an article. GRBerry 04:57, 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 speedy delete WP:CSD#A7 -- Samir धर्म 02:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linda Hu

nn bio. BBtec 02:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, for obvious reasons. If there's any userfying to be done, so be it. SliceNYC 02:27, 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. No thanks to vanity press, publishing a book no longer counts as an assertion of notability. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeffry R. Palmer

^{[Check Google hits]} about 500. I would have CSD'd, but he is an author of some fad books or something that may be somehow notable. Nonetheless, looks like a failure of WP:BIO to me. (|-- UlTiMuS 02:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 08:57, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GamerCast

spam BBtec 02:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I can't figure out if this is gamercast.org or gamercast.net, but both of them have no alexa ranking. --Xyzzyplugh 02:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Like Xyzzy, I'm not sure which site this is an ad for, but the 68 unique G-hits for "GamerCast" don't help the cause of either. -- Kicking222 11:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. shameless spam on obsure company --Mecanismo | Talk 16:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above -- Whpq 19:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 05:22, 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 speedy delete under A8 The JPS^{talk to me} 11:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maxim Hot 100 2005 List

Non-notable annual magazine list. It's probably a copyvio to reproduce the whole list. PROD tag placed last week was removed without comment. Mikeblas 02:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - we don't need to create lists which are an exact copy of a single issue list from some magazine. -- Whpq 03:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, copyvio of intellectual property. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - CSD A8. Tagged as such.MER-C 10:28, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tiffany Williamson

Non Notable person Cardigan3000 02:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep qualified for the 2005 World Series of Poker (WSOP) in the Gutshot Card Club and went on to finish in 15th place, earning $400,000 and 16,200 ghits ^{[Check Google hits]}. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete that's nice and all, but do we need articles for 15th-place finishers in every category of every competition we have an article about? Opabinia regalis 04:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Clearly notable by any measure, more successful than thousands in the same profession. Also, three word nominations are a rude waste of other people's time. 2005 04:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Ultimus and 2005. The subject of much poker discussion. Essexmutant 07:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Poker being a game with a strong element of luck , one reasonably strong performance, based almost entirely, it would appear on luck does not mean she is more succesful than thousands of players. Hers is as far as i know the only poker entrance in this encyclopedia based on only one performance that didnt involve victory. The precedent here is if she merits an inclusion then clearly every one from this and next years WSOP Main Event 1-15 should be included, which is farcical.Further, those who finished 4th ,6th 7th and 8th in the same competition don't have their own entry.Cardigan3000 07:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please note that skill is not a requirement for someone to have an article. Whether Williamson is a good player or a bad one should not affect the decision on whether the article exists or not. Furthermore, the TV highlights that showed her in a poor light only represent a fraction of the total hands played, and it would therefore be inaccurate to base her entire playing ability on that appearance, particularly as she has coped admirably in other TV events she has appeared in. Essexmutant 07:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Skill may or not be required by to confirm notability, however the only notable thing about her is her performance in a competitive pursuit. There are several sites that explain in detail her poor play, in fact several unfathomably bad plays which may have removed her from the tournament before her relatively unremarkable 15th place. The only other reference to her poker play is a 1st place in a 6 player table of speed poker (heat1, she finished last in the semi final) , which is about as low grade of a victory as you can have, her profit from the tournament was 500 pounds. So there are no TV events according to the Hendon Mob database apart from this. The only thing notable about her is her result in one competition, and that is a 15th place.Cardigan3000 09:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Let's be clear here: skill is not required to confirm notability. Essexmutant 09:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
      • See William Hung. She could be the worst player ever, and it wouldn't be relevant here. She did something that got here featured in major print and broadcast media all over the world for an extended period of time. 2005 20:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Now, let's make this clear: I'm a huge poker fan. We're talking hardcore. We're talking playing in biweekly games and watching it on TV whenever possible. With that said, Williamson is- in my opinion- barely notable enough for WP. As stated above, she came in 15th (and was also the highest finishing woman), but that really doesn't confirm notability. Yes, the competition had 5,619 players, so coming in 15th is amazing, but it's not as if she was top three. So I was going to argue deletion until I thought of the criteria for sportspeople, one of which is playing at the highest professional level of one's sport. Even if it was only for a week, and Williamson never does anything spectacular in poker ever again (which, after watching the WSOP many times, wouldn't shock me), she still played at the absolute highest level of poker. As a result, I've decided that the article is worth keeping, but only by a hair. -- Kicking222 11:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• That convinces me. Weak keep as per Kicking222. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:49, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Batchmates.com

Fails WP:WEB and was created by the user Batchmates1, which suggests a vanity page. Crystallina 02:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. There are 54 unique sites that link to it, but most of them are within Batchmates.com itself. --Wafulz 06:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Valrith 11:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Vanity and non-notable. AdamBiswanger1 16:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Mecanismo | Talk 16:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 19:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete . —Khoikhoi 05:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is kinda a small website; however Eharmony and Match.com suck more poop; and so does Dr. Neil Clark Warren. --Nintendude ^message 00:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, does not appear to meet WP:WEB. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all the above reasons - Blood red sandman 12:40, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marion Cohen

Relisting: the (previous AfD of 23 August 2006) was closed early with no consensus because the article had been deleted, but it was then recreated (albeit in a shortened form). The original citation by Friday read:

"Vanity page about an academic, full of stuff like "Cohen describes herself as "math prof / mathematician / poet / writer / classical pianist /thrift-shopper / mother / grandmother / scrabbler extraordinaire". Sure, a sucessfull career as an academic, but unless having a job euqals notability, there's not much of substance here. Sometimes I'd speedy stuff like this, but there's already been some talk page discussion so I figure it's best to give this one some discussion in case there's disagreement."

I'm neutral here. Espresso Addict 02:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment MathStatWoman created the page and left a comment on the talk page using the first person. Seems like a vanity to me. SliceNYC 03:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Delete NN bio - original article was deleted because of copyvio, but it looks to me like all the copyvio has been stripped out of this version. Changed to keep based on TruthbringerToronto's updates. It now passes "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" (IMO) Brian 04:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)btball Updated Brian 19:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)btball
• Delete blatant vanity for a minor academic/amateur writer/whatever else. Opabinia regalis 04:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:VANITY, WP:OR, WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:BIO, WP:NOTE. Want me to keep going? Daniel.Bryant 08:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No Daniel, that'll do for me ;) Thε Halo ^Θ 11:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yay, I have no more business here :) *runs off to vote on other AfD's* Daniel.Bryant 11:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment : I've seen others assert that "all professors are notable". Is that belief not in play here? Valrith 12:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I think that has been superceded by WP:PROF. ColourBurst 13:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. She's a notable writer. I got the titles and other bibliographic information about her books from the Library of Congress catalog at http://catalog.loc.gov/ TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 12:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the history shows that the original AfD was never completed and the AfD tag not added to the article. I found it tagged as a speedy copyvio. Part of the article was a copyvio and I deleted based on her being non-notable. After TruthbringerToronto pointed out that she did have some claim to notability I restored the article and removed the copyvio material. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. as vanity. Article introduces her as academic, and she fails WP:PROF with gusto. Leibniz 14:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• While NN as an academic, she might be notable as an author, given enough independent evidence. I'm neutral now. Leibniz 12:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. If she "she fails WP:PROF with gusto", that doesn't matter, because she should be evaluated as a writer, and she is a notable writer. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you establish why she is notable as a writer? Right now the criteria for that is this:

Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work

I can see pretty clearly that her books definitely exist, but other than that, I see one possible non-trivial independent review, and no notable awards. The threshold for inclusion isn't that she's just written the books- they need to be notable books too. --Wafulz 19:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per my logic above. The subject does not meet criteria proposed in either WP:PROF or WP:BIO, and her works do not meet criteria proposed in WP:BOOK. As a professor she has not established herself as particularly outstanding in her field, and as an author she hasn't received any significant acclaim. --Wafulz 19:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this nn vanity page per above. Pathlessdesert 19:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think the current version now does meet WP:BIO based on TruthbringerToronto's updates. (Thanks Truthbringer) Brian 19:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)btball
• Comment I don't believe the article yet evidences multiple independent reviews of the sort that are meant. The MentalHelp.net one is a solid independent review. The Temple University Press one looks like it is - but on closer inspection they are the publisher of the book in question, so the review can't be called independent. Whe WISSP and Greenwood things don't muster up to being reviews in my eyes. 05:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This person is clearly notable if for no other reason than as an author. Amazon.com is often useful in finding independent reviews (I don't mean reviews by users, it lists "Editorial reviews") see [11] [12] . See also [13] & [14] (these are listed in the external links). Has anyone bothered to search the academic literature? (most of which is not google searchable). Mikker ^(...) 11:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. While she is obviously a prolific writer, I'm not sure that she's a notable one. The combination of her lterary works outside of her field (mathematics) argues a kind of notability, though. Since she did not create the page, I don't feel it is vanity or intentional self-promotion. --Dennette 13:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Actually I believe she did create the page. Not that it matters now- she's apparently left Wikipedia. --Wafulz 14:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• I haven't looked into this in detail, but MathStatWoman has been accused of creating more than one supposedly autobiographical page. Not all the accusations can be well founded. Espresso Addict 17:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Plese see Talk:Marion_Cohen ... about half-way down the page, she signs in as Mathwoman (not to be confused with MathStatWoman, author of the page), identifies herself by name, and says, "I had not realized that I was in Wikipedia, and I'm pleased!" I had to look at the discussion pages of both users (and all of the history pages) to figure it out before I made my Weak Keep recommendation. --Dennette 18:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Again, I haven't looked into this in detail but MathStatWoman has been accused of using a variety of different socks. I don't know whether any of the associations were proven. Espresso Addict 18:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, run-of-the-mill professor. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with Zoe (above) and Pathlessdesert. Hope this is ok to say this time. Benjamin K 06:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I fall on the other side of Dennette's comments, in that while she might be a prolific writer, her work is not particularly notable. (And, as mentioned before, she is not notable as an academic.) 24.126.199.129 06:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the evidence provided by Mikkerpikker, appears to be notable. RFerreira 07:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a published author of many books, including reviews are listed on the article page, that meets WP:BIO. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mikkerpikker --Pjacobi 21:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to be a notable authoe per Mikkerpikker — Paul August ☎ 04:27, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iehip

^{[Check Google hits]} almost all hits are ads/sales for the product. I call spamvertising. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

And I call third-rate "convergence device." Didn't WebTV teach these people anything? Anyway, Delete per nom. --zenohockey 03:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Narrowly escaped CSD A1. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 12:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. Irongargoyle 14:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Mecanismo | Talk 16:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 05:23, 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 Speedy delete as simple re-creation of content previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ktulu's Kingdom. Uncle G 15:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ktulu's kingdom

non-notable Internet forum. Fails WP:WEB and WP:V. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:WEB despite the snarky Wikipedia section. Crystallina 03:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 03:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Daniel Case 04:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete AbsolutDan really does sum it up very well. Thε Halo ^Θ 11:00, 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.--Andeh 09:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Curt Lewis, P.E., CSP

copyvio and Spam. Van Ao 03:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Campitelli

While a very good drummer, he doesn't really have any notability other than playing with Joe Satriani. He also seems to fail WP:Music. Justinmeister 03:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 05:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems to meet WP:MUSIC notability, as a musician (Yes drummers do count), he even has his own IMDB page --RMHED 12:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Backing musicians, whether drummers or not, are rarely notable. -- Necrothesp 14:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete He doesn't meet WP:Music since the only reason he's well known is because of his work with Joe Satriani. To be a notable musician, one has to accomplish more than simply play with someone who's famous. I mean, if he recorded a solo project, or was featured in a reputable magazine of some kind, maybe. As it stands, I don't see how he can be determined notable to warrant his own article. By the way, an IMDB page isn't reason enough to keep his article. Justinmeister 01:32, 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 speedy delete; meets WP:CSD.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 10:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gay Bi Lesbian Forum

Prod removed questionably by anon IP here, so AFDing. Delete per my original prod: non-notable site. 3 ghits. ^{[Check Google hits]} (|-- UlTiMuS 03:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• The Gay Bi Lesbian Forum article should not be removed. It is a growing site and has a good reputation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kshoaf (talk • contribs) .

• So then which Wikipedia policy do you claim supports it staying here? (|-- UlTiMuS 03:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Who says you have the right to remove an article, which is FULLY accurate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kshoaf (talk • contribs) .

• The hundreds of people who wrote WP:WEB. The concern is notability, not accuracy. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• So, just because you only recieved 3 hits from google when you searched for our site, you have the right to mark the article for deletion? That is not what the internet is about. You are not being responsible when you mark things for deletion. You didnt even look at the fact that we are a site that is still growing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kshoaf (talk • contribs) .

• If you are a site that is still growing, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. WP articles are reserved for notable, well established subjects, not growing ones. That's just how it is. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Well I have read the deletion policies and no where does it say that an article needs to be removed because a user feels it isn't notable. You're biased because our site is for gay, bi, and lesbian people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kshoaf (talk • contribs) .
• It's a factual article, it's not absurd, it's not biased, it's there for anyone that's interested in it. It's not a joke, and it's not in any way misleading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kshoaf (talk • contribs) .

• Delete because I'm biased against gay, bi and lesbian people. That, of course, could be the only reason. It couldn't be at all because this is a nn site and its proponent is trying to explain to us what our policies should be even though he/she doesn't seem to understand them. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• This is kind of funny, because I'm not "straight", so theoretically I should support this article as staying, but on WP you have to throw your biases away and it just doesn't meet the notability criteria. I don't think you read them at all if you still think it does, Kshoaf. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Have you ever read the deletion policies? go here and read them... [15] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kshoaf (talk • contribs) .

• Oh, Jesus, another one of these deletion discussions: "I had no idea you actually had rules about what gets kept and what doesn't, and I resent it very much that you actually try to enforce them." Plus the homophobia angle (which is ridiculous, as these people can attest).
  Read WP:WEB. According to Alexa (which does have its limitations as a measure of popularity, we're aware), you're not even in the top 100,000 sites. I know the page says that's not reliable, but let's face it if you were really a high-traffic site you'd probably be here already.
  Now, within the criteria , and considering that Wikipedia already has a few articles on gay websites, can you tell us and show sources to prove that your site is notable? Has it been the subject of media coverage? Is it run by someone notable? Does its content get reproduced elsewhere? Show us. Daniel Case 03:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Daniel Case Amp 03:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• well let me ask you this... why does an article subject have to be popular in order to be listed on Wikipedia? It makes no sense. This is an online encyclopedia, which is supposed to be about ANY and ALL topics... GBL is a topic. Heck, Ive seen much worse on here. So, what is the point of marking it for deletion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kshoaf (talk • contribs) .

• This is an online encyclopedia, which is supposed to be about ANY and ALL topics; You're dead, dead wrong. See WP:NOT. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Umm, no I am not wrong because it says on the logo that it IS an encyclopedia... and where is it?! ONLINE! DUH! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kshoaf (talk • contribs) .

• There's really no point to continue this discussion, seriously. Good day. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You are exactly right and if it is deleted, it will be back... everytime. so, mark for deletion all you want —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kshoaf (talk • contribs) .

• That's why there is a blocking policy in place. Threatening to vandalize really doesn't go very far here. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia isn't what you were being called wrong about, it was the second half of your statement. BigHaz 04:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can win this one....though justin's idea IS worth a shot but perhaps the good folk of wikipedia should be more understanding and less rude to people who are simply trying to make an article—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kshoaf (talk • contribs) .

Also regarding the idea of creating the article every time it is deleted won't work because pages can be proetect against recreation if you try that. Its not going to work and if a page was a simple recration it would be speedy deleted much faster than this. Also for a bit of advice accusing people who are deleting an article that viloates Wikipedia rules of being rude will not help you case. --Edgelord 05:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no verifiability from reliable sources that this site meets WP:WEB; WP:WING applies. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per a variety of Wikipedia policies. WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:WEB, WP:NOTE, and various precidents, including the one that this links to. Daniel.Bryant 05:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and User:Daniel.Bryant/GBLF can be used if they re-create it. Daniel.Bryant 06:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Daniel Case and above. So far I've had a twelve-year old DBZ fan yell at me for deleting some sort of fanfic, an Irish college grad yell at me for "American bias," and a 63-year-old stats prof yell at me for being a misogynist. The common theme? None of them actually read the site policies. --Wafulz 07:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Protect and end this nonsense, please. Danny Lilithborne 09:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Danny says, let's get this deleted and stop the stupidity. Thε Halo ^Θ 10:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN website that clearly fails WP:WEB, only 7 unique ghits. --IslaySolomon 11:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, then Protect. Valrith 12:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Mecanismo | Talk 16:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per many of the above stated reasons. -- Whpq 19:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nuttah68 20:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Zoel M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 21:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable site. WP is for stuff that is already notable, not to help them become notable. TJ Spyke 21:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. RFerreira 08:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and salt per all of the above. Ryūlóng 10:16, 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. Mostly Rainy 04:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spies (Coldplay)

Nothing that's not already on, or can't already be on, the album's page. --zenohockey 03:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed, delete or alternatively just redirect. Cedars 04:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Mecanismo | Talk 17:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redir per Cedars. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 20:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect. Mikker ^(...) 16:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, but find a better title. One of the few songs I can see having an article without being a single due to its extra notability of being banned in places like China. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you positive? I found this quote:

"We've been banned in China because of the song Spies."

But it only gets two Google results, which for such a presumably inflammatory quote seems low. I'm also not getting any results on the Infotrac Expanded Academic database. --zenohockey 17:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

More: Music Week, Dec. 17, 2005, pp. 6-7, has a reference to pirated Coldplay CDs being sold "openly" in China, though the article says it was "clearly aimed at tourists." --zenohockey 17:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Y'know, in terms of what's considered "reliable" for here, no, I'm not sure. In terms of what's up, I'm about 98% positive at this point. I don't expect "banned in China" to sway many people, regardless. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:40, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vexual

protologism. Only Ghits appear to be some music CD and misspellings of "sexual": [16] --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete originally tagged it as a dicdef, but Google quickly shows why it doesn't belong. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and move to Wiktionary--Ed^{talk c E} 03:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment See Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion: wikt:Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Protologisms. If transwiki'd, it should go only on the list of protologisms page: wikt:Wiktionary:List of protologisms --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Can't comment, links are dead ends.--Ed^{talk c E} 03:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
      • try here. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Pardon my lame attempt at trans-wikilinks... here's the other: Criteria for inclusion#Protologisms --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef of a proto- or neologism. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 20:59, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stillwood camp

NN bible camp. Daniel Case 03:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Cedars 04:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No assertion of notability. Thε Halo ^Θ 10:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. -- Necrothesp 14:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Mecanismo | Talk 17:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nuttah68 20:43, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MaidMarian

nn MMORPG, no sources. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not properly formatted for Wikipedia. Cedars 04:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, but remember that sloppy formatting isn't a reason for deletion. Daniel Case 04:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jpe|ob 09:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per Zoe. Thε Halo ^Θ 10:49, 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Zannettis

A novelist who isn't yet published, and whose "memoirs" are his only work. The article doesn't mention how long this 26 year old's memoirs are. Vanity? – ClockworkSoul 03:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral What if his work is published?--Ed^{talk c E} 03:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete What was I thinking??? I totally forgot about crystal ball!!! (bangs his head on the desk)--Ed^{talk c E} 14:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - We don't know if he's going to publish (neither does Google), or in what format. Pamphlet? Free download from his own website? If he publishes, perhaps we can re-examine, until then he hasn't actually done anything. – ClockworkSoul 03:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, author fails WP:BIO as his book hasn't even been published. WP:NOT a crystal ball, WP:CHILL applies. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If his book is being published by a reputable publishing house, it's not showing up in any of the usual places, including the Publishers Weekly database. --Pagana 06:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete agreed with above. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOT. Thε Halo ^Θ 10:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't appear to be notable as yet. -- Necrothesp 14:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Nuttah68 20:44, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Security theater

Neologism, not notable, conspiracy-cruft Edogy 03:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. As non-notable neologism. Cedars 04:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per ghit count: ^{[Check Google hits]}. Plenty of content here, and it seems the term is in use. May be rooted in conspiracy theories, but that's not a reason to delete. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Notable expression. Gained milage beyond Mr Schneier. I've even used it in conversation over lunch. --Billpg 09:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable due to broad dispersal in the blog world and references in the press [17] [18] [19] -- not always by or in connection with Schneier. [20] [21] Note especially Tucker Carlson using it recently on his show. [22] Nothing in particular to do with conspiracy theories, either. (The current article is largely OR, though.) —Celithemis 10:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:V, WP:OR. Looks like neologism to me... Valrith 12:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for the reasons given above. The OR issues should be able to be dealt with short of deleting the page. This term seems well established in the discourse of security professionals and the general public. As an aside, dismissing well-thought criticism of security rules from experts in the field as "conspiracy-cruft" does a shameful disservice to the public discourse. wac(talk contrib) 16:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's been used notably beyond its creator. There may be WP:V and WP:OR at work, but it's fixable. SliceNYC 17:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I see this term all the time in the blogosphere. jdb ❋ (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep per above Spearhead 21:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep it's an intresting concept we should be aware of —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.193.237.108 (talk • contribs).
• Strong Keep per Celithemis' comment --Mperry 02:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I also see this term regularly Alanhwiki 05:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. A term is not non-notable simply because it is new. The term "security theater" has seen rapid acceptance by the security community since its inception by Bruce Schneier, and is a convenient and concise way to explain an increasingly important concept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StephenFalken (talk • contribs).
• Keep. Labelling this as having anything to do with "conspiracy theories" in an attempt to weaken it is foolish. The rapid take-up of the term suggests it is a helpful tool to have when discussing security matters. Rufous 15:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As a computer security professional, I find the term decidedly useful. --Anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.219.48.118 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Information is both not original research and is verifiable by the references give. The term "Security Theater" may often be used in biased articles but the entry given here is neutral. 17:00, 28 August (UTC)
• Keep per Celithemis and wac. --Aristotle 17:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP Perfect term. Who ever put this article up for deletion should be required to show their ID everywhere and be subject to search - just for their protection! Dhanks 17:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Notable (Bruce Schneier is an acclaimed authority on security), appropriate, good article. PizzaMargherita 19:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems a useful entry. Polymorp 11:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This article provides an unambiguous definition of a commonly used phrase. gawp 12:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This concept is increasingly widely cited in the media. Example: Village Voice article on NYC nightclub security. [23] 16:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a rather new term, but it's already widely used - the quick inclusion of new phenomena is actually an advantage of Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.161.57.29 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Wide media citation, common neutral usage in professional security community. 00:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Agunn (talk • contribs) 23:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism, cirucular definition, useless garbage —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.174.103.116 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kingwood Underground

NN local forum (doesn't even tell us where Kingwood is). Daniel Case 04:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC) Kingwood Texas is about 15 miles north of Houston on Highway 59—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.241.151.70 (talk • contribs).

OK, but the forum fails WP:WEB. Daniel Case 04:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete, per CSD A7. Club with no notability asserted. Irongargoyle 04:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, no evidence at all that this site meets WP:WEB. Alexa rank: 423,183. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 08:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless author gives justification on how it survives notability. No speedy criteria available. ColourBurst 13:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Local and non-notable. -- Necrothesp 14:21, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bregans

Minor fictional character in Cambridge Latin Course series, not notable enough to warrant own article. A mention in the Cambridge Latin Course article seems sufficient. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. There are too many fictional characters hanging round here already, without adding ones from Latin textbooks. Espresso Addict 04:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom Joan-of-arc 04:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I remember this guy. No way in hell he needs his own article. Opabinia regalis 04:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, although I have to observe that it's too bad he's not a character in a videogame, manga or SF series, 'cause then he'd be guarenteed his own WP page. Hell, the clothes he wears would get their own WP page. --Pagana 06:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is a simple reflection of the sources available in these cases. People in the world at large simply don't write about Bregans. Whereas they write reams and reams about Pokémon characters. If you think that this is unbalanced, then campaign for people in the world at large to stop writing about Pokémon characters and start writing about Latin textbook characters. Persuade the world to make more source material on the latter. Wikipedia is not the tool for fixing any perceived disproportionate skews of the corpus of human knowledge. Wikipedia reflects human knowledge. It doesn't create it. Uncle G 15:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I loved the Cambridge series. He still isn't important enough to warrant his own article; he barely deserves a mention. Captainktainer * Talk 18:16, 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 speedy delete CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dov Baron

Might be something notable in there or coming, but looks so far like vanispamcruftisement that fails WP:BIO. Daniel Case 04:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete some guy's resume. On the other hand, this article did make me google the Institute of HeartMath, which is hilarious. Opabinia regalis 04:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence that subject meets WP:BIO, possible WP:VANITY, WP:NOT Monster.com. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 09:00, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blogging for Max

nn blog, no claims for notability are made, no sources. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per Zoe. --andrew 04:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• blog located at [[24]] 04:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lowroller625 (talk • contribs) .

Yes, there's a link on the article page. The existence of the link does not prove notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, being associated with a political campaign does not make a blog notable. Daniel Case 04:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Deleteper daniel case Joan-of-arc 04:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Do not delete a number of their stories and actions have become a part of the campaign. [25] [26] - LowRoller 04:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Both of those are rather trivial coverage in articles or roundups devoted to campaign news. The story is the campaign, not the blog. Daniel Case 04:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• In both cases it did turn out to impact the race. - LowRoller 04:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• What's the proof for that? Polls and articles discussing them, please. Daniel Case 06:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence or assertion of meeting WP:WEB, the relevant standard. GRBerry 13:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think Wikipedia needs to go in the direction of having pages about all of these political blogs: they are an important new phenomenon and very frequently generate news. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi

Consider that many of these, particularly this one, are related to campaigns. A few weeks after November they will effectively be dead. In a year they will no longer be encyclopedic, particularly if the candidate loses. Any news generated by the blog can thus effectively be dealt with in the article about the official supported. We considered that sort of thing when WP:WEB was created. Blogs need to be lasting to be notable. The Daily Kos is perhaps the acme of a notable political blog. This is a long way from that.
As for their novelty, consider that in a few years they will be standard, perhaps meriting their own section in articles about political campaigning and such and an external link but not a separate article, IMO, no more than the individual classrooms in a school building would. Daniel Case 01:44, 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 speedy delete, I'm calling it A1 -- Samir धर्म 07:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WAyoh

Prod removed by author, as expected. Neologism therefore delete. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• speedy delete nonsense Joan-of-arc 04:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• speedy delete no assertion of notibility Musaabdulrashid 04:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong WP:SNOW delete, WP:NEO, WP:NFT. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:04, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew John

notability not asserted, vanity, source not germane, poss hoax delete per above Joan-of-arc 04:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Why delete it, he was very notable. I only created this after I saw many, many wrestling fans approach him for an autograph and pictures this evening. If that isn't notable I do not know what is.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by EdWood (talk • contribs) .

• Then you're doing original research, which is unacceptable. See WP:NOR. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• That is in fact not true, after seeing this I spoke to people and found all these things to be true online. I have included links to support the statement in the article. Which is acceptable.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by EdWood (talk • contribs) .
• Delete, hoax or not, there is no verifiability from reliable sources that subject meets WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by: Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers A large fan base, fan listing or '"cult" following' Seems to meet it to me. --EdWood 05:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)EdWood--EdWood 05:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: So cite them in the article. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Unless notability as claimed by Ed Wood can be verified, redirect to Matthew Johns. Capitalistroadster 00:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think that it's a hoax, but I do think he fails WP:BIO as non notable. Also, as had already been said, there is no verifiability. Thε Halo ^Θ 10:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If Nobodies like Christine Dolce can have a wiki, why can't Matthew John? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.63.117.41 (talk • contribs) .

"Nobody" is a matter of opinion here. Find, and put in the article, sources to demonstrate that Mr. John has achieved similar notability. Daniel Case 01:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• I have added the actual incident which garnered him a following, listed as teh lacey incident. --EdWood 20:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• I hope you all don't mind this is my first entry since my additions to Johnny Maestro got removed and this time I am really gonna try to fight for it. Maybe it can be merged with The Ring Of Honor Wiki or the female wrestler Lacey if she has an entry. I shall check.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Samir धर्म 07:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Luciani

No relevant Ghits. Notability seems to be asserted, but likely a hoax. Daniel Case 04:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually saw him perform at the Gypsy tea room in dallas. Hes only 13 and can drop some mad beats! No kidding.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2pacisthabest (talk • contribs) .

But is he notable by WP:MUSIC? Daniel Case 04:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Note. 2pacisthabest went and vandalized my user page over the course of six edits.(here's one. Upgrading my vote to speedy delete as a result. Daniel Case 06:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete I dont see how it asserts notibility, it says hes underground --Musaabdulrashid 04:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and teach the article's creator some manners. ---Charles 04:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy A7, simply saying "I'm a rapper, I have some songs, I perform here" without any qualification is not an assertion of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:58, 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 textbook CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pensionstate

WP:MUSIC not met TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 04:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 05:30, 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 00:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Surch

Advertisement for a non-notable website, fails WP:WEB. Not that Alexa is an accurate reflection of notability, but since the article mentions it, the site only ranks 73,378 currently [27]. Poking around the web, I found posts like this: [28], indicating that the site is brand new, and "still in testing" (in addition to the article itself which indicates a beta release in July). Other Ghits: [29]. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 05:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB and WP:V, and from the link the nom gave, there's a fair amount of crystal balling too. Additionally, there is only one external link to the site. --Wafulz 07:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Include The page has been completely changed and the issues that you have talked about are taken out. But im going to disagree. Alexa is a widely used tool on the net and a creditable reference. There are many pages on wikipedia that list alexa. in addition you are referring to googles backlinks but not taking into account that they update on a whim when they want and how they want.... pagerank has not updated in almost 4 months so that is a completely unfair bias. Did you check msn or yahoo? Surch's traffic is far beyond most sites so the suggestion that it’s unknown is simply not true. I understand the issues with the first article but they have been changed.

  In addition, surch's alexa rating of 73K is a 3 MONTH average... todays total was 32K and our page views per user was higher than googles. So while we are new and our userbase is not that of the big3 it is growing and our users are consistent.

  I hope this helps. --Surch 08:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Our articles are based upon secondary sources. If there is no non-trivial source material on a company, produced by people other than the company, we cannot have an article. If you wish to make a case for keeping the article please cite such sources. Uncle G 15:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Include I also disagree, this surch engine is a great surch engine and I have been thinking about submitting it onto wikipedia myself for some time now and I'm glad to see that someone actually has finally! The surch results are great and far exceed Google, Yahoo, and MSN! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.64.97.225 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advertising the great new web sites that editors have just discovered. It is an encyclopaedia. If you wish to inform the world about a web site, write an article and have it published in a reputable computer magazine. Uncle G 15:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - NN article, WP:NOT crystal ball. Tokakeke 08:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • How is that a crystal ball? your suggestions are without merit. Everything in there now is non-ad based and accurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Surch (talk • contribs) 08:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with AbsolutDan. Right now, this fails WP:WEB as non notable. If it does continue to grow, as the article predicts, recreate. Until then, delete. Thε Halo ^Θ 10:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Valrith 12:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The article appears to be about the company behind the website and they, in no way, meet WP:CORP. Nuttah68 14:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Though the article does look somewhat better than it did when I first nominated it, it's still lacking sources. While I can appreciate that Surch might be a useful tool, unless there are reliable sources out there that review the site, or something else that makes the article meet WP:WEB/WP:CORP, the article cannot be included at this time. Additionally, I believe the editors above that refer to crystal-balling mean that a lot of the reasoning for inclusion of the article is based not on what the website/company has accomplished, but what it expects to -- in other words, that Surch isn't yet well-known, but will be. Let me state that although I still feel the article should be deleted at this time, I have no prejudice against recreation in the future if Surch turns out to be wildly successful and then meets criteria for inclusion (and I wish Surch well in this respect). --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 14:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I understand but there are hundreds of thousands of sites listed on wikipedia that have nowhere near the audience that surch has. In fact our Alexa rating today was 18K... Again, 8.9 page views per user. Alexa IMO is creditable enough. http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=surch.com&url=surch.com Please check todays totals then look at page views per user. Surch has not made in that page any reference to what it expects to do rather what it IS doing. I would suggest a site that gets well over a million uniques a day to be VERY well known. You make suggestion to "wildly successful" show me any site that is other than fortune 500's and then why dont you delete all the rest..that would leave wikipedia with say maybe a few thousand sites. --Surch 21:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - "I understand but there are hundreds of thousands of sites listed on wikipedia that have nowhere near the audience that surch has.": Then nominate them for deletion. "Alexa IMO is creditable enough. http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=surch.com&url=surch.com" - It's not. Google, with terms "surch search engine" displays your site, and some review on 5 Star Affiliate marketing program. "You make suggestion to "wildly successful" show me any site that is other than fortune 500's and then why dont you delete all the rest..that would leave wikipedia with say maybe a few thousand sites." - Something Awful, FARK, Slashdot, Neopets, the list goes on and on. The page was created with the purpose of advertising. If and when the site is notable, put it back, add some sources, and maybe we'll go from there. Wooty 00:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Fair enough. I suppose you are, to a point, correct. I will repost when surch meets the standards of Wikipedia. Although Wooty, its funny that you only reference google. I think someone once said... "We are all nothing but a flock of sheep, a button collar starched and bleached." In addition...Who was it, the macintosh boys that were turned down for VC by some no-name banker? Hrm. Funny that. I suppose at this point I will ask that surch be deleted.

Comment There are problems with Google, sure, but at the moment it's the best way to determine notability, unless you've got a bunch of links from notable websites handy. I appreciate your understanding, and I wish your project well. Regards, Wooty 06:21, 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 Deville (Talk) 13:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SPREAD Distribution

Blatant spam of a non-notable company. MER-C 05:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:SPAM unless speedily cleaned up and sourced to comply with WP:CORP and WP:V. A cursory Google search finds very little of relevance. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete .Mukadderat 17:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Zaxem 05:53, 3 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casio Kingdom

Advertisement for non-notable website that makes no assertion of notability per WP:WEB. Successfully prodded, but re-created. Does not qualify for CSD G4. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Leuko 05:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence that this site meets WP:WEB. Article also appears to have been created by an author whose username is the same as that of the creator of the site, which makes it WP:VANITY as well. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP Casio Kingdom hosts all of my games/programs which I personally created. It's also listed on Casio Education Australia. It's part of the history of calculator gaming.Seantan 05:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)-- article's creator Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  Please take a note at our notability guidelines for websites which discuss which websites are notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article. Has this website been given previous coverage by reliable sources, e.g. widely published newspaper or magazine? Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• No it hasn't been, but I thought being on a Casio Education website would give it some credit. Also, regarding the Vanity claim, my article is purely informative. It doesn't give any praise to my site at all.Seantan 05:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  You made an article with the aim of giving your site publicity - which is the intent of a vanity article. We'd prefer website owners not to write about their own sites at all. If it's that interesting, someone else will write an article about it. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 06:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 05:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Nuttah68 14:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Jap9c 22:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Mitaphane _talk 23:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Seantan, I think your efforts would be better spent improving the article for the Casio CFX-9850GB PLUS rather than self promotion. For example, a section on programming could be added(this is obviously something you know about), or the addition of your website link in Casio CFX-9850GB PLUS's external links section. The TI-89 has a small community around programming for the calculator, the same seems to be the case for the CFX-9850. Mitaphane _talk 23:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Ok, thanks Mitaphane. I will do so. I would still like to keep my article though 202.89.180.222 04:51, 27 August ~~2006 (UTC)

Comment: Your article? Please see WP:OWN Leuko 05:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Haha, you know what I mean.Seantan 06:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 01:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete self-promotional. --ArmadilloFromHell 04:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Del33t--ZayZayEM 10:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Roisterer 15:10, 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 copyvio —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-26 09:57Z

[edit] Zanity

Pure POV spam/link spam. Leuko 06:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:SPAM. No evidence that this company meets WP:CORP. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's a CSD A8 as a copyvio of the company's site and created within the past 48 hours. So tagged. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:23, 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. Please defer merge discussions to the article talk page. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agnes Broun

Is the mother of a poet, but I don't think that makes her notable herself per WP:BIO. Written by editor who appears to have the same last name, so probably WP:VAIN too. Leuko 06:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep and allow to develop. the parents of burns have some interesting ties with Lord Monboddo and robert burns visited (and wooed) monboddo's daughter at Monboddo House. there are data regarding interactions of robert burns parents with monboddo. Anlace 06:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep What makes Agnes Broun notable is the enormity of Burns' place in Scottish culture. She's not just the mother of any old poet. Burns is the poet of a nation. Agnes Broun may not be on the level of John Shakespeare, but from a reseacher's and literary scholar's point of view, her story is a valuable side-note, a fact confirmed by the archival interest in her life. For the record, I am not related to Agnes Broun. Finally, because of Burns' demi-god status, Agnes Broun has become a folk figure.--Wbroun 06:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge as it currently stands to her son's page. If there's enough information to warrant a separate article, spin it out after it's been written there. If all she is is a side-note (valuable or not), then she'd do better as a side-note on her son's page. BigHaz 07:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

(following the expansion) Weak merge to her son's page. There's more information about her, which is a great thing to see, but I'm still not totally convinced that she's notable for any reason than the fact of her son's fame. The fact that more information has been added, though, weakens my original leaning. BigHaz 04:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep what wbroun said is true. Agnes Broun is important to any resaercher or scholar who wants to learn more about Burns. I think she passes WP:BIO as notable. Thε Halo ^Θ 10:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Which part/s of WP:BIO? BigHaz 10:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Two, that I can see, maybe another, though I'd have to research.

• 100 year test (future speculation) -- In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful?
• 100 year test (past speculation) -- If we had comparable verifiable information on a person from 100 years ago, would anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful today?

And

• The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)

I'm sure that there are some academic papers out there, though, as I said, I'd have to look. Thε Halo ^Θ 10:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

She may get through on the last one, but I just have a feeling that the majority of people out there who'll be after information on her would be happy with a paragraph or two in her son's article. As it's currently written (and I'll accept it as a work in progress) the only thing anyone could gain from reading the article is that she was Robbie's mother and outlived him - the second point of which is mildly interesting in itself. BigHaz 10:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

A "paragraph or two" on the main Burns article would be digressive and, frankly, disruptive of the narrative of the poet's life. As far as the article not appealing to a majority of info-gatherers, I stand guilty as charged. The piece, which is well-supported, is aimed at Burns scholars and serious enthusiasts, those who wish to "dig deeper" than the standard Burns-o-pedia entry. --Wbroun 05:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything wrong with adding a section to the bottom of Burns' own article entitled "family" and writing that he was descended from the Brouns and that his mother Agnes [insert rest of article here]? BigHaz 07:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as the article stands it offers no more than a genealogical connection. Nuttah68 14:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Robert Burns because this article is very short. I agree that this content belongs on Wikipedia due to Burns' importance but not as an article unto itself. --Metropolitan90 15:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Her notability has been established above, and I'm sure there's much more to be written. Having a short article is not a reason to delete. SliceNYC 17:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Please Note I have now expanded this article as planned. I intend to add more, as time permits, for the edification and interest of scholars of Burns and Scottish folklore.--Wbroun 04:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete Google scholar search for "Agnes Broun" as a phrase finds no academic papers, and four bools: two on Robert Burns, one Register of Wills and Inventories, and one on Early Modern Witches. I'm not certain if the last two are about her, but clearly any notability is from being Robert's mom, not independent. GRBerry 05:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

One cannot be too surprised not to find any academic paper on Agnes Broun, esp. of those listed on Google scholar search. She will always be a minor figure of literary history and folklore, not the sort of person on which academic careers are built. Still, those academics and lay-scholars wanting to learn more about Burns will find joy and interest in learning more about his mother. If not on Wiki, where else? It's a little hard to grasp why one would want to suppress such information, tho I am totally new to Wiki, so I probably am misunderstanding some aspect of protocol.--Wbroun 05:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the best place to put information on her is into an article on her son at the moment. There are other examples of historical figures with peripherally interesting family members having their biographies expanded with information on the family member. That way the information itself remains "unsuppressed". BigHaz 07:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I hear you, but I respectfully disagree. Some of the info would certainly work in Robbie's article, but much of it just doesn't fit. There is a great spectrum of notability, and Agnes is on the lighter side, but Burns' scholars and enthustiasts will take interest nonetheless in these small gems. Anyway, I don't want to repeat myself and wear out my welcome -- I think I've said all I can in this debate. I appreciate people's interest in Burns and his family.--Wbroun 08:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep—Notability is not a formal policy, and the concept of notability is always contentious. A fair test of whether a subject has achieved sufficient external notice to ensure that it can be covered based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without original research. Am comfortable that this meets the criterion. That the article's author may be related does not invalidate the material; it only invites closer scrutiny. Williamborg (Bill) 05:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep appears that the subject is notable, per the monument in her name and per Mark Twain's referenc eto her. Per WP:N, "Notability cannot be measured for some historical and international topics". Remembering that schooling in those days is somewhat different to today, Broun, as the primary influence on Robbie Burns, could arguably passes WP:BIO, WP:PROF, IMHO. Ohconfucius 05:48, 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 A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ripper: A Heavy Metal Odyssey

Non-notable band. Fails WP:BAND. Author removed CSD A7 after inserting unsourced claims of a large following at a couple of local colleges. Leuko 06:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC, and that the only link provided is to a Myspace page doesn't do much for WP:RS either. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - the author can't do that. I've put it back. MER-C 09:06, 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 keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Witches of Elswick

Fails WP:MUSIC. The only real assertion of notability is on the talk page: that they were 'featured' on BBC Radio 4's Women's Hour. Albums are listed on Amazon, but as limited availbaility, and I'm fairly sure it isn't a major label. Delete The JPS^{talk to me} 23:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, the article lists two references for non-trivial articles about them from the BBC. -- Whpq 19:30, 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)  07:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but remove the 'cares for fluffy bunnies in their spare time' parts of the article. Nuttah68 20:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:33, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Social-technical systems

Original research, unless sources are forthcoming (as per User:130.123.225.69). -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 02:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was the user who proposed deletion. 130.123.225.69 appears to be the original author. Gazpacho 18:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I immediately found several academic papers published on this by doing a Google search, so it appears that it is notable and there is material to do a solid, verifiable article. JChap T/E 04:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete While a Google search will yield instance of this phrase, it's unclear whether it merit's it's own article (especially in the current muddled state). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's meaningless jargon in its current state. If it's turned into an article I'll reconsider. Dlyons493 Talk 12:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep We must AGF. If we found the citations, we should put it up. Although the paragraph is complete jibberish, we could always just blank it and start from scratch.--Ed^{talk c E} 16:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Per JChap. It just needs a rewrite. Lauren 23:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for failing the basic WP:V, unsourced and undocumented. I agree the phrase exists and that the article needs a rewrite, and I have no problem with either. However, unless one of the keep noms are volunteering to bring the article up to snuff, I'd see this one gone and have it recreated later, hopefully in a better way. I'll also raise notability as an issue, since the phrase gets only 257 distinct Ghits. Tychocat 08:16, 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)  20:23, 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)  07:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Incoherent garbage. Pavel Vozenilek 15:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as gibberish per Tychocat, this needs a complete rewrite if it needs an article at all. Sandstein 18:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Vacuous consultant-speak prose, contains nothing but glittering generalities and empty abstractions. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:12, 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. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silent Lightning

Nonnotable website; 381 unique Ghits for "Silent lightning", most unrelated to the site; Alexa rating below 4.6 million. NawlinWiki 16:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Site is a growing community hub with traffic that is not simply personal site related. Alexa traffic shows this as true. People who visit this page also visit:Subvector (subvector.com - Site info); Start4all clan.start4all.com - Site info; Rogue Forum www.counter-strike.org.uk/forum/upload - Site info; Ohio Gaming www.columbusgaming.com - Site info; Clantoolz www.clantoolz.com - Site info; AssimX Network; www.assimx.net - Site info; Artemis Project Gaming www.apgaming.com - Site info; Amped Gaming News www.ampednews.com - Site info; Actiongames.co.uk www.actiongames.co.uk - Site info; MyLeague.com; myleague.com - Site info; GameAdmins gameadmins.com - Site info; Battle Eagle Elite Forces; www.b33f.com - Site info; Gamers Modem forums.delphiforums.com/n/main.asp?webtag=gamersmodem%2... - Site info; Desert Combat eSports dc-esports.com - Site info; Cyber X Games cyberxgaming.com - Site info; Cybercade cybercade.com - Site info; Crasiworld crasiworld.com - Site info; Ultimate Gamers www.ultimategamers.com - Site info; Tactical Gamer www.tacticalgamer.com - Site info; ServerSpy www.serverspy.net - Site info —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Choyt (talk • contribs). (article creator)
  • Response I don't understand why a list of other sites visited by people who visit SilentLightning would make that site any more notable. NawlinWiki 16:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If you want to demonstrate that this web site warrants an article, please cite sources to demonstrate that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 16:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article offers no history, assertion of notability, or ability to pass WP:WEB. --Wafulz 17:04, 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)  08:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - NN. Wooty 08:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 09:01, 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 as moved to appropriate mainspace name and userfied -- Samir धर्म 08:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MarcLevoy/Light field

Why is this called MarcLevoy/Light field? The creator being named MarcLevoy is a pretty good idea why. Recommend deletion and moving information to Light field Lid 07:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the first Wiki page I've ever written, so I created it as a subpage on my user page. After screwing up my courage, I moved it to Light field. Feel free to edit. User:MarcLevoy

Ah now I understand how it happened - your user page is User:MarcLevoy, not MarcLevoy. --- Lid 08:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have moved MarcLevoy/Light field to User:MarcLevoy/Light field. The redirect still needs deletion. --- Lid 08:14, 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 speedy redirect to Rake (poker). There's no need to have a 5-day discussion over someone's attempts at disruption. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rake Free

Uncategorized article created following the removal of a redirect. ^[30] It has since been used for spam purposes, with one user continuously spamming web links into the article and ignoring 3RR. The relevant information already appears in the Rake (poker) article. Delete. Essexmutant 07:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC) Keep. Rake free poker is increasingly popular in online gaming. --Yakuman

• Comment - any information of importance already exists at rake (poker). Essexmutant 09:38, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Card Crusade

Delete as spam with no declaration of notability. Wikipedia is not a directory. Essexmutant 07:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Card Crusade meets no criteria of notability. Rray 10:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing to indicate this meets WP:WEB or WP:CORP. Nuttah68 20:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as above. 2005 23:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, ditto. --ArmadilloFromHell 04:57, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monica Bailey

There's nothing in this article to suggest that the person is notable outside Big Brother. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 23:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. WP:NOT paper, this article does absolutely nothing to hurt the encyclopedia: it adds to it instead. A look at Category:Big Brother contestants shows many more Big Brother contestants. --Daniel Olsen 07:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. See WP:ILIKEIT, an essay addressing "it doesn't hurt anyone". I'd vote delete but am not averse to redirect to Big Brother. ColourBurst 19:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - "article does not hurt encyclopedia" is not a valid argument - there are notability guidelines for a reason. Wooty 08:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. There will be people who will argue she's notable simply for being on the show, but I'm not among them... Valrith 12:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not another reality show contestant! -- Necrothesp 14:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non notable. Thε Halo ^Θ 16:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, winners of Big Brother struggle to be notable, losers even more so. Nuttah68 20:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Pretty easily, based on involvement on a hit nationally broadcast show, seen by millions, with substantial interest in each partiicpant. Nominator's logic presumes flawed conclusion. She's notable for her involvement in a huge hit show. We don't delete famous athletes for lack of non-athletic coverage, actors for lack of non-acting coverage, or politicians for lack of non-political activity. --Rob 23:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Monica Bailey is a well known personality. She is notable enough to be covered on wikipedia.

Unitedroad 12:11, 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 CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BSS Prefects

Incomplete nomination for a page which was speedy deleted back in May 06. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BSS Prefects. Not notable group of school prefects, and no notability asserted. I cannot see prevous version to know if this is the same version deleted (ie don't know if speedy applies). Propose that the page be deleted and protected from re-creation. Ohconfucius 07:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 09:03, 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. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ibis Del Mar Nieves

Proposed deletion of this 22 year old reality show wannabe actress, with no other achievemnts to note. Ohconfucius 08:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 09:02, 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 G7 requested by author. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of books with titles that are not constituents

List criteria is bizarre and pretty much useless. Could also be impossible to keep correctly updated. Lid 08:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The creator, User:Ashley Y, has proposed its deletion making this redundant. --- Lid 08:34, 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 A8 copyvio < 48 h -- Samir धर्म 05:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pleasant Productions

^{[Check Google hits]} maybe 15 applicable hits, all of which are either a variant of the official site, or myspace/geocities. Impossible to WP:V with WP:RS, fails WP:CORP as well. (|-- UlTiMuS 08:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Also note that half of the article is pasted from the official site. (|-- UlTiMuS 08:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Doesn't that make this a copyvio and eligible for speedy under db-copyvio? Valrith 12:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed. Speedy delete A8, tagged. ColourBurst 19:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, Nuttah68 15:10, 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. - Bobet 08:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ulfkeitel Couplande

I think this is a hoax. It was added by a user with essentially no other contributions. I can't find any hits on Google or Google Books that are not derived from Wikipedia. The source cited are 12 volumes of a book from 1892. I know a fair amount about Anglo-Scandinavian history of the period and I think I would have heard about someone who saved Canute's life twice. There was an Ulfcytel who fought at the Battle of Ashingdon - but he was on Edmund's side and he was killed in the battle. Haukur 08:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - difficult one as I suspect you may be right in that he didn't exist. Nevertheless, it may be that there is some myth that has been reported as fact in the Yorkshire Inquisitions. Should we just delete because we personally can't check the records? I've come down for delete on the basis that there aren't multiple sources, and the source cited can't be a primary source as it isn't contemporaneous. If it is deleted there are references in Coupland, Northumberland and Copeland, Cumbria that should be removed too. Yomangani^talk 12:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  You're right, it could conceivably be a legend reported as fact rather than an outright hoax. Let's see if we can get more knowledgeable people in here. Haukur 15:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm no expert but reading the articles, Ulfkeitel Couplande saved Cnut's life in 1015 and as a reward was granted land in Cumbria. The trouble I see here is that it is widely accepted that Cumbria was Scottish until 1032. Nuttah68 21:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment One of the major problems with this is that the transliteration of Nordic names varies a lot, and as such, it could just be an unusual transliteration.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  Indeed. Ulfkeitel is presumably intended as a version of Ulfkell/Úlfkell/Ulfketill/Úlfketill/Ulfcytel/Ulfcetel etc. though it isn't one I've seen before. Couplande is more difficult; it would presumably be an Anglicization of something like *Kaupland though I'm not familiar with that as a byname. Thus we might have something like "Ulfkell af Kauplandi" but that doesn't help me at all in finding anything about this purported person. Haukur 09:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I tried a few variations earlier in the week without luck. I can't find any reference to "Ulf of Yorkshire" in the Domesday Book as claimed in the article either.
• Delete The problem with verifiability. Even if is, there is no reasonable notability of the person. Mukadderat 17:22, 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 CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Izteraab

Originally up for speedy delete but speedy tag removed by new user whose single purpose was to seemingly remove the speedy tag and to claim the band was notable[31]. Falls under possible WP:Vanity and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Lid 08:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

--excellent point about: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I have removed the two phrases (one in "intro", one in "near future"] that would entertain this complaint—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uchohan (talk • contribs).

• edit conflict Delete - no indication that they meet WP:BAND that I can see. BigHaz 09:09, 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 speedy delete in the spirit of CSD G3 - sneaky vandalism. The claim that Sumner Redstone has three children blatantly contradicts reliable sources such as [32], and there is absolutely no sign of "Redstone Investments Corporation" on the web, much less coverage on its status as a majority stakeholder in Yahoo!. If we allow this article to live its full five days on AfD, it'll be an unnecessary affront to Sumner himself and a dishonesty to our readers. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sumner Redstone Jr.

Biography about a non-existent person. Someone with all the accomplishments that this person would have achieved, should have many mentions on the web, this isn't the case.-- JoanneB 08:49, 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 speedy delete the perfect CSD A7 example. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chef Patrick Cleveland

Perhaps this is the perfect stub - its certainly short. However, I can't establish notability and it is a likely autobiography. -- Solipsist 08:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - CSD A1, A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 09:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Subject may exist (or may just have a common name), but no notability. BigHaz 09:05, 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 as A7 The JPS^{talk to me} 11:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Julien penel

Claims to be notorious but name brings up a whole 2 google entries. Assertion of notability is brought into significant question due to this. Lid 09:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete I'm guessing it's a hoax, after this edit. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note also that the creator of the article tried to remove this discussion from today's AfD log: [33] Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 09:54, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dennis Oklak

Notability questioned; contested speedy. No vote. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-26 09:49Z

• Delete. Non-notable. -- Necrothesp 14:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Leibniz 15:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, being CEO of a company that is not notable enough to have its own article sums it up. Nuttah68 21:05, 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 all CSD G4/A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hussein Tajvidi

Also up for deletion are the derivative pages:

• White Background
• Seclusion:Etekaaf

Violates WP:Vanity, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and is also non-notable Lid 10:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Just found out the page is reposted content already deleted, changing recommendation to speedy delete all. --- Lid 10:09, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caramellounge

There's an assertion of notability in that it's growing rapidly, but it doesn't seem particularly notable to me BigHaz 10:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I should also add that it had been prodded for failing WP:WEB in an earlier version. This was removed and most of what I'm calling the assertion of notability was added. BigHaz 10:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Alexa ranking of 127,039 --Xyzzyplugh 16:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable at the moment. Come back if the crystal ball visions happen. Nuttah68 21:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above + self-promotion. IceCreamAntisocial 02:05, 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 05:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel-South Africa relations

This an unnecessary page created by User:Deuterium due to his edits on the Foreign relations of Israel page being reverted. And for good reason. Along with Israeli Apartheid articles, it just another attempt to place anti-Israel bias on Wikipedia Evolver of Borg 11:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, of course. The material is factual, balanced and extremely well sourced by Wikipedia standards. The fact that Evolver of Borg sees it as "anti-Israel propaganda" and wants it deleted speaks volumes of his own attitudes and standards. Deuterium 11:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge back to Foreign relations of Israel. While I agree it is well-referenced and it is not blatantly POV pushing, it also looks to be an exercise in WP:POINT due to reversions of Deuterium's changes in the Foreign relations of Israel page. I'd strongly disagree with Evolver of Borg's reasoning after the first sentence though: although some of the revisions made by Deuterium were unnecessary and not NPOV, a number of them provided clarity and references to the article and actively removed POV. Yomangani^talk 11:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't make this article because I was being reverted on Foreign Relations of Israel, but because the South Africa entry on that page had grown much larger than the entries for other countries, even the Soviet Union! Even Venezuela gets a Israel-Venezuela relations page, so I don't see this page's existence as being inappropriate. Deuterium 11:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Changed to Keep - I apologise if I unfairly characterized your actions. I took a good look at the article and the South Africa section of Foreign relations of Israel and its history, but didn't check the comparative sizes of the rest of Foreign relations of Israel. Considering almost every other country has their own page, there's no reason why this shouldn't be split off as well (though obviously the South Africa section on the main article needs cutting back in that case). I suggest any objections of bias be addressed in on the article's talk page. Yomangani^talk 12:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem and thanks for the support. I agree that the South Africa section in Foreign relations of Israel does need cutting back in size, I'm just cautious about doing so due to the inevitable POV accusations in summarizing a great deal of facts in a few paragraphs. Deuterium 12:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: economical relations are absent, as well as the information on pre-1970. Pavel Vozenilek 15:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This is a quite well written article that would be useful to users of Wikipedia. It covers major events, and documents serious episodes in history. If Deuterium's edits have been unneccesarily reverted on other pages, maybe that speaks to a clear Pro-Israeli bias by other contributors. Given the size of the material, this clearly warrants its own article. Evolver of Borg has unnecceasrily asked for deletion here. Please be careful with these in the future. Nlsanand 19:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This article is an obvious pov fork created by a user who was unable to introduce inappropriate material on another article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. POV fork. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

So what is supposedly POV about this rigorously sourced article? Deuterium 04:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The article clearly follows the precedent established by Iran-Israel relations, Germany-Israel relations, Israel-Venezuela relations, Israel-Japan relations, and Israel-United States relations. --Ben Houston 04:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ben Houston. --physicq210 05:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep on conditions that the article should describe its subject in an encyclopedic manner and that reliable sources should be quoted and not misquoted. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per NlsanandBakaman _Bakatalk 22:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all bilateral relations are notable, and a user tries to use the article to push POV, there will be editors to revert it, and eventually admins to block him/her. POV in a valid topic is not criteria to delete the topic; edit it. Carlossuarez46 01:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Standard mainstream topic. Piccadilly 13:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ben Houston and User:Humus sapiens. (→Netscott) 20:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ben Houston and User:Humus sapiens —Ashley Y 22:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep please it is sourced and a mainstream topic no reason to erase Yuckfoo 01:02, 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 speedy delete by GIen. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 14:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protean knights

Was speedied, now returned to life. Basically WoWcruft BigHaz 11:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity page for NN internet group. 22 unique google hits [34]. --IslaySolomon 11:25, 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 Merged and deleted.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naito Kiyonaga

Maybe this is just Wikipedia's cultural bias at work, but this guy really doesn't seem notable. He doesn't have an article on ja: and he gets barely 60 Ghits, many of which are wikimirrors. But I might be totally wrong, so I'm bringing it here for discussion. Soo 11:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Naito clan, which is enough. ColourBurst 13:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. If anyone wants to redirect after the deletion, feel free. MER-C 15:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - how does this fall under A7? A7 requires no assertion of notability, and defending in a historical battle seems to count to me. There's a difference between assertion and verification, but that's not what A7 was meant to address. ColourBurst 18:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Surely millions of people have appeared in a historical battle? They aren't individually notable. Soo 19:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Nonetheless, A7 was meant to address obvious lack of assertion of notability - I don't think it's obvious at all, which is why I removed it. All the google hits I find mention him in relation to other notable members of the Naito clan, which is why I recommended merge and redirect. ColourBurst 21:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Jap9c 22:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Information has been merged to Naito clan, so Delete. If it is expanded enough to need its own article later, then we can do so later. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:51, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Godspeed (company)

Non-notable corporation, fails to satisfy WP:CORP.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Valrith (talk • contribs).

• Delete. Yup, looks pretty non-notable. -- Necrothesp 14:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Nuttah68 21:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete. Non-profit charity company and actually quite a big player in Finland. Regards: Chairman of the Gospelboarders -Christian snowboarders association in Finland- (www.gospelboarders.com)
• Do not delete. Non-profit charity company, is currently a subject of multiple published works in Finnish Christian newspapers. jukkabrother 08:07, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Country Folk

Original research, unverified, and unencyclopedic and full of stereotyping. I've just moved from the big smoke to an Australian rural area and I've yet to hear one "Crikey", "Blimey", "Fair Dinkum'" or "True Blue" on the street. Possibly already covered in the article on Culture of Australia. -- Longhair 11:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair 11:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It's quite funny really. As an Australian, I don't take offense to it. Rather, it's full of stereotypes that are just as easily found in Sydney city, as out in the bush. That, and it's not a nessecary, productive or useful article that should be found on wikipedia. Nebuchanezzar 12:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- Nebuchanezzar 12:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment:I didn't take any offence either, and you're right, I've heard just as many 'bush terms' back in the city. -- Longhair 12:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Pointless. -- Necrothesp 14:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 14:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Necrothesp. JPD (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Crikey, there's a lot of original research and unverified claims in this article. Fair dinkum, delete. Capitalistroadster 00:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not fair dinkum. --Bduke 00:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ReeseM 01:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• strewth, is bluey fair dinkum? delete. **Or at least move to Australian country folk ;) Garrie 01:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• comment: See User Talk:Sclis#Box Wine for what I just removed from the Box Wine article.Garrie 01:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete bizarre. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete An article on rural or regional Ausrtalia would probably be quite good, but this isn't it, or even the beginning of it. Off Topic comment: In Australia, it seems if you live in a city of less than a million people you are in "rural Australia". -- Chuq 01:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not an encyclopaedic article. --Roisterer 03:38, 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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interlink SA

proposed deletion due to apparent lack of assertion notability, and absence of notabilityOhconfucius 12:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 14:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom unless a verifiable claim of notability is made. Irongargoyle 16:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• As fair as I can tell, its a course offered by the South Australian TAFE system. As such, it might be worth a mention on the TAFE page but not as a stand alone article. Delete. Capitalistroadster 00:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Who on earth would take the time to create an article about such a non-notable course? --Roisterer 14:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteZayZayEM 10:14, 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 Keep Deville (Talk) 14:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SCG International Risk

Delete Fails WP:CORP. 1190 Ghits; only this one is actually a third party article about the company, and it is not exclusively about SCG. Other hits are either press releases, directory listings, or the company's own website. Mike Christie (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment; I've been through most of the citations from Jamie (thanks for the detailed list). Most do not qualify, but a couple do; I think the company is marginally notable and am changing to comment. I will look further at the WP:CORP policy and think about revising my vote again. I would vote Keep if some of the "opaque" sources are shown to be direct non-trivial coverage of SCG, as opposed to Jamie Smith. Mike Christie (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Christie - thanks for doing a great job editing. But since you've looked at the contribution I've continued to add to it and feel that it actually does comply with WP:CORP which states that:

The criteria for companies and corporations requires that the company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.

As you can see there are considerably more than just the third party article you noted. I just hadn't the time to finish adding everything - the contribution is only a few hours old. These are comparable to other companies that have been used for their justification. Here's a list:

• [35] Licensed to Kill, Hired Guns in the War on Terror by Robert Young Pelton (Crown, September 2006)

This is a book about the SCG's area; can't tell from Amazon what level of coverage there is. Jamie, could you give some information about the contents? Does it treat SCG specifically as a subject, e.g. by devoting a chapter to SCG? Or does it mention them as a background name, by saying for example that someone mentioned in the book works for them? If this book directly treats SCG as a primary subject, it would be strong evidence for notability. Mike Christie (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• National Public Radio broadcast of Marketplace. Subject: Recruiting soldiers for private security work worldwide describing SCG's recruiting and hiring practices in Iraq and Afghanistan by Steve Henn (April 13, 2004)

This qualifies -- it's an article about the business of security, and it starts with a few seconds of interview with Jamie Smith, who had a bullet in his arm. SCG are not the direct topic of the article, but they are a lead example given as one of the businesses in this area. Mike Christie (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Good Housekeeping "Rescuing Lilly" article about SCG's role in assisting with recovery of kidnapped children. Author Amy Engeler (Date: May 1, 2004)

As with the Amazon story the content isn't clear; can you clarify? Mike Christie (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• The Virginia-Pilot Newspaper. Beach man wounded in mideast. A Virginia Beach security contractor was shot and wounded near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border this week. Jamie Smith, the owner of SCG International Risk, was hit in the arm Monday night...(April 10, 2004 in FRONT section, page A13 by Joanne Kimberlin)

I don't see how this makes SCG itself notable; as with a couple of other links here, the implied notability is more Jamie's than SCG's. Mike Christie (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• CNN Reporter Kevin Sites interview SCG CEO Jamie Smith. (Subject: Kidnapping of Robert Pelton, Meg Smaker and Mark Wedeven) (Date: 28Jan03)

This is hard to assess without knowing more about the interview. It sounds as though the topic was the kidnapping, and Jamie is being interviewed in his capacity as an expert. I don't think this contributes much to SCG's own notability. The intention of the notability clause in WP:CORP is that the writer took the business in question as their subject. That doesn't sound like it's the case here. Mike Christie (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Chicago Tribune article Published April 2, 2004 describing the company's role in the Iraq War and in providing contractors in support

This qualifies; there are three paragraphs in this news story where Jamie Smith is interviewed specifically discussing security firms in Iraq and describing SCG's own deployment. It's not in-depth coverage, but it's there. Mike Christie (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• The Left Coaster article entitled The New And Improved Hessian published April 2, 2005 describing the company's role in the Iraq War

Same quotes as the Trib piece above; given that the Tribune is the more important outlet, I don't think this adds anything. Mike Christie (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• National Public Radio interview with company CEO regarding company's training of Air Marshals in wake of Miami shooting. Aired December 5, 2005

This is an interview with Jamie Smith, the CEO of SCG (and also apparently the creator of this Wikipedia article). He was interviewed in his capacity as an erstwhile instructor of air marshals; the interviewer ends by saying that he is now CEO of SCG International, but there is no other mention of the company. This really isn't coverage of SCG itself. Mike Christie (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Article describing the company's role in the Iraq and Afghanistan war

This is a listing in an appendix that lists many companies; this is essentially a directory listing and doesn't qualify as coverage.

• Robert Young Pelton's World: Traveling Right about SCG's training courses for those traveling to war zones

This is just a one-line mention of one of SCG's course in Pelton's article; this is very marginal to qualify as coverage of the company.Mike Christie (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• ABC News, Air Marshal Followed Training, SCG International Risk's CEO discussing training and actions of Air Marshals
• SWAT Magazine article October 2003 edition. (Subject: SCG High Threat Vehicle Dismount training).
• People Magazine article on SCG International Risk CEO Jamie Smith and private security firms in Afghanistan and Iraq. Date: April 2004
• Nuts Magazine (UK) SWAT training discussed in interview with SCG Training Division Instructor Todd Smith. (Date: March Issue 2004)
• FHM Magazine (UK) article on SCG training SWAT teams. Author goes through SWAT training in USA w/SCG Training Division Instructors Todd Smith and Randy Lewis. (Date: March Issue 2004)
• Company press release describing deployment to US Gulf Coast to provide support in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
• SCG International Risk website

Jamie@scgonline.net 13:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:V M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 20:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  Okay, how the heck does this violate WP:V? O_o I think I meant WP:VAIN. Anyway, maybe weak keep is better, per Captainktainer. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 03:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, much against my better judgment. That's an extensive list of sources right there. I'd much rather all of these companies would disappear off the face of the earth... but the fact of the matter remains that this company easily meets and exceeds the requirements of WP:V and WP:CORP. Captainktainer * Talk 23:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Agree - keep. Meets requirements of WP:V and WP:CORP.Ghostscg 00:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep -- Geo Swan 07:46, 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.The original deletion comments asked for the deletion as too narrow a subject, and the last few keep comments state that the article has potential, but the rest of the comments are that it is currently too small. So, I'm merging and redirecting to List of birds on stamps, and if it is expanded, feel free to split it again. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Birds on stamps

I'm sure there's something wrong with this. Firstly, the page is very small, and secondly, there is not any piece of useful info there. " Birds on stamps is a very common theme in philately. Every country has produced some bird stamps. Often these are masterpieces of stamp design." - even a philatelist or an ornithologist wouldn't find anything of use here. However, this has quite some potential to be rescued and savoured. --Dangherous 12:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Pretty pointless. -- Necrothesp 14:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Merge with List of birds on stamps --Xyzzyplugh 16:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I have had it with these #&$%@%$@!&*#* birds on these #&$%@%$@!&*#* stamps! :-) Irongargoyle 16:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete sort of important as a topic, but totally useless as an article. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 20:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  Weak keep. Much better now. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 17:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

*Delete, worthless. Nuttah68 21:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep There are some rather informative articles (well lists, frankly) at Ships on stamps and People on stamps that I could see being useful to someone. This has the potential to develop into something like that. I agree that the article as it stands has no value, but with work...Dina 22:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC) The rewrite has strengthed my keep, thanks. Dina 09:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Merge and redirect per new info about List of birds on stamps Dina 16:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep now that I rewrote it as a more respectable stub (using some less than ideal sources, but that can always be worked on.) —Celithemis 10:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten, good job Celithemis!!! Carlossuarez46 01:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

*Keep due to rewrite by Celithemis. People who rescue articles from AfD deserve congratulations, thanks, and a little bit of honor. Captainktainer * Talk 00:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Merge and redirect. Celithemis has put a lot of work into a) salvaging this article and b) now finding the article that this should all go into. Remember, of course, that we need to not violate the GFDL; if anything of the original article that was put up for AfD remains in the current stub, there needs to be a history merge, which will take admin intervention. Captainktainer * Talk 10:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I still question the topic's inclusion, but it was a nicely done re-write. Irongargoyle 00:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten. It is a humble start, but looks interesting. RFerreira 07:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  Update: Sorry, I did not realize that a List of birds on stamps page had already existed. A merge there will suffice as well. RFerreira 05:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The article appears to be trivial information. I'd have expected this article to have information on stamps that gained some notability, but it appears to be nothing more than a few facts. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 09:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Well, unbeknownst to me when I rewrote the stub, there is already a List of birds on stamps. If the stub were merged and redirected to this page, it would be consistent with Ships on stamps and People on stamps, both of which are similar redirects. —Celithemis 09:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete these lists still trouble me as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Looking through a few I've not found a stamp on any of the lists that warrants an article of its own. Whilst this belongs in a Philately reference/catalogue it does not appear to be encyclopedic. Nuttah68 10:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I've cat'ed and linked both ways with List of birds on stamps so it can be found. Now encyclopaedic. BlueValour 03:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten. The "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is not applicable. The topic is well-defined. Mukadderat 17:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Has some potential. Birds on stamps no less notable than snakes on planes, I guess. Herostratus 18:14, 4 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 CSD G3. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 12:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Craig Bellamys Senior

Nonsense, and fiction ArtVandelay13 12:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete A combination of a hoax and patent nonsense. Oldelpaso 12:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Oldelpaso 12:21, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fanscape

Advertisement according to your rules. i don't agree personally but I'm playing by the rules. Scottcabal 12:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Just following the rules. you say this is advertisement so i listed it—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scottcabal (talk • contribs).
• Weak delete - unsourced, no sign of notability per WP:CORP. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 12:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be non-notable, especially considering its youth. -- Necrothesp 14:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• DELETE - advertising and spam of a useless company - 15:45, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] England and Spain football rivalry

This article does not describe a rivalry, rather it recounts a specific incident already covered in more depth in Ethnicity and football. Unlike say, Argentina and England football rivalry, England and Spain do not have a rivalry of note. Oldelpaso 12:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Oldelpaso 12:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not a rivalry. Punkmorten 17:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A single incident does not consitute a rivalry. Robotforaday 17:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. England and Spain do not have a traditional rivalry like that compared to Argentina and Germany. --Ageo020 19:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Nuttah68 21:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. One incident does not make a notable rivalry. -- Alias Flood 01:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, very poor "article". aLii 23:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No rivalry to speak off (certainly not as far as the Spanish fans are concerned Dodge 00:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete England has notable football rivalries with Scotland, Germany and Argentina only. Piccadilly 13:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Should really be a speedy delete. - Pal 00:10, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James F. Bloch

the subject does not appear particularly notable. He does, however, appear to work for a respected weekly local/community newspaper with a circulation of 71,000. Ohconfucius 12:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for now, unless secondary references are found that substantiate notability, then maybe. if you can find me I'll change my vote. Addhoc 12:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established. -- Necrothesp 14:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I've written articles for an international encyclopedia but I'm still not notable. Nuttah68 21:20, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Human Dartboard

This is weird. --Dangherous 12:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for now, unless secondary references are found that substantiate notability. Addhoc 12:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep following references being added. Addhoc 15:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Per Addhoc. Irongargoyle 17:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I guess. Weird I'll admit but a simple google search finds numerous independent sources. Nuttah68 21:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Added two secondary references. Will find Addhoc. :-). AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:21, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parochialism in Sydney

anti-Sydney rant, original research/POV Deuterium 12:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete for now, I'll change my vote if this article is improved to something similar to Westies. Addhoc 12:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This article was created during discussions at Talk:Westies (people) and to resolve an NPOV issue in the Wikipedia. You are welcome to participate in this discussion.

After the deletion of Easties a NPOV problem was created. Editors have been attempting to address this problem and to cover this issue in it entirety. Further reading is at User talk:Richardshusr/Easties (people). you should acquaint yourself with all the issues before rushing to judgement. (My position was that both articles should have been deleted but some editors pushed for Easties to be deleted and Westies kept, thus the NPOV issue.)--WikiCats 13:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment on your comment, Ok I didn't realise, and thanks for explaining, however currently the article is well below the quality of Westies, so I think weak delete is fair. Addhoc 15:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - This is a stub and there is a basis for creating this article per the explanation provide by WikiCats above although there might be debate about the best title for it. I have expanded the stub a bit but a lot more work needs to be done. --Richard 16:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Anti-Sydney rant. Don't keep and set a poor precedent. michael ^talk 16:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Cited references are a blog entry, and an editorial. BigE1977 20:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for being a soapbox. BigHaz 22:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• There could be a case for a Regions of Sydney discussing the different areas of Sydney. However, this doesn't provide much of a basis for this article. Capitalistroadster 00:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Parochialism in Sydney was the result of consensus here: Talk:Westies_(people)#Layout. After Easties was deleted and Westies kept it created a NPOV issue for the Wikipedia.

Editors have been in discussion to address this problem. The problem of NPOV has to be solved. If this article is deleted you can be assured that this crisis will be solved. Another article will be created. As long as one part of Sydney’s name calling war is portrayed (Westies), then the whole of the battle must be described.

I invite Deuterium, Addhoc, michael, Bige1977, BigHaz and Capitalistroadster to contribute here [36] to solving this issue for the Wikipedia. --WikiCats 03:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Not being a Sydneysider myself, my knowledge of the stereotypes that one part of the city has for the other are going to be slim at best. That said, what we have here is and will remain (unless those involved in solving the NPOV problems on that article help with contributions here) an unsourced and potentially inaccurate series of comments. BigHaz 04:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I support the deletion of all these silly terms; they have no place on Wikipedia. michael ^talk 13:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I can't be much clearer. When one part of Sydney's name calling war was deleted it created a NPOV problem. The war was determined to be caused by Sydney's Parochialism. --WikiCats 04:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps all the parts of the war should go, particularly if they aren't all equally notable. Another alternative would be to subsume all the constituent parts into one article (such as this one), so that everything can be in the one place rather than risking deletion for non-notability or other reasons when it's split off into separate articles. A third alternative, particularly if there's some overarching need to have this particular article here, would be to add more sources to this one. BigHaz 07:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• The idea that the deletion of Easties caused a NPOV problem can only come from a misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, and so should not be mentioned in this discussion. Having said that, I did agree previously that the material that WikiCats and Richard are trying to cover in this article could make a good article if well researched. However, I think it would be better as a section of a cleaned up Culture of Sydney than in this form. I guess I'm saying merge. JPD (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Culture of Sydney per JPD. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 11:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The Culture of Sydney is about multiculturalism. It is about people getting along with each other. I don't think that they would be happy about making it to an article about Sydney's name calling war.

In any case, I have added several more references. --WikiCats 11:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• That article isn't and shouldn't be simply about multiculturalism or people getting along with each other. Any information worth having one these subcultures and stereotypes also should be talked about simply as a name calling war, but in a broader context. The Regions in Sydney suggestion from Capitalistroadster is another place where this might be covered in a broader context, but trying to only describe some "name calling war" is not helping anything. JPD (talk) 11:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Why would Wikipedia benefit from an article that is more or less going to be a class, ethnic and political battleground? You cannot speak for everyone in this article or cover all views; these type of terms are best left as hearsay and opinion. michael ^talk 11:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per michael. I originally merely placed a {{bias}} tag on the article, and came under a bit of fire because of it (see talkpage for juicy details, if you want 'em). An article such as this could never fully conform to the policies of NPOV and, to some extent, original research. Personal opinions do not an article make. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 13:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep I created this article during discussion with other editors.

• This debate is not a vote
• The article was nominated for deletion within minutes of being started. It has been rewritten in neutral prose.
• The article was proposed as a solution to a NPOV issue that had arisen after the deletion of one point of view in the Sydney name calling dispute
• This is an attempt at an umbrella article to cover all points of view
• Parochialism is an article that exists
• One of the issues Westies (people) exists
• The article is verifiable with numerous notable references
• The article is not original research
• The article is written from a neutral point of view in neutral prose

--WikiCats 03:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Other articles similar to this one, such as Westies, should also be deleted. Slang terms to represent petty class, ethnic and political differences in Sydney do not need articles dedicated to them. Such an article will be based on biased sources (the primary source at the moment is from an online opinion column) and will also be succeptible to easy manipulation by those who want to discredit other groups. Article neutrality can't be claimed when the sources are opinionated.

I don't want to think about how poor an article on parochialism in my home city would be. michael ^talk 04:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment This sets a pretty poor precedent. Parochialism in Adelaide... Brisbane... Perth... Wooloomooloo... where are we going with this? — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc|damage report} 10:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This style of parochialism seems largely unique to Sydney and is well documented. --WikiCats 11:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not sold on this "well documented" idea. The links provided on the article mention the general concept of parochialism in Sydney (so we know it exists, but nothing more). Failing that, the ones which actually identify more about the phenomenon are blogs and the like, which are questionable sources. It might be my Historian Hat talking here, but for something to be "well documented", there really should be more neutral sources talking about how the different parts of the city are viewed or perceived. This is the sort of thing I'd imagine a sociologist would have written something on, for example. BigHaz 12:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging that parochialism in Sydney exists. There's one blog to demonstrate usage. There are notable references such as the Macquarie Dictionary/Book of Slang and the Sydney Morning Herald publication. --WikiCats 13:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Your sources are by no means reputable or "well documented". Two of them are opinion peices, two are simply small dictionary entries (if anywhere on Wikimedia, the slang terms should be on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia), and in one case, a comment replying to a blog post. Another speaks of the non-existence of 'parochialism in Sydney'. michael ^talk 13:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete any discussion on such phenomena is more appropriate to a broader article on Sydney culture, provided it is supported by reliable sources. This article is not, and appears little more than a fork.--cj | talk 13:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Richardshusr has posted a request for feedback on the article. You may wish to give feedback to help him improve the article, rather than just deleting it. I noticed it has some references, and a quick glance does not reveal any severe problems. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:04, 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 Deville (Talk) 14:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AppZapper

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

This article reads as a thinly veiled ad for what is currently an insignificant product on the Mac. Not every application needs or deserves a WP page. pbones 18:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep – The article does read like an advertisement, but after a rewrite I should be kept. AppZapper was reviewed by Macworld [37] a while ago and did get some coverage on other Mac related websites. I don't see why every app shouldn't deserve a page on Wikipedia, I mean, there articles on virtually every little detail, non-notable to some, in the Star Wars movies. A lot of small applications are covered in this encyclopedia, from open source commandline ones to commercial applications, and I think that's a good thing, in regard to completeness, as long as the articles don't read like an advertisement. mensch • t 21:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This doesn't sound very noteable to me, but I know nothing about macs - it could be. - Blood red sandman 12:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Star Wars is viewed and loved by tens of millions of fans. Random Mac applications are not. As for why every application -shouldn't- have a page, my answer would be that VersionTracker and MacUpdate handle this just fine, it's outside of WP's domain for all but the most notable applications (Photoshop, Office, etc.). pbones 06:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep per mensch. Addhoc 13:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I tried to rewrite the article to make it sound less like a set of marketing terms. mensch • t 13:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep WHAT!? This is the premier (sp? :[) uninstaller for Macs! Gaaah! How could this be up for deletion? If I were not a regular user of Wikipedia, I probably would have done that blog thing with the "hey everyone go vote keep". O_o M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 20:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I've cat'ed and sorted the refs out. Seems fine to me as an encyclopaedia entry. BlueValour 03:31, 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arts Council of Winston-Salem and Forsyth County

All this page has said since December 2005 is "The Arts Council of Winston-Salem and Forsyth County is the official arts council for Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA, and Forsyth County". Oh, and it has a picture and an external link. I'd like to AFD this under WP:N, but also because it has nothing of value. I mean, what else is "Arts Council of Winston-Salem and Forsyth County" going to be? In its present state it is deserved to be flushed out of the English Wikipedia. Go ahead and expand if you wish. --Dangherous 12:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for now, unless secondary references are aincluded which substantiate notability, then maybe, if you can find me, I'll change my vote. Addhoc 13:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable local organisation. -- Necrothesp 14:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless there is proof of it being more notable than the average local organisation. Nuttah68 21:24, 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.