Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 5

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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The result was "KEEP, withdrawn" - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 13:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keigo Abe

The article doesn't mention notability. It is a possible but not confirmed copyvio too. WhisperToMe 15:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. A quick look into the history shows there's a good article there that got buried by a copyvio. This needs a revert, and possibly some citations, but not a delete. --Gau 16:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• In that case, I'm withdrawing the nomination. WhisperToMe 16:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Abe is a major figure in the Shotokan world and his organization is quite big. The idea of his having 750,000 students seems a bit ridiculous withou proof. From what I know about Abe, much of the article would seem to be substantially correct, but not cited. What this article needs is links and citations and corrections, but not deletion. Paul Kallender.
  • Well, I am withdrawing the nomination WhisperToMe 06:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E-Blah

This appears to be advertising. The majority of edits to it are from StarSaber, who is the software's author, and who has also created Justin Osborne, which is nominated for speedy deletion. Earle Martin [^t/_c] 13:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - it seems to fail WP:WEB and has no reliable sources cited. It does have an advertis-ish feel, but unsure what could be deleted and still leave a usuable stub.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Em-jay-es 15:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to contain significant original research; has no reliable sources; fails to assert notability. Powers 21:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 00:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails to establish notability. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 13:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evolutionary psychoanalysis

Violates WP:OR, WP:V, and possibly WP:VAIN. According to the article, the term was apparently coined by Daniel Kriegman. According to the article's talk page, User:Kriegman admits to creating the article and being Daniel Kriegman. Medtopic 08:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but... - Another gem by the founder of Yoism! User:24.34.73.163 has helped round this one out some in the name of NPOV, although I'm not sure of his/her background and how much "balancing" really occured. In any case, my inclination would be to tag this with a notice that the content needs to be supported by citations that are not Kriegman's alone to avoid the WP:OR and WP:V traps. To me, the image of his book is vain and should go, but being a principal scholar of the theory doesn't necessarily exclude him from writing the article. I think there needs to be some serious work done, but I wouldn't recommend deletion just yet. If that's the consensus though, at least userfy it. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 09:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and also as advertising, since the only source cited is promotion for a book. No evidence is presented that any of the concepts described have any degree of acceptance, or have even been mentioned by a reliable source (outside of that single book). Dpbsmith (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. There needs to be some evidence of professional recognition of his theory, as in peer-reviewed journals in his field, objective third party citations etc. as stated in WP:V and WP:PROF. Otherwise it is WP:OR which Wikipedia, to maintain credibility, is seeking to exclude. Mattisse 17:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The article is notable, as it describes a theory concerning which Daniel Kriegman has published papers in peer-reviewed journals. The article could easily be brought into conformance with Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:NOR by adding the citations to the relevant research referenced in Daniel_Kriegman#Articles. Note that the term "evolutionary psychoanalysis" never appears in the list of published articles -- however, articles such as the one cited below apparently relate to the theory described in the article. The article might need some adjustment to bring it into conformance with WP:NPOV, but that, by itself, does not justify deletion.

  Kriegman, D. (1990). Compassion and altruism in psychoanalytic theory: An evolutionary analysis of self psychology. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 18, 2, 342-367

  (I have not yet verified this reference, which I am quoting from Daniel_Kriegman#Articles). John254 00:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I can verify that the above reference exists in PsycINFO. --FreelanceWizard 09:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep While it is true that I am a cofounder of the term/theory and also created the article, it should be noted that I created it back before I understood that it might be seen as self-promotion and thus improper. My current understanding is that the creator of ideas can contribute to articles about them, but that they need to be circumspect in their contributions (which I wasn't, in this case). In any case, there are inumerable references in the psychoanalytic literature to this perspective. As evidence, consider the book Theories in Psychoanalysis published in 1998 by the main psychoanalytic book publisher, International Universities Press, and edited by the well-known analyst, Robert Langs. There were a dozen chapters in the book, each about a different major psychoanalytic perspective. One of the chapters solicited for the book was "An evolutionary biological perspective on psychoanalysis" written by myself and Mal Slavin. If this is insufficient, please let me know and I will provide dozens of published references to this viewpoint by independent psychoanalysts. Kriegman 13:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - No one is doubting that there are boundless writings about various forms or theories of psychoanalysis, evolutionary psychoanalysis included, and written by well known people, but your name does not appear in either of the above two references. Mattisse 14:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Mattisse, if by "your name" you meant "Kriegman," I do not understand this comment as my name was in both the reference above. If you meant "evolutionary psychoanalysis," then note that above you wrote, "There needs to be some evidence of professional recognition of his theory ..." When people recognize this perspective/theory/approach they may refer to it as "the evolutionary perspective on psychoanalysis formulated by Slavin & Kriegman," or "Slavin & Kriegman's evolutionary psychoanalytic perspective," etc. I can provide numerous such examples from published, peer reviewed literature if the example I gave above is insufficient. It is clear from the context---e.g., selecting the perspective for inclusion in a book surveying "theories in psychoanalysis"---that it is being recognized as a coherent, specific psychoanalytic viewpoint/theory. If the name is the problem for others as well, then I would recommend changing the name of the article to "Evolutionary Perspective on Psychoanalysis," or something like that (though I do think that is more awkward). The issue you raised above (evidence of professional recognition . . . in peer reviewed journals) can be easily remedied; if more evidence is needed, just let me know. That issue should not be conflated with the issue of the title of the article, which can be changed, if necessary.Kriegman 15:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Reply to above comment - I did a search on both of the web pages you referenced above and your name is not on them. I also looked at the references in your article:
  1. One goes to a personal web page "Maintained by Francis F. Steen, Communication Studies, University of California Los Angeles". I have worked at universities and you can maintain personal web pages on their servers if you are a staff member. And Communication Studies is your field?
  2. Second one goes to the personal web page of Robert D Stolorow, Ph.D. and does not mention you.
  3. Third one goes to Harvard University Press catalog and does not mention you
  4. Fourth one goes to Paul & Anna Ornstein's personal web page and does not mention you.

Mattisse 16:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Reply to Reply - I don't understand the first part of your reply about the two web pages I referenced above. While I erroneously said they both contained references to evolutionary psychoanalysis (corrected above), what I meant to say was that they both clearly support the point I was making. One does list my name, two times: "Slavin and Kriegman provide an evolutionary perspective on psychoanalysis" and "Table of Contents … 11. An Evolutionary Biological Perspective on Psychoanalysis Malcolm Owen Slavin, Daniel Kriegman." The other was not about evolutionary psychoanalysis; it was a link to show that the publisher (IUP) was a major force in psychoanalytic publishing. Just so, all four links that you note do not contain references to me or evolutionary psychology were NOT presented as verifying the importance of the evolutionary psychoanalysis. Rather, they were external links showing who some of the folks were who were commenting on evolutionary psychoanalysis (other commentators have Wikipedia articles identifying them, which were linked to). The comments from the folks (whom the external links were just identifying) came from promotional material for the book and are printed on the book itself. I do understand that such material may not be considered sufficiently objective to support the article. As I noted, I can provide innumerable quotations from these and other authors in published, peer reviewed (i.e., non-promotional) works to supplement (or replace) the quotations I originally put in the article. However, that would involve my becoming involved in major re-editing of the article, which is something that I have been trying to avoid since I learned that my involvement was considered inappropriate. I can provide peer reviewed references and quotations so that someone else can place them in the article, if that is more appropriate. Kriegman 17:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete or move to the title of the book and rework to become a page about Kriegman's book. One book does not a trend make. JFW | T@lk 06:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - JFW, that's true. But what about the recognition demonstrated by its inclusion in the book Theories of Psychoanalysis and the innumerable references I have offered to provide from the major, peer reviewed, psychoanalytic journals of it being referred to as a specific theoretical viewpoint? My ego aside (OK, that's something not so easily done ;-), there is simply ample evidence that this viewpoint (which, in addition to the book, is presented in more than 50 published papers by myself and Malcolm Slavin in those major, peer reviewed psychoanalytic journals) has achieved recognition as a psychoanalytic perspective. Kriegman 16:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Fully POV and OR per above. This is a relist and still nothing is sourced? SynergeticMaggot 18:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nomination. psych-o-cruft. --HResearcher 21:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - POV and original research. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to recreation unless sourced -- on the page, mind you, as per WP:REF, and not in offers of lists of publications. Keep and cleanup otherwise. I searched PsycINFO and found several peer-reviewed articles and book chapters by Kriegman and others, some of which do indeed talk about this topic. A search for evolutionary psychoanalysis reveals some peer-reviewed articles and chapters by others (Smith, D. L. 1999; Gilbert, P. & Bailey, K. G., 2000). So, it does appear to have recognition in the psychoanalytic literature. Discussions on whether psychoanalysis is valid aside, I think this article if properly sourced is appropriate to keep, though its tone and possibly self-promoting nature probably aren't. With sources including some that don't involve the author cited (which I'm not going to fetch more than I have, not being a fan of psychoanalysis ;) ), this article could be kept and cleaned up. Otherwise, it probably needs to be deleted without prejudice to recreation and started over. Just to clarify, to me (as a psychologist), if all the papers involving a field come from the same set of people, and those are the same people writing it up for Wikipedia, it screams self-promotion of a concept that's possibly failed in the literature. If other people are writing articles on the theory that can be cited, however, it supports the claim that the theory is getting real support. --FreelanceWizard 09:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as proposal. michaelCurtis ^talk+_{contributions} 14:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Article created by one author and sourced to one book by that author. As noted by FreelanceWizard, no prejudice to re-creation if sources other than Kriegman are cited that clearly show that the theory is widely considered to be important. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and research by FreelanceWizard. Bwithh 02:39, 6 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. Prodego ^talk 02:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] army.ca

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=e3599def-04c4-4f34-8966-955cf6872684&p=1 (One non-trivial independant article using multiple quotes from army.ca by a very recognised mass media outlet A National print newspaper - Not a discription or simply a link, but use of quotes to make a large part of the discussion. Quotes were not part of a press release. As per Wikipedia Notability regulations) KlcCaenos

• I only see army.ca mentioned once in the article, and only in passing - and the article was not about army.ca but about reservists in Afghanistan. The quotes were from army.ca but not about the site. I ask the question later in this page - is the fact that a website is used as a reference good enough to establish notability?

The guidelines seem a bit vague so in my opinion this bears further scrutiny. Also don't forget to please sign your comments with four tildes. Two posters are quoted - the entire content relevant to army.ca reads as follows: Contributors to the discussion forums at the pro-defence website army.ca yesterday characterized Cpl. Boneca's negative comments as a means of dealing with the intense pressure of front-line combat. One contributor called the complaints "normal army bitching."
"Most of us, myself included, have said allot (sic) of not so well intentioned things due to the stress of being so close to 'quitting time'," wrote another poster, armybuck041...."The biggest lesson we as soldiers need to take away from this is how we project ourselves and our experiences to the members of our families waiting on the homefront," armybuck041 continued. I'm not sure how this establishes notability of the website, but as I've said, I'm far from an expert on the subject - can you explain how this is "non-trivial"? I thought the intent of the notability guidelines was to find an article discussing the website in question directly rather than simply establishing that it was used once as a reference. Thanks for contributing this to the discussion.Michael Dorosh 09:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• How does one post the links for review? so that the Media recognition Criteria can be met?70.48.70.91
  • It can be done here on the talk page.Michael Dorosh 17:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • To clarify though, the WP:WEB has instructions on where to place the links; I'd suggest a discussion of them here first as the rules qualify the links with "trivial" as discussed below. If there is consensus that notability has been met, it's a simple matter of posting the verifying info to the article and removing the deletion tag after which it shouldn't ever be an issue again.Michael Dorosh 18:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Requirements for media recognition are sketchy at best. Please clarify so that it can be made available to the staff of Wikipedia, and should it fail to meet the requirements then I am sure actions can be made to rectify this issue and solve it as quickly as possible. Of note I will not get into a personal issues which has forced this to come to a head, but wonder why it took this long to be noticed if it did not meet the requirements in the first place?70.48.70.91
  • I agree with your comments on requirements for notability which is why the issue is being raised. You do not need to make the info 'available to the staff', simply adding it to the article, or to this discussion itself, should be sufficient. I've raised the question of notability for military sites at the Military History project but consensus seems to be that simple reference sites aren't notable. Perhaps if enough of us can demonstrate constructively that reference and discussion sites are notable an impetus to change the criteria can be created.Michael Dorosh 16:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• The page fails to meet the current notability requirements listed at Wikipedia:Notability (web); the criteria was listed at Talk:army.ca.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michael Dorosh (talk • contribs).
• A malicious act by a person ( Michael Dorosh ) who has been BANNED from the Army.ca site due to his behaviour. [Personal attack removed in accordance with Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks.] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.230.32.165 (talk • contribs).
• This page is cited by many news organizations as a source in articles regarding the Canadian Forces. It is a site and a forum that is recommended by the Canadian Forces themselves. ((John Hill6633 21:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)))
  • I agree completely, but you need to provide a source for that claim in order for it to be accepted by Wikipedia as true. Can you provide a reference? It would certainly help the case for retention. Also please use four tildes to sign your comments.Michael Dorosh 16:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Dad counters reports reservist wasn't combat-ready, National Post, Friday, July 28, 2006; Global News July 9, 2006; General monitored soldiers' Web chat, The Ottawa Citizen Thursday 31 December 1998 ; US Army Foreign Military Studies Office Joint Reserve Intelligence Center Information Center On the Canadian Armed Forces; SMALL WARS JOURNAL 17 June 2006: just to name a few ((John Hill6633 21:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)))
  • I went to the Small Wars Journal website, and don't see any reference to army.ca - or to an edition dated 17 Jun 2006. Can you provide an exact quote from the journal and a proper cite so we might know which issue the ref appears in? Sounds promising.Michael Dorosh 21:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • John, bear in mind the guidelines state that merely being mentioned in a news article is not evidence in itself of notability - suggest you read WP:WEB thoroughly. We would need to make the case that these mentions are not "trivial".Michael Dorosh 16:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The exact guideline states:

    This criterion excludes:

    Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores. In the case of the articles you reference, do they do more than simply mention the site in passing? Can you provide quotes as well as links to the online articles, rather than just the headlines? I'm not clear on whether or not the notability guidelines include using the site as a reference. Does that in itself denote notability?Michael Dorosh 16:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Army.Ca is being cited as a source of note in all cases and is regarded as such by most defence journalists. ((John Hill6633 00:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)))
  • I see you edited this sentence, thanks for that. I've talked to Mike Bobbitt briefly this morning and in fact left on good terms - I still have a link to army.ca on my own forum and recommend it for current discussions of the military. I've also added external links to army.ca in several articles on Wikipedia - something that oddly has not been done to this point. Hopefully you will help rectify this. Back on topic, though, this nomination for deletion is based on the facts of the case, which I am hoping will be debated on those merits. My question was - is the fact a site is being used as a reference in itself an indicator of notability? The rules at present suggest no, but I will be happy to be proven wrong. Thanks for participating in the discussion and I look forward to your future contributions.Michael Dorosh 17:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. To be clear, the article as it stands now is well written, if sparse, and could no doubt be expanded considerably with ease. However, the notability requirements for web-content indicate that a website has to either have been granted an award, or else been mentioned otherwise than trivially in other media. Personally, I feel that is an overly stringent requirement and would love to see a review of these guidelines. Look at a site like feldgrau.com which contains a ton of information on the German Army, but would fail to meet the requirements for notability for a mention here. Army.ca is particularly noteworthy, in my opinion, for the number of registered users (10,000+) and the apparent utility the site is gaining in the news media. In order to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria, however, that has to be demonstrated in the article itself, and neither point would meet the stringent criteria as currently stated. If I have mis-interpreted the notability article, I will stand happily corrected. As a side note, I was indeed banned from the site, have left on good terms with the site owner (which is nobody's business and irrelevant here), and still have a link to army.ca from my own canadiansoldiers.com forum - and continue to recommend that site for discussion of current Canadian Army topics. See Wikipedia:AGF. I would like to see a review of notability requirements for web content in general and military sites in particular, as I feel many useful sites should be featured with articles on WP but fail to meet the requirements at present. Future editors to this page please ensure to follow the guidelines for Wikipedia: Civility and remember to sign comments with four tildes (~~~~). Wikipedia has also stated that its mission is as an encyclopedia rather than just a "list of weblinks". I presume the intent of the web content notability standards was to ensure that truly significant sites (on the order of google.com) receive coverage they deserve rather than "vanity" sites being given coverage. Army.ca has been used by the media to investigate stories - I'm unclear whether or not proof of that on the page would count as "non-trivial" references and therefore qualify for inclusion. I look forward to the debate on this article's deletion/retention as discussion here will certainly guide us on how to apply the rules to similar military websites.Michael Dorosh 15:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The criteria are not faulty. A web site that contains "a ton of information on the German Army" but that hasn't itself been the subject of secondary source material does not warrant an article of its own, although it would be of benefit in a Further Reading section of German Army. Our intent is not to create a web directory, and that something is cited as a source for information about other topics does not make it automatically worthy of an article about itself. (I am cited as a source in several Wikipedia articles. Not only do I not warrant an encyclopaedia article, I am unverifiable.)

    The requirement that the article itself demonstrate that the notability criteria are satisfied is in part motivated by the move to a strong sourcing policy (although it does have the side benefit of making AFD discussions simpler). Citing sources is not optional.

    One should always work from, and cite, sources. If you don't have sources that are about the web site, don't write. Uncle G 10:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

    • That certainly clears up notability - thanks also for formatting the discussion here - it was driving me buggy :-) I was thinking more of military websites as they fit in the general historiagraphy of certain subjects - ie the sites themselves become historical participants through their being used to interpret events - but that probably does not warrant separate articles either.Michael Dorosh 14:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete -- if this webforum was really referred to as the "official" webforum for the Canadian armed forces by the Canadian armed forces, that suggests notability. Relevant guideline is WP:WEB. But there doesn't seem to be any indication that any third party has ever discussed this website, leading to WP:V and WP:NOR problems in writing an article about it. Delete unless some reliable sources are found that we can use to write an article about this website. Jkelly 15:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • One of the anonymous IP addresses who are defending the site may be able to find that reference regarding the Army considering the site an "official" forum, it was included in one of the forum threads. I don't know if the notice is still up. If that can be considered sufficient for notability, then I'd recommend concerned parties find the reference. FWIW, there are few links to army.ca in the "external links" pages of many relevant Wikipedia articles. I've just added links to army.ca at CF Land Force Command and a few others; I'd suggest those who also believe army.ca is a useful reference to do likewise to articles that seem appropriate. The guideline on Wikipedia is that external links must be relevant and expand the reader's knowledge on the article it links from.Michael Dorosh 15:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: I don't understand the need for an Enclopaedic entry for a web site on a web site. Surely persons interested in researching Army.Ca can on the Internet can just as easily go the site in question. Is it a normal practice to have web sites as Wikipedia entries? Kenny.am 00:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, just the Canuck equivalent of defenselink.mil in the USA. That website, which acts as a portal to the thousands of .mil websites, is not itself blessed with an article and I don't see why this one needs to be. --Dhartung | Talk 02:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • There is a huge difference between a "list of links" and a virtual community of several thousand people that has been used as a reference in the media. Army.ca is not at all the equivalent of defenselink.mil. Compare "Defenselink.mil is the official web site for the Department of Defense and the starting point for finding U.S. military information online." to "Army.ca is a private effort, and is in no way sponsored by or connected to the Department Of National Defence, the Canadian Forces, or any other military organization."67.71.171.108 06:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • No one is denying that army.ca has a large number of registered users, nor is anyone denying that the site is read by a large number of people, and occasionally given passing reference in the media. I myself recommend army.ca for those wishing to engage in current discussions on the CF. What is at issue here is whether any of that makes the site suitable for the subject of an encyclopedia article. Regardless of the ownership - private or public - and regardless of the traffic levels, and regardless of who the membership actually is (completely unverifiable in any event), the crux of the matter is - who is talking about army.ca aside from posters at the site, and how would one research an article on the site without using the site itself? Most of the references in the article are self-referential, or else indicate passing references to the site from external sources that rarely actually discuss the site itself. From that standpoint, the standards of WP:WEB are not met. (As an aside, none of this should be taken personally - newcomers to Wikipedia are often alarmed at how rigorous the intellectual standards are, as I was when one or two articles of mine were deleted outright for non-notability. Once one gets used to the idea that standards here have been built up by the consensus of thousands of editors and gets a feel for what the site is generally felt to be about, things get easier. Certainly, don't get discouraged, and should the standards for notability be met in future (if it is shown that have not to this point), you'd be heartily encouraged to resubmit the material. Thanks for your interest and participation in the discussion.Michael Dorosh 17:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep --Yunipo 09:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Indeed, it is pretty clear after examining both the site itself and the discussion both here and on the article Talk page that the only reason it is being offered as a candidate for deletion is a thinly-veiled personall vendetta by a disgruntled former user. 131.137.245.199 01:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What would be more useful would be an examination of WP:WEB and basing your vote on the facts of the case rather than my personal reputation, which is irrelevant to this discussion. The question before us is: does army.ca meet the standards set out in WP:WEB - and therefore my question to you, then, is if army.ca does meet the notability requirement, can you explain how so that the rest of us might alter our vote accordingly? As stated, I will be happy to be proven wrong.Michael Dorosh 01:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.38.179.146 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-02 17:52:24 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It is not lost on me, and one hopes, not lost on the rest of the Wiki community, that the only voice making the argument for deletion clearly has motives other than the referential integrity of the Project - no matter how insistant he might be that his motives are pure. The site in question obviously and clearly meets the standards set out in WP:WEB; it appears to be the Canadian Military version of slashdot.org, and this discussion appears to me to be closed. 66.103.226.30 18:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC).
  • Please follow the dictates of WP:AGF. Please advise how being listed at slashdot.org meets the criteria for notability...which require mentions in other media of a non-trivial nature. Can you present an example of a non-trivial mention of army.ca at slashdot? A link to the site at the main address shows no mention of army.ca. No one has yet demonstrated notability by an actual non-trivial quote - again, passing references to the site are not indicators of notability; that would be fulfilled by an article about the site itself, not just a notice that it was accessed by a researcher. My mistake, I thought you were using mention at slashdot as proof of notability, but instead you are comparing the site to slashdot. That alone isn't proof of notability - again, you need to prove the conditions of WP:WEB have been met on the merits of the site itself, and at present, the article doesn't seem to me to provide that.Michael Dorosh 19:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Continuously reasserting something doesn't make it true (and rather renforces the claims that this is vendetta by a disgruntled former user). The site in question has been repeatedly referenced in national media (as scores of citations in the article document) and appears to be the effective "official" discussion site for the Canadian Army (as official as such a body can ever get) That makes meeting the requirements of WP:WEB trivial - so trivial, in fact, that is is a Speedy Keep
      • Those mentions do not number "in the scores" and all seem to be trivial, unless you can quote an article which does more than just give passing mention to the site. dictionary.com defines "scores" as "A group of 20 items." I do not see 40 or more references cited. Nor do I see a reference to the CF considering it an official discussion fact - in fact army.ca's own official disclaimer states irrevocably that army.ca is NOT an official site of the CF. "Army.ca is a private effort, and is in no way sponsored by or connected to the Department Of National Defence, the Canadian Forces, or any other military organization. Army.ca is not supported in any manner, either official or unofficial. As a result, it often does not get the time or resources that it often requires, however it also means that it can operate without the worry of following official administrative guidelines and restrictions. " see army.ca disclaimerMichael Dorosh 22:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep --SFont 05:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - this page was created from my account without an understanding of notbility requirements - sorry for any trouble this has caused -14ctr —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calgarytanks (talk • contribs) 2006-08-04 01:51:43 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I think it is notable if the Canadian army refers people to it as an alternative to their official web forums. --HResearcher 15:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any evidence that they do - the article has a self-referential footnote to a forum posting there that seems inconclusive (unless someone can copy the relevant statement here - I believe it was a reference to a notice at an official forces.gc.ca site, but no one has produced that URL.) In any event, the disclaimer on the site states strongly that army.ca is in no way connected to the Canadian Forces - exact words being "Army.ca is a private effort, and is in no way sponsored by or connected to the Department Of National Defence, the Canadian Forces, or any other military organization. That doesn't exlude the possibility of the Army recommending the forum, but there needs to be proof of that presented other than what an anonymous poster on army.ca may have implied in order to meet the standards of verifiability here.

If I am remembering the thread correctly, I believe the "recommendation" by the Army to use army.c for discussions actually came from an Army.ca registered member who happened to also be a moderator at the army's own forums. So the "recommendation" came via personal relationship to the site rather than as an act of Army policy. Michael Dorosh 01:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm changing my vote ↓ --HResearcher 10:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Michael Dorosh's and Dhartung's contentions. --HResearcher 10:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Summing Up?

Case for deletion

• Fails to meet Notability Standards: Site has won no major awards, and received no major coverage in the media, as per WP:WEB. It has received only passing mention in some media outlet, mainly print articles.
• Voting - while WP is not a democracy and deletions are not done by vote, those in favour of retention are largely anonymous and/or silent on why they feel the article should be retained. No relevant case for retention has been presented, no evidence that the site meets the standards of WP:WEB.

Case for retention

Sum up here.

• Delete. The article makes no real case for WP:WEB compliance, such as several links to actual mainstream media mentions. As such: WP:NOT a web directory. Sandstein 16:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The website in question has had mention in radio, tv, and print news (references cited in the article) and so meets WP:WEB Furthermore, it cannot be ignored that the sole champion of deletion is constantly editing the article in an attempt to remove or discredit the citations that enable the meeting of WP:WEB, and it is a matter of record that this user was recently banned from the website in question which causes grave doubts about his good faith in editing. While it may not be the strongest case for WP:WEB complience ever seen on Wikipedia, the fact that there 'are' cited instances of national media reports on this website, coupled to the dubious nature of both the deletion request and the subsequent editing pattern, seems to me to make a strong case for retention - at least for now. Perhaps it can be revisited in 6 months, when the disgruntled editor has moved on to other targets and the article contents will have stabilized.

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

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 04:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The American Ireland Fund

Reads like an advertisement. Appears possibly notable by the Google test, but even if it is, this article would need a complete rewrite. Dark Shikari 15:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I tagged the article as a copyvio from here. --Porqin 15:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: Apparently Wikipedia has permission from the AIF webmaster to copy the text, see the articles talk page. If it is true, it is not a copyright violation. --HResearcher 02:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete --nathanbeach 16:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: Nathan, please explain your reason for deletion. --HResearcher 02:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite. This organization does a lot of real good in Ireland and merits encyclopaedic treatment. Aye-Aye 23:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep rewrite. If it is truly as notable as Aye-Aye is implying. Also is the allegation of copyright violation just because it was copied? Is the copied text protected or do they allow copying of what is states. Copyedit. Research and contribute. --HResearcher 02:45, 4 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, Mailer Diablo 15:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite, starting with the history. It's a major charity. --Dhartung | Talk 13:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, re-write. Encyclopedia-worthy. --TheM62Manchester 13:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subic-Clark Expressway

Blatant copyvio of http://www.jbic.go.jp/autocontents/english/news/2001/000041/Phil2.htm. Dark Shikari 15:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. However, I'm all for this kind of article if original. Interesting stuff. --nathanbeach 16:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  Then why do you vote delete instead of rewriting? --HResearcher 02:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Remove the copyvio stuff and rewrite. Passes WP:NN. Thε Halo ^Θ 19:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep copyedit, research, and contribute. But is it notably encyclopedic? --HResearcher 02:57, 4 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, Mailer Diablo 15:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Highways are inherently notable (at least on Wikipedia!), and User:Akosikupal has corrected the copyright violation. Powers 21:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Marathon Total Conversions, since that's where someone has decided to concentrate coverage of all Marathon total conversions. Kimchi.sg 02:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marathon RED

Delete. Apparently this article is about a modification of a customizable game that some dude created. There's no intimation of how many units of this were sold or if indeed any ever was. Nothing to merge.- CrazyRussian talk/email 18:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I also suggest AfD'ing the other articles mentioned in the template at the bottom of the page, or merging them into one article. -- Koffieyahoo 02:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Why delete it? There are other mods listed under Marathon, will you delete them all as well? How about we delete all stubs as well, as they lack data. Zanduar 00:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge all articles into a new article (possibly titled Marathon Total Conversions). These articles are short and really can't be expanded. However, the subject seems to be important enough to merit a single article. Besides, it makes it alot easier for the reader to find everything on one page. Yanksox 02:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This is a stub, and it can be expanded, but that is besides the point, many notable subjects have only one sentence written on them in Wikipedia. Does that mean we delete all stubs? Marathon seems to have several mods, so I see nothing wrong with having an article on another one of it's mods. --HResearcher 09:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per sox. Most of these would qualify as non-notable in my opinion; their sites would surely fail WP:WEB. However, on the whole, modifications of a game engine are a notable thing. I don't think they're necessarily worth their own article instead of being part of the article on the game, but that's a compromise I'm willing to make. --FreelanceWizard 09:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Seems there's some confusion as to what this is. RED, along with the rest of the mods in the template, are total conversions for Marathon, a very old but noteworthy first-person shooter (noteworthy as probably the best-known commercial Mac-only game ever, as well as the first big success of Bungie). I'm not sure how encyclopedic these are, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 13:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable mod--Peephole 14:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)--
• Keep This was one of the most popular Marathon total conversions around. It's not OCunter-Strike Popular, btu has been played by tens of thousands of people. There have been 2500 downloads on [1] alone, which was established well after the release of Red and is hardly the only source. We really need a WP:GAME to make this sort of thing easier. Ace of Sevens 17:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge all per Yanksox. Total conversions can be notable, but any given one is not as notable as a full game with the same playerbase. There's no need to have a bunch of stub articles when a longer compilation article would work just as well. Powers 21:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WeirdoYYY. Powers 13:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I created the page at [2] I put them all there so no need for dupes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WeirdoYYY (talk • contribs) .
• Keep: Given it is hosted on the official site I don't see how it fails notability. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It's hosted on bungie.org, a longstanding Bungie fansite, not the official site. bungie.com and bungie.net are the official sites. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chongqing Xianghong TV Art Ltd

Orphaned AfD nomination. I'm pretty sure that it has been nominated for lacking notability and failing WP:CORP. Technical nomination - no opinion from me as yet.➨ ЯEDVERS 18:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,

• Delete no reliable sources for any claim to notability, no evidence of meeting WP:CORP, reads as advertriial. Just zis Guy you know? 12:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Even simplified to "Chongqing Xianghong", it gets a whopping 14 Google hits. Kill it. Kafziel 16:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Unfortunately, Chinese google for "重庆乐乐熊" gets only 41 as well. Not much in the way of news either. --ColourBurst 20:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep probably better get someone who can read Chinese. The article claims to have produced The Story Inside Forest and Happy Panda and claims Happy Panda is notable among children. Better research better into this before deleting. --HResearcher 03:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe someone else can come up with something, but for me these claims are 100% unverifiable. Those unsourced claims of notability serve to keep it from Speedy Deletion, but they shouldn't serve to keep it from being deleted here. I can find no evidence that they have produced anything of note, and the external link is in Chinese (and even if it wasn't, it's not a source independent of the subject, so it couldn't be used anyway). If the subject's notability can't be verified, it can't survive AfD. Kafziel 12:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Technically, translation from other Wikipedias is allowed, from Countering Systemic Bias here: [3], so technically it has to be nonnotable in every single wikipedia to be truly nonnotable (not just "being a Chinese website with little hits in English".) However, there's no verification of the character or the company in Chinese news sources either. --ColourBurst 17:12, 4 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, Mailer Diablo 15:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete; fails WP:V. --Satori Son 16:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as it has no verified sources provided and as per ColourBurst - "there's no verification of the character or the company in Chinese news sources either".--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 23:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disaster informatics

Fails WP:NEO as well as WP:VAIN. The google search for "disaster informatics" turns out a total of 143 hits, 56 unique. The main hit is with the work of David Wild who seems to have coined the phrase. Perhaps not unrelated (ahem) is the fact that the article nominated here has been created by Davidwild (talk • contribs). Now of course there might be a day where this terminology is widely used and accepted, but until that day comes this should not have its own article. Pascal.Tesson 18:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - vanity article. —Hanuman Das 00:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments by David Wild I don't consider this any more of a neologism than any derivative branch of Informatics (such as Health Informatics, Geoinformatics etc), and certainly less so than the existing GIDEON Informatics, Parliamentary informatics and so on, although the area is very new. I don't think there is another term which encompasses the application of technology in disaster areas though.

Regarding vanity, it's certainly not a personal conflict of interest. As a researcher in the new field of disaster inforamtics, I feel qualified to begin a page - surely a requirement that an author not be a researcher in the subject area of a page on a research field is counter productive? In the article I currently just give a definition, and links to 18 resources, only one of which is a site I am connected with in any way (the School of Informatics Disaster Informatics page at IU, which also contains information about other researchers).

I am open to discussion on this, particularly as to where it may or may not fit the neologism criteria of Wikipedia. Obviously the criteria are quite involved and I'm new to Wikipedia submission :)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davidwild (talk • contribs) 11:08, 26 July 2006.

Comment: David, you should vote to Keep the article if you feel that it should be kept. --Richard 07:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Health Informatics and geoinformatics are in very wide use. The WP:NEO guidelines apply to recently coined terms that do not have sufficiently wide use to merit inclusion. I do agree that Parliementary informatics seems to fail this (although it might be that it also needs to be submitted to AfD) as for GIDEON Informatics it's a company so the comparison is irrelevant. Pascal.Tesson 16:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and expand - The term is used by the Western Disaster Center so it passes WP:VAIN. Perhaps more substantive content would help. --Richard 07:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per Richard's findings. --HResearcher 09:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete I don't really see any evidence that the term is in notable use, one ocurrence doesn't convince me. I'm not convinced that there is a discipline here to be covered. The article is little more than a dic def now, and until I'm convinced that there's anything more to be said about this putative discipline, that is unique or particular to this discipline, then it looks like a neologism to me. Pete.Hurd 03:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, just over the neologism threshold. Sandstein 16:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wizard (psychology)

I originally prodded this article with the following concern: "Original research with no reliable sources or assertion of notable usage. Cites only self-published sources." The article's primary contributor disputed the prod and added a source from an academic (journal published) source. I don't feel the new source substantiates the usage as described in the article, so I'm listing the disputed prod here. Muchness 19:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Catchphrase used by motivational speakers, by the look of it: "a wizard is someone who affects your self image"; I think we used to call those things "people". And where's this supposed "journal" source? Byrgenwulf 07:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The author didn't use {{cite journal}}. I've fixed that. Uncle G 09:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article does have at least one reliable source. MaxMangel 05:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. original nonsense. psychologycruft. --HResearcher 03:29, 4 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, Mailer Diablo 15:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete These sources are sketchy at best. The first one is a blog, and the next two are completely unrelated from the topic at hand. --Wafulz 15:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable with reliable sources. None given. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The academic source cited is not relevant to the topic of the article. PsycINFO shows no relevant hits, which means that this concept really isn't in the academic literature of psychology. Furthermore, some of the claims in the article have been rather soundly debunked by modern psychology. Therefore, the article appears to violate WP:OR and probably WP:V; even then, the lack of information on how it'd be criticized by the scientific community makes it violate WP:NPOV. --FreelanceWizard 09:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Wizard in not a psychological term in the field of psychology. It has no meaning whatsoever in the professional literature. Perhaps if the article's name is changed to Wizard (pop psych) or something to clarify this point. There seems to be some confusion on Wikipedia between Psychology as a professional, scientific and academic field, and coined terms with (psychology) appended used by self-help websites, books, motivational speakers, etc. as mentioned above. Mattisse 11:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - "Subconscious mind believes all input"; "Wizard is someone who affects your self image" ... what is this even talking about? Take it to Geocities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.10.213.73 (talk • contribs). (user's fifth edit)
• Delete "original nonsense". —Khoikhoi 00:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mounir Zok

Article does not meet the Wiki standards for biography SteveHopson 19:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO. --Porqin 19:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Actually he does meet WP:BIO Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events: His works were chosen for Festival Internazionale Di Roma the yearly international photography festival held in Rome. --HResearcher 03:42, 4 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, Mailer Diablo 15:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I am not certain that participation in a international photography festival is enough to warrent notability. Should we generate articles for every participant in a major art festival? It also raises the question: What is "newsworthy"? Em-jay-es 15:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Having works exhibited at a photography festival, even if the festival is itself a "newsworthy event" does not constitute "acheiving renown or notoriety" for said exhibition. Powers 21:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO. —Khoikhoi 00:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ligonier ministries

Appears to be a vanity/advertisement page. I wouldn't be surprised if it was copied from their website. Dark Shikari 19:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This looks very familiar -- I believe it has been deleted before as Ligonier Ministries. NawlinWiki 18:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Looking at User talk:Reformedlibrary it may have been deleted as a copyright violation. (It wasn't via an AFD.) Hmm. Need to test that issue for this page clearly, but if that is not a problem with this page, then the prior deletion isn't relevant. More research to do before I opine. GRBerry 02:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep They are clearly a notable ministry. If the tone is inappropriate, please clean it up or at least put the appropriate tag on it. I tried to find copyright violations in a few of the sections by google searching for medium length strings. In one case, the only hit I got was Answers.com (a Wikipedia mirror) in another, Answers.com and two sites that used the same wording for listing the purpose of the ministry. I could be convinced otherwise, but I didn't find a copyvio. It also doesn't seem completely researched - it omits that Sproul stepped down from administration when Timothy A. Dick (apparently Sproul's son in law) was appointed president in November 2004. [4] They are one of the earliest members (possibly a charter member) of the ECFA [5], have a longer than average listing at ministrywatch.com (and having a listing at all is weak evidence of notability) [6], publish books and periodicals, have a radio program with distribution on all continents except Antarctica and in the U.S. over 2 million listeners a week. Should be moved to the proper capitalization. GRBerry 02:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I did a quick Google test for copyright vio and plagiarism. (copy between 3/4 of a sentence to two sentences into the google search box, inclose in quotes and see what pages are hit.) The only pages hit are this article in Wikipedia and the Answers.com mirror of Wikipedia. My conclusion is that it is not an IP violation, legally or ethically. I also believe this ministry passes notibility tests, especially since it is directly associated with R. C. Sproul, a major conservative Reformed Christian scholar. What is it about the page that says advertisement? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per GRBerry. --HResearcher 03:57, 4 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, Mailer Diablo 15:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Appears well-researched, referenced, and original text. Powers 21:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Well known presence in U.S. Reformed / Calvinist circles. Meets the "I had heard of it before seeing the Wikipedia entry" test. Probably should move to Ligonier Ministries. Smerdis of Tlön 22:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nadhem Abdullah

An incomplete AfD brought here. I'm assuming that the entry was nominated for lacking notability. Personally, I suspect that, unfortunately, victims of the war against Iraq lack notability. There are too many of them and, unless the article asserts greater notability, I'm not sure they come into Wikipedia's radar. However, I'm not prepared to CSD-A7 as I am aware of my own anti-war bias. Therefore I'd like community input. This is a technical nomination with no opinion being expressed by be - well, some opinion, but none on the article itself. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• If there is a relevant article on the courtmartial for his death, merge this there. The notability, if any, in the English speaking world comes from that courtmartial. GRBerry 03:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There is a lot of controversy over this man's death, it is notable. He isn't simply another collateral casualty. --HResearcher 04:02, 4 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, Mailer Diablo 15:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for now... I've never heard of him, but if more information about these court martials was provided, then I'd say this was notable. --Ricaud 08:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The Court Marshall following his death was headline news in the UK. A search on BBC News reveals 19 stories about him and the case. The article needs expanding though, I'll do a bit of research and try to write a bit more. --Darksun 10:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mad stalker

I agree it should be merged with GameFAQs_message_boardsand not deleted. Deserves a merge and redirect to GameFAQs_message_boards.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by NationalAcrobat (talk • contribs) 15:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, even the much larger and more long running board of LUE only has a section in the gamefaqs message boards article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.10.86.139 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is fine where it is and is a part of GameFAQs only by being in the site on one of its game boards that was changed into a social board. It should remain independant since its a relationship board and has existed for a long time as such with no reconition by GameFAQs.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Offworlder1 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 20:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete since WP:NOT GameFAQs FAQs. Just zis Guy you know? 11:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, unnecessary article. We're not a guide to GameFAQs. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Then what is this: GameFAQs message boards? --HResearcher 09:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Well, never mind, but it's still an unnecessary article. Maybe add a small mention to the GameFAQs message boards article. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 18:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL. I see your point. Want to know the truth?? I think it's also unnecessary: If I was the founder of Wikipedia, I wouldn't allow any games into the project, but I don't make such decisions. --HResearcher 10:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge, blank and redirect to GameFAQs message boards. Redirect shouldn't be made because there could be many uses of the term "mad stalker". --HResearcher 09:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 13:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Considering the article isn't about a video game, perhaps you may want to reconsider adding it to the Comp/Vid game deletion list. --TheFutt

• Delete per above--Peephole 14:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)--
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 00:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mitchell Stuekerjuergen

Not notable.

• Delete --Yunipo 05:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 20:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, CSD-A7. bd2412 T 21:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Dunno It did get a little bit of media coverage, and there is somehow a jack thompson connection? Can this be sourced? The yahoo story is gone. Kotepho 04:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. --HResearcher 10:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable and per HResearcher.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 23:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vr-zone

NN, advertisement—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dalponis (talk • contribs) 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 20:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Name recieves only 40 unique Google hits, article is sourced only to the website itself, and it reads like an ad. tmopkisn ^tlka 23:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I think whether or not it is notable needs to be more closely examined. It's forums have gotten more than a million postings. --HResearcher 09:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 13:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Abit seems to think they are notable. That's good enough for me. I've removed the 2nd paragaph that sounded like an ad and tagged the article as a stub. --Mitaphane _talk 20:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. I can't decide. The forums have 30,230 registered users, but the article doesn't satisfy WP:WEB ("The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a 'Reference' or 'External link' section."). Powers 21:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Just having 30,230 members in the forum means nothing. Most are just user accounts made for SPAM, or people who registered and forgot to post. Dalponis 00:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to AdventureQuest. Ifnord 16:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zorbak, Twilly

May be worth a redirect to AdventureQuest or a merge to moglin or a list of characters from AdventureQuest, but this is 100% uncited fancruft. Just zis Guy you know? 21:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect both to AdventureQuest, unless someone has a better idea. tmopkisn ^tlka 23:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be merge with moglin for both because it would be good for moglin to have detailed information of moglins. tlka 15:28, 26 July 2006 (GTM)

• Merge with moglin --Efitu (Tlk Unc) 19:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with moglin --Wafulz 15:22, 4 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, Mailer Diablo 15:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge, blank, and redirect to AdventureQuest or Moglin. --HResearcher 09:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 13:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Smerge per above--Peephole 14:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)--
• Delete both, gamecruft. User:Angr 13:38, 9 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ifanboy

In their own words, "culturally irrelevant since 2000". Read the article and decide for yourself. Danny Lilithborne 21:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This being the first time that I do this, I'm not entirely sure how to defend my having put up an entry for iFanboy. It's a site I've read since it's inception and with more and more people downloading their weekly podcast and following their exploits at the movies and at comic-cons. I think that regardless of their joking cultural irrelevance, their relevance to is on the rise, esp. with those who read comic books and listen to discussion podcasts. They were one of the 9 podcasts invited to this year's San Diego Comic-Con and I think that's just another example that speaks to their relevance to comic book audiences at large. don't delete.Killbot24

• Delete. Article is unsourced and does little besides discussing the creators and their personalities. Besides, a Google search returns only 144 unique hits. tmopkisn ^tlka 23:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• How is this any different than other podcast entries like Buzz Out Loud[7] or the similar podcast like Fanboy Radio[8], if this gets deleted, shouldn't the others?. Plus iFanboy is mentioned on another wikipage for Fanboy[9]. Also, they're in the top 100 podcasts for the Arts category in iTunes, higher than any other comics podcast. Plus I think that "culturally irrelevant since 2000" is meant to be a joke. I say don't delete.--Crujones13 19:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, for starters, "Buzz Out Loud" gets 364,000 Google hits, and is a podcast run by a very popular internet news site. Even Fanboy radio gets 60,000 or so hits. To put it simply, both of those podcasts are alot more notable then the one in question. If it's in the top 100 arts podcasts, well then good for it, but how many arts podcasts are there total? 120? 200? You have to put things in perspective, maybe when this article is #5 in the arts podcasts it will deserve an article, but until then it's just not notable enough. Oh, and yeah, I'm pretty sure that's a joke to, but in the grand scheme of things I don't think it really matters. tmopkisn ^tlka 21:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I definitely get your point about relevance, but the fact is, this podcast is on the rise. Doing a google search yields about 10k worth of hits, which isn't as much as "Fanboy Radio," but they seem to only have about 140 or so more unique hits. And they've only been casting since like this winter where Fanboy Radio's been around for years. Also, there is over 6800 podcasts under the "arts" category on iTunes, being int the top 100 is hardly insignificant.--Crujones13 22:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep if it is notable. I think the statement about being culturally irrelevant is irrelevant to whether or not this should be deleted. Whether or not it is notable should be discussed. --HResearcher 09:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Alexa rank is not quite two million. Google returns 96 unique hits, 947 total, apparently mainly from forums. Doesn't look notable. Fan-1967 16:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable through reliable sources. -- Dragonfiend 06:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- I've been listening to this show for almost a year now and I never visit their website (I'm lazy). From what they say on the show most of their audience is like me - so unique website hits is, to me, an irrelevant statistic. This show is all over iTunes.--BatFan77 16:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP -- Don't let a transforming medium like the wiki be held hostage to archaic standards that define traditional media. Fact is, these guys fill a niche in a way that no one else does. iFanboy is notable in that they have been blogging since it was still called a weblog, they have been podcasting for a time that has seen an untold number appear and disappear, and they have quietly begun doing video work - without self aggrandisement. Their audience is the measure of how notable they are.

--Angryjonny 14:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per Fan-1967 and Dragonfiend. User:Angr 08:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Angr. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for failing WP:WEB: "The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section.". Sandstein 16:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Links to ifanboy appearing in external media are in the External Link section for all to see.--BatFan77 17:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP There's no way to link to it, but if you go to iTunes, the most popular way to browse podcasts, and type in the terms "comic book," "comic books," or "comics" ifanboy shows up as the most popular/relevant podcast almost every time. Niche communities like comic book readers are going to be ones who determine the future of things like the podcasting medium, and ifanboy is right at the top of the heap among comic book podcasters.-- Quint27
• Dlt fails WP:WEB. ~ trialsanderrors 08:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Fails WP:WEB. Smells like vanity. Discount sock/meat puppets. Ifnord 23:30, 13 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. Prodego ^talk 02:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bramston Sports Centre

NN local recreation center Valrith 21:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Obviously not notable, receiving only 102 unique Google hits, none of which seem to be of any importance. tmopkisn ^tlka 00:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with the small Essex town of Witham. Kappa 07:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, blank, and redirect per Kappa's suggestion. --HResearcher 09:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Kappa. Attic Owl 13:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Kappa. --Gray Porpoise 22:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with the Witham article per Kappa. Yamaguchi先生 21:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Witham - this won't ever be notable on its own but is notable within the context of Witham. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 13:53, 9 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" - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 13:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amtgard

In Amtgard and Amtgard Documentary for about two months there has been a merge request that Amtgard be merged to Amtgard Documentary. The talk page of Amtgard Documentary is blank and the talk page of Amtgard says to merge to the other one, so my assumption is that Amtgard should be merged to Amtgard Documentary. BobDjurdjevic 00:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• AFD is not to be used for merge requests. If you want to complete the merge, do so. Then tag the article for a speedy deletion. Viridae^Talk 00:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• The Amtgard Dcoumentary should probably be moved into the Amtgard main page. There is already a section for it.PeregrineV 23:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• The Amtgard entry shoud, in no way, be deleted. The Amtgard Documentary is about Amtgard, not the other way around. Merging the documentary into the Amtgard entries makes far more sense. --Thorprime 16:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• The Amtgard entry is the valid parent entry. The Amtgard Documentary should be a subset, or wikilink from Amtgard. Amtgard is a long established organization and should not be deleted. rjoebrandon 21:22, 02 Aug 2006 (UTC)

Comment Yes, merge the Amtgard Documentary into Amtgard and make it a redirect. This does not neeed AfD.--Runcorn 21:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Mailer diablo, this looks like it shouldn't be listed in Afd, according to the comments. --HResearcher 09:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep AfD is not meant for discussing a merge, it's a serious process for removing an entire article. As for the merge request, since the Amtgard Documentary is about Amtgard, Amtgard should be the main article, not a documentary made about it. --Wingsandsword 04:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This is not a valid Afd according to the comments. --HResearcher 09:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Film Academy

Prod removed without explanation by User:Film Academy so there's potential WP:VAIN issues. As noted in the proposal, "non-notable company. Film Academy itself useless on google but East End Film Society and combined search are terrible." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Film school --Aoratos 09:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC) Just delete it --Aoratos 21:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: That would be an incorrect action. Film Academy is the name of the company. It is not simply a film school. --HResearcher 10:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Film school. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-26 11:36Z

Comment: That would be an incorrect action. Film Academy is the name of the company. It is not simply a film school. --HResearcher 10:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Replied below. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-06 17:19Z

• Deletee without redirect. Film academy might warrant redirection, but Film Academy does not. --Karnesky 22:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair point. --Aoratos 09:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

True, but no one has even discussed any notibility of Film Academy. Is it a notable film company or not? --HResearcher 10:04, 5 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, Mailer Diablo 15:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't worth a continuing debate. There is a consensus that the content is crap - delete it. If someone wants to redirect, they can and we can go from there. But I suspect, no-one much will care either way. Admin, Be BOld. --Aoratos 16:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No, discussion hasn't looked at the notibility of this independent film company. --HResearcher 10:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Karnesky as a non-notable company. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Take a look at the article. Film Academy is the name of a company, not merealy a film acadamy but THE Film Academy'. Votes for delete based on the name are incorrect. What should be looked is the notibility of the independent film company. --HResearcher 09:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep is it a notable film company? --HResearcher 09:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Looking at an older version of this page, prior to User:Film Academy removing information, they describe themselves as "founders of the East End Film Society" which as I point out in the nomination has a terrible google presense both by itself and combined with Film Academy. Also, there was also a one-sentence separate article at MySpace Film here about some project set up on MySpace which I simply made into a redirect back here. There's no google information on this project and looking at the myspace page, nothing has been created yet. There are concerns about verfiability and an article about a production company with a single project that has yet to produce a single film fails because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Their blog is about the film industry in general; there's no mention of anything in particular that they have done. Their website lists nothing they've done. Overall, is there any indication of notability anywhere that is worth debating? How this is still being debated is beyond me at this point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Then they are hardly notable at all. I changed my vote to delete.↓ Thanks for the clarification Ricky. --HResearcher 15:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I can see the confusion, and worried like hell that somehow this was going to be kept. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not notable. Do not redirect. --HResearcher 15:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• An redirect can be from a marginally related title or from something that is an instance of the more general. Redirects are cheap and save the content in the history---useful in case the subject ever becomes notable and also help prevent recreation if it hasn't yet become notable. In fact for something uncontroversial, a speedy redirect without an AFD can save everyone a lot of time. Deleting history is really only necessary for copyvio, attack pages, completely useless patent nonsense, etc. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-06 17:19Z

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

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edgeville

Very little content about a town that likely doesn't exist Jay Carlson 05:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't exist, article states it is from RuneScape. --WillMak050389 05:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

In which case it should be deleted or merged because we don't need an article on every single town in Runescape. Dark Shikari 13:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added a "mergeto" tag to the article, but am unsure if it is notable enough to be added to RuneScape (I don't know much about the game). --WillMak050389 13:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Redirect No way of staying on it's notability, nothing to right about. redirect either to the main runescape page or the runescape location page as this article has no hope. J.J.Sagnella 13:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed merge template to point to RuneScape locations. --WillMak050389 13:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete without redirect. There's no content to merge into the already overlong Runescape article, and there are many Edgevilles out there - one in Nashville, one in Georgia, never mind the millions in cheap sci-fi books - no reason this should point to Runescape in particular. Vizjim 14:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect to RuneScape locations per J.J.Sagnella OR speedy disambiguate per Vizjim, direct creator to the RuneScape wiki; this type of article I like to call a 'rogue subpage'. :-) CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 01:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak merge/redirect It depends on if this town is notable for anything or not. --HResearcher 10:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 13:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom--Peephole 14:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)--
• Merge/Delete I don't think a redirect is warranted for a town from a video game. See also Vizjim's comment above. --HResearcher 15:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect. Non-notable in itself, but part of a notable topic. --Gray Porpoise 22:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment If this is kept, it should be a disambig page, not a redirect because there are many Edgetowns. --HResearcher 09:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no mergeable content. In actual fact, the Wilderness starts right after the last house to the north.??? Redirect can be put in later. ~ trialsanderrors 08:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with no merge, per trialsanderrors. Ifnord 23:43, 13 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 06:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kristen Key

Googling yields her official site and MySpace above anything else. Few results, doesn't appear notable. Article makes no claim to notability, but I'm not sure if this is good enough for speedy, so I put it here. Dark Shikari 13:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. 698 Ghits [10], only incidental mentions at Gnews. Unaware of any other evidence of passing WP:BIO. Nearing my threshold, but not past it, sorry. Luna Santin 14:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, an appearance on NBC's "Last Comic Standing" certainly infers nobility. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. If you watch a brief clip of her at youTube you might decide she's indeed an American comic, as claimed. I began this stub. Zzorse 11:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As written, the article does not provide any citations that would prove notability sufficient to meet WP:BIO. --Satori Son 01:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Now it does. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:56, 4 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, Mailer Diablo 15:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This will never be more than a stub. Still fails WP:BIO, as a MySpace and a personal website do not count as reliable sources. At the very least redirect to Last Comic Standing. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: How do you know it will never be more than a stub? A stub is not criteria for deletion. Many notable subjects are merely a stub in Wikipedia. --HResearcher 10:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep how notable is she to the comedian community? --HResearcher 10:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Appearing on LCS is notable enough for now, she should become more notable some time in the future. Konman72 11:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep she is notable enough to be on Last Comic Standing. Provide citations. --HResearcher 10:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • How's this? Kristen Key page at NBC.com -- Zzorse 12:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet criteria of WP:BIO. Gosgood 02:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge not enough information here to merit a solo article, but not so long that a merge into Last Comic Standing wouldnt work.  ALKIVAR™ 02:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep please being on last comic standing confers notability Yuckfoo 04:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a notable comedian. I am a bit perplexed by comments which suggest any article cannot be expanded by way of verifiable sources. RFerreira 19:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - notable comedian. --Myles Long 22:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Six paw

neologism, nn. Very few google hits that are not wikipedia mirrors. No links or references. Possibly vanity. At the very least should be merged into furry fandom or similar. Flagongoblin 13:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or merge into appropriate furry article. 351 Ghits [11], no hits at Gnews [12]. Unsure if it'll pass WP:NEO; if somebody can find a reliable source, I'd be much-obliged. Luna Santin 14:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to taur, where this sort of thing seems to be already described. JPD (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a non-notable neologism. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Anomo 06:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no sources cited. --HResearcher 10:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity St.isaac 22:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. —Khoikhoi 00:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tales of the Tai-Pan Universe

Almost no google hits at all. Appears vanity. The only link is to the story. Maybe an advertisment article. At the very least should be merged into furry fandom or similar. Flagongoblin 13:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Anomo 19:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with furry fandom or similar. --BenWilson 16:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC) No Google hits should not be lethal if the reference is valid.
• Delete Hardly encyclopedic is it? --HResearcher 10:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete per above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, evident fancruft. Sandstein 16:28, 9 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. Wikipedia isn't a place to garner publicity for a future release of a software. When it's released, used, (or at least written about in third party sources,) try again. - Bobet 09:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AstareDreams

NN not-yet-released software - it gets 206 g-hits. BigDT 13:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SOFTWARE. May be notable eventually, but I don't think it is, yet. This isn't a vote against the program, I'm sure it's great and I hope you enjoy it, all I ask of the article's creator is that you please understand, we can't really afford to keep a page for every piece of software anybody ever tries to make. You may wish to see WP:AUTO and/or WP:VAIN. Regards, Luna Santin 14:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Luna: I appreciate the comments. I indeed saw the articles you mentioned above after I had created the article nominated for deletion. I created it in the hopes that other people might notice it, use it, and have something useful to comment on and maybe add those to the page on WP. However I did see a suggestion that I could instead merge the article with the primary function it serves. I took a look at Dream journal and noticed it was a stub, so maybe adding a section on 'software' to that article and putting links to some sites (or articles on WP) to dream journalling software would be better. What do you think? AstareGod 03:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to Dream journal per AstareGod's comments. --HResearcher 10:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect per HResearcher. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 13:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is really about a piece of software and its features. Dream journal could use expansion, but this article's contents aren't really helpful. Mangojuice^talk 15:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sanderson Beck

• Delete I contacted the original author of the page to voice my concerns about this being a vanity page. I used the talk page to voice my concerns and ask someone to improve the article. I tagged the page saying it doesn't live up to notability standards. None of this lead to any improvements. So now I'm nominating it for deletion. Please read the article discussion page for reasons why this article appears to be a vanity article. Kelly 13:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This may be the most bald-faced vanity I've yet seen on WP. Also I'm a graduate philosophy student, and I've never heard of this supposedly famous philosophy author. --Ricaud 08:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete There is no evidence of a notability check on the talk page, just an argument that it should be checked into, which it apparently hasn't. --HResearcher 10:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep She is well known and has produced many works. Apparently she is notable. --HResearcher 11:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Blatant vanity article. --Pathlessdesert 12:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Then copyedit the article so that it isn't. --HResearcher 15:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mulligan Family Fun Center

As per WP:CORP: topic is a business, is local with 3 locations, has no content on page despite being several weeks old, and is not linked from anywhere except a disambiguation. Khaim 18:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. EVula 19:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom (fails WP:CORP). To quote someone else: "Wikipedia isn't the Yellow Pages." --FreelanceWizard 09:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete per nomination. --HResearcher 11:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to the corporation that owns these. Attic Owl 13:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: where is the corporations article? --HResearcher 09:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination --RMHED 14:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Oaks

I marked this as a speedy several months ago, it was removed, so I'm bringing it here for a wider audience. The article makes no claim to notability compared to thousands of other neighborhoods worldwide, and has not been expanded in recent months. In addition, it is an orphaned article. Originally created by an anon user in 2004, largely unchanged since then[13]. -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not encyclopedic or noteable. --MECU≈talk 23:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn. --Ricaud 08:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the above comments. --HResearcher 11:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Just because the article is rubbish doesn't mean it should be deleted. Improve rather than delete. Dev920 21:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I think the criteria for deletion is over notibility not the quality of the article. How is this neighborhood notable to the world? --HResearcher 09:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, notability not established. Until further notability can be established, this should be deleted. --TheM62Manchester 11:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Francisco Gil-White

Nominated for deletion on the grounds that the subject doesn't meet the notability criteria set out at Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria. He has published a small number of papers plus two online books that he has self-published on his own website, having apparently not found a publisher for them. According to the article, his main claims to fame are that he has extensively promoted controversial political and historical assertions (note that he is an anthropologist/psychologist, not an historian or political scientist) and that he was allegedly sacked by the University of Pennsylvania for his political activities. He seems to be a fringe figure at best. -- ChrisO 20:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Very Weak Keep They do fail the criteria, but that doesn't mean they're not noteable. He does have a list of papers published in some respectable journals (Oxford). But I don't know if I can trust it since most of the references are from his website. Definately needs more sources, if none can be provided, delete. --MECU≈talk 23:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The subject may have written some papers, but he's never had a book published. The only sources are from his own sites. I did a more thorough search and found little more to establish his notability. We can always restore the article if he becomes more notable. -Will Beback 00:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Wait. I assured the person who originally flagged this entry that a colleague of mine would be providing a section on Gil-White's influence in Anthropology/Psychology/Evolutionary Biology that would establish his notability. Furthermore, I believe he does satisfy at least one of the Notability guidelines for academics 81.129.153.28 01:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

How much time is need to add this material? -Will Beback 04:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Which criterion do you believe he satisfies? -- ChrisO 08:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

About a week - and I believe he is both considered an expert in his particular field, and has been widely published in many reputable places including, for example, Oxford and MIT press. 81.129.153.28 12:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is scheduled to run another several days. Evidence of expertise would be citations from other authors, or mentions in journals, etc about him. Surely some of those are at hand? -Will Beback 15:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Wikipedia itself links to one of his articles on the Israel-Lebanon conflict[14] article. The.valiant.paladin 18:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't do - his website patently doesn't qualify for inclusion. See WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. -- ChrisO 23:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Some users suggested a week ago that new material would be added to establish the subject's notability. No new material has been added since then. Will it be forthcoming? -Will Beback 17:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete per comments. Has User:81.129.153.28 provided any evidence of notibility yet? --HResearcher 11:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately not so far. -- ChrisO 11:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep this researcher is often quoted in the race and intelligence debate, especially here on Wikipedia, has made the news when his university decided not to renew his contract and in essence decided not to let him teach his course (whereas students put together a petition enjoining the university to let him teach). This character is steeped in controversy, but at the same time, notable for his opinions and academic contributions. Google returns 21,300 hits for "Francisco Gil-White". What more is needed to assure notability? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ramdrake (talk • contribs).

• Delete as per nom and above Bwithh 00:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep A simple search of google books shows he is regularly cited in physical publications with regard to race. If his article is deleted, fringe "scientists" funded by the Pioneer Fund should also be considered for deletion. I believe he is being attacked for his vigorous criticism of Pioneer Fund and pro-hereditarian scholars. On the Talk:Race and intelligence page, his criticisms have been downplayed, and he has been characterized as a "vanity website" guy, in a clear attempt to remove his criticisms from the record. --JereKrischel 03:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep As per JereKrischel.Ultramarine 13:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Gil-White is an established acedemic, not a "fringe figure" as someone here has suggested. Please refer to his impressive [returns on google scholar]. Central to a claim for notablility is the importance of his work on the evolution of prestige based hierarchies. This work has had a tremendous impact on the evolutionary psychology / memetics communities. His paper on prestige in Evolution and Human Behavior has been cited in respectable journals 99 times in the past four years. I will add more detailed content to the main article about his work on the evolution of prestige later today. Cmart 15:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per JereKrischel 00:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tess Tickle (talk • contribs).
• Keep' per JereKrischel, meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics) due to multiple book citations and published works. Yamaguchi先生 19:15, 8 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 05:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of U.S. ticker symbols

Non-canonical, non-encyclopedic, unmaintainable - list changes daily and tracking updates by hand is not feasible. Ronnotel 23:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unmaintainable, non-encyclopedic data. This is the U.S. public company equivalent to the white pages in your local phonebook, so in my eyes it also violates WP:NOT. GRBerry 02:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This list is an ideal starting point for creation of articles for notable companies. This is unlike a local phonebook, in that these companies are publically-traded (which means they are in the rare top two-tenths of 1% of all "white pages" companies). -- Thekohser 16:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Being publically traded does not make a company notable Bwithh 01:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Most of these notable companies currently have wikipedia articles. The company name in ALL UPPER CASE is the cause of dead links. -- Stormy56

I think you'll find that most of these companies don't and shouldn't have wikipedia articles Bwithh 01:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Where else can you find this information? I have yet to find it anywhere. -- Aescarion

Many places - try Xignite's list of NYSE tickers as a sample WSDL service with nightly updates. Ronnotel 23:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

How about Yahoo! Finance or Finance Google? This is hardly obscure information Bwithh 01:12, 6 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, Mailer Diablo 16:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, this is what disambiguations and redirects are for. Gazpacho 07:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is encyclopedic and historical information. --HResearcher 11:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. This is unmaintainable, but is encyclopedic. I would update it weekly instead of daily. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 18:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is maintainable, whenever a company falls off the ticker, the symbol can go in a section that is dated and then there will be a history. --HResearcher 18:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete Just because it's "maintainable" doesn't mean it will be maintained. If it is kept, it should be heavily re-written so the company names aren't ALL UPPER CASE. Stev0 21:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unmaintainable and not encyclopedic (Wikipedia is not a Bloomberg terminal). Also redlinks encourage a LOT of nonnotable company articlesBwithh 01:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Invaluable source of information - hard to find elsewhere on the net. Good for research.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.177.62.200 (talk • contribs).
• Keep useful information. Carlossuarez46 19:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. While the information may be useful, it is not encylopedic. Listcruft. Vegaswikian 22:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not encyclopedic, inclusion on the list is not notable, listcruft, huge list that changes weekly, won't be maintained. Did I miss anything anyone wrote above? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foxyards

Non-notable. A housing estate in the West Midlands.....? (Pally01 09:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC))

• Delete per nom. I get eight distinct Google hits, mostly incidental references to location. There are no multiple non-trivial articles by third parties to shore up notability. Article doesn't even try to be encyclopedic or to establish notability. Tychocat 08:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete is there anything highly-notable about this neighborhood to the world? If there is, the article should say so and then it could be kept. --HResearcher 11:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 00:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 12:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Sack A.S.6

I came across this article while Disambiging for the term "Motor," and upon closer inspection find that it is entirely based off of Luftwaffe 1946, an alternate history fiction work that the article seems to be passing off as fact. As far as I can see, the whole thing is a falsehood, and really has no place in Wikipedia, at least not phrased as a history article.

All of its sources either display that they are untrue (unrealaircraft.com) or are based off of this Luftwaffe 1946. As I've never deleted an article before, I'm new to this whole business, so help would be appreciated. --Alex 15:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Just for reference, we've already had a major clearing out of Nazi UFOs:
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BMW_Flugelrad
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electrical air turbine
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haunebu
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenseitsflugmaschine
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirna Disc

The only thing that sets the Arthur Sack A.S.6 apart was that it probably did exist at one point or another seeing that photos are it can be found online and that it didn't use any "fantastic" sci-fi UFO technology. The last time I checked, I was a bit undecided on the AS6 article, so if someone can show that most of it are direct quotes from Luftwaffe 1946, then I'm willing to vote for deletion.--  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  03:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem I'm having is that I can't seem to find a single source that mentions it that could be considered legitamate or verifiable. The only sites that mention it are sites filled wtih conspiracy theories. Without a solid source to go off of, it's difficult to say the article is completely false. --Alex 13:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I think I see some of the confusion. There are two similarly-named websites, one is for the aforementioned game, and another is dedicated to unrealized-WWII aircraft. Note the game site has no listings for aircraft at all, and is practically empty beyond it's "alternate history" section. Up until this moment, I had fancied myself somewhat of a geek regarding military aircraft, but I've never heard of this prototype. I can tell you the United States independently developed the so-called "Flying Flapjack", but I can't say I've ever seen hardcopy for the Sacks aircraft. Perhaps the author can return and help us out? Tychocat 09:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep WP:V dispute. I'm not going to get into this. --HResearcher 11:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep Someone with a copy of a Jane's AWA book might come in handy here--I don't have one and google books doesn't have it either, but it might help. I did find a discussion forum arguing about whether the plane had existed or not. The consensus was that there were at least plans for a plane of this type (though the details in the wiki article may be inaccurate).--eleuthero 04:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:V violation. No, I can't say absolutely it's a hoax, but obviously we've questions about verifiability. I do not believe we ought to keep an article just because it might be true, since that violates WP-is-not-a-crystal-ball. I sympathize with HResearcher, but this is why you're an editor. I'm willing to nom a keep if someone can source this thing. Tychocat 09:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable per HResearcher (and if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a reasonable guess that it is a duck, or a hoax in this case). I'm tempted to call it complete bollocks. Ah, I just did. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Talequani Heshmat; all the content is already there. Mangojuice^talk 15:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taleqani Heshmat

No vote. Unverifiable. I'm aware of the concerns at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, but verifiability in Wikipedia is not optional. I'll most likely withdraw the nomination if someone can reference information on this guy. Medtopic 06:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment see Talequani Heshmat & its talk page for a source. Mr Stephen 11:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Talequani Heshmat --Huon 12:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete None of the versions of his name seem verifiable online outside wiki mirrors. Happy to change my vote if someone can come up with references. The book cited in the article does exist FWIW. Dlyons493 Talk 17:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge — to Talequani Heshmat. per Huon, 18 google hits, 9 yahoo hits, 0 MSN hits. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and merge - there is a little independent verification in English online - [15] - and - [16].--HJMG 08:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge redirect for possible mispelled search. --HResearcher 11:38, 5 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 with Jamia Hamdard. Done. Ifnord 14:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jamia Hamdard Alumni

This is a technical nomination. Whoever created this AfD didn't go through the section step, so I have done so. If the AfD nominator does end up editing this page, feel free to cross out my nomination and add your reasons. Dark Shikari 14:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, alumni groups are not inherently important and there is no evidence of third-party interest. Kappa 07:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Alumni groups are not inherently important? Some have proved to be very powerful. Anyway, I think what matters is whether or not this one is notable. --HResearcher 11:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"Not inherently" is different from "inherently not" :) Kappa 12:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Good one! Thanks for pointing it out. :) --HResearcher 14:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete unless notability can be proven. --HResearcher 11:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Jamia Hamdard --RMHED 14:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per RMHED's suggestion. --HResearcher 18:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per RMHED's suggestion. utcursch | talk 12:50, 10 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 copyvio. Copyvios cannot be kept and edited; the policy is, we have to start over. Mangojuice^talk 15:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Godai Tomoyoshi

Not notable, possible violation of WP:BIO. One relevant Google hit [17] that shows the article violates WP:COPYVIO. Love, Travel Plaza Babes 16:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete it's copyvio from [18] Dlyons493 Talk 17:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Close, use {{copyvio}} instead, Google test inapplicable for historical figures, speedy delete no longer applicable. hateless 18:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, does not violate WP:BIO. Historical figure. Possible WP:COPYVIO concern is valid though. Article should be cleaned-up and possibly re-written completely to remove WP:COPYVIO concerns. The fact that it violates WP:COPYVIO indicates it has at least one independent, verifiable source out there. Seems historical to me. I say keep, tag for Copyright Violation, and work to clean-up. Scorpiondollprincess 18:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kramden4700 02:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Nominator and second delete vote are indef-blocked socks of User:Spotteddogsdotorg. AgentPeppermint 22:22, 3 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, Mailer Diablo 16:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep notable historical figure in Japanese history. If there is copyright violations, then copyedit, what's so hard about copyediting a few sentences? --HResearcher 11:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem is to rewrite the article using verifiable source material. You up for hitting the local library? ~ trialsanderrors 08:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:V. If someone provides sources before closing this AfD, this vote can be ignored. ~ trialsanderrors 08:51, 13 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. Shuffling articles around may be a good idea, but should be handled via WP:RM. Mangojuice^talk 15:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aircrew Badge

This calls itself a disambiguation page, but it disambiguates nothing. wikipediatrix 16:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Aircrew Badge (US). The article looks like it is set up with the intent to add more listings for aircrew badges from other the military service's for other countries. But until such articles exist, it's probably better to redirect. -- Whpq 18:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge Aircrew Badge (United States) with Aircrew Badge then redirect Aircrew Badge (United States) and Aircrew Badge (US) to this article. --HResearcher 11:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There is nothing to disambiguate, but that doesn't mean delete the article. The other articles should be merged to this one. --HResearcher 11:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per Mailer Diablo. Daniel.Bryant 06:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. This isn't really a dab page, it's a bit on the dicdef-y side now, but it should be the catch-all for non-nation-specific information on the topic. AB(US) should stay where it is but some of the info could be moved here. ~ trialsanderrors 06:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per trialsanderrors. It's good to have a global view. Ifnord 14:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael White & The White

Was speedy deleted for not asserting notability, but author has screamed loudly - and there does appear to have been an assertion of notability of sorts in the original text. So I've undeleted it out of process (with no judgment on the previous deletion - A7 can be a tough one to call) and it comes here. This gives the author time to beef up the assertion of notability, and the community time to decide about the article. No opinion from me. ➨ ЯEDVERS 16:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral For now, but I have to ask, does a tribute band also have to meet the requirements of WP:BAND? Wildthing61476 17:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for at least listening. I was in the process of writing the article when it was speedy deleted without explanation and without giving time to argue anything. The whole Wikipedia is full of references of tribute bands, most of them are much more "irrelevant" than this one, and I gave the example of Fred Zeppelin, which is not even a recording band, just a pub band. I can list hundreds of cases, check the ridiculous Anton Maiden case, check the Cheap Chick case, they are plainly picayune in comparison with The White, which even has some curriculum outside the tribute band world. I'm kinda new for Wikipedia, but I think it's appalling to eliminate an article in the making without the proper research and without somewhat of a vote to let users decide. Thanks again for reconsidering. I'll leave more comments on the discussion page of the article. --Trencacloscas 20:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I think this one falls on the right side of band notability for Wikipedia, though only barely. -/- Warren 00:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems to have come along reasonably well. Shimeru 07:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep on the grounds of the second and third sources; it seems to pass WP:BAND, more or less. The first source (the web site about the "first tribute band ever") is from a site where you specify your own description for your own band, which means that it's not verifiable information. That first source should really be removed from the article. --FreelanceWizard 09:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is verifiable and notable. --HResearcher 11:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyberguys

fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP, 33k on Alexa - ten (or more) times lower than competition Rklawton 19:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep it's primarily a (printed) catalog business, so Alexa alone isn't going to present the whole story. They also sell on Amazon as well. I get 753,000 Google hits, and everything on the first two pages is relevant (I didn't dig further). Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment once I eliminated the duplicates (ads), I got 69 Google hits - and most of those were ads. Lots of non-notable companies sell through Amazon, so that's nothing special. Rklawton 20:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Seems to be primarily an online computer part retailer - large spammy google counts is part of the job description. Bwithh 21:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• CyberDelete as per nom Bwithh 21:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --HResearcher 12:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above nom --RMHED 14:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nice company. Nice printed catalog. I buy stuff from them from time to time. They seem reliable. I like them. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 00:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Activity on node

Single-sentence dictionary definition, previously deleted multiple times. Needs to be moved to wiktionary and then deleted from WP Valrith 19:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Move to Wiktionary, then delete and protect. AgentPeppermint 20:17, 1 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, Mailer Diablo 17:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a dictionary definition. If it has been previously deleted multiple times, please salt the earth.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 16:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Podscroll

Non-notable, yet another podosphere neologism. 326 Google hits. --Haakon 20:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• 326 google hits - maybe because it is a new thing? and it is just starting? did you take the time to notice the first podscroll launched by rough guides was only in june 2006? and the secong in july 2006? just because you don't know about it, doesnt mean.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baaa (talk • contribs).

But Wikipedia normally does not cover neologisms, since they by definition are not notable. Haakon 05:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

if "vlogging" or "podcatcher" or "vodcast" or all the others are not neologisms, then i dont see why "podscroll" should be one —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baaa (talk • contribs).

• Delete per nom; neologism lacking in currency, WP:NOT a dictionary &c. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nomination and Angus. First launched in June 2006, I think that says it all.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 16:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loose Change (Hip-Hop Group)

Replaced CSD tag with AfD after small source of notability was shown. Band does not seem to meet the requirements of WP:BAND Wildthing61476 20:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete doesn't meet WP:MUSIC notability standard --RMHED 14:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete as per nomination.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 16:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:MUSIC. Though I must say I was disappointed that their MySpace page wasn't listed in the article. :\ -- H·G (^words/_works) 19:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atomic Billboard

Non-notable. Four Google hits, and none of them relating to this site. Delete per WP:WEB. --Haakon 20:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. --Natalie 21:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note I work for this company. Both the functionality and interface are novel, and thereby notable. Further, there is 3GB of original image content. If by non-notable you mean not-yet-popular, that is true.

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Subject does not meet any of the very specific notability requirements listed in Wikipedia:Notability (web). --Satori Son 18:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• "If by non-notable you mean not-yet-popular, that is true" - Delete per WP:WEB.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 16:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Interested2 21:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - nn. —Khoikhoi 00:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 10:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Escape from Elm Street

No indicated notability, no reliable sources. Fails WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Peephole 21:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom, nn flash game. Wickethewok 15:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Peephole 15:35, 4 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, Mailer Diablo 17:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence fo notability and has some bizarre claims, such as a game being rated PG-13. Ace of Sevens 17:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --SevereTireDamage 23:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 02:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clickable enterprises

Essentially, this is just another mundane website on the internet, that fails WP:WEB; furthermore, a majority (if not all) of the article’s contents have been plagiarized from another website [19] ShadowJester07 21:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - it's spam, it's copyright vio, and it fails WP:CORP -- Whpq 00:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment How does it violate a copyright?
  • Comment-It was plagiarized from another site ;-) --ShadowJester07 15:51, 1 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, Mailer Diablo 17:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nomination.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 16:08, 5 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 (copyvio). Titoxd^(?!?) 00:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biotronik

While this is certainly a major company that would have no problem meeting WP:CORP, this article looks to be nothing but the company's own PR brochure. I can't find a clear enough source on the web to do a copyvio, though. Therefore, I'm putting it here. Pat Payne 22:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Looks to have come in parts from [20] which is copyrighted. Don't want to stamp on the AFD with a copyvio though,so I'll leave it up to you. Also it had only been up for ten minutes when you AFDed so perhaps the creator was working on it? Yomangani 23:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If you'd like to put a copyvio on it, I don't mind. I don't think the author was working on it as such, because it looked like his entire act (as far as I could see) was to post the brochure as is. Pat Payne 00:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've listed it as copyvio and left the AFD notice (as copyvio is backlogged we'll see who gets it first). Yomangani 00:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as copyvio. Molerat 16:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LX/LuelinX

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]}}

Not notible, possible spam since article was created by software author. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toad king (talk • contribs) 23:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• There's no real reason for this to be up here. It's not well known, and the administrator of the site added it himself. GR 00:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Agreed. The article only serves as personal entry for the software creator to advertise his software. --Dem 00:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Was never even tested on a 10,000 person userbase, many other poitns in the article are assumptions and self promotions —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.156.23.120 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• All users who are trying to get this article deleted are from LUElinks, and I'm sure the admins remember that bit of fun with the LUElinks article. Many are vandals, and many should be banned more often for their constant vandalism. -Matt 04:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe so, but this isn't about the LUElinks article or the status of the users discussing this. I'm sure the Wikipedia admins will take care of those issues. This is about the LX/LuelinX article and whether it should or should not be on Wikipedia. Toad King 13:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The same people (from LL) are the ones who keep putting this in AfD. -Matt 20:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Previous debates

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LX/LuelinX
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LX/LuelinX 2

• Delete - I don't see what makes notable nor do I see any reliable secondary sources. Am I missing something? It looks like it hasn't even been fully released yet. Wickethewok 15:35, 4 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, Mailer Diablo 17:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as an ad for a non-notable web forum. Also, the last AfD should not have closed as no consensus, as one of the keep votes was made by a vandal. There was consensus to delete otherwise. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. By the article itself, this forum isn't feature-complete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It seems non-notable besides, as it fails most of the criteria in WP:SOFTWARE. --FreelanceWizard 10:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- forum spam. SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. michaelCurtis ^talk+_{contributions} 14:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 00:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Sbk tv

there is already an entry SBK related to this guy. I think this one is not necessary. The creator of the article did only this edit. Cantalamessa 12:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete sounds like advertising. TrackerTV 02:53, 4 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, Mailer Diablo 19:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I would say redirect, but this is an unlikely name for someone to be looking for. Vegaswikian 23:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Although he does apparently have radio slot as claimed and 'Monsters' exists, not convinced that "soul brother kevin" is all that notable, 47 ghits, including a few wiki mirrors, a few from WTKS (radio station) domains. Much depends on audience figures, but I would content artist with show on minor radio stations are unntoable. Hence delete

I would hereby also nominate SBK for deletion. I don't think there's any case for having both. Ohconfucius 05:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maobe Maotsetung

The article's creator has the same username, so possibly vanity. No references for his importance. Valentinian ^(talk) 13:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Userfy if it is his name, maybe he miswrote his userpage in articlespace? 132.205.45.148 23:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment is he named after Mao Tse Tung/Mao Zedong/Chairman Mao/Mao? 132.205.45.148 23:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't think of anybody else? Anyway, the article on Maobe Maotsetung was created by User:Maobe Maotsetung and is this user's only contribution, so it doesn't look like a coincidence. Other editors did remove one interesting paragraph from the article (see its first version): "He has political ambitions, with plans to set up an alternative political party in Kenya to cater for the young who are increasingly feeling left out by corrupt and inept leadership that spans 40 years" That looks pretty much like self-promovation to me. Valentinian ^(talk) 00:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:V. Lazybum 14:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. First I thought itwas a hoax. WP:AUTO a google search for his firm turned out 5 hits, including one for wiki. Unreferenced: Nothing seems to justify the claim that he is one of the best criminal lawyers in the country. Just delete WP:VAINOhconfucius 02:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 12:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shi`ite Theocracies

Original research, unverified, and not of a neutral POV. Trifecta of what not to do. If deleted, the original version of the article Shite Theocracies, which I changed to a redirect with the correct spelling, should be deleted as well. Agent 86 16:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep a good article on this subject could be written. A theocracy is a form of government. Whether one approves or not is the POV. That said, while what appears thus far is not verified and NPOV, that's not a reason to delete it; it can be improved with sourcing. Carlossuarez46 18:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm all for article improvement resulting from the AfD process (a positive side-effect of the process, but I do not mean to imply or advocate that the AfD process is means by which one should instigate article improvement). As it appears from the edit history of the article that you're in the process of improving it, I'll keep an eye on it. For now, I still have the same concerns about the article. First of all, if the article is kept, it will have to define or provide a set of criteria for what is a "Shi`ite Theocracy". Right now, it's just an example (almost like the old cliche, I don't know what it is, but I know it when I see it) of a Shi`ite theocracy. Also, the POV needs to be worked on, particularly the last paragraph (critics? which critics? what did they say? when/where/how did they say it)? Finally, while POV can be improved, unless and until the facts of the article are verified, that is a reason to delete it. Good luck with the revisions. I am always of an open mind and am willing to reconsider an AfD nomination if changes warrant it. Agent 86 18:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, after merging the info into the article on Iran. There's just nothing really in this piece that justifies it standing alone. If you want an article on Shi'ite Theocracies, discuss what makes a Shi'ite Theocracy different from other Theocracies in the past, etc. Akradecki 21:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • On second thought, this looks like it would be an ideal chunck of material to use to improve the Iran section of the Theocracy article. We would thus be serving our readers better by having all the info in once concise location. Akradecki 22:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Theocracy. However, I would question whether Iran (or any other country is ruled by God. The norm seems to be rule by clerics. Peterkingiron 23:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per Peterkingiron. As for rule by God Theocracy means (in English language useage, not the Greek) rule by clerics Lurker ^talk 11:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - the term is used widely in US news media both to describe the government structures in Iran, and in a speculative sense applying to Iraq (and more recently Lebanon). Needs work, but a useful and well-written version of the article would be useful to readers. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jayram Menon

Non-notable bio. Only 19 Google hits, appears to be President and CEO of non-notable corporation. Brian 17:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)btball

• Delete per nom - Richfife 19:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks non-notable. But what is the Mauritus based venture capital firm being talked about. If insight is provided into that, there is a possibility of reconsideration; though if it were all correct, then google should have known it. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I believe the venture capital firm is United Capital Partners which also appears non-notable. I can't turn up any information about it with Google and the article is essentially empty. It is PROD since the 25th of July. Brian 15:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)btball

Thanks for the link. As you said, it is unlikely to change my opinion about the topic. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Do not Delete I think the spirit of wikipedia is lost if you guys decide at random to eliminate pages purely based on your understanding of this matter. I am from Mauritius. I have heard of this individual and group. Fairly notable amongst the investment circles. 0SIRIS 07:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  

Comment. I tend to agree with 0SIRIS. Shouln't we try to verify through some independent sources before concluding that this article must be deleted? Google may not have very efficient means of pulling info about Mauritius. JAnne

Comment Well, yeah, in a perfect world. The problem here is that there are literally millions of articles on Wikipedia. And a lot of them shouldn't be there. Hoaxes have a nasty habit of staying up for months. The creator of the article, by default, should be expert on the subject enough to provide evidence of notability. Random passers by like myself should not be expected to spend plane fare to Mauritius to verify the truth of an article. So, the policy is of necessity "guilty until proven innocent." The AFD process is an attempt to deal with this. You attest he's notable, but... You don't provide any backup sources that we can check. Which investment circles are you talking about? Where is the evidence of notablity? We need more. Sorry. - Richfife 19:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Above and beyond that, this is exactly the kind of article that a scam artist would create as part of an attempt to build substance for a fictional company that exists to bilk people out of their money. Standards for inclusion therefore need to be particularly high. "You can trust me! Look at my Wikipedia bio!" - Richfife 20:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Strange theory "gulity until proven innocent" - isnt it supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty". Anyways its upto the author to validate. Maybe 0SIRIS can throw some light. I have come across this venture cap company at Mauritius having made investments in Brazil. The company is not ficticious otherwise agencies like SEC, EDGAR and FSC will not maintain their information. JAnne 07:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment In a court of law, Innocent until proven guilty. In Wikipedia, it's the other way around. I could say "George W. Bush is actually Grover Cleveland after a DNA reformat by space aliens. Prove me wrong!" It's the author's responsibility to provide sources for information, not the readers. If there are no sources, the article can't stay. End of story. - Richfife 15:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment The article itself should include the sources to demonstrate that it is verifiable and notable. This one does not. It reads much like many bios that are speedily deleted. Brian 11:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)btball

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unverified and should be removed --RMHED 15:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. the article was nominated July 28th and no edits to the article has been made to provide any sources.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 16:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete yet another non-notable person. —Khoikhoi 00:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator due to lack of verifiability. Yamaguchi先生 21:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I tend agree with some of you on lack of verifiability on google - however do take cognizance that in the case with many "Indian" names, the right spelling could be a combination of either Jayram, Jairam, Jayaram. This person is known in banking & investment circles in India as Jay Menon. Anyways, that is my opinion & I wonder if it at all matters. I have read a few comments by other wikipedians. There seems to be a group of wikipedians who are more keen to delete out of a preconceived consensus. That might also explain the repeated PROD & AFD attempts by the same group of wiki admins 0SIRIS 17:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment 0SIRIS, you already stated your opinion above, you shouldn't be doing so a second time. I searched under all the variations of Jay Menon that you mentioned and only turned up 19 Google hits. Hardly notable. If he is notable, and more importantly verifiable, someone needs to supply the references. See the policy WP:VER. In a nutshell "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." This AfD has been open since July 28 and nobody has been able to supply any verifiable information about Jay Menon. Brian 17:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)btball

Comment your statement on verifiability is Contoversial! I did a google on +Jay +Menon +Venture +Capital and got around 20,900 hits. Now we all know that not all may relate to this individual. However that's different from the 19 that you have been quoting. So there is a contradiction on your own statement. Now when I tried +Jayaram +Menon +Investor I got around 298 hits. The "source" of verifiability was initiated by you, which doesn't hold ground. However a portion of your comment does makes sense & on that point I agree with you that the author should have stated facts and cited sources. 0SIRIS 17:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment The Google search I used was "Jay Menon" (and the other variations. When I filter out Wikipedia with -Wikipedia I only come up with 19 that appear that they could possibly be this Jay Menon. If someone can provide verifiable information about why Jay Menon is notable, I'll be glad to change my opinion from Delete to Keep but I've already spent a lot of time personally searching for verifiable information about his notability and haven't succeeded. Thanks. Brian 18:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)btball

Comment A Google search on +Jay +Menon +Venture +Capital turns up all sorts of stuff that has 2 or 3 of those words, but not the rest. It's not a valid search. I want to be polite here, but, please, put up or shut up. Don't say "I got X results from Google search Y". Post links to actual pages that verify notability. "Well known in financial circles" is a meaningless statement. You are the only person currently opposing this deletion. - Richfife 19:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Omicron-Epsilon

Non-notable local chapter of Kappa Sigma. Consists primarily of lists of members. Support Delete. Diagonalfish 18:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete As per above.--JCipriani 18:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -Colonial One 16:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete --Ex a v i yur 15:04, 30 July 2006
  • As you are the creator of the article, please read WP:VAIN and give reasoning for why this article qualifies under Wikipedia's notability guidelines and should be kept. Diagonalfish 14:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• See discussion page --Ex a v i yur 10:27, 2 August 2006

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete inasmuch as it is well (and properly) settled that local chapters of sororities, fraternities, and other clubs are non-notable, except in such cases as there is some distinguishing noteworthy history, of which none seems to exist here. Joe 19:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

This is Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. This article provides nothing more than a basic definition of a common word. JCipriani 18:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I guess this means we're exercising the definition?? Akradecki 21:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional keep if expanded; if not, delete. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with File_deletion. --Darksun 10:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Wikitionary I agree with JCipriani on reasons to remove from wikipedia St.isaac 22:29, 5 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, Mailer Diablo 19:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to File deletion (which is a better article), unless anyone can think of a way of expanding this article. - makomk 14:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Delete or vice versa. --Kamasutra 08:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Delete. Mucus 01:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• expand man, i search for deletion, never expecting it would be nominated for deletion. it's funny, but in a way that makes me think i need a break. ReverendG 05:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but change. The content of the page Delete should be moved to Deletion and then "Delete" should redirect to "Deletion". My reasons are: the current page "Delete" links to two pages that use the word "deletion" and two with "delete" (excluding the page "Deletion" which it seems will not survive this AFD), and with it being even, I think the page should be named "Deletion" instead of "Delete" because the former is a noun and the latter a verb. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs) states: "Do not use verbs for article titles if there is a more appropriate noun title," and this also seems more aesthetic. Dar-Ape 19:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mauldin & jenkins

Appears to fail WP:CORP, also appears to consist of an advertisement. Creator's only contribs were to this article. VoiceOfReason 18:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: This article appears to be copied from the company's website (mainly [21] and [22]), I have I have tagged it with {{copyvio}} and listed it at WP:CP. See [23] for pre-blanking-as-copyvio version. No vote at this time on what would be the correct course of action were this not a copyvio. -- AJR | Talk 18:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:CORP --RMHED 15:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per RMHED. —Khoikhoi 00:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LogoBee

This page is listed under the cat 'Graphic design', but doesn't seem particularly notable in relation to graphic design, or otherwise — it reads like a press release. Down10 ^TACO 18:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, reads like a company advert. Fails WP:SPAM. -Colonial One 16:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. feydey 10:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 00:46, 6 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. Topic already covered by a sentence in Darklighter. Natgoo 08:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darklighter arrow

Pointless article, not notable, can be covered in a line or two in Darklighter. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Darklighter. I can't see that there's really much to be said that needs a separate article. -- Whpq 20:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Darklighter or merge with that page or merge with List of terms in Charmed --NeilEvans 22:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a redirect to Darklighter per nom. —Mira 01:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Darklighter. Charmed has ended, so the necessary information for this article to be expanded doesn't (and won't) exist. --Tim4christ17 04:09, 7 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 Transwiki to Wiktionary —Mets501 (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sampling Representative

This is a vocabulary term, so it might belong on Wiktionary. I have no idea what the procedure to do that is, but I know it can be done through this. -Royalguard11^Talk 19:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Move to wiktionary --Peta 06:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• I agree: move this to wiktionary. RobJ1981 13:39, 2 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, Mailer Diablo 19:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki per above two voters. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 18:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki per above.--Kchase T 03:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki per above.--CTSWyneken^(talk) 13:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Social searching

Article is not an article... the user who created it (with the questionable moniker "plasticspam" only created this one article, and did not respond to the cleanup tag. It may be a test for spamming techniques SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe the editor didn't know how to clean the article up. Did you try cleaning it up yourself? Uncle G 10:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I cleaned it up, but it could still use some work. PureLegend 10:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NEO and no demonstration that this is any different from searching for anything else.--Peta 06:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I could coin the term Fried Bacon searching to apply to people whose search engine usage patterns are influenced by pork products, but that wouldn't make it any more real or any less ridiculous. wikipediatrix 21:23, 2 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, Mailer Diablo 19:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per Peta.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 16:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Peta. —Khoikhoi 00:46, 6 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. I'm going to actually move this article to Talk:Jackson System Development, because merging is way too much work here; the two articles cannot be simply shuffled together. Mangojuice^talk 15:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction to Jackson System Development (JSD)

No useful links at bottom (to me). Some computer person needs to look at this article and determine if it meets WP:SOFTWARE or not. Mattisse 20:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge it's notable but there's a perfectly good Jackson System Development already Dlyons493 Talk 20:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge — per Dlyons493. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Dlyons493, no need for a seperate article. --Draicone ^(talk) 23:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per all above. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to The House of Spirits. - Mailer Diablo 12:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Esteban Trueba

there's no information here and might be better as a redirect

• I fully agree, redirect to The House of Spirits. Punkmorten 21:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as empty. If you need consensus, you can count this vote as a redirect per above, but deletion is probably better. Vegaswikian 23:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 12:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sharron Storer

Ephemeral news figure, fails the 100-year-test. Punkmorten 21:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per above. Fails WP:BIO.--Shrek05 21:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - from WP:BIO: "Failure to meet these criteria does not mean that a subject must not be included, meeting one or more does not mean that a subject must be included. Many Wikipedians oppose the use of this guideline". The information in this article has the potential to be of use to someone somewhere at some time, and does not fail any of the more concrete, community-agreed tests for inclusion, AFAICT, so ... better deletion argument please. SP-KP 12:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - per above argument. Orangehead 16:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as SP-KP. ReverendG 06:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. She complained to a politician about treatment given a sick relative. That's hardly notable or encyclopedic. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Here today, gone tomorrow. Should be viewed as an incident rather than about the person, who is hardly notable. An embarrasing soundbyte for Blair, but politicians get heckled all the time, and this hardly warrants a page in wiki. Ohconfucius 05:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brett Hickman

So he has made some interviews for Static Multimedia. Seems like a case of link spam. Punkmorten 21:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP He also contributes to Sound Opinions. Much of the info in this article has been deleted. --Kalmia 03:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's spam.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.33.139.61 (talk • contribs).

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It's just a list of links now. --Ricaud 08:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination --RMHED 15:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as spam. —Khoikhoi 00:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chamber Singers

Non-encyclopedic blabbering. Probably written by a, eh, Chamber Singer. --Missmarple 21:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Some of this could theoretically be merged into choir under the amateur section, though a lot of it doesn't seem to make much sense and probably isn't verifiable -- especially given the weasely out of "The information above depends on the schools." A merge probably wouldn't do much good. --FreelanceWizard 23:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep — They exist, and they are WP:Vable. Ask me on my talk if you don't want to go through the search engine hits. 364,000 for google, 397,000 for Yahoo, 74,100 for ask.com, 68,307 for MSN. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Indeed they do exist, as members of a particular type of choir. I certainly wouldn't argue that, being an ex-choir person myself. :) However, if you eliminate the POV and not likely verifiable statements in the article ("A separate choir in which has a great deal of talent. This choir is compiled of many great talented singers" and "The person is most likely a great or above singer" are examples), what you end up with is a dictdef, more or less, and that could be merged into choir if it isn't effectively there already. When I last read choir, it seemed that the key bits of information contained in this article were already there. So, IMO, unless someone can substantially expand this article to really bring it past dictdef status and to include non-POV, verifiable information to clearly separate chamber choirs from concert choirs in a way that warrants their own article, I'm still leaning towards delete. Mostly, I'm rather skeptical that, given the "the information above depends on the schools" quote, that one could show any difference except in some schools that just don't want to call their choirs "intermediate" and "advanced" or, perhaps more commonly, "chorus" and "choir." --FreelanceWizard 21:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Seems like a child wrote this. Reasons as comment directly above. --Ricaud 08:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per FreelanceWizard.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 16:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - removing the POV statements, there is nothing left really. I don't see how this would expand any beyond a dicdef. -- Whpq 23:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Offline Messenger

No sources, i cant see any notability. Even tho i have heard about it on small websites i still believe it to be NN Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn failure. "The project was canceled in mid-November 2005 after Microsoft announced native offline messaging support in their Windows Live Messenger 8.0 client.". No website either.--Andeh 22:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 16:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as dead non-notable software. - makomk 15:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Entera Duke

Non-notable, obscure slave trader. Delete. —EdGl 23:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• No Vote If the part about his diary being published is true, I'd say keep. Nothing on Google, but then Google isn't the best source for this sort of thing. Can anyone verify? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I find a reference to it on Google Books (Philip D. Curtin: The Rise and Fall of the Plantation Complex: Essays in Atlantic History, p. 181) and it appears to be one of few surviving records of African slave traders. Obviously an importance source. Tupsharru 23:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you going to add it to the article, then? —EdGl 00:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if not expanded. The book might be notable, but not the man. --Dhartung | Talk 01:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Seems he is more often called Antera Duke --HJMG 07:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and fix it up. I agree with Tupsharru on the subject's notability. Em-jay-es 16:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Tupsharru it looks interesting but is in need of references. Yamaguchi先生 21:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jon Leon

Lots of Googles hits and has a myspace site. Still I'm not convinced of notability. Medtopic 23:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: fails WP:BIO. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 07:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete seems like a vanity piece --RMHED 15:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - First, is non-notable; second, editor's sole topic with no edits since April; third, claim of request to have deleted by subject [24] --Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 16:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kaustuv. —Khoikhoi 00:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oddfellows Hall (Lincolnshire)

Neither the web, nor the article, has anything to say about it apart from its current use as a residence for university students. There must be hundreds of thousands of those in the world. From the name, I would guess it was originally built as an Oddfellows meeting hall. Jll 10:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for many reasons (WP:* about covers it). It would probably be speedy under A7 but I hate A7. Yomangani 14:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I remembered it wouldn't fall under WP:CSD A7 as it only covers people and groups, which is good here, but another reason for me to hate it in general. Yomangani 15:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. --Ricaud 08:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't appear to be the least bit notable --RMHED 15:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. *sigh* —Khoikhoi 00:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kerry Marie

Article as it stands right now does make any compelling argument for her to be considered notable as per WP:BIO and the WP:PORN BIO proposed guidelines. Tabercil 12:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Luna Santin 13:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable and prolific within her genre. 23skidoo 23:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, needs to be cleaned up. She's at least marginally notable per WP:PORN BIO. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Coredesat, the subject shows some notability. Yamaguchi先生 21:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per criteria 7 in WP:PORN BIO.

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

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 12:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laura Willoughby

Yet another election candidation/local councillor Timrollpickering 13:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete - as nomination, although worth mentioning that she has a national position as Chair of the Equalities Executive in the Local Government Association. Martín (saying/doing) 13:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not notable enough to warrant an article --RMHED 15:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

*Delete District councillor who continues as LD candidate in a no-hoper labour stronghold. not notable WP:BIO

• revised vote to keep. According to the LD website, she's 31, and had received an MBE from HM QEII. I believe that would make her notable enough for inclusion. Her bio has been updated accordingly Ohconfucius 06:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Retain: A Borough Cllr who also has other claims to status and whose article has been in existence for an extended period. WP is not about deleting content (which costs nothing to retain) but about creating content. If deleted the article would certainly need re-creating for a future election (whether she stands in the same seat or elsewhere) and given that we have Category:Councillors in Greater London - which she is included in - then I believe sufficient notability is still there. --Vamp:Willow 12:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I created that category as I think that being a councillor is an interesting fact worth categorising. And of course it is now Wikipedians to do with it as you wish. But I certainly wouldn't want to see every councillor there, just as Category:British lawyers isn't an invitation to claim notability for being a lawyer. Even if she stands in another election, and I'm sure she will, that doesn't of itself confer notability either - it's if she wins, in my opinion. Martín (saying/doing) 21:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

* Delete, probably not notable enough, at this time. --TheM62Manchester 12:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Keep - change vote since new evidence came to light. --TheM62Manchester 08:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Retain: Perfectly notable for reasons given above. Saintjohnny

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

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 12:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Alderdice

Yet another election candidation/local councillor Timrollpickering 14:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not notable enough. Martín (saying/doing) 14:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Former Lord Mayor of Belfast and leading member of the Alliance Party so notable in NI politics (although not as much so as his brother). Catchpole 18:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Unless the page is edited to provide reasons beyond his profession why he is notable, I don't think this is notable. --Ricaud 08:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not really notable enough --RMHED 15:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Former Lord Mayor of Belfast. Prominent NI politician. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable per TruthbringerToronto Ohconfucius 10:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AnimePaper

Does not seem to meet WP:WEB. AnimePaper seems to have only been mentioned on 5 different websites/forums ever [25] (plus Wikipedia now I guess), and of those I don't see any kind of evidence of the coverage WP:WEB requires. --W.marsh 14:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• weak Delete make that 5(english) relevent out of 190,000 hits on google. But I also found 87,600 hits on Yahoo! (though by the looks of it there are few non self-references.) Also 3,762 hits on MSN, (though agian looks like self-references). My vote is weak delete only becuase I have done no other research then to look at these 3 search engine results.—— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Or maybe you can see the search results here[26] and here[27]. Thats alot more then 5 hits. --A Pair of Shoes 03:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:WEB and unencyclopedic. Even if it were the largest of its kind, it's still a wallpaper sharing community. That's all the article would have to say - "This is a wallpaper sharing community website". - Wickning1 14:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 12:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metaphorical language

This page is quite old, but it looks like OR. I liked Darmok too, but that doesn't make it a genuine linguistic concept. Google search gives hits, but they're not about this. Staecker 16:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - The river Temarc, in winter. ;).--Kross^Talk 22:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - this is a generalised phrase that is not solely linked to the rather specific example given in the article. I do not think this article is reliable enough to be kept. BlueValour 03:52, 3 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, Mailer Diablo 19:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but move to science fiction categories and clearly state in the article that it's fictional. It's not original research, but it is a fictional concept that shouldn't be listed like it's a linguistic concept. MrTroy 15:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There are no existing analyses (either cited by the article or to be found) of the concept described, which tries to be an umbrella for a plot device in a single episode of television show, the Tao te ching, and Christianese. The only place where these three are brought together under a single umbrella and given a name is Wikipedia, as far as I can find. The concept is a novel synthesis of these three and a novel analysis of something which hasn't been analysed, or even named, outside of Wikipedia. It seems to be exactly original research. Delete. Uncle G 19:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I agree with MrTroy. Alternately, somewhere within the dark recesses of my brain I seem to recall a popular management book (maybe it was How to Make Friends and Influence People or Seven Habits of Highly Effective People I'm not sure) that talked about the necessity of having common metaphors (ex., baseball-speak, bible-speak) to establish common frames of reference. If this has a more accepted name as a linguistic/social concept, perhaps this article could redirect there? --Vees 19:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harvey Hevenor

While I admire Mr. Hevenor for surviving kidney disease, I disagree that it makes him notable for purposes of an encyclopedia. NawlinWiki 17:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I could not find anything on the has been a pioneer in alternative treatment. If there are sources for this, he may be important. 0 hits on google, yahoo, MSN, and ask.com. (just put the search terms I used in the first link in any of the other 3 to see the results I got).—— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - unsourced, breaches WP:OR. BlueValour 03:44, 3 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, Mailer Diablo 19:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing to verify that he is a pioneer in alternative medicine. -AED 21:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn as is (i.e. without any sources). --Ricaud 08:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monkey Love Records

Delete as a vanity page (written by user Monkey Love Records) and is an advertisement. Prod tag removed without comment by author. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 19:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Seems like a fair explaination of the Record Label. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peterslight (talk • contribs).

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Importance of months-old label not verifiable. Possible vanity: created by User:Monkeylove. -AED 21:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I'm voting for "vanity". --Ricaud 08:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Yes, I agree. This definately appears to be vanity. —Khoikhoi 00:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phytofruit

Equates constipation with arrest of womb. Original research. Neologism: Phytofruit- was placed on afd previously, and constantly placed on proposed deletion. Let's give it another round here Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 21:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Note. Placed on AfD on January 22, 2006 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phytofruit. Result was No consensus, defaulting to Keep. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• "Arrest of womb" in childhood affects primarily boys, among adults mostly women. That's a neat trick. BJAODN, as soon as possible. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• See comment above. - Oh, come on! That has never bothered people before in previous afd for this article! Where is PT ^(s-s-s-s) to call it a bad faith nomination. Orangehead 14:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a mixture of WP:NONSENSE and (possibly) factual items about each individual fruit. A number of the keep votes in the original AfD were to request clarification. That (clarification) never happened. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: arrest of whom is supposed to be constipation. This section can be wikilinked to constipation. Phytofruit seems to exist. [28] The question to me is whether phytofuit is notable, and whether it has third part references. Stephen B Streater 22:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: I'm open minded, but this search shows over 50k non WP links, mostly ads, which suggests it is a widely selling product. Stephen B Streater 22:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  This company mentions it as a food supplement. Looking around for a reliable source, I came across this from the Oncology Nursing Society. Stephen B Streater 22:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete OR. --Peta 09:15, 3 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, Mailer Diablo 19:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Article appears to be an advertisement and nothing about the product is referenced to bring the article in line with WP:V. "PHYTOFRUIT Morning & Evening Fruit Mix" (the only direct reference to "Phytofruit" in the article) only hits with a single mirror on Google. "Arrest of womb" thing appears to be made-up, too. -AED 21:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete: changed from Keep above. Product name is widely known, but I haven't found very much verifiable to say about it at the moment (apart from it being healthy), and no one else seems to have found anything particularly encyclopaedic about it either. Stephen B Streater 21:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I can't find anything about it on pubmed, either. InvictaHOG 12:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Lee

Doesn't seem to be notable enough. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, few indications of notability, few exhibitions. Punkmorten 07:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There are NO contemporary Taiwanese painters on Wikipedia - At least give one a chance. 14:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. While I don't feel Patrick Lee is the most notable person in the world, his artwork has at least been featured in the Taipei Times within the last two years. I'm not sure I see the harm in having the article (although it could use some sprucing up to expand it beyond its stub status). Inclusion of his past exhibition dates, most memorable works of art, and a more detailed description of his work's themes would vastly improve the stub. ju66l3r 18:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO. Even the "keep" recommendations don't seem too convinced. -AED 20:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I am convinced. No harm in having an article for him. Attic Owl 13:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep seems to have some notability in Taiwan --RMHED 15:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep due to some expressed notability within Taiwan. Yamaguchi先生 21:32, 8 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 09:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demon Wall

Looks like a neologism. A brief search on Google didn't turn up anything relating to the definition given. Wmahan. 22:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Is a reference of common usage throughout New Zealand (Cultural meme maybe if you wana get technical). Have only seen a printed reference in Official New Zealand Playstation Magazine some years ago 98-99. I don't know about classifiying so seriously (neologism? your overeacting). Its relevance in terms of game bugs could be disputed but just because its not on Google your gonna nominate it for deletion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Savre (talk • contribs).
• Transwiki to Wiktionary as dicdef. Yomangani 23:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: heard of it, experienced it in games, doesn't need deletion.--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 16:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: to me, the issue isn't whether you've heard of it or experienced it, but whether we can document the term in a verifiable way. I haven't seen any reliable sources that verify the article. If the only printed reference is in a New Zealand game magazine several years ago, I doubt it's notable enough to be included. Wmahan. 20:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO. --Peta 09:13, 3 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, Mailer Diablo 19:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Verifiability is not optional. -AED 20:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Transwikify or Delete Obviously a dictionary entry LinaMishima 21:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no sources. I can't say that I've heard it here in NZ, so I'm not sure how much it can be claimed to be "in common usage", but as it stands seems to be a dicdef anyway. Ziggurat 04:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I've also experienced this phenomenon, it's a good name for it. Unfortunately it's a neologism unless referenced. Ifnord 14:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 News Corporation Management Conference

Conference hasn't started yet. Also, no similar conferences are in wikipedia. The conference agenda doesn't seem to be an appropriate entry for an encyclopedia Cassavau 22:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Also seems to fail WP:CORP as a product or service. The entry states that it is for "250 News Corp. executives". Cassavau 22:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Also seems more than a bit of an advert --Bookgrrl 23:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep -

There are similar conferences in wikipedia see Shangri-La_Dialogue, Bilderberg Group, not sure why this would be reviewed under WP:CORP as it is neither a product nor service it is a privately sponsored conference involving notable world leaders on notable topics. Instead you should consider it as a category:International nongovernmental organizations

The LA times article states "gather this weekend for a management retreat at a posh California seaside resort" so this is not crystal balling. There will be more articles about the conference in the next couple of days so I would suggest the nomination is premature this is evolving like any other current event.

Bookgrrl suggested this is an advert so I would like to clarify that I created this article and am in no way associated with News Corp or this conference.

This article needs editing not deleting. --Paul E. Ester 00:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• "2006 News Corporation Management Conference". It appears to be sponsored by News Corporation, and therefore might be considered a service of News Corporation. The Bilderberg Group entry is a discussion of the group and its conference in general, not an agenda of a specific conference. If this article were something along those lines, I would not suggest it for deletion. As it stands now, it appears to be something other than what is appropriate here. --Cassavau 01:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not assert meeting any criteria on why this is notable. Since it is private, the facts can not be confirmed and it might not be verifiable and might be OR. Conferences like this happen all of the time, every major company runs them. If this one is kept, whip out the Vegas convention list and start writing articles. Vegaswikian 22:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• I have refocused the article, please give it another glance to see if it's more of a proper entry. --Paul E. Ester 04:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Peta 09:13, 3 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, Mailer Diablo 19:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm not convinced that a gathering of notables is notable. -AED 20:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• The article is in good shape. The question is what impact it has had on the outside world and I can't see that it has had all that much. It might be worth a mention on the News Corporation article. Delete. Capitalistroadster 11:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 11:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Capitalistroadster. JPD (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I appreciate the feedback but have to question the bar for entry into the notability that the editors reviewing this article are applying. The conference is notable enough to have been covered by the LA times, Business week, the independent, the guardian, AP and the New York times.

I agree with AED that there could be some debate as to whether a gathering of notables is notable. That would make sense absent press coverage of an event, or perhaps covered by local news sources. However this event is being covered by world class papers around the world.

I want to express a little frustration that the original afd was for crystal balling and WP:Corp and now on the re-review has become a discussion on if this is notable or not. I would like some feedback as to what would satisfy this event as notable to the editors currently reviewing it. It's worth a reminder that WP is not a paper encyclopedia. I believe there are a few KB available for this article on the servers as is, thanks for your feedback so far. ---Paul E. Ester 16:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Reply - I will first note that my initial nomination made more out of the crystal-balling aspect of the article than should have been made. I can only claim inexperience there.

However, my WP:CORP argument is one I still abide by as the conference was sponsored by and is for News Corporation execs. In the article's current form, I would suggest it be merged into News Corporation rather than being deleted altogether. I don't think it is entirely non-notable. Again, had I had more experience at the time, I would have suggested the article be changed and merged rather than deleted.

I know you put quite a lot of work into the article and I'm sorry that we disagree about it. --Cassavau 18:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The initial afd on crystal balling was correct, I incorrectly had the conference starting in 2008. My fault. --Paul E. Ester 18:42, 5 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 06:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roland J. Mulligan

Delete - no reason given for notablility. Not a flag rank officer, no notable awards, no combat service, and commanding a ship in and of itself is not particularly notable - commands change every year to 1 to 2 years. Thousands have commanded naval vessels. The article's creator has a history of creating articles somehow connected to his military service, most of suspect notability, such as Douglas A. Block, Luis Maldonado, Gerald F. DeConto, Rick Williamson, John M. Uhl...I'm sure I'm missing a few--Nobunaga24 06:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This ship is the second frigate ship in Naval history to sink a enemy combatant so any Captain that served on this ship is notable. As I see you have you have not taken the time to read about Simpson. The first frigate ship to sink an enemy was the USS Constitution so do you see my point. Further, he served on Samuel Roberts one of two frigates that have been hit by the enemy. I am against you deleting this article and ask for you to reconsider. Kind Regards, Veteran USN David Silver—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.204.212.9 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 5 August 2006.

I see you have maintained your editing style - on this page five edits for a single post. Try the preview button.--Nobunaga24 07:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete As per nom. --Ricaud 08:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment most of the other former Captains of USS Simpson (FFG-56) have an article, are they any more notable? If not then they to should be deleted --RMHED 15:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment to 72.204.212.9 aka David J. Silver - DO NOT modify my deletion nomination statement again. Add whatever comments you want elsewhere, but do not modify other people's comments. And in response to the previous comment, those should be deleted also in my opinion - just haven't gotten around to tagging them yet.--Nobunaga24 08:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I spend a lot of time putting this together. If you continue to delete my work I will cease my contribution to the project. Work on your Phd. I am sorry you were unappreciated with the US Army.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harvardlaw (talk • contribs) 11:38, 6 August 2006.

Is ceasing your contributions a promise? \(^o^)/--Nobunaga24 13:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete per nom. --Charlesknight 13:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Subject no more notable than thousands of other naval officers. Simply commanding a notable ship does not confer notability. -Will Beback 18:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - what Will said. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:37, 10 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 BALEEETED!!. - Mailer Diablo 02:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IPv6 leet speak

This page looks made up and fails the search engine test. Earle Martin [^t/_c] 00:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• I say speedy delete as patent nonsense. If it's not patent nonsense, I think it's close enough to just kill it now anyway. It's obviously not as if this article has any chance of being kept. -- Kicking222 00:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't meet patent nonsense, but it does fail WP:NOT as something made up in school one day. Aplomado ^talk 01:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, first edit summary: "A trend is born?" WP:NFT as per Aplomado. -- H·G (^words/_works) 01:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, "leet" IPv6 masks are not uncommon and are not something that have been simply made up. I've run across quite a few of them and I think that as IPv6 proliferates it will increase. http://spamcalc.net/faq.php specifically discusses the product's effect on IPv6 "Spam". This will only become more notable in coming years —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trelane (talk • contribs) 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'll accept that this may not fall under WP:NFT. Still, its notability is far from established here--no sources, very few unique Ghits for 'ipv6 "leet speak" -wiki' or 'ipv6 "leetspeak" -wiki,' not even a mention in leet. Speaking of leet, this might be a good destination for a merge if notability can't be fully established but verifiable info can be found for this subject. But at the moment, the comment that "this will only become more notable in coming years" falls under crystal-ballism. -- H·G (^words/_works) 02:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Del33t Wikipedia is not for something that's gonna be cool someday. --Xrblsnggt 04:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• The article describes a "new linguistic play on trends" and cites zero sources. That, in conjunction with the edit summary just mentioned, indicate that this is a mis-use of Wikipedia to publish primary source and secondary source documentation of something that has never before been documented. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for publicizing new ideas, nor a publisher of first instance. The aforementioned FAQ provides one sentence of information, and there are no other sources to be found. That is not enough source material to write a decent stub, let alone a complete encyclopaedia article. The route to having an encyclopaedia article is to have this "new trend" documented in a computer journal, a magazine feature article, or a book first. Then it becomes a legitimate topic for a tertiary source such as an encyclopaedia. Original research. Delete. Uncle G 13:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - lack of respect for No original research - and no verifiable sources. I work in IT, and it doesn't seem verifiable to me. --TheM62Manchester 13:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• beef:beef:beef:beef:beef:beef:beef:beef Huh? er... I mean, Delete. Certainly not currently popular enough to warrant an article, and this article also doesn't explain it very well. If this ever actually becomes a well-known variety of l33t, then maybe it could have a place on that page, but it doesn't seem like it now. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 13:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• comment the page is a misnomer, however, putting words in IPv6 addresses does happen. such as "dead:beaf" Spearhead 22:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as something made up one day. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 03:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jolef Havel

Possible hoax. No google hits. The originator of this article has uploaded a photo at Image:Jolefhavel.jpg although it is not included in the article; this photo should be deleted if the article is. The entry at June 16 should also be removed should the article be deleted.-gadfium 00:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax. Aplomado ^talk 01:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax Dlyons493 Talk 02:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no google hits with any combo of terms - plus I dont believe the name is hungarian - doesn't preclude his birthplace as being hungary I realise but it seems more unlikely. Pinkstarmaci 03:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I invented the Internets. --Xrblsnggt 04:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, on strong suspicion of hoaxing.Bjones 05:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, it sounds like WP:BALLS.
• Delete hoax. —Khoikhoi 00:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Destroy all hoaxes. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 03:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator as a non-verifiable topic and possible hoax. Yamaguchi先生 21:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fetish factory, Alter ego (fetish party)

Not notable, not encyclopedic Bookgrrl 00:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. Added related article Alter ego (fetish party). -- Merope 02:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable under the company notability guidelines TheronJ 03:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 05:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 23:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 00:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both, non-notable company and event. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 03:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Please review notable media and press coverage of Fetish Factory and Alter Ego fetish parties in recent issues of Marquis and Skin Two magazines as well as Playboy TV's "Sexcetera" episode #71. These media articles are currently noted on the wiki article. --Timbrocks 22:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mid-America Regional Council

not notable, reads like an ad, not encyclopedic Bookgrrl 00:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - If we list every dinky town and mostly-deserted county, why not a regional government entity that serves several million people? I think the article badly needs a rewrite, but I'd keep it. --Brianyoumans 04:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - and mark the article as a stub. --Ezratrumpet 05:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - We list other regional councils, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission and Piedmont Triad Council of Governments.

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

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

The result was delete all except Plasma Pistol, it's reverted to a redirect. - Bobet 09:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plasma Rifle (Halo)

Also includes:

• Plasma Pistol
• M6D Pistol
• BR55 Battle Rifle
• Deflector shield (Halo)

List of weapons in Halo and List of weapons in Halo 2 were both deleted on AFD, and now we have individual entries on each weapon. These entries are borderline reposts, written from a completely in-universe style, are completely unsourced, and are a level of detail wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If these are deleted, Category:Halo weapons will be depopulated and can also be deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added Deflector shield (Halo) to this nomination, as it is closely related and the same reasoning applies. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Combination 00:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fancruft. Find these people a Halo wiki. Morgan Wick 01:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Why anyone thinks we need an article on individual weapons in a game series I do not know. Viridae^Talk 01:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. If an individual weapon in fiction is deeply embedded into popular culture (like Lightsaber) then it does require its own article, but these don't satisfy that criteria. So delete. --ColourBurst 03:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, all of this is covered in more detail in the Halo Wiki page, where it belongs. -- H·G (^words/_works) 02:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete a Halo wiki is just the thing. --Ezratrumpet 05:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge: Individual pages on each weapon are confusing and cause clutter, and it's a very minor topic. A merge would benefit everybody. --Bronzey 08:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this article and put the info on the Halo and Halo 2 pages Konman72 11:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I do agree that these need deletion, but the information needs to go somewhere and I don't think it will all fit into the main articles so perhaps, as Ace of Sevens suggests, they should be put into a meta-article List of weapons and equipment in the Halo universe. This would contain all the info from the past list articles and the individual articles. Konman72 00:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I wrote three of these articles, because my personal beliefs, which you may or may not share, are that things should not just go to their own Wiki. Most Star Wars articles shouldn't be transferred to Wookieepedia. Most Halo articles shouldn't be transferred to the HaloWiki or Halopedia (they're different). When I told one of my friends was informed that there was an online information repository, an encyclopedia, known as Wikipedia, he was overjoyed. This was due to the face that he could look up things for video games. Not strategy guides, but information. And then, he fails to find any weapons for Halo 2 or Halo: Combat Evolved. His opinion of Wikipedia goes down a lot, because it is lacking many articles. And he doesn't even know of HaloWiki or Halopedia. And you can't just put a redirect instead of this article, because Wikipedia is not a web directory.

None of these articles are strategy guides. So even though Wikipedia is a strategy guide, I would like to see what is in WP:NOT that I have violated.

I will not be able to partake in this discussion, because I am going on vacation. Ironically, to Delta Halo. But vacation for real. I will abide by anything that this discussion churns out. So have fun without me.

Cheers, RelentlessRouge 12:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 14:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above--Peephole 14:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)--
• Delete per nomination --RMHED 15:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Going to try and delete any other Halo articles, today? How about the ones about the books or the movie? As I said in the other AFD, if these articles are deleted, I will immediately nominate them to be undeleted.--Kross^Talk 19:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into List of weapons and equipment in the Halo universe. Any vehicle articles should go there, too. Ace of Sevens 23:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree, a single page for all of these topics would be better than what it's like now, and the people who want the articles would be happy. --Bronzey 00:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I support this idea too. Make a single page for Halo weapons and vehicles. That way we'll all be happy. Should I be bold and start one? Or will that be deleted too? — [Mac Davis] (talk)

• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 00:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• It should be noted by those saying merge/keep that the Halo 2 weapon list was already deleted through AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weapons in Halo 2), as stated by the nom. Wickethewok 05:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • A meta-article should be made for all those. As has been suggested a List of weapons and equipment in the Halo universe seems plausible, or perhaps List of weapons and technology in the Halo universe? I personally would have only voted for a merge in the previous list AfD, but that is over and done with. I would hope that most people would accept the creation of this article since I doubt you want all this info dumped onto the main page. Konman72 10:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all Making individual articles for weapons that were deleted in a earlier AfD is verging on WP:POINT. Whispering^(talk/c) 13:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All I ask is that WP:NOT a game guide should NOT be used as the justification for deletion. These unreferenced articles are quite clearly WP:OR, so why can't we simply use that as argument and be done with it? Well, the reason is obvious - contrary to Whispering, a number of people interested in deleting "gamecruft" are trying to make a WP:POINT and continue building precedent. Either stop and open up a discussion to clarify the policy, or vote to delete based on notability, verifiability, or original research. Any of those reasons are fine. But there is clearly not a consensus on the boundaries of WP:NOT when it comes to what constitues a "how-to" in reference to game-related material. JoshWook 14:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Add Citations. No article is above the basic rules of Wikipedia, but there is no reason we can't keep these. If anything, Merge into Weapons from the Halo trilogy. -- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib. 20:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all video game items as fancruft. Sandstein 20:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment While I voted delete for reasons of original research, could you please point me towards the wikipedia policy that says that all video game items are fancruft? Furthermore, I'd like to see the wikipedia policy (not guideline) on fancruft. JoshWook 13:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - RelentlessRouge (talk • contribs) has been spamming user talk pages about this AFD, such as here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Cruft. --Chris Griswold 03:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Cite the policy on cruft, please. JoshWook 13:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Generally, it means that it's overspecific plot summary that is better handled in a more general way in a more general article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • So when a vote references "Cruft" as the only justification for a vote, it in no way has to do with the essay WP:CRUFT? "It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unreferenced, unwikified, and non-neutral - all things that lead to deletion. Such articles may also fall foul of Wikipedia's policy against creating "indiscriminate collections of information". Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are controversial." - Thess articles fall into the former category, and not the "well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics" category, but to simply call them "cruft" is not enough. JoshWook 18:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment - You're not goig to win my vote by criticizing it. If you want to win me over, focus on convincing me that what I think is wrong, not that I'm voting incorrectly. I'm voting correctly for what I think. --Chris Griswold 00:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment If you had actually read the AFD, you would see that I voted to "delete" for reasons of WP:OR. The only problem I have is that "Cruft" is not a valid reason to delete. There is no wikipedia policy (or even guideline) on it, only some vague essays. When the argument of "cruft" is used in place of citing valid policy, all it leads to is a bunch of polarized opinions on whether editors "like" the topic being discussed, as opposed to whether they meet wikipedia's well defined requirements for encyclopedic writing.JoshWook 02:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into master list, as recommended above. Halo's Assault Rifle is fairly iconic, as is the Warthog and "sticky" Plasma Grenade. Icewolf34 18:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this article, per lengthy discussion below. I think the more notable weapons (Plasma Sword, Plasma grenade) could be discussed briefly in the Halo articles themselves. Icewolf34 13:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, per there being no real reason for deletion. Wikipedia is not paper. Rogue 9 20:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment How about WP:NOR is that a real reason? Because that's what these articles are. Whispering^(talk/c) 21:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment How in the world does one go about conducting "original research" on a fictional weapon? Icewolf34 16:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Drawing original conclusions or writing original fiction, based on the fictional work in question. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. If you point out the sections (or even types of sections) that, in your opinion, violate the ban against OR, I'll be happy to copy-edit them out of this article and others. In my opinion, most of the text of this article can probably be supported by something in the novels or manuals (I don't know offhand, since I'm not exactly an avid Halo fan). I'm sure we can come to a consensus on NOR that doesn't involve deletion, at least. Icewolf34 14:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
          • All of these articles are entirely over-detailed plot summary or original research. There are no real facts here (save for the inane fact that these are weapons in Halo), only fictional facts. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
            • So-called "fictional facts" have a place in Wikipedia, just see any Star Wars or Marvel Comics article. It doesn't represent OR just because it doesn't have a real-life basis -- it's the creation of the publishers, not the Wiki editor. Icewolf34 13:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
              • Both the Star Wars and Comics Wikiprojects are making a great deal of effort to remove trivial fictional facts and focus on the real world. Articles that are nothing but fictional facts don't belong on Wikipedia; they're plot summary rearranged into a new pattern, with no real-world context. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
                • Looks like you're right about the Wikiprojects at least, I was surprised to find excerpts like "the WikiProject discourages extreme details and encourages an out-of-universe perspective for all prose" on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Star_Wars::Star Wars Wiki site. I withdraw my objections to your rationale, although I personally continue to believe that such contributions are useful to Wikipedia. (After all, the WikiProjects don't exist to dictate policy). Anyways, thanks for the clarification. Icewolf34 19:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
                • Related question: how does your stance on this article jive with the Pokemon projects, which include incredibly in-depth discussions on such fictional creatures as Charizard and Bulbasaur? I noticed that you've been involved with such things in the past. Icewolf34 19:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
                  • My largest contribution to that project has been merging and vastly reducing stubs on minor characters. Also, regarding Bulbasaur, you may be interested to see my comments at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bulbasaur. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
                    • Okay, I'm convinced. Thanks for the explanation. Icewolf34 13:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment No, that's a reason for the writer to cite the article. Deleting everything willy-nilly without even trying that is a flagrant waste. Rogue 9 18:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom; unencyclopedic cruft and original research make a bad combination. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment See above question re: NOR. Icewolf34 16:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete here, but keep on Halo Wiki. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 16:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

'Comment' It is my believe that the page [29], shows even more proof that Wikipedia is the most extensive and through online encyclopedia there is. Nowhere else can you find so much information in one place. BrettidBrettid 02:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all. This is not a gaming wiki, no reason every minutae from every game should be here. Ifnord 14:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 12:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magnetic Accelerator Cannon

Also includes:

• Plasma Torpedo (Halo)

A cannon that appears in one scene of Halo 2, and torpedoes that only appear in the background. This is a level of detail wholly unsuited to Wikipedia, plus these are unsourced and written from an in-universe perspective.

If these are deleted, Category:Halo space weapons can also be deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Combination 00:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I'm not too familiar with details of the Halo series (what can I say, I live under a rock), but if the subject is as non-notable as the author states then there's certainly no need for an article to go into such detail. -- H·G (^words/_works) 01:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both, per nom. --ColourBurst 03:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Both - These two Halo weapons are mainly in the books. Yes, they are in every single one of the three books. The MAC system was the climax of one of them. The plasma torpedo is a pivotal weapon in every single book. Perhaps I have not followed WP:WAF. Probably not. I can fix that, in the unlikely event that either of these two articles survive this AfD discussion. I want to know what point of WP:NOT has been violated in either of these two articles. And how can detail be a bad thing?

I will be going on vacation to Delta Halo, no, to a real location on a real vacation, so I am sorry I will not be able to participate in this AfD discussion. So have fun without me.

Cheers, RelentlessRouge 12:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 14:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination --RMHED 15:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The cannons were also talked about in the Halo novels. Also, if this gets deleted, I will immediately nominate it for undeletion.--Kross^Talk 19:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Magnetic Accelerator Cannon, delete Plasma Torpedo (Halo). The MAC appears in all the Halo novels and is a fairly important weapon. The other article can go. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 03:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The cannons are very important in the universe even though they only had a short air time in the games. I think that someone who played the first level of Halo 2 and was curious about MACs would come here looking for an article. I would. I think the level of detail is acceptable - it's only two pages or so. As for the in-universe-perspective, we can re-write it to be better. Aside: While Star Wars is more culturally significant, read Lightsaber (57k long) (and Lightsaber users, and Lightsaber combat). Also in-universe, hella long and detailed. I don't think any of the movies talk about construction, or specific forms; that's all expanded universe. Summary: I don't see why it should be deleted when people would gain information from it. Isn't that the point of Wikipedia? --DevastatorIIC 03:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I just read WP:DEL, WP:NOT, WP:GD, WP:WAF, WP:IMP, and WP:CRUFT. I do agree that the article is very in-universe (Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself.) and should be taken out-of-universe. However, that would reduce the article to a mere stub. I do like the idea of a Technology of Halo article (thanks, Deckiller), wherein we (or, more likely, I) could put the real-world explanations of different weapons/vehicals/etc. However, for the time being, we should not delete it. I would call this an extended Merge. All of you: Please point out to me in the above WP: articles how exactly this article fits any criteria for deletion. --DevastatorIIC 23:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep MAC cannons are a focal point of one of the Halo novels, and it is the UNSC's only superweapon. Kind of like thermonuclear missiles with today's world. I've never heard of the "plasma torpedo" though. Regarding the in-universe perspective: there is no information regarding outside-universe perspective. — [Mac Davis] (talk)

  Isn't the lack of out-of-universe information a red flag that it's not a topic for an encyclopedia about the real world? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge it and all related articles. Remember — don't ruin a person's passion, which can be extensively polished to make them positive editors. Heck, look at my first few edits. Do things in phases. — Deckiller 04:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, I take that back. This is too much to be salvagable; Delete. Users should explain the technology of halo in a general, encyclopedia Technology of Halo article. Merging just two articles can't really solve anything (unlike starwars-cruft, where it has to be done in phases, not just delete/keep). — Deckiller 04:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The MAC does not just appear once in Halo - it is referred to continually in the Halo books, in the first Halo game, and is an integral part of the "history" of the UNSC. I do think it could be rewritten, but it should certainly be kept. It's informative and useful. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 00:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into meta-article that features all vehicles, weapons, etc, in the Halo universe. Or, merge into United Nations Space Command#Technology and The Covenant, respectively.
• Keep I haven't read the books, but if these articles are highly relevant there, then the articles should probably stay. But uh, all the people saying that should probably crack open their books and cite it in the article, otherwise the closing admin would fully be within his rights to delete for being unsourced and original research. JoshWook 14:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment While the article still needs to be cited within itself, I noticed references have been added to show their significance in the book. Therefore I solidify my keep. JoshWook 13:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge All crufty tech articles into Technology in the Halo universe--Zxcvbnm 17:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - RelentlessRouge (talk • contribs) has been spamming user talk pages about this AFD, such as here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Garnering support isn't allowed? In that case, I'm guilty of contacting people who are interested in Halo as well. --DevastatorIIC 04:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Spamming a dozen talk pages isn't allowed, no. See WP:SPAM. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • It doesn't really look like spamming to me - it looks more like canvassing, which isn't exactly the same thing. The WP:SPAM page itself says there is no "hard and fast" rule against it, and that it may be acceptable under some circumstances (but leaves the door open to exactly what those are). I think it's fair that since he won't be able to participate in these discussions, he's letting others know about them. JoshWook 12:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
        • It's very tacky to canvas for votes on AFD. Referring to that page, "don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • There's also WP:SN as well, but that's just a proposed one; WP:SPAM holds more weight as it is a guideline. Hbdragon88 05:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Cruft. --Chris Griswold 03:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Chris Griswold. Also, Wikipedia is not paper. Rogue 9 20:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment you do know Chris Griswold voted delete correct? Whispering^(talk/c) 21:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I know. I'm making fun of him. "Cruft" is simply the term for "a subject I don't personally like." It is not a reason to delete. Rogue 9 18:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment WP is also not an indiscriminate collection of information. "Not paper" mostly applies to video games and other topics that wouldn't normally have room in a paper encyclopedia; this article borders on excessive, specific information. Hbdragon88 05:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Important part of the Halo series. Oliverdl 04:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per nom, if this is "an important part of the Halo series" mention it in the Halo articles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  Comment Herein lies the problem - though the Magnetic Accelerator Cannon is an important part of the story of Halo, it's not specifically mentioned in the games too many times, as the games are from a first-person's perspective (the Master Chief's) and of course, he doesn't operate strategic weapons. Therefore, the MAC cannot be mentioned in the Halo articles really well, as it would seem completely out of place. It is however, mentioned in the books, which describe events leading to the two games, and set the stage for the situations played in the games. That's why I voted to keep earlier. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 19:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  The novels have their own articles, where this could probably be mentioned. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and condense into the appropriate Halo novel articles. — TKD::Talk 06:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saksoft

Vanity article.Advertising and spam. Ageo020 00:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment but if they do have international offices, then they may well be notable. Wikipeia is in need of more Idian entries. Perhaps if people could try quick searches for sources? It's nearly 5am here, so I have to sleep rather than give this a go. LinaMishima 03:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom - no sources except for site itself, very few google hits that arent the site itself plus wiki and answer.com. Pinkstarmaci 04:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - The article itself says the company has only about 300 employees. I have a hard time believing that a company that isn't doing anything particularly innovative, with 300 employees, is notable, wherever it is based. --Brianyoumans 04:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete despite my earlier hope, I could only find one article in 10 pages of google results that was not with respect to the company's floatation. LinaMishima 18:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. —Khoikhoi 00:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MAIBTYBILP

Contested prod. Neologism. Asserts its own lack of notability and verifiability. Contains some original research (over-analyzes its subject), though that's actually the least of its concerns. Morgan Wick 01:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Creator has counterarguments at Talk:MAIBTYBILP. Morgan Wick 01:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. "Is a rarely-found acronym" Don't you love it when the author asserts non-notability for you? Fan-1967 01:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as the Prod-er, I support nomination - not notable.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I'm the prodder. You only {{prod2}}'d it to endorse my prod. Morgan Wick 23:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete obviously non-notable neologism. Total lack of reliable sources shows this is inherently unverifiable. Gwernol 01:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - wouldn't it be cool if, like, we made up an acronym that pretty much stands for only itself? Wikipedia is not for things thought up while sitting around a bong one day. -- H·G (^words/_works) 01:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Internet_Slang. I guess it doesn't need its own article, but I believe that it deserves its own section. I didn't make this up, I can't prove it, and it's not very notable, but it's real. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shaymus22 (talk • contribs).
  • • Shaymus22, you budding editor you, allow me to introduce you to the joys and wonder of Urban Dictionary. Go on, knock yourself out!! Bwithh 03:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

- *Delete as per nom. Hmmm, any chance of WP:SNOW? Bwithh 03:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, supported by some quotes from the article:

"M.A.I.B.T.Y.B.I.L.P. Is a rarely-found acronym" - Not notable, and dictionary entry

"It is new, so new that it cannot be found on Google" - so not only not notable, but a recientism at that.

"farthest corners of Internet communities that deviate away from the mainstream public focus" - Definately non-notable

~ LinaMishima 03:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:NFT springs to mind, too. Smells of a small couple of irc channels only using something, so... Not for your school/office/club's latest in-joke applies. LinaMishima 03:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please speedy delete A7. It asserts its own non-notability! --ColourBurst 03:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sadly WP:CSD:A7 does not spply to neologisms. Gwernol 11:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete, no merge into Internet slang, unverifiable, WP:NFT and WP:NEO. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as is already said, the article makes the case for why it should go. Nuttah68 12:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable neologism. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 03:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ooh, a band wagon... Asserts own non notability. GeorgeBills 15:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: "Is a rarely-found acronym used in IRC chatrooms" ... no need to read any further. Sandstein 20:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: In all likelihood this article was created simply to create a new acronym, rather than to report on one. It lacks any and all sources to the point where it is rediculous and is, at best, nothing but a very localized in-joke amongst a group of maybe five or six guys with beards. -Dave 05:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator, non-verifiable and the Internet slang page needs much work as it is. Yamaguchi先生 19:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - perhaps you can merge, if you find a source. Sorry, this is an encyclopaedia, even though some of the approved articles here do not belong in one. --nkayesmith 02:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "rarely used" - practically begging to be deleted, in fact. Just zis Guy you know? 18:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)