Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 11

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

The result was delete. Majorly (Talk) 20:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HNU Systems

HNU Systems (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

I question the notability of this corporation. 'Revenue of 1 million USD/year' and 'major supplier' seem at odds. Also, much of the article reads like an advertisement. Michaelbusch 05:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - non notable, unreferenced. /Blaxthos 17:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Jefferson Anderson 17:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no WP:RS evidence of meeting WP:CORP criteria. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. TSO1D 01:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• delete -- but there's something that escaped notice--the infobox says "10 employees"DGG 05:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chiro Sjaloom

Chiro Sjaloom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable. Chiro is very notable, as large youth organization Flanders, Belgium. Chiro Sjaloom however, is just one of the hunderds of local divisions (one of the 985 to be specific). Its useless to have an article for each local division, consisting of just a few dozens of youngsters having a hobby. LimoWreck 00:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and the fact that it states in the article that it "has about 70 members," that is far too little to be notable. Cbrown1023 00:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As above. Navou ^talk 00:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:ORG. MER-C 00:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Chiro is notable, but branch offices are not. SkierRMH,09:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bec-Thorn-Berry 11:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as failing WP:ORG/WP:CORP Ohconfucius 08:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (Talk) 20:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Action Zone Wrestling

Action Zone Wrestling (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

not notable by Wikipedia standards, includes unsourced statements and therefore not verifiable BooyakaDell 00:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:CORP and WP:V, check ghits. MER-C 01:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Try azw Wrestling -wikipedia -myspace -youtube as search terms, it more hits as it's normally abbreviated. --Sigma 7 01:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Note that the search also brings up a wrestling organization also called "anarchy zone wrestling" or somesuch, which might explain why that search gets more hits. --Jackhorkheimer 07:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. For the link allergic, about 80 ghits. --Dennisthe2 03:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination... --Mhking 04:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Nomination made in bad faith. Nominator under investigation for vandalism. Curse of Fenric 06:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  It would be more constructive, Curse of Fenric, to address why there are no sources in the article. Even if the nominator were under investigation for high treason, that wouldn't make Wikipedia:Verifiability any less policy. Is there any coverage of this topic published in independent sources that we can use to verify the contents of the article? Can you provide links or other references to such sources? -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  Well, it does appear that somebody IS targeting Wrestling articles. Especially non-american Wrestling? Valters 20:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  Yeah, maybe. Everytime you edit an article here, it says at the bottom of the page, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." If you follow the link, you read that, "Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor." So what's wrong with nominating unverifiable content for deletion? If Wikipedia is being used to host original research, then deleting it is good. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Um... Sources please. WP:V would probably work best... so yeah. MrMacMan 10:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I think it is possible to verify this information; for starters, this page lists specific dates/locations of AZW events and the `olelo programming table lists it. But I can find no notable mentions in independent sources outside the limited field of indy wrestling, aside from local event listings like this. Coupled with the apparent size of these events (~100 people attending), it doesn't appear to meet notability criteria. -SpuriousQ 10:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bec-Thorn-Berry 11:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Notability and citations. /Blaxthos 17:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. While I strongly dispute the premise of a few editors that "unverifiable" is a synonym for "unverified" (surely, with but a cursory effort, we're verifying some of the facts) even by the standards of local indy wrestling feds this one is under the radar, if they've never broken over 150 fans for a show. They must have lost their shirts paying an appearance fee to A.J. Styles. RGTraynor 21:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, redirecting to Happy Xmas (War Is Over). NawlinWiki 17:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So This Is Christmas

So This Is Christmas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

May be a hoax - hard to tell because of the title chosen - but even if it's not a hoax, it's still a non-notable future indie production and doesn't belong in WP. The principals have no IMdb entry, no ghits for "Gregmss View" which is supposedly reporting on this project. "Not That Bad Productions" gets 1 unrelated ghit. Tubezone 01:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. If we have a crystal ball article, there at least needs to be some evidence that it is real. --- RockMFR 01:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per RockMFR. Bigtop 01:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - unsourced crystal balling. MER-C 01:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per others RobLinwood 01:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I call hoax, not even a crystal ball article. --Dennisthe2 03:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If a movie isn't listed in IMDb yet, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. (In fact, not even all the movies that are listed in IMDb belong in Wikipedia.) I'm happy to assume good faith and suppose that the individuals described in the article intend to make this film, but until it shows up in theaters I'm also happy to leave it out of Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 03:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete then redirect to Happy Xmas (War Is Over) as plausible search string. --Nlu (talk) 08:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks! I was wracking my brain trying to remember the title of that song! Tubezone 08:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect as above. SkierRMH,09:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bec-Thorn-Berry 11:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 20:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shakti Wicca

Shakti Wicca (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Unverifiable, unclear importance, self-promotion? Pigman (talk • contribs) 01:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Sources were requested a year ago. Only sources added are group's own Tripod website, and a link to their YahooGroup that boasts five members. Argh. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as non-notable. RobLinwood 01:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 03:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & Kathryn. SkierRMH,09:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete reasons listed above. /Blaxthos 17:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- I don't see any reliable sources for this. Jkelly 17:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Jefferson Anderson 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unverified, nn notable. Tripod and Yahoo groups does not notability make.--Dakota 23:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TSO1D 01:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I checked this one out, apparently Shakti is a hindu term. The following book is cited as a reference for Shakti Wicca: Offering Flowers, Feeding Skulls: Popular Goddess Worship in West Bengal ISBN: 0195167910. Additionally, there is a Shakti Wicca article at the WiccanWeb Wiki. As well the wikipedia article Hindu reform movements mentions it as well. I know that often foreign concepts are under represented in the English wikipedia. I would be content with reducing it to a short article, with a reference.Alan.ca 11:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Response There is nothing to indicate that the cited book, which is about Hinduism in India, mentions the Wiccan group. "Shakti Wicca" was added to the WP Hindu Reform movements article by the creator of this Shakti Wicca article, and subsequently removed by other editors. The article at wiccanweb.ca is a copy of this Wikipedia article (see Source section: "Shakti Wicca", Wikipedia, retrieved March 24, 2006.) --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the commenters above, concerned that this was built from Tripod and Yahoo newsgroup sources which are not reliable. Yamaguchi先生 03:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 20:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Power Rangers monsters

List of Power Rangers monsters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This article should be deleted, as each section in this article already has a separate article which explains each of the monsters in greater depth. JPG-GR 01:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Article serves as a good "parent" article of the sub-lists. --- RockMFR 01:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'd argue that Category:Lists_of_Power_Rangers_monsters already does that. JPG-GR 02:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If someone wants to see all of the monsters at once, or is trying to find what list a specific monster is in, the large list is very useful. --- RockMFR 03:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per RockMFR. - Che Nuevara 02:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Useful collation of material that is not itself being questioned. Lists are useful for organization, and in this case, I can see how it might help someone. Mister.Manticore 03:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; it's a list of lists, each subsequent list is more detailed than this one.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Whilst excessive listing often seems to miss the point (or have no purpose at all), in this instance it looks like a good idea - someone looking for the series containing a particular monster can just hit ALT+F and find which series they're after. It's well organized, the potential uses are clear and the subject matter is certainly relevant for the encyclopedia - there's a glut of articles/lists that will never be any of those things which do need to be squashed by the AFD buttocks. QuagmireDog 09:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bec-Thorn-Berry 11:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — See no reason to delete (on a side note Go go Power Rangers!) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to list things like this. Please read what Wikipedia is NOT. /Blaxthos 17:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What part of WP:NOT does this fall under?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Pokemon Rule. -Toptomcat 17:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  While I appreciate that this is your opinion on the matter at hand, there is no "Pokemon rule."--Dmz5 01:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  He's referring to Wikipedia:Pokémon test—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ref, I'm aware of the essay, but I am always wary of users who cite "rules" even if they don't mean it that way--Dmz5 04:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep what RockMFR first said. Plus 'someone looking for the series containing a particular monster can just hit ALT+F and find which series they're after. It's well organized, the potential uses are clear and the subject matter is certainly relevant for the encyclopedia ' this part of what QuagmireDog said. --Xiahou 02:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Categorize. Main category: Power Rangers monsters. Then sort into subcategories by show. --Hemlock Martinis 03:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  There are no articles for specific monsters. Just lists of them per season/series. There exists a category, of which several of the series-specific pages are kept in.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  If there aren't any articles for specific monsters, then that would make this list quite crufty. --Hemlock Martinis 04:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  Well, lists like List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers monsters (Season One) have indepth details. This AFD is for a list of the names, as well as links to the series specific lists.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 20:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs that have been considered among the greatest ever

List of songs that have been considered among the greatest ever (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

The page title is vague ("have been considered", "among the greatest") and seems to really be about people nominating their favourite songs Duggy 1138 01:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Free Bird!!!!! uh, I mean Delete. One of these songs is based on the fact that it appeared in someone's top 500 list? You could find thousands of songs that meet the (dubious) criteria here, and the selection from there is just irreparably POV. Fan-1967 01:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unmaintainable and as an indiscriminate collection of information. meshach 02:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Delete and give Fan-1967 a cookie for hilarity - Che Nuevara 02:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, my personal favorite's always been Suffragette City, which isn't even on the list. Fan-1967 02:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete my personal favorites tend to not be in English :( Danny Lilithborne 02:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 03:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR. —ShadowHalo 04:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I almost voted keep, but List of songs in English labeled the best ever is better sourced and deals with English-language bias.--T. Anthony 04:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As much as I agree with most of the selected songs, this list is POV by nature. --Sable232 04:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with List of songs in English labeled the best ever
  • I'm not sure why. Almost everything that is wrong with this page is right with the one you suggest. It has a specific, limited scope (songs labelled best ever by a critic or poll). Merging the two will only make it as bad as this one and cause that one to need deleting. Duggy 1138 07:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Sable232 StayinAnon 07:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and the artilce looks a little untidy/unconentional. The JPS^{talk to me} 08:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as the ultimate POV page (and because my favourite -"Fish heads, fish heads", isn't on the list :( SkierRMH,09:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of songs in English labeled the best ever.  Grue  09:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bec-Thorn-Berry 11:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Grue. Owen× ☎ 12:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Grue, that list is better sourced and can handle the English-language bias. In the alternative, delete. Also, I'm upset American Pie isn't on this list.-- danntm ^T _C 15:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There are forty-two songs on this list, thirty-six of which appear in The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's 500 Songs that Shaped Rock and Roll, fifteen of which are justified for inclusion on this list solely by their appearance on that Hall of Fame list. It's POV to exclude the other 464. Also, "songs that shaped rock and roll" does not equal "songs that have been considered among the greatest ever." ForDorothy 15:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to List of songs in English labeled the best ever (the better list). --- RockMFR 15:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into List of songs in English labeled the best ever. The topic is certainly encyclopedic (compare our similar lists for films), and bias toward rock songs is not a reason for deletion. AfD isn't Wikipedia:Cleanup or WP:RFC. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 16:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  Also, the "people listing their favorite songs here" bias can be remedied by simply requiring that all entries on the list have sources saying that, and/or why, critics/magazines/etc. have named them the best songs. This can apply to other "best/worst ever" lists as well. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 16:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that merging is not a good idea here, a redirect is all this needs --Dmz5 20:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment In response to Idont Havaname, I highly doubt that a remedy, should one exist, would not be as simple as you suggest. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of 'best song' lists out there published by various magazines and well-established music critics and all people will have to do is find which ones include their favorites and then use them to source and validate their claims. It is conceivably possible that songs could require a large number of prominent sources, say 8 or 9, to show their universal appeal but I doubt that would ever come to pass. --The Way 05:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, unavoidably POV. Stifle (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment — This article is getting delete votes and yet we're keeping List of Power Rangers monsters? I shudder to think. :-) The page needs a cleanup and better selection criteria. — RJH (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — So what you're suggesting is something like List of songs in English labeled the best ever. Duggy 1138 03:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, but I really mean merge, because this list contains some songs that must be on such a list and which are inexplicably missing from List of songs in English labeled the best ever, unless I missed them somehow. These would include "Hey Jude" and "My Generation". I do understand the POV issues, but there has to be a reliable way of establishing that these songs (and others) hold a special place in contemporary musical history. 6SJ7 21:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — I can't see how you can Merge List of songs that have been considered among the greatest ever with List of songs in English labeled the best ever without making List of songs in English labeled the best ever into List of songs that have been considered among the greatest ever which is the article with the real problem. Criteria will always be a problem with lists like this and there will always be notable exceptions and songs that don't really seem to fit. Duggy 1138 09:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless changed to "best selling" or some other measurable and verifiable objective measure.
• Delete. Vague, arbitrary inclusion criteria. Unmanageable. Unencyclopedic. Nick Graves 22:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: To be fair, most entries do include a decent assertion of the song's greatness. But there are simply too many different rankings, awards etc. out there to make a list that is neutral enough and short enough for this encyclopedia. Heimstern Läufer 23:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete more POV songlistcruft. Why didn't we get this last time? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ckessler 05:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Hasn't this been deleted before? This is inherently POV and, quite probably, also inherently OR. What criteria are used to determine what songs make the list? Every music magazine and critic publishes lists along these lines and they are all different. It is absolutely unmaintainable and will essentially end up as an article that is a constant battleground between editors trying to justify the inclusion of their favorite songs. --The Way 05:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to the better list (List of songs in English labeled the best ever), which this list is inferior to. --Martin 10:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The doesn't provide useful information. Davidpdx 09:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[Nomination]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's no need for AfD or even merge tags for something like this. Just merge, and if there is no content that needs to be merged, simply redirect.--Kchase T 04:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Actually, it's been necessary to merge a few things, but whatever.--Kchase T 04:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rattenburg

Rattenburg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This stub is a mis-spelt duplicate of the pre-exisiting Rattenberg page. There is no information contained within it not in the Rattenberg article. A Google search of Rattenburg returns only a youth hostel in Ratten, Lower Austria in German language pages and further English mis-spellings of Rattenberg, Tirol in English language pages. Caledonian Place 01:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Rattenberg. This is a common mistake. - Che Nuevara 02:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as per above RobLinwood 02:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirectaroosky Danny Lilithborne 02:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-11 03:38Z

[edit] J2Games

J2Games (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Article is advertising spam, with few incoming links and definitely not NPOV. RobLinwood 01:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete db-spam. --- RockMFR 01:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete definitely soap-like content and context is not encyclopedic.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete flawless victory, spamality. Danny Lilithborne 02:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
• Speedy delete per above. // I c e d K o l a 02:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as spam. So tagged. MER-C 03:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — CharlotteWebb 01:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hillbrook Anglican School

Hillbrook Anglican School administration prefers that the official Hillbrook website be maintained as the primary source of online information for Hillbrook Anglican School. This Wikipedia entry's net effect as an information resource was considered negative in light of the frequency of graffiti events. Slartimitvar 01:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC) — Slartimitvar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep. The Hillbrook School administrations views are irrelevant to whether we have an article and I think that it is doubtful that the article would encourage vandals. There seem to be enough information available through Google News Archive to write an article on this school. Capitalistroadster 02:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per Capitalistroadster. I'm not sure I've ever seen a less valid reason for deletion. Slartimitvar: Please read Wikipedia's deletion policy. -- Antepenultimate 03:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - if you've got problems on an article about your school, so fix them. Remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and that everything must be compliant with WP:NPOV. MER-C 03:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a notable school and per invalid deletion reason. Heimstern Läufer 03:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep See Wikipedia:Deletion policy and try to find a valid reason to get it deleted. The above nomination is not it.--Kchase T 04:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment A few more things. First, this is not a valid candidate for speedy keep according to WP:SK. I considered closing it anyway, but I think leaving it open for the full five may elicit valuable commentary on why it shouldn't be deleted. Leaving it open also permits a more solid AfD, thereby discouraging future attempts with this reasoning. Finally, I'd encourage people who read this to add the article to your watchlists and revert vandalism and nonsense as you see it. We have a ton of recent changes patrollers, but some things get past that net. Concerns like those expressed by the nominator shouldn't prompt us to delete articles, but they also shouldn't be ignored. If someone complains about vandalism to an article they have reason to be concerned about, the solution is putting it on your watchlist and reverting the nonsense faster. Let's help them out if we can!--Kchase T 05:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Done. Excellent reasoning, by the way. It's winter here, and boredom abounds, so why not? -- Antepenultimate 05:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Capitalistroadster. JROBBO 05:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Oh, this nomination made me die a little inside. That is a terrible reason to delete. Keep, Keep, a thousand times keep! StayinAnon 07:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Hold on there guys. The nominator doesn't really raise a valid reason to delete, but if the school's website is the only non-trivial source that we could use to write a good article on this school, then that would be a valid reason to delete. If no other sources on this school can be found, the article should be deleted per WP:N. Pan Dan 13:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a good idea, but that battle's been had and lost. See WP:AFDP#Education. Whatever its merits, the precedent is on the side of keeping articles about high schools. There's also a lukewarm quote by Jimbo Wales around somewhere.--Kchase T 19:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The link you provided says "fewer than 15% [have been] actually deleted" -- I take that to mean at least, say, 5%, have been deleted? For example see the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collier High School -- result was delete due to failure of WP:N (which is apparently a problem with this school too). Pan Dan 21:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Well sure, some do get deleted. If you look at the actual precedent, though, they tend to get kept unless they are inordinately small or something else makes them minor compared to other high schools. The way that precedent was established is very controversial, but now that it's there, I think we ought to keep all high schools of any significance for consistency's sake. Otherwise we get the "my high school was deleted but some and such's high school is still here!" whiners, WP:INN notwithstanding.--Kchase T 22:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • If you want to vote delete, then just go ahead and vote delete, you don't need our permission. However, the precedent of a 95% keep rate (by your own math) should make someone pause and consider why this may be. One possible explanation is that schools, by their very nature, cannot avoid being discussed by multiple, independent third party sources - their student performance, their sports, their budgets, their school board elections, and so on and so forth. Just because sources aren't listed doesn't mean they do not exist. With schools, therefore, the issue likely becomes verifiability, and possibilities for merger (such as a particular High School merging with its host district's article). As this school appears to be somewhat independent, merger doesn't appear to be an option. Verifiability seems to be provided by the school's website. If more is needed for verifiability, I'm sure it won't be hard to find. -- Antepenultimate 22:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
        • First, I haven't recommended to delete because I haven't checked to see if there are actually sources out there in this case. Second, I would just point out in response to some of your comment, that the multiple third-party sources you suggest exist for schools -- featuring school games, budgets, elections, etc. -- should be considered trivial. They're not enough to show notability or to write a good Wikipedia article -- do you really think that a school article should be a collection of student performance stats, sagas about local football rivalries, and budgets? Of course there are some high schools that have attracted the attention of the publishers in a non-trivial way and meet WP:N. I would hazard to guess that at least 90% of high schools don't meet WP:N. Pan Dan 22:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Actually, what constitutes trivial per WP:N are one-sentence mentionings of a subject in a larger article, or the subject being little more than an entry in a larger table or graph. In many cases mentioned above, the school would be a primary subject of the article, which WP:N is very specific about. Of course it would be silly to include budgets and school stats, but other valuable info (school size, history, socio-economic demographics, when it was established, where it is located, if students happen to perform particularly well or poorly in academics or sports, etc.) could be readily available. And WP:N does not say that all such articles or the information contained within must be used as a basis for the article, it simply requires that they exist as a test for notability. (At least that's how I read it. It's kind of vague.) Also, check out the proposed guidelines at WP:SCHOOL, which includes as a footnote at the bottom: Newspaper coverage includes regular coverage in local media (such as complete stories about a school's athletic program). It also mentions "public reports by schools inspection agencies" as being acceptable for notability-determining purposes. Now I'm not from Australia and really don't know how they go about things there, but I guess I like to pick my battles when it comes to deletions, as I can't possibly see the harm in leaving this info. "Wikipedia is not paper" and all that. I imagine that for most, the same logic that tells us to keep all articles about every town and village also tells us that it's perfectly fine to include schools as well. -- Antepenultimate 23:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
          • In fairness I should mention that another proposed guideline, Wikipedia:Schools3 takes a different approach to this, in fact some might say the opposite approach. And they say notability is not subjective... -- Antepenultimate 23:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
            • (1) A series of local articles in the paper about the school's football games, or budget, don't show notability. They should be considered trivial in the sense that we could not use that kind of information to fill up an encyclopedia article. (2) "WP:N does not say that all such articles or the information contained within must be used as a basis for the article" -- WP:N does say that "This requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable encyclopedia article about the topic." If the only published encyclopedic info about a school is on its website, which is a single source (note we require multiple sources) and unreliable (as it has not gone through an editorial process and as it is first-party), then there is no way to write a good encyclopedia article about the school. Wikipedia is not a mirror of school websites. Pan Dan 12:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
              • I've added a reference. Unfortunately my database searches are limited to the past two years of articles. Since Pan Dan will undoubtedly remind us all again of the requirement for multiple sources, let me just say that I would bet money that some very non-trivial articles were likely written in 1986 when this school was founded, or in 1987 when its first academic year began. However, not living in Australia and not being able to frequent their libraries, I have no way of confirming this. I have already wasted enough time on this. My intention in the above discussion was to try and logically deduce why such an overwhelming precedent exists for school articles being kept on Wikipedia. Obviously it doesn't fit snuggly into a strict reading of the guidelines, or these AfDs that formed the basis of that precedent would have never been nominated in the first place. I suspect that, instead of trying to brainstorm these reasons only to have Pan Dan pick them apart one-by-one, we can probably just chalk it up to WP:IGNORE and be done with it. -- Antepenultimate 17:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Invalid bad faith nomination. --- RockMFR 16:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Absolutely keep. I'm sorry, but you don't get to choose whether or not you have a Wikipedia article. -Toptomcat 17:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, appears to be a well intentioned but misguided attempt to control the information about this school. I don't think this is a speedy situation and I second Kchase; this should run it's course to establish consensus, even though no valid deletion reason was given. I'd also urge editors to put this on their watchlist.--Isotope23 19:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, an administration site is obviously POV and should *not* be the only source of information available. If they don't like it, too bad -- their authority doesn't extend to Wikipedia. Birdboy2000 01:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I cannot find the reason given for the deletion to be valid. TSO1D 01:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --Howrealisreal 01:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep schools shouldn't be deleted-- also per above--Xiahou 02:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep not a valid reason for deletion. Ckessler 05:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

It got speedy deleted. Anomo 04:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oh noes kid

Oh noes kid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Pointless article, fails WP:V Nic the Man 02:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oh noe! Delete as just short of patent nonsense. eaolson 02:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete O RLY? Danny Lilithborne 02:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oh noes! This "article" is going to be deleted per above. MER-C 03:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, especially if 212.1.150.225 is the IP of Onewordpostguy, the creator, which wouldn't surprise me. The only notability presented is a discussion on a bulletin board and having a clip of him played several times—which is to say, not very notable at all. --Jackhorkheimer 03:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This kid can make himself an hero on some other wiki. The Mirror of the Sea 03:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. YA RLY. --Dennisthe2 03:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD A7, and salt due to vandalism, what's in this article is not much of an assertion of notability, and can be added to articles on John Cena and Rob Van Dam. Tubezone 03:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Oh noes kid just got speedy deleted anyways so all of this has been made irrelevant. The Mirror of the Sea 04:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep, per the improvement of the article (it addresses the concern of the nominator). --Coredesat 20:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carol's Daughter

Carol's Daughter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This article reads like an advertisement. --Riley 02:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - advert, questionable notability. The creator has been warned numerous times about posting copyvios and I'm concerned about this one too. MER-C 03:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete G11. So tagged. --Dennisthe2 03:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC) (vote changed --~~)
• Keep, seems like a notable brand. I cleaned up the adcopy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-11 03:47Z
• Keep and move to Carol's Daughter for proper capitalization. CNN confirms that celebrities are among the investors in this company. This brand appears to qualify under WP:CORP. --Metropolitan90 03:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Already moved, cleaned-up, and now linked to the CNN article by Quarl. Great work.--Kchase T 05:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bec-Thorn-Berry 11:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advertising. Akihabara 12:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per CNN article. Good find. --- RockMFR 15:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete completely unreferenced, adspam. /Blaxthos 17:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not unreferenced. Could you say something about the notability of the subject? Any ad copy still lingering can be cleaned up. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-11 20:55Z
• Look again It's a lot different now.--Kchase T 21:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The CNN article alone denotes notability (per Wikipedia standards). CuriousGiselle 22:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Wow, what an improvement. Great job! --Dennisthe2 06:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per much notability. --Chrisottjr 16:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Low notablity. Davidpdx 09:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Low notability is fine, not everything needs to be super important, just as long as it's verifiable, and is noted by a reputable source it has some relevance. i kan reed 06:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep remarkable. see CNN article. Apphead 05:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep CNN'd. i kan reed 06:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 20:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Rin

Adam Rin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

The article was created by user User:Afbcasejr, who claims to be a business partner of a person described. I think it is inappropriate to write bios of your business partners, and especially because the article looks like promotion for both person described (Adam Rin) and article author (Albert F. Case, Jr). Futurix 02:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, not notable. Akihabara 03:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom WP:BIO and WP:COI probable. SkierRMH,09:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bec-Thorn-Berry 11:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Jefferson Anderson 17:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Deleteper nom. Davidpdx 09:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This is AFBCaseJr responding. 1. I removed all but one reference to myself. 2. If nobody else has written about Dr. Rin, why not his business partner? He was the inventor of the first 4th generation programming language (IDEAL) and a pioneer on the scale of Peter Chen and James Martin as it relates to data modeling. Is there some rule that only people who don't know you can write about you????? 3. If anyone questions the early and significant contributions of Dr. Rin, then check the references that I added to the article, including Marty Goetz's citation of him (Marty was founder of ADR, the fist relational DB company, later acquired by CA). 4. What EXACTLY does it look like the article is promoting? Neither he nor I are "for hire" as consultants, as we are 100% committed to our current project. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.187.109.150 (talk • contribs).

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

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

The result was keep and prematurely close the debate after a complete rewrite, per Lar. Sandstein 22:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Militia Act of 1792

Militia Act of 1792 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Is only a source text. It has already been imported to Wikisource (s:Militia Act of 1792) --Benn Newman 02:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Good material but does not belong here. Wikisource is the right place. ++Lar: t/c 02:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Keep now that it has been rewritten. Needs sourcing though. Nice job, Smerdis. I suspect, CORNELIUSSEON possibly needs to be helped to understand the issue with sources vs. articles though. ++Lar: t/c 19:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 03:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• From User talk:CORNELIUSSEON:

If you had bothered to look at the list of linking articles that are supported by that article, you would have seen that it is a sub-page of the article on the US national Guard, and one of several sub-pages performing that task. As such, I would have had no resort but to replace the article with one just like it since it still provides support to a Main Article on the US National Guard. I would recommend that you do your homework properly before you threaten to do a hatchet job on someone else's work. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 03:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• In response, I'd recommend deleting and replacing it with a soft redirect then. MER-C 04:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Further, that suggests that some of the articles that link to it (and are closely related) may also be candidates for transwiki-fication... (for example Militia Act of 1862) The key point here is that the info has been preserved and has been placed in the right place. This is a source, and wikipedia is not the place to keep sources. WikiSOURCE is. Please assume good faith on the part of newmanbe (who actually did the work of transwikiing it) ++Lar: t/c 09:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to s:Militia Act of 1792. SkierRMH,09:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and replace the link with an interwiki link, or the article with an article about the act, instead of the text of the act itself. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, rewritten. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bec-Thorn-Berry 11:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and replace links to the Wikisource page per above. If someone wants to write a brief synopsis and discussion of the import of this Act, illustrated by excerpts, by all means do so; that's what's at Militia Act of 1862. That is an encyclopedia style article. The topic certainly could support an article; this source text is not it. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - article entirely rewritten - I replaced the source text with a brief synopsis of the statutes in question and added the Wikisource link to the original text there. Interest people should review what I wrote to make sure that it covers all of the important points. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per SoT. Smerdis, you are a Wiki-superhero. -Toptomcat 17:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - encyclopedic, and now an article rather than just a source. Great job, Smerdis! schi ^talk 18:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It now looks like a keeper. --Brianyoumans 18:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Smerdis of Tlön's rewrite looks good, I'd just like to see it sourced.--Isotope23 19:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per rewrite. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Benn Newman 12:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Nom has changed view, and all comments since rewrite are keep (often with the admonition it needs better sourcing). Perhaps an IAR Speedy Close is in order here? :) the problem seems sorted. ++Lar: t/c 15:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, I would enquire over at the Military History project and their sub-projects before you make any other changes - and inform them of the changes you have made as well, since they are likely to fix those changes according to their policies. I did not write that article just to suit my needs - it was part of a much larger project. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 21:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable company, WP:CORP refers. (aeropagitica) 17:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prophet Computers

Non-notable company. -- Longhair\^talk 01:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 01:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - {{db-corp}}. You could have deleted this yourself. So tagged. MER-C 03:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bec-Thorn-Berry 11:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete As MER-C. Akihabara 12:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 20:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Willard Building

Willard Building (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

non notable classroom building. Brianyoumans 03:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nothing in article shows notability of the building. SkierRMH,09:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bec-Thorn-Berry 11:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep I found the article rather interesting. Travb (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral—one possibility would be to move content to a summary article like List of Penn State classroom buildings. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 16:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral A lot of Penn State articles just need a better home. GChriss <always listening><c> 17:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Hardly non-notable, but perhaps article should be improved to emphasize notewothy points. —xanderer 18:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable as per nom. Akihabara 13:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "The majority of students at Penn State usually have at least one class in the building during the course of their studies" is the strongest assertion of notability I found in the article, and it's pretty lame. Ohconfucius 09:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No significant claims of notability in the article. No sources used, so certainly no sources that establish notability are present. GRBerry 03:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Agree non-notable. Davidpdx 09:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 20:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Journal of Joan of Arc Studies

Journal of Joan of Arc Studies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This journal's publisher appears to be a vanity press rather than a legitimate academic organization. In addition, according to WorldCat, the journal is not held by any libraries, and as far as I can tell has published only one issue (or perhaps none). The publication doesn't appear to be notable. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 03:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. 2 of 4 sources are it's own materials; 1 is dead; other is useless to prove notablity. SkierRMH,09:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bec-Thorn-Berry 11:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Jefferson Anderson 17:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, at least until this Journal gains some reputation in the field as a reliable peer-reviewed journal.-- danntm ^T _C 00:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails Wikipedia:Notability (books).--Dakota 00:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per arguements above & per nom. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• reluctant delete its a small academic society, not a vanity press, but it does not seem to have actually put out much in the way of publication & its websites didnt work. DGG 05:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Davidpdx 09:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedied nonsense. Opabinia regalis 05:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yvonne yapping

Yvonne yapping (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or urbandictionary.com --Icarus ^(Hi!) 03:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as nonsense - no Google hits on the term. --Brianyoumans 03:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete nonsense, no context, probably a prank article poking fun at some girl the author knows . Zero ghits for expression. Tubezone 03:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - nonsense neologism. Already tagged. MER-C 03:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Azucena Anahí Garcia Castro

Azucena Anahí Garcia Castro (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Subject does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 03:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 04:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - both MUSIC & BIO. SkierRMH,09:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bec-Thorn-Berry 11:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete gets a few more Ghits as Anahí Garcia but still fails notability guidelines.--Dakota 00:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. —ShadowHalo 22:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete has 44 hits per Google. Davidpdx 09:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alphonso Goins

Alphonso Goins (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Delete. NN, fails Google test, brings up 12 results, none of them related. Ckessler 03:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:V. MER-C 04:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'd make that about maybe 1 related ghit, and that's a weak 'maybe'. SkierRMH,09:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bec-Thorn-Berry 11:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete who? Jefferson Anderson 17:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable and unverified. Heimstern Läufer 00:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Would also appear to fail WP:COI: created by Gemini zo, and full of typos which completely undermine its credibility. Congratulations on having created a "conglomerant" which "boosts" more than $4.5 million a year. Ohconfucius 09:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Davidpdx 09:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, with no prejiduce towards recreation. Absolutely no verifiable information or reliable sources detailing this topic exist at this time, nor will they exist for several months at best — although it is very likely that such a series will be broadcast, there is no information of substance that would make a seperate article worthwhile.--SB | T 09:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Power Ranger XIV (2008) and Power Rangers : Season 16

Power Ranger XIV (2008) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Power Rangers : Season 16 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL -- This article is about the adaptation of a super sentai series that hasn't even begun airing yet. JPG-GR 04:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both per nom. MER-C 04:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete These crystal ball articles need at least some sources to be justifiable.--Kchase T 04:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: I have listed the (practically) identical article with this AFD, as they are both about the same subject, and the only other comment on the other AFD was an agreement from MER-C about its deletion.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both per massive crystal balling by the author.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Johan Elisson (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christmas High

Christmas High (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

No assertion of notability/importance - apparent nn webcomic, and wouldn't meet WP:WEB on that basis. Dl2000 04:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - {{db-web}}. So tagged. MER-C 04:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bec-Thorn-Berry 11:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per MER-C. Jefferson Anderson 17:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Gott

Kevin Gott (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Subject does not meet the guidelines of WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 05:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I'm also bundling the other band members into this nomination. They were all created by the same user, who almost certainly created the article on the band that was deleted by prod. Although some of the band members were in another band called "Silver Rain", despite the blue-link, we don't have an article for it, and it probably isn't notable, either.--Kchase T 05:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The following are bundled in.

• Marc Pearson
• Jonathan Melling
• Andy Milner
• David Varley
• Stuart Baker
• Matthew Boggan

• Delete all - all fail WP:MUSIC, less notable members of a non-notable band. MER-C 06:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom and MER-C's concise summary. riana_dzasta 06:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete times 7. all pass the Glorified garage band test. SkierRMH,09:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

p.s. the "Silver Rain" link is not to a band, it's to another artist's album, not related to this group. SkierRMH 09:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all Bec-Thorn-Berry 11:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all nn Akihabara 12:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all Looks like mass COI by this NN band. -- IslaySolomon | talk 18:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all non-noteable. Davidpdx 13:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kris brunken

Kris brunken (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Appears to be non notable, only 11 ghits. Article claims that she writes under a pen name, if that name is more notable then probably redirected there. But this name is not mentioned in the article and I can't find it.--Joe Jklin (T C) 05:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Professional information doesn't look notable. Most of the article is personal bio, totally unverifiable, and reads suspiciously like COI. Fan-1967 05:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; unverifiable by reliable sources, and admitted self-promotion [14]. Antandrus (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Unsourced autobiography. MER-C 06:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable autobiography, unless these 'numerous awards' can be verified. Still a COI and self-promotion. riana_dzasta 06:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Fan, Antandrus, MER, Riana -- Samir धर्म 06:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as BIO, AUTO, COI, etc. SkierRMH,09:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bec-Thorn-Berry 11:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-noteable. Davidpdx 09:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brent Tucker

Brent Tucker (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Delete. Fails Google test, searches for "Brent Tucker" "Brent Tucker in-line" turn up nothing, searching "Team Roche" turns up a cycling team. Ckessler 05:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 06:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, 0 relevant ghits. SkierRMH,09:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bec-Thorn-Berry 11:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. Davidpdx 09:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -K37 02:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 20:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IPWA 5th Dimension Catch

IPWA 5th Dimension Catch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Not encyclopaedic, not notable, poorly written (how can it be improved?) and seems to be an excuse for a link to the promoter's website. Mmoneypenny 05:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - nn wrestling event, fails WP:V. MER-C 06:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of notability and verifiability. 11 Google hits with this title, 109 (mostly unrelated) for "Dimension Catch". Prolog 20:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - bad excuse for WP:SPAM SkierRMH,05:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. Davidpdx 09:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 20:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Scoville

Nick Scoville (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template on article page, but entry not imputted in here. Not sure on notability myself. --James Duggan 05:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - we should be writing about this guy instead. All but 48 of the ghits belong to the astronomer. Fails WP:BIO. MER-C 06:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bec-Thorn-Berry 11:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn amateur. SkierRMH,05:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe in a few years. Stompin' Tom 15:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. Davidpdx 09:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genco Abbandando

Genco Abbandando (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable character from The Godfather series. He only appears once in The Godfather Part II as a young man. Does not appear in Part III and is only mentioned briefly in the original film. Hardly a suitable reason for an entire article to be devoted to him. The Filmaker 05:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per my own nom. The Filmaker 05:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 06:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Question: are there any other characters that are similarly trivial and still have articles? riana_dzasta 06:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes. Danny Lilithborne 07:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Then should the others be AfD'd too? riana_dzasta 07:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • At the moment, I'm trying to decide which one's should definitely be deleted immediately. Then I will figure out which are not worthy of articles. The Filmaker 16:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 07:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bec-Thorn-Berry 11:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't even seem to merit inclusion in The Godfather Part II. Jefferson Anderson 17:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. —ShadowHalo 22:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom (& supporf The Filmmaker's move to cull out the rest of the incidental characters. SkierRMH,05:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. Davidpdx 09:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 20:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MechWarrior4 terms, definitions and abbreviations

MechWarrior4 terms, definitions and abbreviations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a place for original research. This list has all the trappings of a game guide, and is going to have a seriously hard time being sourced by reliable sources. Aside from being listed in our list of glossaries, the only non-user-space link to this article comes from the online-play secetion of MechWarrior 4: Mercenaries, which is itself a jungle of original resource. Consequentially 06:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. MER-C 06:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bec-Thorn-Berry 11:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Smerge back into MechWarrior 4: Mercenaries - looks like it was a fork. --- RockMFR 16:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 18:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT a dictionary/game guide/collection of indiscriminate info. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• delete: None of this stuff is verified at all, and what stuff I do recognise from the Mechwarrior universe (IE the hybrid-russian spoken by the clans) is likely a copyvio of the original FASA materials. 69.210.54.31 03:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Indiscriminate information, fancruft. Another article someones done solely for the sake of having an article. The Kinslayer 10:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Passes the Fails everything test SkierRMH,05:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per above, and, as a life long BattleTech and MechWarrior die hard fan, the article is of no practical value. Most of the terms are covered in the MW4:Mercs manual, MP readme, and the rest are covered by nearly all gaming guides (including the ones I wrote for MW2/MW3). So deleting, not merging, the article it would not "contribute to ignorance" (my personal test for deleting stuff on WP). --MegaBurn 23:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. Davidpdx 09:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

It got speedy deleted by somebody. Anomo 07:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spin Science

Spin Science (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

NN web site, self-promotion autobio Subwayguy 06:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - corporate vanity. Laurent SpinScience (talk • contribs) created the article. So tagged. MER-C 06:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bec-Thorn-Berry 11:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity page. Jefferson Anderson 18:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't meet WP:WEB. Prolog 20:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TSO1D 01:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 20:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Med Sci

Med Sci (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Magnet program at a specific high school. Little context, little notablity, little upon which to expand. NMChico24 07:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 08:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -IceCreamAntisocial 14:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and the fact that the abbreviation is so wide used that singling this out as the norm (w/out disambig) would be quite odd. SkierRMH,05:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. Davidpdx 10:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 20:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notebook lesson

Notebook lesson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Appears to be insufficiently attested neologism. Delete unless there is evidence of wider usage. --Nlu (talk) 08:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - nn neologism, 821 ghits. MER-C 08:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bec-Thorn-Berry 11:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC) ^[1]
• Delete FirefoxMan 16:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC) ^[1]
• Delete neologism for very small group, nn. SkierRMH,05:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. —ShadowHalo 05:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC) ^[1]
• Delete Per nom this is non-noteable (I came up with 978 Google hits) and not worthy of mention on Wikipedia. In addition, the article (which is 11 words long) contributes no useful information. I also believe that WP:NOT#DICT also applies in this case.Davidpdx 10:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I was working on the article. The {{Underconstruction}} template has been replaced with the Afd. I do not believe WP:NOT#DICT applies as the german article shows and as the research articles on the topic show. --Fasten 19:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to wireless classroom : It's not a neologism but a generic compound term that refers to sth. which is and becomes more self-evident with the proliferation of laptops (e.g. the OLPC). The term "laptop classroom", which has a redirect to this term, has 42 references on Google Scholar. [15] I've chosen notebook lesson over laptop classroom because the choice of classroom itself doesn't have any connection with the use of laptop computers by the students, so "laptop classroom" seemed somewhat of a misnomer to me. The term "wireless classroom" has 189 references on Google Scholar [16]. See also: de:Notebook-Klasse. --Fasten 12:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC) (primary author)
• Comment I feel it is very bad taste to add the line below reminding users about the rules as well as attempting to supress the opinions that people have expressed. If the User:Fasten truly cared about following the rules he/she would also make a note that they are the origonal authors of this article as is stated in the rules. Davidpdx 13:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the compliment ;-) --Fasten 19:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Fasten's "keep" comment makes it appear that this is not only a neologism, but completely original research. --Nlu (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC) ^[1]
• The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fasten (talk • contribs).
  • Please do not make the comment, like you previously did, look like it came from me. And putting it outside the discussion text is inappropriate. --Nlu (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miki, Poland

Miki, Poland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

17 year old polish rapper and improbable boss of record label. Created by User:Mixonmix, no edits to other articles made. 7 Ghits for polish spelling, 7 Ghits without diacritics, both include wikipedia entries. Delete as probable hoax. Ohconfucius 08:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:V and WP:MUSIC, unreferenced and unwikified. MER-C 08:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bec-Thorn-Berry 11:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and MER-C, although I'll comment that it seems to be standard practice in the hip-hop world for artists to found their own record labels early on in the piece for (presumably) creative-control reasons. Obviously that doesn't establish the notability of this gentleman either, but it perhaps explains the improbability of his label-boss situation. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & MER-C. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom... I get about 20 ghits with some abbreviatsions, but most seem to be mirrors/copies of one another. SkierRMH,05:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Stompin' Tom 15:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per others above. DrKiernan 11:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. Article poorly written. Davidpdx 10:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karate needer

Karate needer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Unofficial, informal neologism that doesn't have particular significance. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - And an oversell to boot. Peter Rehse 08:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn neologism, 5 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 08:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bec-Thorn-Berry 11:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no effort to make this anything other that something made up - Tiswas^(t/c) 13:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as probable hoax/WP:NFT listing. SkierRMH,05:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. Davidpdx 10:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge and redirect. --Wafulz 16:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nintendo 64 Rumble Pak

Nintendo 64 Rumble Pak (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Insufficiently important game accessory. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 08:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Rumble Pak. The actual article is much better written and actually has references. This is probably a pointless fork.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Ryulong. MER-C 08:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to the Rumble Pak sounds like a good idea as well. MrMacMan 10:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy close I was bold and performed the merge/redirect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Navou (talk • contribs).

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 13:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] V.T.V

V.T.V (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This article is probably a hoax. I couldn't find any references to "Vitavians" other than this entry from Urban Dictionary (which relies on, surprise surprise, user submitted content so I wouldn't take it as a credible source). --さくら木 10:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 11:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• No assertion of notability, no sources, no verifiability... so I decided to be bold and tag as Speedy delete as db-bio. Tubezone 11:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g11, spam/promotional article. NawlinWiki 16:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fast Home Offers

Fast Home Offers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Prod is contested, I'm moving this to AfD instead. No assertion that the company meets WP:CORP, while the content borders on spam. Note that the article was created by Jbrandt (talk • contribs), whose name corresponds with that of the company's CEO Jeremy Brandt. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 10:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Does it meet WP:CORP? No. Does it link directly to the site itself as sources? Apparently. Does the CEO of the company have a vested intrest? Yep. Is it probably the CEO? I dunno, but it certainly looks like it. Does he have very few edits and nearly 1/2 of his edits on this one page alone? Yeah. okay then. MrMacMan 10:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as spam, and zap all the redirects, too. I don't understand why this wasn't speedied as spam to begin with. Tubezone 10:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - corporate vanity. Founder Jbrandt (talk • contribs) created the article. MER-C 11:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. A Train ^{take the} 23:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creative Cosmos

I believe that the website creativecosmos.org (the subject of this article) does not meet the notability guideline for internet-based content. Alexa returns no ranking for the site, and indicates that 23 other sites link in. Searching ["creative cosmos"] returns 16,500 total links, although I can't find many relevant to this site. Adding the qualifier "Moors" (the surname of the site's owner/motivator) comes up with 1,140 total or 78 unique hits. Amongst these hits, I can find nothing meeting the criteria set out in WP:WEB.

I previously prodded this article, as a conflict of interest; a self-promotion for Mr Moors' website. The prod was removed, along with all the information on Christopher Moors within the article. However, I still believe this article should be deleted, as while the unverifiable autobiographical information was removed, what remains is also "externally unverifiable through the use of reliable, third party, fact-checked sources". -- saberwyn 11:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Self promotion. /Blaxthos 17:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Self-promotion. Jefferson Anderson 18:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Self-promotion. Davidpdx

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

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

The result was Delete. A Train ^{take the} 23:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alopekis

Alopekis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

I'm concerned that the Alopekis may be another hoax dog breed, or at least extremely non-notable, like the Tamaskan Dog. The warning signs are all there; it's unrecognised by any kennel club, it's a 'rare' breed and it was once considered to be the same as another breed (which we don't have an article for). The article makes some grand claims regarding the history of the breed, but there are no reliable sources. There is no Alopekis club in Greece or any other country; compare this to the Norwegian Lundehund, another rare breed.

Google hits are initially encouraging [25], but most of the hits are for Greek streets with that name. Compensating gives a far weaker result: [26]. The bulk of the hits seem to be for advert-filled dog sites that allow anyone to submit content. The two external links are sites of this type. One, dogbreedinfo.com contains pictures of very varied looking dogs, all apparently examples of 'Alopekii'. --Nydas^(Talk) 12:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 12:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The dogs shown on dogbreedinfo are actually about as varied as one would expect from an unstandardized, pariah-type dog. They're all similar in type, if not coat texture, coat colour, and ear carriage. That being said, I'm very interested and knowledgeable on rare dog breeds, and I've never heard of this one in my life. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think this is an intentional hoax, if indeed it is one. The two major contributors are dog fanciers from Canada (not commercial breeders) who've made a lot of contributions to dog articles. Any rate, I added an adw tag to their talk pages, hopefully they'll turn up and clarify some of the details about this breed.... oops, she beat me to it! I wonder what Alopekis means in Greek? Maybe "wild dog", "mutt", or "Beat it, pooch, stay out of the agora!"? If this is basically a feral or dingo type dog in its homeland, then that might explain the lack of "owner's clubs". Tubezone 13:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It means fox-like, or something like that. Alopex is ancient Greek for fox, I believe.--Nydas^(Talk) 13:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Delete Your 2nd Google link convinces me it's not a hoax. Too many varied sites there, even in foreign langauges, if you go to goole page 10 or later. Akihabara 13:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Any in particular? Most of the hits seem to come from bare lists of dog breeds, without any deeper information.--Nydas^(Talk) 13:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you're right. I looked closer at many more links. Everything is either a list probably originating from wikipedia or some other source, or snippets of the wikipedia text; nothing seems to be original or provide alternative information. I do now believe this is very likely a hoax. Akihabara 14:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Davidpdx

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sheik Akmad Boohanger

Sheik Akmad Boohanger (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Hoax. Does not exist on google. Author's recent contributions all have that problem. Deprodded and hoax is not a speedy category so here we are. Weregerbil 12:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 12:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - load of balls ChrisTheDude 12:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 12:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax, and a clueless one at that - e.g. "oil factories". Note that the creator of the article, Nuggets (talk • contribs), has already once removed the AfD notice. Qwghlm 13:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Akihabara 13:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Angelo 22:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Pure fiction. Davidpdx
• Delete per nom. м info 02:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted by admin User:MrDarcy.Non-admin closing. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Save Us, Hollywood

Save Us, Hollywood (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

No assertion of notability Drunken Pirate 12:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - please use {{db-band}} for these cases in the future. So tagged. MER-C 12:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • speedy tag removed by User:Awyong_Jeffrey_Mordecai_Salleh Drunken Pirate 13:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and re-tagged as such. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per above Subwayguy 01:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. A Train ^{take the} 23:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naveed Akram Abbasi

The journalist that is the focus of most of this article appears to have won only a single award, which makes him non-notable per WP:BIO. Coming from a prestigious family does not confer notability. His full name in quotes gets only 8 Google hits. [27] Kimchi.sg 12:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The article is incoherent. The editor appears to suggest that the subject is both young and born four centuries ago. Even if we assume that this is merely a grammatical error, we cannot salvage the article with a copy-edit because there is no information available on the subject. DrKiernan 13:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  I thought his family line is four centuries old? One quarter of the article deals with that, but I do agree it's hard to tell. Kimchi.sg 14:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It also sounds as if it is original research, which is another reason to delete it. DrKiernan 15:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Davidpdx

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, then redirect to Haileybury and Imperial Service College —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-12 07:30Z

[edit] Kipling House

Kipling House (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Utterly non-notable cruft, so I don't believe it should be merged. Akihabara 14:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable house. Should I create an article for my non-notable house? I don't think so. Edison 16:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN. /Blaxthos 17:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete a school residence does not need its own article unless there is something specifically notable about it. And as an added bonus, the article is a cut and paste from here so needs to be deleted as a copyvio anyways. -- Whpq 17:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, so tagged. Akihabara 23:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per Whpq. ---J.S ^(T/C) 01:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 21:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MMM Commentaries

MMM Commentaries (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable web page; Alexa rank of "no data"; ^{[Check Google hits]} 517 Ghits (99 "unique") for "MMM Commentaries", which all appear to be podcast directories. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 14:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Self-promotion; completely non-notable. /Blaxthos 17:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a promotion ground. --SunStar Net^talk 17:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom agree this is self-promotion. Davidpdx

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 21:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1994 FIFA World Cup (Germany V Bolivia Match Report)

1994 FIFA World Cup (Germany V Bolivia Match Report) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

The notability of this article is doubtful. I can't really find guidelines for notability of matches, but this match didn't really have big implications, unlike, for example, Uruguay V Brazil (World Cup 1950), so I don't think it's notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Thaurisil 15:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete no precedent for such level of detail. The over 1994 WC article is quite enough, and the report is available and linked externally. We don't need to replicate that in WP. So although the event was real, verifiable, and attracted a crapload of non-trivial media attention, I think we should delete it nevertheless. - crz crztalk 16:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No need to have this level of granularity. /Blaxthos 17:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this is over the top. This also applies to its writing style, "the Bolivians gave the Germans a good run for their money". Punkmorten 22:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: This is something for ESPN.com, not 'Kipedia. A single match of the world cup isn't worth an encylopedia article, and this reads like a sports report, anyway. Heimstern Läufer 23:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Wikipedia is not ESPN. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 08:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 15:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no need for a page on this particular match, IMO the only World Cup matches worthy of their own page would be Finals or matches in which some kind of extremely significant event occurred. Neither applies in this case ChrisTheDude 15:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing special about this match. No need to include match reports for every match in the WC. Arnig 05:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Davidpdx

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 21:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shadowfind

Shadowfind (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Prod removed without comment. Repeated insistence from newly registered SPA's that this is real, but no Reliable Sources of any sort provided despite repeated requests. Maybe real, maybe not. Certainly not Notable. -- Fan-1967 15:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable. Edison 16:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete reasons listed above /Blaxthos 17:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete real or not, this isn't notable and there are no sources to confirm anything. -- Whpq 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom (full disclosure: I was the prodder) --Icarus ^(Hi!) 18:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. There are 23 Google hits for "Sir Shadowfind," largely from BDSM blogs and forums. Arguably this fellow is real, but who cares? Masterduke55 and Jennygirl2, the creator and the one contesting the prod, are newly registered users with no other edits. RGTraynor 21:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• As is Legotech (talk • contribs), who also showed up to defend the article. Fan-1967 21:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom agree, non-noteable. Davidpdx 10:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lake talk

Lake talk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This is a "dialect" spoken by some people in a village in Massachussets. I don't think it's notable enough for its own article; there are only 4 Google results for "Lake Talk"+Nonantum and 16 for "Lake Talk"+Nonantum. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 15:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The "sources" are blogs or bare passing references. Non-notable. Every area has some slang which does not belong here without better sources to show notability. Edison 16:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable original research (blogs != reliable) /Blaxthos 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete blog-sourced. Jefferson Anderson 18:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I live only two towns away from Newton (the town in which Nonantum is located) and this is farcical. Is there a community anywhere on Earth lacking a few teen slang terms unintelligible to anyone living ten miles away? RGTraynor 21:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Davidpdx 10:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 21:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hero and Darkness

Hero and Darkness (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

It's a fan-made video game whose name gets 5 Google hits. No sources provided except the game's own web page. Also adding to the AfD the article about the game's protagonist, Darkness(Hero and Darkness). Contested prods. ... discospinster _talk 15:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete no sources provided, and based on google results, no reliable sources would be forthcoming. -- Whpq 17:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per above. /Blaxthos 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete With Extreme Prejudice. There is exactly ONE Google hit that isn't this Wikipedia article, and that's the creator talking about the game on a bulletin board. It's theoretically possible to get more insignificant and non-notable than this, but you'd really have to work at it to do so. RGTraynor 20:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom poorly sourced. Davidpdx 10:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 21:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of commercial failures in computer technology

List of commercial failures in computer technology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Who decides what is a commercial failure? Completely original research, violates NPOV, unverifiable and subjective. /Blaxthos 15:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. --Sable232 16:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no clear criteria for identifying a commerial failure. Much of it is unsourced, and all of it is POV. -- Whpq 17:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - as per the reasons above. --tgheretford (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There is no set of criteria defining a commercial failure, making it original research. —ShadowHalo 05:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom agree what is a failure. One man's failure is another man's sucess. Davidpdx 10:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 21:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demographic warfare

Demographic warfare (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

The term is a neologism originated in somebody's thesis, which has not been accepted by academia. Essentially, the article takes facts (population figures and trends) and adds pop-sociological theories. Information is best treated elsewhere, and there's nothing here worth merging. Delete. - crz crztalk 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - crz crztalk 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SOAP. Article seems to be a soapbox for white supremacist propaganda regarding a race war in the United States together with completely unsourced and unsubstantiated claims of similar phenomena in other parts of the world, veiled in a thin academic guise. --Shirahadasha 16:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep if article can be expanded with more sources. It seems the term does have some usage outside of the dissertation: Google Book Search yields hits [33] for the exact term in a bunch of history/political books, while there are also 1,380 web Google hits for the term outside of Wikipedia [34]. --Howrealisreal 01:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because it seems a reasonable version of Revenge of the cradle somewhat related to population explosion and the converse of Demographic transition (which may also "breed" warfare). Fits in with lots of other academic jargon that abounds. No big deal. IZAK 10:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Shirahadasha. WP:SOAP. Collecting a series of quotes and snippets together doesn't produce an encyclopedic topic. Absent very thorough sourcing the suspicion of WP:OR is very strong. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MetsFan76 00:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. OR; 20 or so citations of a 1970 book stating something fairly obvious isnt enough for a term to be declared encyclopaedic. Hornplease 10:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep if additional sources can be found that meet WP:RS per Howrealisreal. Dragomiloff 11:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, is baloney. FrummerThanThou 19:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete really crufty. There's no question that we could have an article about Demographics in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or something, but it shouldn't be folded into Demographic warfare. The title implies that one group is purposefully outbreeding the other for political purposes, which seems pretty ridiculous. There's nothing in the article which cites demographic issues in a particular conflict to this general concept of demographic warfare. The Mexican/US thing is totally OR.GabrielF 07:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Partially based on unreliable research, and the partially original research. Mus Musculus 16:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Please link/merge/split/etc as necessary. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tongue bifurcation

del nonnotable. A surgery made by a certain freak. No reputable sources that actually describe it. Only blogs, forums and personal pages. A lot of original research. `'mikkanarxi 16:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• withdrawn in favor of tongue splitting. Tongue splitting gives 28,000 google hits, while "tongue bifurcation -wikipedia" only 633. No wonder I thought this is a fantasy of OR. `'mikkanarxi 17:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete OR, and merge what remains of the article with Body modification. StoptheDatabaseState 17:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Tongue splitting as it seems to be the more common name. Googling "tongue splitting" turns up this article on the Illinois legislature's attempt to ban the procedure and this story from CBS News which seem sufficient to establish notability. Otto4711 17:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oops, didn't realize "tongue splitting" redirects to this article. The main text should be under tongue splitting and tongue bifurcation should be the redirect IMHO. Otto4711 17:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• The notable part of this article appears to be its use as punishment in the Byzantine Empire. I have my doubts as to whether it's done these days, though I'm sure someone at BME (website) has tried it. I don't want to see pictures, though. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 17:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

comment OK, seeing "tongue splitting", I am going to withdraw my nomination in favor of moving the article under a far more common title, which can be done without much voting. `'mikkanarxi 17:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC) comment: I remember it being mentioned along with a whole zwack of other controversial body modification procedures on some expose show (dateline I think) but I'm not in a position to say if that makes it notable or not. Wintermut3 03:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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