Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Purge server cache

Contents 1 Dawn patrol 2 GamesIndustry.biz 3 Copper(II) fluoride 4 Brandon Espinosa 5 GeMagic 6 Hoang Thi Loan 7 Examination of Holocaust denial 8 Jubilee Hospital Radio 9 Deal or No Deal game strategy 10 Simon Balle 11 No Flash Corner 12 McFall 13 Metromint 14 20th Century Theatre 15 The Justice 16 Kdice 17 Ashley Velissariou 18 Mermaid art 19 Hoang Thi Loan (3 nomination) 20 Chill Out (map) 21 AcoUstiKats 22 German Potato Salad 23 Kory Sheets 24 Kristina Howells 25 9/11_Mysteries 26 Railway mission 27 List of three-letter English words 28 JudoJoe Productions 29 American-Filipino 30 List of cities that no longer have trolleybuses 31 Risk and capital management in non-life insurance 32 Orion globe 33 Drawball 34 Whip Jones 35 John I. Beggs 36 Tom Spilsbury 37 The Awaited Truth 38 BoyChat 39 Swing (musical group) 40 Koiko 41 Chibchombia 42 United Kingdom as a major power 43 Oak Park Shuttle 44 Jenny Morris (singer) 45 Crown Tranceiver 46 Heil Environmental Industries Ltd 47 Gladin' 48 Hyupyoung 49 Spatial Doppler effect 50 Leon Pieket 51 Standard office document formats debate 52 BuMbLePuPpIe 53 Liberty Ball 54 Arthur Mattuck 55 Lichtenberg Transmitter 56 Backdraft (drink) 57 Best of KMD 58 List of Animes 59 Context Connect 60 Sneath 61 Everafter 62 Kushan Mitra 63 Dnyaneshwar Vidyapeeth 64 George Mubayi 65 Sara Albert 66 Involuntary celibacy 67 History of video game consoles (eighth generation) 68 Full moon cycle 69 South Park slash 70 عمرو خالد 71 Jonathan Rodriguez (Entrepreneur) 72 ClearSpeed 73 List of teams and cyclists in the Dauphiné Libéré 2006 74 National Action 75 Koufax Awards 76 Moshe Aryeh Friedman 77 Ku Cari Damai Abadi 78 Run your boy 79 Tournament of Champions 80 Numbers in music 81 Omega terror 82 Matt Hepler 83 Desiresin 84 Aquinas College Perth Academic Studies 85 Postcards from the Grave 86 Bill Endicott 87 Bluecoat school network 88 Caitlin Ramirez 89 Claudia Cortez 90 Corona muralis 91 Dr. Christian Ramirez 92 Efreeko 93 Erica Lovejoy 94 Formula One Podcasts 95 Gabriela Moreno Forrester 96 Harold Evensky 97 I-Am-Bored.com 98 Pywikipedia 99 Rockstars 2006 100 Steffy Forrester 101 Sydney Lanier 102 Tribute to the Troops 103 Dayton datlowe 104 Kari Keegan 105 Mick Love 106 The Royales 107 Mark David Brown 108 Warranty handling in the automotive industry 109 Jasper Waugh-Quasebarth 110 Burnt By The Sun: Yet Another Russian Hamlet 111 Baxter's Bus Lines 112 Factory: The Musical 113 Ice helmet 114 Garry Newman 115 Adam Buss 116 Tony Zirkle 117 Mingo ambient musician 118 Conservative Halakha 119 CIDRA 120 The Park at Burton-in-Kendal 121 Ahlam (band) 122 Cheryl Bridges Johns 123 The master ball 124 Metroid Dread 125 Sustainable Fashion 126 Galactic (computer game) 127 List of maps in Battlefield 2 128 Sue Richards (artist) 129 Ninja vs Samurai 130 Derivations of conic sections 131 Baka (insult) 132 Pierre Joubert 133 Evil Tutorial 134 Book of marshall 135 Romanian Swadesh list 136 Eloka Asokuh 137 Dave Kelly (artist) 138 People from Plymouth 139 Pedro Camargo 140 Daio Wasabi Farm 141 Benjamin Dwyer 142 Chronological list of anime 143 South Melbourne Cecil Street

--Fabio 23:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)===Fleming Way===

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

Fails WP:LOCAL utterly. No notability, no verification. Diez2 00:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I agree, no notability whatsoever. TSO1D 00:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, no sign of notability (but why did you de-prod?) Pan Dan 00:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I de-prodded because prodded articles can always be brought back from the grave, but articles deleted per AfD cannot. Diez2 01:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Pan Dan 01:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Totally fails WP:NN--Anthony.bradbury 01:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 03:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, seriously, no notability at all. --Kyo cat^{¿Qué tal?♥meow!} 04:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, & it's already in the main article. SkierRMH,06:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Already in Harold Fleming article, on it's own does not meet WP:NN. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 10:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 12:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Deleteper nom

[edit] GamesIndustry.biz

GamesIndustry.biz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This fails WP:CORP. All I can get from the article is that there is a company out there named GamesIndustry.biz who is owned by Eurogamer Network. Diez2 00:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Eurogamer ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Eurogamer. Riana 07:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Eurogamer --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 14:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Eurogamer and create a redirect. FirefoxMan 16:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brandon Espinosa

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

Contested speedy. Article concerns a nineteen year old amateur wrestler with an unspectacular record and no notable achievements. There are no outside sources, mentions of media coverage or professional bouts. This is clearly a vanity page. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete only 333 Google hits and otherwise doesn't satisfy notability criteria. TSO1D 00:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is a vanity page. Fails WP:NN--Anthony.bradbury 01:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no assertion of notability. Stilgar135 01:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 03:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Kyo cat^{¿Qué tal?♥meow!} 04:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, nn, v@nity piece... SkierRMH,06:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per above FirefoxMan 16:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; vanity page. Doc Tropics 18:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity. Coemgenus 19:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity page. 86.42.192.105 23:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GeMagic

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

Contested 'db-advert' speedy delete. Non-notable product with no media references cited by article author, unlike article for comparable product Bedazzler. Delete. StoptheDatabaseState 00:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete camp value does not equal notability ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable and doesn't satisfy WP:CORP. TSO1D 00:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy. -- Chris is me 01:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The statement in the article that it is not advertising does not make it so. Verging on {{db-spam}}--Anthony.bradbury 01:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I removed the disclaimer that it's not advertising from the page, as it appeared to be a pre-emptive AfD comment, and instead I'm posting it here. While it was in the original edit, I felt that it violated the general practice of not posting content disclaimers. If it is truely not advertising, then it's Neutrality should be apparent from the article itself. The disclaimer read (for information purposes) as follows: "There are pages for the Bedazzler and Magic Bullet appliance with the same general information and they are not deleted. This is an article that provides information on the product. It is not a form of advertising" To me this is an AfD comment made before the fact, and not appropriate for a mainspace article, as they attempt to cite comparisons in the introduction to the article itself. Wintermut3 02:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

These comments were left over from when the original author put on the {{hangon}} tag, before I resorted to AfD. StoptheDatabaseState 09:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. MER-C 03:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and this isn't an ad... or is it? SkierRMH,06:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 08:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as obvious advertising for a non-notable product. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete This should have been speedied as Advert. If it wants to stay, we need to fix the NPOV issues FirefoxMan 16:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I thought it was a computer graphics card from Taiwan before I actually read the thing. Clearly fails WP:CORP Orderinchaos78 17:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:CORP#Criteria for products and services. Product has not "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." -- Satori Son 17:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advert. I would have Speedied it as spam. Doc Tropics 18:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn notable.--Dakota 22:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Examination of Holocaust denial

Examination of Holocaust denial (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Sorry, but I can only see this as a soapbox. Holocaust denial is a vile thing, but we are not here to rebut it, only to report that it exists and is rejected by anybody with an ethical bone in their body. Guy (Help!) 00:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and Merge any useful info into Holocaust Denial. TSO1D 00:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Holocaust denial covers the topic perfectly well. An article on Examination of Holocaust denial can serve no purpose but as a focus for OR and POV pushing.-WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 00:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I know that I am going to lose this one, but I really feel that any article which provides sensible arguments against Holocaust denial, as this one does, should be retained. As one who has stood on the ground at Auschwitz-Birkenau, I may be biased; but if so, it is a bias I am proud of.--Anthony.bradbury 01:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This article was first expanded from the original Holocaust Denial article because the article itself was focusing too much on the arguments against denial, and not on the aspect of holocaust denial itself (its history, repercussions, etc.). It has existed on Wikipedia for over two years, and since that time its POV has not seriously challenged until now, with this AfD. As the edit history of the article itself shows, nearly all of the disputes involving the articles POV have been from anonymous (or short-lived) users who popped up to declare the article biased -- because it supposedly didn't present detailed equal time "questioning the Holocaust." The issue here is that this article is inherently biased against Holocaust deniers -- which is as it should be. Why? Not because of POV or my own or anyone's despising of Holocaust deniers (deserved or not); rather, because Holocaust denial is itself a hate-spawned, primarily anti-Semitic belief based on wild conspiracy theories. This is not a statement of bias, but rather a statement of fact -- one that has been proven again and again over the years. It is NPOV to state this, because it is a proven fact, backed up by considerable arguments against denial that vastly outweigh the feeble arguments presented by deniers. Consequently, I believe the article is NPOV, because debunking of Holocaust denial as a lunatic fringe belief is a historical fact. --Modemac 01:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the article history as illuminated by Modemac. While I can see how this article could be mischaracterized as a soapbox, its inclusion is essential in order to maintain neutral coverage. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, though possibly re-title - Criticism of Holocaust Denial (as suggested elsewhere) sounds good to me. The content definitely belongs in Wikipedia. Argyriou (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC) vote edited Argyriou (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a useful and interesting article and looks well on its way to being well referenced. The holocaust denial article focuses on the movement, personalities involved and the history, this article is about the claims made by the movement and the evidence rebutting them. Seems a significant enough movement that one article isn't enough to cover it. NPOV is good but does not mean giving equal time to fringe theories while leaving them unrebutted. Dragomiloff 02:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Holocaust denial. Though remnants of the holocaust are touching, Wikipedia is not a place to posit evidence for and against this subject. Remember to stay neutral. bibliomaniac15 02:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename, rewrite to something else, because as it stands "Examination of" makes it original research and essay. Criticisms of Holocaust denial or something like that, perhaps? It is also inherently POV, which must be changed to be an encyclopedia article. It needs to be rewritten such that it includes the "evidence" of the deniers, or at least links to it on the Holocaust denial page, rather than a single statement followed by paragraphs refuting it. Koweja 03:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Too large to merge with Holocaust Denial. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Rename - crz crztalk 03:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - crz crztalk 03:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, extensively edit, and rename to 'Criticisms of Holocast denial' or similar -Toptomcat 04:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename - examination insinuates OR. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 04:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - This article is Original Research and POV. The nature of this article wishes to argue something, and is mostly argument with some sparse quotes. According to WP:OR, "an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source" is Original Research and is not encyclopedic, thus must be removed. So must POV. Even if there is POV on other related cites, that doesnt justify creating more POV to balance it out. Rather, introduce the relevant information in the relevant objective article and change the prose so that it reflects a neutral view point that wishes to present all the facts. Xlegiofalco 06:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep with indifference to renaming. Although a decision for or against merging here wouldn't be binding, I'll opine that merging doesn't seem viable due to the length of the two articles. I read the nomination as being that the article is too detailed for an encyclopedia. Maybe... However, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which gives us the opportunity to have more depth of coverage on important topics, not just more topics of marginal importance. This much content is not too much in my opinion. (And I note that to the best of my knowledge we don't have any community standards for what constitutes "too much information" on a topic of agreed importance.) I also don't see the original research concern as being real; my read of the article is that the refutations are generally cited to a prior source that used them the same way, which makes the analysis not original. Could more be quoted and cited - sure, but the article wouldn't need to change significantly. GRBerry 06:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP. This article is better written than 90% of the articles on Wikipedia, and contains vast amounts of valuable information. While it doesn't make use of proper Wikipedia inline citations, that is easily remedied. I noticed that it uses Lipstadt's book on Holocaust denial as a reference, a book that I happen to own. If the consensus is to keep, I will gladly spend a few days properly wikifying the article. As to the claims above of WP:OR, I must respectfully disagree. I know a lot about this subject, and everything I read in this article I have also heard or read elsewhere. In closing, I would like to add that Holocaust denial is a longstanding concern of mine. I think it is vitally important for this project to provide articles that debunk this movement. Jeffpw 08:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Modemac. metaspheres 10:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Too large to merge. Too good to delete. Rename to Criticisms of....Hornplease 10:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename. Fascinating and well-written. — brighterorange (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• delete Tuohirulla puhu 14:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  This is not a vote, it is a discussion. Care to offer a reason for your opinion? GRBerry 14:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• MERGE and DELETE - Very well written and researched. Fascinating! However, the article does have quite a bit of overlap with the Holocaust denial article and covers most of the same issues. As the Holocaust denial article is most likely the more commonly read of the two it would be a shame for readers to miss the material contained in this one. Therefore I recommend merging it with the Holocaust denial article and then deleting it.KarlXII 15:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• As per various above comments, keep and retitle. I like Criticisms of Holocaust denial, personally. Natalie 15:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge Do NOT redirect! FirefoxMan 16:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article appears to be appropriately written. Possibly merge based on some of the comments above. I note in particular Jeffpw's offer to improve the article if it is maintained. Orderinchaos78 17:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename. The article is sound, although it is in desperate need of inline references to clearly demonstrate that it is not OR, e.g. that it is a summation of arguments made in other contexts to refute the claims of Holocaust deniers. To that end, it should also be renamed. Examination of Holocause denial suggests that this is an article that will examine and refute certain claims; it would be more neutral to call it Criticisms or Refutations instead. - Eron ^Talk 17:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename. In light of recent comments I am changing my opinion to one of keep and supporting a rename to Criticisms of Holocaust denial. But it should be stressed that the article needs considerable work to reference the content and avoid POV and OR criticism. Contrary to what has been said above, Wikipedia should not set out to rebut notable theories, however objectionable- that sets editors up as critics, something to be avoided. However I accept criticisms of Holocaust denial are widespread and well founded and do deserve to be covered neutrally by Wikipedia. - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 17:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

As a somewhat regular contributor to the article in question (and having already voted above), I'll state that I fully accept the statements that the article does need more revision to be truly NPOV, and I will not object to or impede any genuine efforts to make it more NPOV. --Modemac 18:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and rename as "Criticisms of...." Too much useful content to merge. Doc Tropics 18:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP - if you get rid of this article, you'll have to get rid of Single bullet theory, and basically every other article that tries to explain or examine something that happened in history. And what is and is not encyclopedic is always up for debate because Wikipedia is not paper. Just because the word 'encyclopedia' was defined over a century ago does not mean the definition must stick today. The pursuit of knowldege and clarity is our main goal. This article certainly helps in the clarity department.Mk623SC20K 18:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to Criticism of holocaust denial or edit Holocaust denial down to a reasonable length and incorporate arguments for and against, or edit down further and incorporate in Holocaust, which is where it belongs. Strong feelings have created verbose sprawling and not very encyclopedic articles. The reference style is poor; convert to inline references linked to a reference section. Edison 19:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Edison, the Holocaust article is already 166 KB, and Holocaust denial is 67 KB. To merge the three together would be an impossible task, without sacrificing important content. It has already been agreed that the referencing needs work; I have said earlier I am happy to undertake the referencing as a project if this article is kept. It seems logical and important to me that this article remains distinct from the denial article, since they, though related, are on decidedly different facets of the subject. To make an analogy, the articles on Halloween, Halloween 2 and Halloween 3 are all featured articles, yet some people could easily say to save space they should be merged into one article about the series. This subject is at least as deserving of bandwidth as a series of articles about teen slasher flicks.

• Keep and rename to Criticism of Holocaust denial or similar to make the focus of the article clearer. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and de-tag POV. Of course it will be POV - the issue of Holocaust denial is one-sided, and so is refuting it. I don't mean to sound like a Holocaust denier, but one cannot deny the facts either. AgentFade2Black 22:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - both the article and the issue too large for a merge. Also, I don't find "Examination" to be POV, but if there is a consensus that "Criticism" is less so, so be it. BTW, POV is not a valid reason for AFD and I hope no one is advocating a complete removal. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Seeing as there's the whole Iranian International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust, maybe if they see it, they'll come to their senses. And, it's a really important topic. I mean like, yeah. Gaterion 01:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki if at all possible, probably to Wikibooks, with a link from Holocaust denial. The article is valuable, but not encyclopedic. If there's no place for it in Wikibooks, reluctant Keep. Haikupoet 01:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deal or No Deal game strategy

Deal or No Deal game strategy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This belongs on a gameshow Wiki, not here. Encyclopedia: not a guide on strategy to a recent hit game show. I see no other strategy guides like this for Wheel of Fortune or Price is Right and so on, for good reason: it's cruft and not needed. Or video game guides as a similar example: not here because Wikipedia isn't a game guide. This recent hit show shouldn't be any exception. RobJ1981 01:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I think its notable enough for inclusion based on the connection to game theory and utility theory. JPotter 01:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. _editconflict It might not be too encyclopedic, but damn it's interesting! -- Chris is me 01:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. My idea of a strategy guide is something whose purpose is to tell you how to win. I don't see that here; instead, I see an unbiased examination of the game and an explanation of how various people have analyzed the game. Stilgar135 01:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• comment It seems to me that this would be best merged into Deal or No Deal. Why does this aspect of the show need its own article?--Dmz5 02:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete most of this article is original research (at least until better sourcing is provided for the modeling section and comparison to the monty hall problem) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unencyclopedic with original research problems (the very limited academic references cited relate to a study of the gameshow in "Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands", but the bulk of the article relates to the US version of the gameshow, suggesting OR speculation or analysis based on unreliable/non-authoritative sources (the forum/geocities links in external links section). Media coverage (the WSJ carries at least one "human interest" or "funny-strange science" story on its front page every day) of limited academic studies is not sufficient to prove encyclopedic notability. Wikipedia is not a webhost for every single research paper out there, be it original research or published work. In contrast, the Monty Hall problem has many more authoritative sources and references, indicating a far greater degree of circulation Bwithh 02:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Those two links you complained about were left overs from the far inferior "how should one play Deal or Deal" article that this once was. However, the article has evolved past that, and has been much improved. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Analysis of how the game is played has attracted both scholarly and press attraction, as noted and referenced in the article. It may not have the volume of scholarly attention that Monty Hall has received, but that is due to the facts that it hasn't been around as long and it involved more complicated mathematics than the simple Monty Hall problem. This article is still in need of improvement, but it is a far cry from what it once was, which was more like a guide to playing the game. The modeling section is in need of being improved, preferably by someone who is very familiar with utility theory and thus well suited to integrating the appropriate external references into the article. The comparison with Monty Hall is about as good as its going to get, and it limits itself to explaining how the two problems differ with a straightforward comparison of the mathematics behind the two problems. It's not advancing any new theories or the like, and as it serves as a comparison to the other major mathematical problem to have received scholarly attention, I think it belongs in the article. Even if don't belong, that problem could best be solved by deleting the Monty Hall section, not deleting the entire article. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That's great, but Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing/promoting academic research Bwithh 03:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'll abstain from voting because I think it's almost all original research and I can't vote to keep, but I really don't want to see this stuff merged back to Deal or No Deal. Since there is quite a bit of interest in just this sort of information (see Talk:Deal or No Deal), it's going to come back somewhere unless someone plans on babysitting every Deal or No Deal article. – Anþony  talk  03:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as an excellent and illuminating example of the application of game theory. -Toptomcat 04:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I agree. This can be pretty helpful, I see no reason to delete it. --Kyo cat^{¿Qué tal?♥meow!} 04:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

So are there external sources for the bulk of this article or are you guys just liking the gist of the OR? Bwithh 04:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This article is one of the things that is an *advantage* to wikipedia. It's not like the math is incorrect, and is applied in a new way. Xenocide85 10:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this article is largely unsourced original research (and where it is not it is redundant with Game Theory) and it is a game guide to boot. WP:ILIKEIT isn't a valid reason for retention.--Isotope23 14:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete For once, WP:NOT a game guide actually applies. Can be merged as a short section into Deal or No Deal. — brighterorange (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • A short section in Deal or No Deal containing verifiable material attributed to reliable sources already exists. What's the point of deleting the article if the content just goes somewhere else? – Anþony  talk  16:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep helpful--Slogankid 15:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, it's just a game guide/technical manual. Contains reams of OR and would set a poor precedent for similar Gameshow X strategy articles. Note that most of the 'Keep' comments are simply saying 'I like it'. --Nydas^(Talk) 15:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it may be interesting, but at best it is a summary of an academic paper, and if not that, it is a game guide. Either way, it is not suitable to Wikipedia.-- danntm ^T _C 16:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like OR to me. --MECU≈talk 16:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Tone it down a bit, but don't get rid of it! FirefoxMan 16:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this is not an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia. Put it on Wikia or something. Recury 18:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Delete or No Delete? I'll take delete. The nom, Bwithh and Isotope23 pretty much sum it up. Agent 86 19:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge to parent article. Is it just me, or wasn't there another Deal or No Deal article up for deletion lately? Just H 20:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As per Brighterorange, WP:NOT a game guide definitely applies here. - fchd 21:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom, per Bwithh, per Nydas. per WP:NOT a game guide, and per WP:NOR. There might be some tiny bits that are worth salvaging, but if so, those should be rewritten (from scratch, don't merge) in the article about the show (if they're not already there). From my brief read-through, I suspect there's very few such bits in any case. Xtifr _tälk 21:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Merge Chess, Texas hold 'em, Contract bridge, all have strategy subsections. TonyTheTiger 22:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and those three articles are all extensively sourced. Sadly, the one source cited here does not cover game strategy, but only a particular aspect of human economic behavior studied in relation to one scenario one the show. See my comment below. Xoloz 22:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and merge only the sourced portion This article is really about two different things: 1) a large, unsourced, original research essay on playing strategy, which is very interesting but must be deleted until it can be sourced; and 2) a verifiable, notable portion about a news-making study by economists, using the show as a vehicle for the examination of situational risk aversion. The latter may be merged, or kept outright in its own re-named article -- but it should most definitely be kept in any case; the former must go, for now. Xoloz 22:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That already exists. See Deal or No Deal#Game Strategy. Once again, if this article is deleted, its contents must not be merged into Deal or No Deal. – Anþony  talk  23:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The merge already have been performed (or this article having arisen from the show), a redirect would be a perfectly acceptable compromise, should consensus so suggest by favoring a general keep outcome. Xoloz 00:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Balle

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

Original nomination attempt in April 2006 had this reasoning: Unsourced, vanity, unencyclopaedic, author's history. and was left by User:SteveO. Article should probably be at Simon Balle School or something similar if kept, but the suitability of an article should probably be determined first. Finishing procedure, with no personal opinion on suitability of an article, since I know zilch about London schools. -- nae'blis 17:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. This was the state of the article when SteveO placed the AfD notice, (which bears no relationship to its current state). He did not however complete the process, and so no AfD discussion took place. About a month later I found the article, did some cleanup, contacted SteveO and informed him that he might want to take the article through AfD again; he demurred. Point of fact: it's not a London school, but is in the county of Hertfordshire. --BillC 19:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 01:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep as it seems to be a specialty school for years 7-11, in other words part middle school and part high school, but something more akin to the New York arts schools. --Dhartung | Talk 06:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete granted it is a specialty school, but what's the notariety about it? Lots of them around...SkierRMH,06:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, and no assertion thereof, like most schools around here Akihabara 13:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: looks like a large and good school, but has no assertion of notability, and I couldn't find any in a (admittedly short) search. Fram 15:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Flash Corner

No Flash Corner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

I prodded this because it looks like its purpose is to promote a NN photographer. The tag was deleted without further edits or explanation. Therefore I'm bringing it to AFD. My apologies if this is indeed an established and documented photography technique. ccwaters 17:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the photographer, Michael David Murphy, does seem to be notable. I'll keep the article up for debate (if this is said photographer's signature style, then maybe a MERGE is more appropriate?). ccwaters 17:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC) The photographer's article is autobiographical and any media references mentioned are only quick blurbs about his blog (about missed photographic opportunities). I nominate his article as well. ccwaters 18:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 01:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I don't think this term is widely used among photographers, the article reads more like a dictionary entry, and would probably best merit mention on a more general photography page. SteveHopson 03:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - seems to be nn jargon, 339 ghits. MER-C 05:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I saw this earlier in relation to his article, but you beat me to the afd... nn person - both this & his bio article should go. SkierRMH,06:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable term, no evidence of wide use, article promotes photographer's own site. JIP | Talk 08:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No neologisms. FirefoxMan 16:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN jargon, neologism, possibly exists only for the vanity link. Doc Tropics 18:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metromint

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

Not noteable, mentioned once in a made-for-TV movie, nothing links here, only 24 400 hits on google WLU 17:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 01:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn plus incredibly dull Josh Parris#: 01:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. MER-C 05:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - verges on spam, and CORP; and makes me want to have a metro mint (mmmm, mints). SkierRMH,07:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete My brain is slowly dying from the dullness of the artice FirefoxMan 16:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:NN a non-notable brand of a non-notable company that once employed a non-notable fictional character in a non-notable movie. TonyTheTiger 21:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable. Pathlessdesert 23:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 20th Century Theatre

20th Century Theatre (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable building in Juneau, AK; references do not support notability; it once housed a possibly notable organ that isn't even there anymore. ~1800 Google hits are trivial. Dmz5 19:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• If a source could be found that demonstrated the building's historical or local importance I'd be all for keeping it, but just because it was built a long time ago doesn't make it inherently notable, especially given the apparent architectural changes it's gone through.--Dmz5 19:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't believe it's notable enough. TSO1D 05:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 01:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Every town has a few old theatres about, I don't see much to make this one special. --Brianyoumans 05:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, if the organ was still there and it wasn't renovated, maybe, but as it stands... nope. SkierRMH,07:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Justice

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

I placed a redirect from this namespace to Judge per WP:BOLD and per consensus that student journals (with few exceptions) are not notable. I have been challenged on the lack of transparency of my act by User:EarthPerson, and am bringing this here to AfD per his/her request. My contention is that while this journal may be known and well established within Brandeis University, it remains a non-notable student journal as far as the world at large is concerned per plenty of consensus here; sister Brandeis journal The Hoot appears to be headed that way too. I do not believe the university itself has any real claims on the word "Justice", which is universally synonymous with judges. If I named my organisation's journal The George W. Bush, that act in itself would not make my paper notable. Nor, assuming said article existed, would I be justified in claiming a redirect to the page of my organisation upon its deletion. Delete Ohconfucius 01:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge into Brandeis University Josh Parris#: 01:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete a mention on the Brandeis page is all this needs - not a complete masthead.--Dmz5 02:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Brandeis University. SkierRMH,07:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Most college newspapers do have a mention. Just because "the Justice" happens to be a common name doesn't mean the newspaper should lose its site. futhermore, it's not like people type in "the Justice" if they are looking for information about a justice or judge. It seems like whoever wants to delete this is making a problem out of nothing. What if you just are linked to a page that tells you can either go to the newspaper version or the entry about a judge.--129.64.147.52 08:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep What if you rename it to The Brandeis Justice and redirect The Justice to judge or whatever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.55.200.20 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Brandeis University. --EarthPerson 16:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain, as it is my school's newspaper. However, if I may be a smidge opinionated- which, of course, I always am- The Justice sucks. It's a craptacular paper. It's no worse (in fact, it is marginally better) than Brandeis's other paper, but it sucks nonetheless. -- Kicking222 16:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Brandeis University. Not in and of itself notable. A Train ^{take the} 21:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kdice

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

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- Non-notable game. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It could be classified as non-notable web content(a7), although they've cleaned it up enough that I'd say AfD over speedy. I'm going to clean up some grammar that hurts me. Cantras 21:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes I did consider that, but I figured that the AfD is the best course of action. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The game which the article deals with has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the creator of the game. The article itself provides proof via in-line citations. I don't think it should be deleted.--OriginalJunglist 23:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 01:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 03:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per OriginalJungList -Toptomcat 04:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dice Wars. This game is a multiplayer near-clone of Dice Wars. --Dhartung | Talk 05:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The independent web sites listed in the 'Critical Acclaim' section felt the game notable enough to comment on. Therefore in accordance with WP:N, the article should stay. ccscott 14:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems popular, has 69,700 ghits. FirefoxMan 16:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Popular game, several citations, decent article.JudahH 22:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ashley Velissariou

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

WP:BIO, vanity (created by subject), a 17you who won a non-notable triathlon. Perhaps once she's won at least a couple of international events, but until then... BALEETED! Josh Parris#: 01:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO, unsourced autobiography. You know you want to click this link... MER-C 05:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, events are really non-notable. SkierRMH,07:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. TSO1D 12:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity page. Pathlessdesert 23:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mermaid art

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centaur art. More of the same Myth Art cruft. Twredfish 01:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Also Lamia art per same. Note that "Media" section is copypaste among all three articles. Twredfish 01:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge the bits which actually relate to both mermaids and art to Mermaid#Artwork; not nearly a wide enough topic to merit its own article. --Sneftel 02:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That's great, however the only 'bits which actually relate to both mermaids and art' is the second paragraph under "Appearance", which is 100% unsourced original research and therefore not worthy of merge. What else is salvagable from this? Twredfish 18:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That paragraph might be salvaged with appropriate references (though I'm not holding my breath), but I was more looking at the "Symbolic Significance" paragraph. --Sneftel 18:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Though none of that is even related to art, rather only to Mermaids themselves. Twredfish 22:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per Snefty -Toptomcat 04:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merege per Sneftel - elsewise we'd have a bizillion grade school kids' pictures of unicorns and mermaids as articles! SkierRMH,07:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete though anything relevent could be merged to Mermaid per Sneftel if an interested party wants to undertake it and not leave it for the closing admin to take care of (this goes for Lamia as well). Mermaid art is art illustrating mermaids? I'm glad we had this article to explain that...--Isotope23 14:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Most of this looks like informations about mermaids themselves or original research. —ShadowHalo 16:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above FirefoxMan 16:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Isotope23. If there is any useful content here it could be merged, but I didn't see much worth keeping. Doc Tropics 18:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I suppose I didn't explain my reasons for nominating this very well, figuring people would link-follow to the same discussion from yesterday on Centaur art. Justification there was: 'Origial Resarch about artwork depicting centaurs. Unverifiable. Largely unsourced. 3 rambling pages from a previous seeming problem user, no links to this article, and no other (non-bot) edits.' Mermaid and Lamia are not substantially better articles than Centaur, which so far has nothing but delete suggested. In fact, Mermaid and Lamia cite fewer 'references' than even Centaur, which consists only of links to online art galleries from NN amateur artists. All three of these articles are 100% OR. Twredfish 18:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hoang Thi Loan (3 nomination)

Hoang Thi Loan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This article was nominated earlier today, but the nom was quickly withdrawn. However, for the life of me, I cannot see what is notable about this person other than the fact her son was famous. Verifiability isn't the issue; notability is. Being the mother of a notable person does not confer notability in the absence of any other reason. Agent 86 01:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Her son was not just famous, he was one of the most influential historic figures of the twentieth century. Her humble origins and tragic early death have been referenced for decades in Vietnamese propaganda. So great is her value as a (albeit manufactured) cultural icon that the Communist Party of Vietnam has spent millions of dollars to renovate her tomb. Including an article about this woman is, to me, a no-brainer as it helps battle the Wikipedia's systemic bias toward coverage of Eastern culture. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the linked news article says that they're spending about US$20mm (their conversion rate is wrong) over 4 years to renovate an entire historic site which includes the mother's tomb but also includes 3 or more villages of historic importance (so multiple buildings across multiple locations), at least one temple, a monument, other family tombs/graves plus there's plans to create 4 or 5 new museum houses. (the wikipedia article says that this four year project was completed in 2005 but references the news article which says the 4yr project began in 2004). Oh I don't think there's blanket system bias in WP against "Eastern culture" (whateva da heck that is), given the key role that Pokemon/Yugioh/Sailor Moon/Nintendo etc etc etc has in wikipedia content Bwithh 03:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

But the examples you cite are also hugely popular in the States and other countries.--Dmz5 03:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to make a semi-humourous point about "Eastern Culture" or whatever being not really much of a Wikipedia backwater. Vietnam and other small countries (including say, those in Western Europe) - yes, Wikipedia backwaters. Japan, China, India - no. Bwithh 03:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's coverage of eastern anime/videogame culture is far more comprehensive than its coverage of Vietnamese traditional culture or political history. If a status of notability is granted to each one of the 400+ fictional pokemon simply to appease a few geeks, denying such coverage to a real historic figure seems obscene by comparison. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, I agree completely--Dmz5 03:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment Please assume good faith. This nomination has nothing to do with "eastern culture". I don't care what part of the world someone is from, we don't need articles on the mother (or father) of every famous person unless that person has done something notabile in his or her own right. If the tomb is the big deal, then an article on the tomb might be encyclopedic. The article itself continues to lack or denote any notability. As for Ho Chi Mihn being "one of the most influential historic figures of the twentieth century", that's a matter of opinion. I suggest he's much further back in the queue. Agent 86 02:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • There is a clear double standard here. Consider the well-written article on Virginia Clinton Kelley, whose only notable achievement was giving birth to Bill Clinton. By the way, asserting that being the mother of a notable historic figure does not confer notability is also a matter of opinion, many biographers would staunchly disagree with such dismissal. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I gotta agree on this one.--Dmz5 02:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
        • No double standard here. I was unaware of the Kelley article, and if it were up for nomination I'd be saying delete it, too. Two non-notable persons do not make a notable one. As for what most biographers have to say, argument ad nauseum does not prove anything, but to be more to the point, if you're writing a biography, the mother is relevant (not necessarily notable) to the subject matter of the biography. In that case, anything that can be said for any of these non-notable mothers can be said in their children's articles. Agent 86 08:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Too many details about family members would bog down the main article. However if there is enough well-sourced information to create a succinct biography of an immediate family member of a historic figure, then creating a short supplemental article will improve the overall coverage of that figure. In any case it seems clear that we are looking at this issue from two completely different vantage points, so I'll just say that I don't agree with your reasoning. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge I'm just not seeing sufficient notability for her own article here. An article on these historic villages is certainly in order, and mention of the mother could be merged in that and into her son's article. I very much sympathize with WP:BIAS, but in this case, that just means that I'd support merges for the silly article on Bill Clinton's mother too (are we to have separate article on every single historically significant person's mother and father?) Bwithh 03:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a thought about all these relatives-of-historic-persons articles - they should be rolled up as subsections of one article, say Close family members of Bill Clinton or Close family members of Ho Chi Minh. I mean there's really not that much to say about most of these characters. Bwithh 03:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. There is no way can a person get a government memorial without being notable. I am assuming good faith, but I definitely see a bias in the nomination because subject is an obscure topic in the west. "Done something notable" is not the issue, being notable is. There is no merit involved. hateless 03:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seems pretty clearly notable to me. As per Hateless, one needs not have done something notable to be notable. Her tomb is mentioned in numerous tourist guides, and there seems to be plenty of indication that she is quite highly revered in Vietnam. --Canley 03:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep to avoid the danger of systemic bias -Toptomcat 04:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Hateless. Number of sources indicates notability in Vietnamese culture. --Dhartung | Talk 05:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiability is close enough to implying notability that it should usually be treated as such. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Verfiable and notable RaveenS 13:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not a proponent of meeting WP:BIO per birthing someone who meets WP:BIO, but the fact she has a tomb dedicated to her suggests she is fairly notable in her own right as hateless suggests.--Isotope23 14:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability is not subjective. This article meets the primary notability criterion; it is referenced in multiple, independent sources and should therefore stay. ccscott 14:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Clearly famous. — brighterorange (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Notable figure, even if only because of the Communist Party mythology that has grown up around her. Agree with most of the comments by Anetode. Orderinchaos78 17:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AcoUstiKats

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

This a cappella group makes no claims to notability. The page seems to be geared more toward publicity than providing encyclopedic content -- the list of upcoming gigs, for instance, makes this seem entirely promotional in nature. Delete as a non-notable musical ensemble.

• Delete, no sources. Nominator is right about this being a promotional page. Ned Wilbury 03:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC with no sources or assertions of notability. Possibly an A7 speedy candidate. Crystallina 03:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete falls between MUSIC & SPAM (and I reverted nomination to the original, not the attack - grow up people; Anon Vandal warning on isp page). SkierRMH,07:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. A Train ^{take the} 21:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German Potato Salad

German Potato Salad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

A recipe - above all in jpg format o_o 790 02:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - now that's new. Wikipedia is not a recipe book. The image needs to disappear for the same reason. It's most likely a copyvio too. MER-C 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to potato salad which already covers this subject effectively. Mister.Manticore 02:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wikibooks, which does have a cookbook. Koweja 03:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki per above. --Sable232 04:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki per above - with a note to double check copyvio - but it's so generic & doesn't appear to be a cut&paste. SkierRMH,07:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- Kusma (討論) 07:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to potato salad. The image is useless. JIP | Talk 08:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge the non image portion to Potato salad. German Potato Salad is notable enough to at least have a mention under potato salad, German Potato Salad (canned or fresh) is a fairly common supermarket and deli item. Also, I don't think this is an actual German dish, any more than German chocolate cake is German. Tubezone 09:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikibooks... you never know when you'll have to make German Potato Salad for 100 people.--Isotope23 14:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Per Uncle G this is not a candidate for Transwikificaton, so Redirect to Potato Salad where this is already briefly mentioned and could be expanded upon.--Isotope23 17:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to b:Cookbook. --Howrealisreal 15:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as stands. Text contained within images is invisible to many search functions and therefore should not be accepted. If converted to standard text Transwiki to wikibooks seems appropriate. ccscott 15:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• The Cookbook won't take this, for the simple reason that there's no actual recipe in the article text, which is 1 sentence long. Transwikification won't transfer the image, which is where the recipe is. Uncle G 16:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice. Probably does deserve some mention in the current potato salad article, and the dish may well be noteworthy enough to support an individual article. If someone wants to retype the recipe, transwiki that. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to potato salid FirefoxMan 16:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as above - see here for the image deletion discussion. Agathoclea 19:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There should be no cases of an image of text posing as an article, whatever the subject. The text cannot be readily edited, without taking the image to Photoshop and pasting new text over the old. Stifle it. Edison 20:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Convert the text that's in the jpg file into ascii text and then Transwiki. Fg2 00:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kory Sheets

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

Delete college footballer per WP:BIO Ohconfucius 02:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 05:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - nn college player, low ghits. SkierRMH,07:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Borderline, but still Keep. Starting running back of a NCAA Division I-A college football team. I interpret WP:BIO as allowing this. I concede the article needs some work to be brought up to date involving the 2006 season which will make it more clear to be keep worthy. If not a starter or major position player (ie, heavy stat producing position like RB, QB, WR, etc) then no. --MECU≈talk 15:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been mentioned in the Wikipedia:WikiProject College football discussions.. --MECU≈talk 15:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - starting running back for a Division IA program, and a program in a major BCS conference (The Big Ten) no less. Has definitely garnered mentions in the national press and is therefore verifiable. Needs some clean-up and more references. Johntex\^talk 17:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I've seen several notes agreeing with the nom that says "delete college footballer per WP:BIO". But the only thing that WP:BIO states about college sports is that its subjects are generally notable: "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played...at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States.". If we're going to delete him, could I hear a specific passage of WP:BIO say why? Patstuart^talk|edits 17:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Johntex\^talk, who will probably add significant content and cites during the next half-time break. Doc Tropics 18:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kristina Howells

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

Supply teacher who brought the teaching profession and her school into ill repute by being one of 14 women who showed her tits on Cosmo article " are your breasts normal?". Some papers decided to carry the story of her sacking 15 hits on Google news archives over the one incident, which hardly puts her on the road to WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 02:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, simply because her story is so unusual. Perhaps not conventionally notable per WP BIO, but still, I think, worthy of inclusion. -Toptomcat 04:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless there is evidence of more than an "unusual news story of the day" angle, e.g. some sort of pushback activism. --Dhartung | Talk 06:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Deete don't see anything that outside of that incident ghit wise. SkierRMH,07:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Akihabara 12:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, subject doesn't meet WP:BIO guidelines.--Isotope23 14:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Certainly borderline notability, but the details are unusual enough to warrant inclusion. Doc Tropics 18:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not much article there without a good illustration of why she was in the news. Edison 20:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Edison's reasoning on this. There have also been many reported cases of college co-eds being expelled from college for showing up in porno mags/movies or even just men's mag, so I don't see how her firing is any more worthy a wikipedia article than these women being expelled from college --23:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I also want to note that her showing her breasts in a magazine does not 'bring the teaching profession into ill repute'. Sleeping with underage students? Yes! Show your breasts in a woman's magazine (not even a porno mag)? No.

[edit] Railway mission

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

I speedied this before in a less cogent form, and it's back, this time with a marginal assertion of notability. Does not meet WP:CORP in my opinion. Chick Bowen 03:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 05:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not much out there except their own page & references to it. SkierRMH,07:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not very noteable FirefoxMan 16:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN group, probable vanity entry, fails to meet criteria for inclusion. Doc Tropics 18:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The Railway Mission has not been good at promoting itself over the years. But has begun to do so. Individual chaplains are often sited but this has not always highlighted the Railway Mission. See Links and read below and what they are about. Thanks. I wanted to add more about the mission but have been trying to work out how to add pictures. I hope that rather than just deleteing this you could help put things right.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/selby/story/0,,659625,00.html Selby Great Heck report on the dedication of the memorial garden by Mission Chaplain

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1845979.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/selby/story/0,,446503,00.html British Transport police chaplain Miles Mitson (actually Railway Mission Chaplain, British Transport police are only a part of the Mission’s role)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1603754.stm Hatfield Service marks Hatfield anniversary with photo of Miles at leading the service.

http://www.railway-mission.eu/index.html International Mission with nine countries having pages about their Railway Mission in their own language.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/4010831.stm Ufton Nervet Humphrey Gillott from the Railway Mission prayed for those in the rescue who had seen "difficult scenes".

http://www.harboroughtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=760&ArticleID=1084970 July 7th Report featuring Liam Johnston Exec Director of Railway Mission

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4665395.stm July 7th Report featuring Liam Johnston Exec Director of Railway Mission

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/09/nafter209.xml July 7th Report featuring Liam Johnston Exec Director of Railway Mission

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/09/nafter209.xml July 7th Report featuring Liam Johnston Exec Director of Railway Mission

http://www.railwaypeople.com/rail-news-articles/new-chaplains-for-the-north-3.html New Railway Mission Chaplain

http://www.visitsalisbury.com/html/newsmain.asp?metatitle=News%20and%20Events The Salisbury Train Disaster 1906-2006 Memorial Service, Maxine Morgan Railway Mission Chaplain

http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/features/journalfeatures/display.var.810918.0.scene_of_unparalleled_catastrophe.php The Salisbury Train Disaster 1906-2006 Memorial Service

http://www.railwaychildren.org.uk/current_news.html Rev Miles Mitson Retirement

http://www.samscam.co.uk/blog.php?category=Random Joke page, featuring Miles Mitson!

http://www.durness.org/Events%20Hall.htm David Lynch Chaplain in North Scotland —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WCJohnston (talk • contribs).

• Thanks for those links, but as you say they only mention individual chaplains; information about the organization is still unverified. Chick Bowen 23:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• If mention of the chaplains and organisation they work for by the internationally recognised media does not verify the organisation what would. The Archive for the Railway Mission is held in the National Rail Museum in York, England. The Mission is also linked to from the National Rail Enquiries web site [3]. (although at this time the Railway Mission Home site is not much Cop) How else can I verify the organisation? Even their calendars that are given away free are sold on ebay! And thanks for puting in the logo, I could only get it onto a seporate page as you know. I also want, if the page remains and I can get it right, pictures from ufton nervet train crash and 7-7, but who knows. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.106.160.184 (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

• Ok I am trying, for history 1900 http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/east/series9/week_six.shtml BBC report on Tin tabernacles. and I will keep trying. 88.106.160.184 00:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/community/getchurch.php?id=517

• http://gdl.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/springburn/spring045.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.106.160.184 (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

• work of the Mission up to today http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ms.draper/FNRM_SoE/Talks_Reports/sp0205.html

• Railway Mission, Doncaster: records incl minutes, letter books, publications, journals, branch records 1878-1996 (2004-8112) http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/accessions/2004/04returns/04ac756.htm

In recognition of the work of the Railway Mission EWS loco 90040 [4] and Metrolink 1005 have both been called the raialway mission. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Metrolink [5] 88.106.160.184 00:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ok I hope this really helps - ATOC (Association of Train Operating Companies) Approved Code of Practice - Joint Industry Provision of Customer Care Following a Major Passenger Rail Accident- Pdf Document, search for Railway Mission and see what the police say, thanks. http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/docushare/dsweb/Get/Rail-30447/acop011.pdf

Sorry for not Loging in, I am still new to this. On the last point it is page 16 and point 3.4.3 and page 39 point 10. Sorry If I am being a pain. I will stop now :-)WCJohnston 01:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of three-letter English words

List of three-letter English words (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

I don't understand how this page was not deleted. It (seems to me to) clearly fall under WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, and past votes seem to have confirmed that the majority of individuals did not want this page. There was a debate as of April 2006 which arrived at no consensus, so I would respectfully request to open this back up for inquiry. Djma12 01:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I simply do not see the utility of this list. BlueValour 04:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or send to wiktionary. Lists of real English 2- and 3-letter words are useful for Scrabble players, and are standard components of most scrabble dictionaries. So it's a topic that has a reason for existing other than as trivia or for the mental exercise of making a list. Remember that AfD is not a vote, so what "the majority of individuals" had wanted is somewhat irrelevant. DMacks 05:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - this list is of no practical use to Scrabble players who would use Official Scrabble Words. BlueValour 19:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wiktionary. It doesn't belong here. MER-C 05:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki if applicable. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki (if needed), then delete. Although DMacks suggested "Keep" above, the provided justifications are precisely why we should not keep this list. Such as list is an important part of Scrabble (and other) dictionaries, but that is one of the canon things that Wikipedia is not. Serpent's Choice 06:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki assuming Wiktionary has lists of words. --Dhartung | Talk 06:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • A list of words on Wikipedia is a category of words on Wiktionary, and Wiktionary has many categories of words. Uncle G 17:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Convert to category? Maybe this could be a viable Category:Three-letter English words (thanks for the idea, WP:Listcruft) either here or on wiktionary. The list could be considered encyclopediac content as an outgrowth/subpage of the clearly WP-worthy Three letter rule page, but too long to include in that main page. But even if only kept as a category, having something linkable would allow logical research from Three letter rule to the actual words described by that page. DMacks 07:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary is "the lexical companion to Wikipedia", and the way to do this is to link from the encyclopaedia article to a category of words on Wiktionary, such as wikt:Category:English three letter words. There's even a template, {{wiktionarycat}} for this very thing. A category of words is unworkable on Wikipedia, because on Wikipedia individual words don't get individual articles. On Wiktionary, however, they do, and a category of words is quite natural. Uncle G 17:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Keeping this would lay the groundwork for having lists with the potential of covering every single work in the English language. If we keep this then we make it a lot harder to argue against a list of four-letter English words, five-letter, ect. A scary precedent. --The Way 06:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment DMacks deleted my above 'vote' and replaced it with his. I will assume good faith and view this as an accident, I have reposted my voted. --The Way 07:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Majorly sorry about that. DMacks 07:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
      • No worries. We all make mistakes (well, 'we' meaning everyone other than myself, since I'm perfect ;) --The Way 07:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Del bad! 'tis zip. too bad, not sad. SkierRMH,07:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not meant to help you win Scrabble. Go to WikiHelpYouWinScrabble.org. Danny Lilithborne 09:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious to see how quickly some person with more money than sense goes off to register that domain after reading this AfD. :) Orderinchaos78 17:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and throw in List of one-letter English words and List of two-letter English words. Pure scrabble cruft. MartinDK 10:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This article has no use, not even on wiktionary. TSO1D 12:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not use ful.-- danntm ^T _C 16:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pointless. FirefoxMan 16:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This article is useless and blatantly ridiculous, except maybe as an aid in speech therapy. I'm positively certain that speech therapists have far better practice exercises anyway than a random collection of words that happen to have a certain number of letters (and several of which I'm not even sure are actual words). Orderinchaos78 17:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As per above. I don't believe this could serve useful to anyone in an encyclopedia. Seems pointless to me. Might also motivate others to create similar types of listings which may clog up wikipedia with useless material if it were to stay. Bungle44 18:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Useful for crossword puzzles and Scrabble, but better suited for an almanac than an encyclopedia.Coemgenus 20:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wholly pointless. Incidentally, the rules of Scrabble forbid the use of any source to find words, only to confirm their existence, for which a dictionary is the preferred text. If we retain this article then we get List Of One letter Words (admittedly short) List Of Two Letter Words, List Of Words Beginning With A, and so forth, and then we turn into a dictionary. We already have a dictionary. --Anthony.bradbury 00:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American-Filipino

American-Filipino (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Another neologism for a mixed ethnic group. Yes, there are people in the Philippines with American ancestors but there appears to be no consensus on the meaning of this particular term. American-Filipino, as far as I know, is not a mainstream term like Filipino-American is. And it seems like people use American-Filipino in the sense of Filipino-American; i.e. Filipinos in the US. I vote to delete or merge the info with Americans in the Philippines, Amerasian, or even Filipino-American if need be. Chris S. 03:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, the article is clear that the subject is Filipino people of American descent, and not an article about a neologism. The issue of the article's name or if it should be merged with an another article can be solved elsewhere. hateless 03:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Filipino-American since that one is more detailed than this. The article can be moved to userspace should anyone feel like merging anything. We do not keep several articles on the same topic. One is enough. Weak keep per the below I realize my mistake. MartinDK 10:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep as I see no reason to delete. Filipino-American is about people of Filipino ancestry in the United States while this article is about people of American ancestry in the Phillipines, so a redirect or merge would really not work. Dragomiloff 11:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the fact of the matter is, "American-Filipino" was just coined to fit this definition. It is a definition that has not even been heard of in the Philippines or even among Filipinos in the United States. I mean, I myself have never heard of the term before seeing it on Wikipedia. FWIW, my own mother fits the definition of "American-Filipino" and she's never heard of the term. The term used is Amerasian and that's where the contents of the article should go until a more commonly accepted term comes into existence. A Google search of the term "American-Filipinos" garners only 21 results on Philippine sites and none of these are used in the way that the article defines the term. On the other hand, there are over 116 hits for Amerasians on Philippine sites. And as one can see, that is term used by the Philippine press. Another place for this subject is Filipino mestizo. My point is that there are already a number of articles that address this topic and another one isn't needed especially under a concocted and obscure name. Thanks. --Chris S. 15:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep no reason to delete. It's about people of American ancestry in the Philippines, and a re-direct/merge to Filipino-American wouldn't really work as Filipino-Americans are the other way round from this subject. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 14:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see how this can be a neologism and the topic is important enough. TSO1D 12:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep See Jewish American and American Jewish. Arguments are similarRaveenS 13:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism FirefoxMan 16:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Albanian-American, Montenegrin-American, etc. are neologisms just as much as this one is. It is only natural and logical to prefix one’s distinct cultural and/or ethnic identity to the term that denotes one’s citizenship. These people are not only American, but citizens of the Philippines, and they differ from Filipino-Americans specifically in that the latter possess U.S. citizenship. —Lagalag 19:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Albanian-American is most certainly not a neologism. On the other hand, Montenegro has barely been an independent country for a year and in my view, I'd probably vote to delete its page. You also have to realize, that there are no droves of US immigrants to the Philippines just as there have been droves of Filipino immigrants to the United States. Very few if any of these so-called "American-Filipino" identifies themselves as such (you and I had this discussion before as far as other ethnicities were concerned). Do we seriously have to have an ad nauseam amount of American-XXXXX articles just because some American servicemen went to that country and impregnated the women there? American-French, American-British, and American-Mexican anyone? --Chris S. 22:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Response In many cases, as I have come to realize since our discussion, you do not willfully choose to identify as a member of an ethnic group. You simply are. And even if you were to choose not to identify with your own people, well, put a Han Chinese man who speaks Filipino in a room filled with other Filipinos and he is automatically labeled “Chinese-Filipino”. —Lagalag 23:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Follow-up Given that there seem to be no American-XXXXX articles, as you have pointed out, I would just then probably propose a merge into Americans in the Philippines and having Category:American-Filipinos deleted. —Lagalag 23:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment: That sounds more sensible, thanks. Going off-topic... As for my ethnic group, it's situational. In the end, I am a Filipino American and I'm a part of the long-established Filipino-American community. In certain situations, I simply say Filipino especially when saying American is redundant. With foreigners, I usually say I'm American. I'm all three, really. But, I don't say that I am a Cornish-Swiss-Tagalog-Bicolano-American or whatever especially since whatever culture that my Cornish great-great-grandfather or Bicolana grandmothers brought over to the US is largely unknown to me and thus not a part of my identity. --Chris S. 23:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep be consistent. TonyTheTiger 22:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of cities that no longer have trolleybuses

List of cities that no longer have trolleybuses (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This article obviously has had a great deal of work and has sources, but I just don't feel it's maintainable enough. Plenty of cities, I imagine, had trolleybuses at one point but no longer do; it could easily get unmanageable. (Contested prod, if the talk page is correct.) Crystallina 03:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unmaintainbale, a bad idea. - crz crztalk 04:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't understand the logic: because this list is historical, it cannot be outdated--records don't change. Unless you have cities that can't make up their mind about trolleybuses (highly unlikely in my mind, due to the infrastructure needed to run a system), this page is not going to fall into inaccuracy (it may be inaccurate to begin with, but that's not the issue). Now you can have cities that tossed their trolleybuses and not make it into the list, but the list already looks useful even if it is a incomplete list. hateless 04:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • comment: My main concern here is that there will be so many cities that once had trolleybuses but no longer do that the list will become large and unmanageable. Crystallina 04:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Then the list becomes outdated and in need of expansion, which merit cleanup tags. Worse case scenario is that the list becomes incomplete; It won't accrue WP:V issues by aging. In any case, if this hasn't happened yet, why worry about it? hateless 18:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not only is it lage and unmaintainable, there's going to be a lot of gray areas and even problem with sourcing. -WarthogDemon 05:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unmaintainable listcruft of an arbitrarily chosen, single-aspect characteristic of cities. Why does a cities once having had trolley buses have to do with anything of encyclopedic note? It's a random way of organizing cities and would create a precedent for other "List of cities that no longer have..." articles. Wouldn't that be fun? --The Way 06:46, 13 December 2006
• Delete Not needed. Culverin? ^Talk 07:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

(UTC)

• Delete utter listcruft, no possibility of getting an accurate or maintainable list. And if there was... so what? SkierRMH,07:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft. Danny Lilithborne 09:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is list a list of significant trolleybus history without cluttering up the main trolleybus page. Useful to anyone who wants to research this mode of transportation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Really not needed. TSO1D 14:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with list of cities with trolleybuses. I have been told that Wikipedia is "timeless" - in other words, we should cover historical subjects as well as current subjects. A list of anything should therefore include former examples as well as current ones. It may be suitable to split a list of current examples from the list of all examples, but the historic list should continue to include the current examples. See list of Amtrak routes for a list that I believe to be laid out in a good way (except for the corridor services). --NE2 15:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It could also be split by country, continent, or other region, like list of town tramway (urban tramway, streetcar) systems (which could use a new title). --NE2 18:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to List of cities with trolleybuses per User:NE2, failing that then maybe delete, as list looks unmaintable. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 15:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, painfully unmaintainable list. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 15:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • How is it "unmaintainable"? The only part that might be is that it lists only cities that no longer have them, which a redefinition of its scope would fix. The list itself is "maintainable"; there are many books listed that deal with the subject. --NE2 15:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Which is my point. What maintenance? This article needs as much care as a chia pet. Uncontroversial historical archives do not need maintenance (via editing), it's like archiving back issues of newspapers. hateless 17:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per NE2. I live in one of the cities that no longer have trolleybuses and can actually see a relevance to the information, although it should be linked back to specific articles on the history of trolleybuses in various cities. I must admit for no particular reason the title of this article made me laugh - it did seem ridiculous until further examination (I think I read it more as "do not" have - which would be just about any city anywhere). Orderinchaos78 17:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Interesting list. Edison 20:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Helpful encylopedic list. It's no less maintainable than all the airport airline/destinations listings that we're all accustumed to. --Oakshade 23:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge per NE2. This is a valid, sourced list that is maintainable. Thryduulf 23:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It contains useful historical information. Its size, 48 kB, is not a problem. It is not unmaintainable. Valuable organizing tool that helps readers find related information in an encyclopedia of 1.5 million articles. Fg2 01:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Risk and capital management in non-life insurance

Risk and capital management in non-life insurance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Unsourced essay. Wikipedia is not a place for essays / original research. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Blatant OR. --Sable232 04:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is not OR but it completely lacks sources and most importantly it doesn't contain anything not covered elsewhere. MartinDK 04:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 04:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - nothing new in this article, included in several other similar articles. SkierRMH,07:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete FirefoxMan 16:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Orderinchaos78 17:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orion globe

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

Gamecruft. More precisely, Wikipedia is not a game guide. I originally proded the article. Removed by deprod specialist 193.217.242.140 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) who said "Not gamecruft, rather an interesting article about an aspect of a game. Needs to be merged though." which to me sounds like "hey, it's not in line with policy but what the heck". Note also that it's original research inspired by [6]. So deletion won't stop humanity from learning all the great stuff they always wanted to learn about Orion Globe. Humanity will just turn to a game guide. Pascal.Tesson 03:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki? Doesn't Wikibooks have room for game guides? -Toptomcat 04:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'd shove it off to a more specialised gaming wiki. MER-C 04:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Like I said it's not on a gaming-wiki per se, but it's out there on the web already. It's not our job to make sure that whatever we delete ends up on something that uses wiki-software. Pascal.Tesson 05:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 04:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - if it walks like a duck rule - it's gamecruft/game guide stuff. SkierRMH,07:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 14:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, maybe mention this specific topic in the game's article. Koweja 14:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Mastro of Orion 2 is notable. One particular ship configuration out of the thousands available in that game is not. The Kinslayer 15:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - While interesting, this is something for GameFaqs, not Wikipedia. - SecondTalon 17:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drawball

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

Previously nominated, but most of the keep arguments were along the lines of "I like it" or "This is interesting". This is generally a bad idea. (Note: I know that the linked essay is just an essay but I agree with most of what it says.)

Now then. Onto the article itself. As stated before, it fails WP:WEB. Its Alexa ranking is currently around 90,000 - rather poor for an Internet meme. It has no external coverage that I found in news sources. There are no reliable sources cited, and the content given is mostly unverifiable. I can't personally think of any arguments for keeping it, at least not rooted in policy. Crystallina 03:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• comment never before have I so wished that "it's interesting" was a valid argument. This is a pretty damn interesting website. But, yeah, probably not keepable...WP is not here to educate the world about every internet meme in existence--Dmz5 04:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Looked for any non-trivial mention of this, but all I could find is blogs and Wikipedia mirrors. No indication why this would pass WP:WEB. Seraphimblade 04:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. It's in {{db-web}} territory but because of it's history I don't want to speedy it. MER-C 05:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'd expect much more ntoability for a net game - and there's little independent coverage. SkierRMH,07:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete interesting, not notable. Viridae^Talk 11:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Very reluctant delete What an interesting site (which I'd never heard of before). I almost wish I could invoke WP:ILIKEIT as a keep rationale. -- Kicking222 16:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It looks awsome, but awsomnessness is not noteworthynessness. FirefoxMan 16:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Is there a section on art-related websites or anything similar where this would be better categorized if it doesn't deserve its own article?--BigCow 18:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Really very reluctant delete Isn't terribly notable, unfortunately. Perhaps a mention on the internet memes page, and possibly mention the South Korean flag incident on individual websites which participated? Shas 21:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete same reasons as last time, and still unreferenced after 9 months. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whip Jones

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

also consider Robert P. McCulloch

A lot of detail, but I don't see anything notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as NN - and reads close to a G11. - crz crztalk 03:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment; contested speedy, and part of a family of relatives, probably of the article creator. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 04:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - verging on speedy, really nn. SkierRMH,07:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to join Robert P. McCulloch to this, as another bio by the same author, but can't figure out how to do it- directions or help would be appreciated!SkierRMH 07:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've bundled this. You can see how I did it if you look at Robert P. McCulloch.--Isotope23 15:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Whip Jones as subject doesn't meet WP:BIO and move back Whip Jones III (Bold and the Beautiful) to this namespace. Consider getting rid of Whip Jones (disambiguation) at the same time because it isn't necessary if this article gets deleted. Redirect Robert P. McCulloch to London Bridge. McCulloch did purchase the original London Bridge and move it to Lake Havasu, AZ... but to me that isn't enough to meet WP:BIO and that fact is mentioned at London Bridge. Everything else in the article on McCulloch is inconsequential and it would be redundant to just grab the paragraph from London Bridge and post it at the Robert P. McCulloch namespace.--Isotope23 15:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• (Second vote on added person). Keep Robert P. McCulloch, but move back to Robert McCulloch. I think a "city founder" (if that's correct) is adequately notable. Much of the article still needs to be trimmed, but I think there's enough there for retention. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• How did I miss that he founded the city? stuck opinion above. I've cleaned the article up a bit, though it could use more cleanup...--Isotope23 18:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Robert P. McCulloch, highly notable as an entrepreur, businessman and developer. Founded namesake company famous for power tools such as chainsaws. Founded Lake Havasu City, Arizona and upscale Phoenix suburb of Fountain Hills. Non-trivial references mainly in the Arizona Republic and possibly other written materials that can help Robert P. McCulloch satisfy WP:BIO can be found with further research.--Msr69er 20:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Whip Jones per nom, Keep McCulloch per Rubin and Msr69er. Xtifr _tälk 22:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete I would have voted speedy! FirefoxMan 01:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John I. Beggs

John I. Beggs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

I don't seem him as notable, except possibly in regard Edison Pioneers. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment; contested speedy, and part of a family, probably of the article creator. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A minor robber baron nationwide, but he appears to have been fairly significant in Wisconsin business history. With that and the Edison connection, I think he is a keeper. --Brianyoumans 06:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep in addition to being significant in Wisconsin history [7] and moderately significant in electricity/railway history, he developed modern depreciation accounting. Numerous Google Books/Scholar hits. --Dhartung | Talk 06:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - there are additional references that could be added from ghits that would fill out the article, specficially in re connections with WI dealings. SkierRMH,07:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Withdraw nomination. I'm convinced, although the article creator may not have known adequate evidence of notability. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Spilsbury

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

Contested speedy. The man's claim to notability, besides being a fan of Swindon Town F.C., appears to be that that he is some sort of a functionary at Doctor Who Magazine - which, not to put too fine a point on it, ain't the Economist or the New Yorker. It appears to be some sort of fanzine for a TV show. You know when they have to pad out your short article with achievements such as "...writing to the Doctor Who Magazine letters page at the time to say it {Deep Space Nine] was better than Doctor Who" that we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel here. Ridiculous, but at least two editors believe the article should exist, so here we are. Herostratus 03:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to Doctor Who Magazine. Apparently a notable figure within Doctor Who fandom; appeared very briefly on BBC News[8] and was quoted in The Guardian[9] as a notable source of opinions on Doctor Who. --Muchness 04:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• They're only trivial mentions so they don't count towards meeting WP:BIO. MER-C 05:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• THIS ARTICLE IS NOT COMPATIBLE. IT MUST BE DELETED. MER-C 05:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, plenty of Doctor Who fans, but what makes this one notable? --Dhartung | Talk 07:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• EX-TER-MI-NATE, nn, even within Dr. Who fandom. SkierRMH,07:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above, with relevant Doctor Who clichés as applicable ;) --Chrisd87 11:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete main claim to fame is being a "deputy editor" for a Doctor Who magazine, and the article is mostly trivia: a list of other TV shows he likes, etc. This is bordering on Speedy Delete territory IMHO, but regular delete is okay too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. FirefoxMan 16:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Note that the Fleming Way article on this very AfD page also relates to Swindon. This article even tells us he's a fan of Neighbours. Orderinchaos78 17:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BoyChat

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

Verifiability and notability. Lack of multiple non-trivial published works about this site. - crz crztalk 04:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - I'd consider the fact people have been jailed from this site, the FBI monitoring it, and PJ making a mention of it notability-making, however, no reliable sources. --Wooty Woot? contribs 04:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No assertion of notability and too few reliable sources. -Will Beback · † · 05:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence that this had been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself or that it meets any of the other criteria of WP:WEB. Providing links to the site itself is not the same as citing reliable sources. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete P4k 06:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I've added news paper article links to the article which show that journalists have been talking about BoyChat since 1998. With all the articles posted (4 or more at the time of this comment) this article easily meets WP:RS, there needs to be some integration to be truly verifiable but the shear number of media mentions allows the article to meet WP:V. Since WP:RS and WP:V are met via multiple real-world non-trivial publications which are secondary sources this article meets WP:WEB. The article still needs a lot of a work and seems to skirt around the issue that all the reliable sources say that BoyChat is chat for pedophiles. This article seems to avoid stating verifiable facts about the website. Then on a non-policy note I'd like to say that having an article on BoyChat on Wikipedia allows people to read about it without actually going there. Hopefully wikipedia can give people unbiased information (they are pedophiles) about BoyChat rather than users having to interpret their FAQ. In Summary please re-read the article, please view ALL of the references and external links, you'll the article passes WP:V, WP:RS and WP:WEB. --Quirex 06:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That said perhaps this should be generalized into a freespirits, boywiki, boychat article or information about those sites can integrated here. --Quirex 06:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. With new references is now compatible with WP:N. ccscott 16:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per notability, verifiability, lack of reliable independent sources and WP:WEB. Most of the "references and external links" relate to or belong to the site itself, and much of the information in the article is sourced directly from the site. Numerous other web forums, even ones that have made the news, have failed these parameters and been deleted in the past. The "external links" section generally fails neutral point of view. Orderinchaos78 16:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

comment Please go through the news references and links (there are more than 4 of them and tell me why each fails. When you say generally you are not dealing fairly with the links that pass WP:RS. There are many news mentions and you can't ignore them. --Quirex 17:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh c'mon, quirex. Biggest claim to fame is a brief mention in a St. Louis Post-Dispatch story? - crz crztalk 17:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The williamette Week is directly about them, the st louis dispatch article you have to pay for, the CNSNEWS article is about them, the xtra article is about freespirits, the toronto sun article is about them, freespirits, epifora and verizon. They have multiple media references and multiple secondary sources about just them. Then there is the christian news one which is about them but less reliable. This isn't just one. You can't ignore the other references. --Quirex 18:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per notability, verifiability, reliable independent sources and WP:WEB. Jillium 21:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but improve citations. Notable due to Net Neutrality/Free Speech implications. When no longer notable, MERGE with Pedophile Activism.

[edit] Swing (musical group)

[edit] Koiko

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

Subject does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 04:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Checked for RS, found none. Only sources seem to be a blog and the artist's site. --Wooty Woot? contribs 04:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 04:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Plus, seems like the only things Koiko has done have been singles. Notability isn't possible if one only has singles, is it? -WarthogDemon 05:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - It is if the single charted. Neier 12:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. —ShadowHalo 05:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - and it does appear that there are no albums. SkierRMH,08:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for now; no evidence of her one (year old) single being charted, and not close to meeting WP:MUSIC otherwise. Neier 12:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 12:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chibchombia

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

Term used on short-lived Columbian cartoon show "El Siguiente Programa" (The Following Show). I doubt whether the show itself is notable; made-up joke terms from it are not. Herostratus 18:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ---J.S ^(T/C) 03:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unreferenced protologism. --Muchness 04:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn neologism, 932 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 05:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete verging on speedy - neologism, non referenced, even en espanol. SkierRMH,08:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United Kingdom as a major power

United Kingdom as a major power (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

In March, emerging superpower (then potential superpower) was nominated for deletion, along with a whole bunch of other articles on potential superpowers. No consensus was reached, although there was a small contingent of users who supported keeping the articles on China and the European Union and deleting the rest. In a second AfD in July, the articles on Russia, Brazil, and Japan were deleted as largely original research, leaving China, India, and the European Union, which consensus seems to be should be kept for now.

I hereby nominate United Kingdom as a major power based on its similarity to those articles deleted in July. It suffers from much the same OR problems, and is in the same boat as Russia, Brazil, and Japan as not a large-consensus emerging superpower. theProject 04:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This is an essay that draws it own conclusions, not an encyclopaedia article. Unverified and POV. -- IslaySolomon | talk 04:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above; unsourced original research. --Muchness 04:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Unsourced, and it seems to be someone's own opinion on how powerful Great Britain is today. No sources as well. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 05:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete OR- essay; unverified. SkierRMH,08:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced and OR. TSO1D 12:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete One-sided soapbox article that covers subjects better dealt with elsewhere.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. FirefoxMan 16:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oak Park Shuttle

Oak Park Shuttle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Prod removed by 193.217.242.140 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) whose contributions seem to be centered on removing prods that I put up. (see JudoJoe Productions, Orion globe). In any case, this is an article about a bus route. The supporting source is... the bus schedule. The rationale for the removal of the prod was "This is not a schedule, but an article about a bus service. Removed the part about passengers complaining to drivers for being hard to verify." In fact, it's not your everyday bus route, it's a shuttle that takes six passengers. Even the Yellow Pages wouldn't have this info... Pascal.Tesson 04:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, I love Oak Park, but this is not notable. --Dhartung | Talk 04:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom... no notability whatsoever. SkierRMH,08:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete trivial 6 passenger vehicle. Edison 20:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- I can't see how a six-passenger shuttle van (van!) route in the very populous metro Chicago area could possibly be notable. When it gets up to the level of, say, Boston's Silver Line, then maybe. Haikupoet 01:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jenny Morris (singer)

Jenny Morris (singer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Sort of a procedural nomination, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenny Morris (singer). Long story short, was a WP:POINT nomination, but consensus was to delete, therefore, putting it up again. Per WP:MUSIC. --Wooty Woot? contribs 04:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect or delete - Redirect might be clean in this case because of another musician named Jenny Morris. The band page itself could then have a notice at the top mentioning the difference between teh two. (See Con Air for an example.) -WarthogDemon 04:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC) This user is a major contributer of the article.

• Comment Er, sorry if it's poor form to vote on an article that one has created themself. I merely wanted to point out how a redirect would be cleaner with this one page. -WarthogDemon 05:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per the points made in the previous AFD. MER-C 04:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Jenny Morris (musician) unless this singer is shown to meet WP:MUSIC. When I looked at the article, I was expecting to see an article on New Zealand singer/musician Jenny Morris.Capitalistroadster 05:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Should the musician page then have the heading I suggested? Just wondering what people think. -WarthogDemon 05:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, it would be appropriate/acceptable to have a dab in the page saying For the American singer, see Innosense. --Dhartung | Talk 06:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect per Capitalistroadster. --Dhartung | Talk 06:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Capitalroadster... SkierRMH,01:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crown Tranceiver

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

The band does not meet WP:MUSIC and information about it is unverifiable. About three Google hits, all myspace. Prod removed with the notice Removed Deletion request: unique accomplishments of this band demonstrate the need for an article Wafulz 04:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/4360/independentyj3.jpg
• Magazine Articles Hey I've got some magazine clips and stuff about these guys and what they've done if that will help the debate? 13 December 2006
  • Depends what magazine and what the subject is. --Wafulz 19:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • This falls more into the realm of 15 minutes of fame than an encyclopedia topic. If they have other substantial third party articles at different periods of time (to demonstrate that they're not just a blip on the radar), then having an article would be more likely. --Wafulz 01:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I have a bunch of other stuff, I don't think I understand what you need exactly but I'll scan stuff tomorrow
• Delete per nom. --Muchness 04:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I'm really not seeing any notable accomplishments, but the article states that the band "was questioned and released with a nominal amount of tabloid publicity". If this can be backed up with one or more sources, then keep. Though based on the lack of Google hits, I'm guessing that this won't be happening. —ShadowHalo 05:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 05:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Glorified garage band]. SkierRMH,08:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Without further verifyable sources, the article does not meet WP:N or MP:MUSIC. ccscott 16:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete I belive that even though a band is not commercially successful that it is still important to share their story. CT has never had their own website because none of the members desired to have one. they keep an extremely low profile and just recently launched a myspace page. 13 December 2006

Wikipedia is not a substitute myspace page.--Dmz5 17:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is saying this? 13 December 2006

The implication of the comment above is that even though the band is not notable (and therefore does not meet explicit wikipedia guidelines), it is important to "share their story somewhere" because they don't have a website. In other words, the user wants to use the wikipedia entry as a website or "substitute myspace page" rather than as an objective, third-party-generated article about something that is notable. Many editors mistakenly believe that wikipedia is an appropriate venue to promote new acts or generate attention/buzz about something that is not yet notable. This is not the case. Also, please note that it is considered good form to end each post with four tildas (this thing ~) to add a signature, even if you are unregistered.--Dmz5 00:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per SkierRMH. Daniel Case 16:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Per above. Lack of sources and lack of accomplishments.

[edit] Heil Environmental Industries Ltd

Heil Environmental Industries Ltd (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This article appears to be advertisement. It contains little to no useful or encyclopedia information. --Adam Riley ^Talk 05:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - {{db-corp}}. So tagged. MER-C 05:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• I was going to say keep as a notable company, but I was thinking of the HVAC manufacturer that's apparently unrelated. delete. BCoates 12:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with cleanup to make it more than an advertisement. The thing that I think makes the company notable is the shock value of the name. Often, we see trucks with the Heil logo (esp. on their mudflaps) on the road in New England, and people frequently notice and wonder why such a charged word is appearing on the vehicles.146.243.4.157 14:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What sources do you propose be used for the cleanup? You haven't cited any. The article doesn't cite any. Please cite sources to show that the cleanup is possible and that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 17:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as promotion for a non notable business. Yes, I thought the name was Hell Environmental Industries too when it first scrolled by; an industry making the environment more hellish may well be notable. But this isn't enough to make this minor business notable. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Lots of businesses and people are named Heil. Even if it were the "Heil Hitler! Exterminating" company it would need multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources to show its notability. Edison 20:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I can't say "delete" right off; this is a major player in the environmental vehicle industry and is over a century old, but I know that because I work with that industry regularly. Unfortunately, I can't find anything outside of B2B publications that reference it, so sourcing is problematic. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Dover Corporation. Heil's web site identifies Dover as its parent company. The article on Dover Corporation should include substantive information on its subsidiaries. Fg2 01:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into parent company - this division doesn't have much independent notariety. Und ich nicht bin ein Berliner. SkierRMH,01:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gladin'

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

Total nonsense. Unable to find any credible source to back article edits or claims. I already forgot 05:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - seems to be a sport which was made up one day.... MER-C 06:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MER-C. --Dhartung | Talk 06:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom... WP:NFT SkierRMH,08:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I was going to be generous and give it a little while to assert notability, but since it's here, delete for having no such assertion. Looking over it again, I doubt I'd have been so generous if I'd taken a closer look in the first place. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 08:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy it? The creator of the article left this comment on my talk page. I'm not sure if this counts as G7 for speedy deletion, because there have been a couple other editors (even not counting vandals), but I thought I'd mention it here. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 20:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm new at this and still trying to understand the policies and what not. As for the "complete nonsense" and WP:NFT, thats not the case. Even elsewhere in the Wiki is gladin', or the effects there-of, mentioned. Big Cypress National Preserve (under Controversy Over Off-Road Vehicles). I'm trying to locate additional proof that we're not crazy, please bear with me. Jnonnemaker 09:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The "Controversy" section of that article makes no references to "Gladin'." What we need are reliable sources showing that this is a notable activity, not just a group of kids destroying rental cars (presumably in direct violation of their rental contracts) and then bragging about it online. If it's not a case of WP:NFT, then the article needs to demonstrate that enough so that it doesn't look that way to someone unfamiliar with the subject. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 10:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Let me get this straight. You rent a car, practically trash it, then expect the rental agency to take it back (with the damage covered by the CDW, presumably), and not one insurance or rental agent or rental car company lawyer calls you out on this obvious violation of contract? Many rental cars are equipped with GPS tracking and you'll get nailed with fees if you take a car off road. Rental car companies are somewhat noted for nailing people for fees on even minor contract infractions, let alone nearly trashing a vehicle. to acheive this form of gladin you must drive down the Alaskan Highway at high speeds (100+MPH) Yeah, right. I might buy that story if you were Brock Yates, but until you come up with reliable sources that document 100 MPH speeds on the Alaska Highway, the story belongs on a blog, not WP. The pictures only show dirty vehicles, not ones that have been trashed. Delete. Tubezone 11:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Dellin' like a Felon because it's so not gellin'. Danny Lilithborne 09:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• DELETE' These idiots are why real off-roaders get their land shut down. Jackasses. I'm going to make sure and plaster your pictures all over real off roader websites, hopefully they will find you. I should also send your pictures to Hertz, Enterprise, etc. Mtxchevy 13:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Entire article promotes illegal activity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.68.196.38 (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
• Delete. There would be a certain degree of irony in applying the WP:SNOW principle here. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 15:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - The last thing legal off-roaders need is moronic idiots such as these from giving fuel to the eco-nazi end of the spectrum. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.2.1.101 (talk • contribs) 2006-12-13 16:12:23 (UTC)
• Please note that arguments that "these people are criminals/idiots/jackasses" are not arguments based upon our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Please base your arguments upon our policies and guidelines. Your personal opinions of these people are irrelevant to whether or not they warrant an encyclopaedia article. Uncle G 17:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and all of the above. Doc Tropics 17:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Does anyone know what template creates that message at the top of an AfD to tell people that if they were told to come here by a friend or on some online message board or whatever that we generally don't count votes (for lack of a better word – I know it's a dicussion, not a vote) from anonymous or single-purpose accounts? There's a forum on a 4x4 website encouraging people to come here, which is probably what caused all of the vandalism that made it so the article had to be semi-protected. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 18:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • {{afd-anons}}--Wafulz 20:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Edison 20:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MER-C FirefoxMan 01:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hyupyoung

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

This article on an obscure South Korean manufacturer does not appear to meet WP:CORP. It is one of a very large number of articles created by a single user in what appears to have been a semi-bot autocreation of machine-translated corporate spam articles. I have not found any record of third-party coverage or any other tokens of notability, in either Korean or English. 'Hyupyoung -wikipedia' gets 170 Google hits; the Korean name "협영" gets 980. No reliable sources are evident in either set of results. Prod tag was removed, although I'm not sure why; therefore listing here. Visviva 05:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable at all. This is the kind of thing that makes me wish prod removals could be reverted if done with no explanation. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

In fairness, there was an explanation, i.e. "Seems notable." I'm just not quite sure what made the article topic even seem notable. :-) -- Visviva 10:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. MER-C 06:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - unless someone with a working knoledge of Korean can translate the ghtis in that language and show the notablity. SkierRMH,01:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spatial Doppler effect

This article is original research. While some of the material is accurate, a lot of it is an original amalgamation of various ideas from special relativity and redshifts. --ScienceApologist 05:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:V with 23 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 06:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and MER-C. Guettarda 15:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unless the author adds some sources, bye! FirefoxMan 01:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-verifiable original research. SkierRMH,01:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leon Pieket

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

There is no indication of how the subject passes WP:MUSIC. Suspected conflict of interest: authored by Special:Contributions/Leonpieket. Ohconfucius 05:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - unsourced autobiography. MER-C 06:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as AUTO or BIO or COI, MUSIC, etc. SkierRMH,08:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Also, only 798 Google hits (121 unique). Prolog 15:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As stands does not meet WP:MUSIC. ccscott 16:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Standard office document formats debate

Standard office document formats debate (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Even with all the POV and crystal ball speculation removed, this could never amount to more than an unencyclopedic essay. Zarquon 05:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 06:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete , the article is mostly full of rubbish anyways. hAl 08:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. As eciting as the topic is, I don't believe it's encyclopedic. TSO1D 12:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. While it's an interesting topic, and while I am an OpenOffice.org user myself, it doesn't belong here. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, with some regrets. Portions of this text, heavily edited, would indeed make valuable additions to the document file format article, which is brief and stubly. It would need thorough editing for NPOV and encyclopedic style, and I'd encourage the author to work on that one. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete WP:SNOW FirefoxMan 01:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - agree with Smerdis, needs culling & better resources, but there is a core of an article in there. SkierRMH,01:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BuMbLePuPpIe

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

Article was CSD'd for A7 reasons. Article creator contested the speedy, and another editor claimed specific sources (not just "sources are somewhere out there", see talk page), so I'm moving this to AfD to let it run its course. Neutral. ColourBurst 06:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks like a poorly written vanity article. Contains stuff like this: As if that wasn't enough to make them the best band in the universe....they host all the music for downloading free.of.charge. Doesn't cite sources, either. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Uh, changing my vote to Speedy delete. :) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, fails CSD. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, passes the Glorified garage band test - unless the 'members' link to Ethan Smith is legit and this member is an 18th century Mormon author! That would, in and of itself, be qutie notable :) SkierRMH,01:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liberty Ball

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

Just another pyramid selling scheme, this time in Ireland. All sufficient details are already in the pyramid selling scheme article. Delete Ohconfucius 06:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 06:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom... no need to merge into pyramid selling scheme. SkierRMH,08:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and add mention into pyramid scheme article, so if people look it up, they get directed to that article. Leaving this in as an article just artificially raises ghits total for the phrase, which benefits no one but the scammers. Tubezone 09:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Mattuck

From speedy. If he is really a full professor in MIT, I bet he is somehow notable Alex Bakharev 06:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Notability not asserted Akihabara 13:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Simply being a professor at XYZ university doesn't mean that they're notable. Notablity not present here. SkierRMH,01:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lichtenberg Transmitter

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

Just another small mast of 135m, with no indication as to its importance. Delete per precedents already well established at KCHZ Tower, TBN Tower, KEXL FM and GBC LP DBA TowerOhconfucius 06:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 06:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per precedents. SkierRMH,08:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Edison 20:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Backdraft (drink)

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

Non-notable cocktail, no references. Previous AFD discussion closed with no consensus. Promised "documentation" has not been forthcoming, and the article is almost entirely statements that are likely to be impossible to verify using reliable sources. Quale 06:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 07:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. -- Samir धर्म 07:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP - I agree that this article needs work. That is why the WikiProject Cocktails has it flagged for improvement. As it clearly states on the articles talk page, the Project members are currently working on cleaning up and improving a large number of articles. This one certainly qualifies as one worthy of keeping, and improving. Despite the fact that some may not have heard of this particularly showy drink, and despite the tone of the article (which I personally find highly irritating), the drink is very notable and rather unique. It could be argued that 50% or more of the various cocktail-related articles could be condensed down to a recipe. This is one cocktail that certainly could not qualify for that. First, the method of preparation is quite complicated and potentially dangerous. Second, the physics of the drink is included, making it remarkably interesting (despite the tone) compared to the hundreds of other drink articles I've been reading through. We have requested that everyone relax and let the Project members do their work on these articles without deleting them until we have had a chance to do whatever it is we need to do with them to make Wikipedia better. In many cases, that will be requesting deletion AFTER we merge the useful information into other articles (and figuruing out the best place to move it to is partly why it takes time). This is one article that I doubt would ever be considered for deletion due to the wonderful uniqueness of the drink AND its notability. Just because few people order one and suffer the effects of such a hideous drink does not mean it is not notable. Verifiability should be easy to do, but again, it takes time to sift through several hundred articles with a small team of people working on it. Instead of deleting clearly tagged WikiProject Cocktails articles while we are actively in this Cleanup Project, consider pitching in and helping us improve them. Thank you. --Willscrlt 07:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A quick Google search returns:

Webtender

DrinkMixer

iDrink

1001 Cocktails

Flaming Dr. Peppers - Check out those flames! (pretty much unrelated, but it mentioned Backdraft and flaming cocktails)

So, it would appear that after a quick 3-page search of google, there is definitely a drink (and fairly popular according to 1001 Cocktails) called a Backdraft. The ingredients, manner of preparation and presentation vary, and I could not find the exact methods mentioned in this article. However, it is still a fairly interesting cocktail, and with work (that I will be happy to do between now and February 28, 2007, which is the deadline for completing the Cleanup Project), it could be a good article. So spare the article (again) and let the Project members (probably that will be me) have a chance to fix the article. Thanks. --Willscrlt 08:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete we are not a repository for either food or drink recipes. Beyond that, you don't have very much except an entirely unreferenced article. I don't see how this is paticuarly notable either. Viridae^Talk 11:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Previous AfD was only 1 month ago; Wikiproject Cocktails has set itself a deadline to clean up/merge/delete the various articles under their scope. This article is already being taken care of, there's no good reason to step on their toes. BCoates 12:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Cocktails project should be given a chance to fix. If no progress after several months; let's review. Akihabara 13:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to b:Bartending. --Howrealisreal 15:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki-ing is one of the options we do consider in the WikiProject Cocktails Cleanup Project, especially for detailed recipes. Many wonderful people have done that before, and it has really been a benefit. However, there is more to this drink than a simple recipe. One thing I am considering is merging several smaller articles into one larger one discussing flaming cocktails and using specific examples. This article (with work) would fit that bill, but we need the extra time to complete this process. --Willscrlt 15:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That would work. I tend to think that a cocktail needs to have something notable about it to be listed in Wikipedia. All else that can be verified can go to Wikibooks. If a case can be made that this cocktail is part of a larger notable method, then by all means keep in Wikipedia somewhere. Cheers. --Howrealisreal 15:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. Admittedly, the majority of people researching drinks are doing so specifically to find a recipe. That's great. We can easily point them to the complete recipe archive in Wikibooks. However, a brief very listing of ingredients is actually helpful for distinguishing between the various drinks, much as the mollecular weight and other identifying aspects of a chemical compound or the characters in a film. Yes, Wikipedia is not a cookbook, but that does not mean it must exclude all references to the component ingredients that identify a particular beverage. What is important is that the article must be more than just a recipe or process by which to make the drink. The article should focus on the cultural and historical nature of the drink, for that is what exerts the notability of the drink. This particular drink is notable, I'm fairly sure, but the article is poorly written and does a lousy job of explaining or proving that. If it cannot be proved within a reasonable time, then deletion is one logical decision. I am not arguing with the deletion process; I am just concerned about the timing of this (and other) deletions in cocktail-related articles. Thanks. --Willscrlt 01:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep until 2007-02-28 and revaluate. The arguments presented above and the first AfD have convinced me that the drink in question is unique enough from other cocktails that it may merit an article. If by the deadline the article is just a recipe, it should go. ccscott 16:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The existence of a wikiproject does not cause any given article within its scope to gain any sort of inherent encyclopedic value, which this article does not have. Agent 86 20:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I never meant to claim that the Project should have any impact on the perceived value of an article. The article must be able to stand on its own just as any other article in the Wikipedia. I'm sorry if anything I said appeared to indicate otherwise. All I am requesting is a little time (and a definite time at that) in which to complete the research and improvement of this and the other articles on which the Project members are working. At the completion of the WikiProject Cocktails Cleanup Project, if it turns out that this article is still substandard, the Project will nominate the article (along with many other articles) for deletion and will offer no objection to deletion at that time. --Willscrlt 01:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Best of KMD

From speedy. Apparently was already speedy deleted twice but never been to AfD Alex Bakharev 06:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Unless there's something in WP:MUSIC I missed. -WarthogDemon 07:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The criteria for including albums as listed in WP:MUSIC reads "if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." KMD appears to satisfy this requirement and consequently so does the album. TSO1D 12:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep WP:MUSIC does seem to suggest that the KMD article would need to be non-notable as a prerequisite. Akihabara 13:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per TSO1D. Albums by notable artists are considered notable. Prolog 15:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Context Connect

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

Company whose article doesn't claim notability. No independent sources listed as references; my search turns up mentions, but they're mostly either directories or press releases. Probable COI. Reads like an ad. Prod was removed by author without comment. Don't believe this meets WP:WEB. Shimeru 06:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 07:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as spam --WP:CORP SkierRMH,08:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Everafter

Contested speedy Alex Bakharev 07:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for now. Tribunal Records seems to be starting (via a different user). If that page can be expanded in the near future, I should think it would help this page comply with WP:MUSIC. -WarthogDemon 07:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. User Cazzolla asserts on the Discussion page of the article that the band went on several tours of the US. If true, this would satisfy WP:MUSIC, specifically criteria #4, but this should be properly referenced. I do understand the difficulty in securing such a reference for a band that has be defunct for 3 years now, but an appropriate reference would go a long way in establishing the notability of the band. ccscott 17:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete FOr the same reason as Cazzolla - I don't see anything referencing these tours. Even then, would still put in the non-notable category. SkierRMH,01:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kushan Mitra

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

NN journalist. Prod removed, presumably because he won an award, in its first year of inception. Doubt that confers notability per WP:Bio. I implore people to consider that if this goes through, every minor journalist will be considered wp-worthy. Note WP:Bio also calls for multiple independent awards. Hornplease 07:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN person, nn award, not much else... SkierRMH,08:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 09:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dnyaneshwar Vidyapeeth

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

NN unrecognised 'university'. Reads like an ad. Was tagged for notability since June. Prod removed without useful comment. Hornplease 07:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - yes, you too can not only get your degree online, but can be a prof too! And, if this is what passes as English at the "university"... SkierRMH,08:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 08:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 09:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - "without useful comment" - bad faith trolling on part of nominator. Bakaman 14:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems to be a fairly accurate description of the edit summary given on this edit. Uncle G 17:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Spammy and no assertion of notability. Prolog 15:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It has been reported by the Times of India as a "fake university"[10] and yet there's at least some evidence (like a government website[11] - see end of that page) that its training products are accepted in the job market. Either way, I don't see solid evidence of notability. Can Bakasuprman provide anything to help with that? Mereda 17:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I have no opinion on this particular article, but as for the nominator's comment that "Prod removed without useful comment", I need to point out that Hornplease yesterday prodded a significant number of articles (including this one) without giving any prod reason in the template where it belongs, and for the most part with only "prod" as his edit summary (the instructions say "Use an informative edit summary"). I find it annoying when browsing WP:PRODSUM not to be given any substantial reason, or, as in these cases, any reason whatsoever why something is proposed to be deleted. Upp◦land 17:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for inconveniencing you. Please note that all the articles I prodded, as a glance at any of them would have confirmed, had notability templates on them since June. I thought no further comment was required; I never use the bot myself. Hornplease 17:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Mubayi

From speedy. Seems to be marginaly notable. Alex Bakharev 08:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - about 100ghits, covering several languages; however, it looks like a lot of these are copies/translations of one another. SkierRMH,08:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BIO, only 37 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 09:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. 37 hits is not enough, especially since no sources of this guy being mentioned in independent news sources have been provided. MartinDK 11:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Article makes no assertion of notability. Just being an artist confers no notability. What has this guy done? Caknuck 22:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sara Albert

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

Contested prod, in a manner of speaking: article was deleted on Dec 6, and made a hasty return on Dec 10. ANTM6 contestant who was the 3rd runner-up (ie came 4th). She appears to have scored a few minor gigs since the show. Delete Ohconfucius 08:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, most ghits are references to Top Model Gig, others are nn jobs. SkierRMH,08:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect externally verifiable content to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 6 or a subarticle dealing with a list of contestants (if such a list or article exists... I don;t suggest creating it). Even if there is nothing to merge, a plain redirect to one of the above two targets. Coming 4th on a reality television show does not make encyclopedic notability in my eyes, but there are going to be people looking for her name here. We may as well send them in the right generic direction. If and only if she becomes the next Elle McPherson or Cindy Crawford; undirect and recreate the article with the new, externally verifiable, third-party factchecked sourced info. -- saberwyn 08:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, nn losing reality TV contestant. MER-C 09:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Involuntary celibacy

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

This article should be considered an attack article. It is very prejudicial and should be deleted immediately! User:Ard7c5 — Ard7c5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. I'm striking the nomination as bad faith and pointless. Discussion may proceed on T. Anthony's point below.--Kchase T 09:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Not an attack article. SWAdair 08:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - bad faith nomination. MER-C 08:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete It's mostly just a collection of unverified notions as to why there are people who want sex, but don't seem to get it. It states it "is not recognised by most experts in psychology, virtually no research has been published, and no statistics are available." Also this is likely just a dicdef at best.--T. Anthony 09:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There's a bit to it after all, but I'm not convinced it's enough. I'll leave it at that.--T. Anthony 11:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment -- The deletion rationale has changed so I'm responding now to the new rationale. Although most web-based mentions of this phrase mean simply "I'm not getting any," there are several reputable references that suggest the subject is the focus of serious study. It has been researched for eight years. "The study was initiated in 1998, when a member of an online discussion group for involuntary celibates approached Donnelly about current research on the subject."[12] The initial study was published in a professional scientific publication [13], has been mentioned in news reports[14] and was included in an anthology of scholarly literature.[15] The subject is included on university syllabi.[16][17] and was the catalyst for events that lead to the publishing of the book Confessions, by Arthur Pekar.[18] The article is not original research, not a neologism and much more than a dicdef. I see no reason to delete the article. SWAdair 11:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of that doesn't strike me as convincing on its own, but combined it might be a something. Still this comes close to just a group of people saying "hey prof write about this" and the prof thinking it'll be amusing for his or her colleagues. Still I switched to weak delete.--T. Anthony 11:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep 12.217.36.123 made only one contribution, making this RFD in bad faith. Nonetheless, although the article does need a little work, what it describes is real. Anarchist42 18:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, real term that needs an explanation, but clean up Alf photoman 19:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per SWAdair. The references cited should be integrated into the article and not merely cited here. Edison 20:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete As the article states, "Involuntary celibacy is not recognised by most experts in psychology", it's use is extremely limited, not widely accepted as being accurate/worthwhile in the psychological world - and there are better, more widely accpeted categories for much of what is in the article. Would like to see all of the citations above included to reflect that. SkierRMH,01:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep -- bordering on OR, but a fairly well known pop psych/pop cultural concept, even if there isn't much mention of it in the literature. Haikupoet 01:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of video game consoles (eighth generation)

History of video game consoles (eighth generation) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

No console of this generation is even in development yet, leaving the page nothing but speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This page was deleted once before. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of video game consoles (eighth generation) Indrian 08:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep That section of NOT begins "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation" and verifiability was also lacking in the previous AFD. It has sources now and other than a bit of original research at the bottom that I'm removing, the article is well-written and well-sourced.--Kchase T 09:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, most of the article is unverified speculation. The dates given for the generation are unverified speculation, the sources on the camera technology has to do with speculation related to the 360 only and is therefore no source at all, making the camera information unverified speculation, and the timing of any attempt by Apple to enter the market and therefore what generation a console by the company would belong to is not known, making that unverified speculation. This bascally leaves the article with the only verified information that a PS4 will exist and that a next-gen Nintendo console will include high definition. That is not much of an article. Indrian 09:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I've just added a source for the year 2010 release. Jecowa
• Keep i don't know if i'm allowed to vote since i'm the article’s creator, but not a single thing in that article is not located in one of the sources i've sited. With the exeption of Apple each of the companies in question have made some announcements or statements concerning their eighth gen console. i waited to post this article until that was the case. The Wii 2 will have HD capabilities, the 720 is on the backburner at the moment, and the PS4 is going to be released after 2010. o, and thanks for the complement Kchase. J.L.Main 09:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

comment i went back and looked and i must admit i did have some original research. i've removed it and can now say what i've already said and be telling the truth.J.L.Main 09:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• • You're welcome to contribute to the AfD. It's suggested that people disclose if they are editing an article, which you've done. Thanks for removing that bit of OR. I'm sure you'll find a source if you need to.--Kchase T 09:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and possibly Rename? Seems to me that "history of..." is the wrong way to describe it. I think the material has merit though as per above. --Chrisd87 11:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• comment the name is so that the artical is in line with the articals on the past seven generations. if we change the nae to this one we would kind of need to change the names for all the others.J.L.Main 11:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 14:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this is pure Crystal Balling. The seventh generation just got fully started less than a month ago. We have no idea what companies will be involved in the next one. Koweja 14:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - This is article is pure self-indulgent fan specualtion. The Kinslayer 14:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is far too early. Thunderbrand 15:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable and sourced information. —Nightstallion (?) 16:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete While i am a fan of video game consoles, i agree with the points stating that it is far to early to create an article on a generation of consoles that haven't even been released yet, and will not be until the distant future. Given the article is based on History of gaming consoles, it seems to me ridiculous to classify yet-to-be released consoles within a history-based article. When we reach that generation, of course, but now isn't that time. Bungle44 19:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - per Kchase T. While this article is speculation, it is verifiable speculation with confirmation from the director and manager of Nintendo, the president of Microsoft's entertainment and devices division, and the vice president of technology at Sony. Consoles are planned years before they are released. Jecowa 19:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - I initially thought this page was a bit pointless - I thought it was just ropey speculation about stuff that doesn't exist yet - but it's got sourced statements and there definitely is some useful content. The gaming companies are already planning ahead to the next-gen and as time goes on more and more solid facts will arise. Cut out or source the more ropey speculation about names and particularly speculation about Apple - there's barely any evidence at all for an Apple console. Sum0 20:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The problem is that the solid facts won't arise for a few years, and even if companies are currently planning on releasing sequels (which the no doubt are since none of them are going to leave the business without reason) that might change depending on how well each console sells. There was lots of speculation about the Dreamcast 2 afterall. Koweja 20:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Just because it was hinted at doesn't mean it's confirmed. This page means nothing. Lemmy12 20:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dionyseus 23:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-user of these things, this was really 'nocontext' to me - and it smacked of crystalballin' as well. SkierRMH,01:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Full moon cycle

Full moon cycle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable astronomical term. The entire article is an amazing example of original research. Tom Peters (talk • contribs) and Karl Palmen (talk • contribs) have been the main contributors. Not sure why this wasn't caught earlier... Gzkn 09:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Note, I was looking at this version when I nominated. Jmax took out the most eggregious OR violations, but seeing as how Tom and Karl basically built the article from the start ([19]), I still think it's original research. Maybe someone can convince me otherwise... Gzkn 09:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep

As one of the main authors of the article I obviously think it should stay.

• On the term: the cycle has been known "forever", but does not appear to have had a proper name. Karl Palmen needed a name to refer to this particular cycle so he invented one; mind that originally we called the article "fumocy" but that was changed to "full moon cycle" just because the term was not well known, even though the cycle is. A similar example: the term snowclone was recently minted on an on-line forum to describe an existing phenomenon, got an article on Wikipedia, which was submitted for deletion, but apparently prevailed. I propose to separate issues with using a neologism, from the subject and its Wikipedia article itself.
• On original research: The variation in the apparent size of the Moon has been discussed in recent popular-astronomy publications as referenced in the article. The latter part of the "full moon cycle" article on using the cycle to more accurately predict the syzygies is recent "original" work (application or invention rather than "research"), but that happened among some people on a mailing list and not in the context of the Wikipedia. So I ask these questions: what is considered research (as distinct from other original work) and when does it stop to be "original" and becomes acceptable to each and every editor on Wikipedia?
• On acceptance: googling shows many rip-offs from Wikipedia. Of potential relevance to this discussion is that the article has been translated into several other languages, so obviously several people found it of sufficient interest to bother doing a translation. The first non-wikipedia use of the term that I found was http://individual.utoronto.ca/kalendis/hebrew/suggest.htm ; admittedly that is on the website of a member of the same mailing list so he was familiar with the term; but again I think we should separate use of the neologism from the use of the cycle.

Tom Peters 12:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks Tom. Questions: were those calculations/tables in the article published elsewhere before they were put into this article? Do you know of any publication that discusses the Full moon cycle? Gzkn 00:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment — The topic is valid and encyclopedic, although obscure. At least some parts of the text appear original, although I have by no means checked all the details. Exact computation of the lunar orbit has a long history, so I'm leaning toward a keep unless it can be demonstrated that this is hogwash. — RJH (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Not hogwash; although "fumocy" is a neologism. The data here are correct as far as I can see; and useful, which is why the article is on my watchlist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Please see full moon and new moon as well. These have similar problems. Lunokhod 00:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Remove all original research, or delete. I do not have a problem with the content of this article, and I suspect that it is probably correct. Therein lies the problem, it is probably correct, but unverifiable unless one redoes the calculations himself. Nevertheless, it is wikipedia policy that encyclopedia entries should not contain original research, or even a synthesis of established facts (see Wikipedia:No_original_research). If this article was only a synthesis, I would not care, even though this goes against their policy. However, much what is written is describing new work, albeit, probably uncontroversial. Some of the work on lunar phase, new moon, and full moon has similar concerns. I propose (1) removing all original material or deleting, and (2) I propose that the authors publish this somewhere. Publishing does not have to be in a scolarly journal, and could be in a popular journal like Sky and Telescope (as one example among many). Publishing might also mean a web site describing the calculations in more detail, but this would be more gray. Lunokhod 00:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - interesting, yes, but not written in an encyclopedic manner that would explain the charts & graphs to a non-expert. There does seem to be historical precedent, so a good re-write to get rid of OR would bring this up to snuff. SkierRMH,01:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South Park slash

South Park slash (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

There's no reason for this article whatsoever. If it needs to be on Wikipedia for whatever reason, then it should be in the South Park article. It seems like a page for fangirls to list reasons as to why South Park slash is "canon". It is highly pro-slash, and touting it as if it is true to the series. However popular it may be among DeviantArt and Fanfiction.net users, South Park slash is in no way popular or notable enough to garner its own Wiki article. cma 09:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete fanfic, the end. Danny Lilithborne 09:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No reliable sources = no notability = no article. But I smell something worse than fanfiction here, all the participants are minors... no slash fiction on, say Mr. Garrison and Big Gay Al? Or Kyle's dad and Stan's dad? Principal Victoria and Miss Chokesondik? Just the kids? Maybe I'm naive, but how many females get off on gay male kiddie porn stories? Hmmmm.... Tubezone 09:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no sources, no notability Riana 10:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
• Delete - not npov, no sources, doesn't warrant its own article anyway... --Mnemeson 10:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fanfic, fancruft. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 15:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no need for this to be an article on its own. Lemmy12 20:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fanfiction exists for just about every cartoon ever made. Wikipedia is not the place to document it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Beefcake! Beefcake! sorry... As a SP fan, I'd heartily say Delete and Kill like Kenny. SkierRMH,01:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ClearSpeed

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

I originally nominated the article for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A7 (non-notability), but the nomination has been contested and there is now some assertion of notability of the subject. I'm not sure it's enough, but I would prefer input from others on this, so I'm moving this to AfD instead. At the moment I suggest deleting this for lack of a sufficient assertion of notability, but I'm willing to be swayed if the article improves. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 11:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep a simple search on Google returns several independent news sites discussing this company. Being a stub is not a criteria for deletion, needs better sources though and a general improvement and expansion. MartinDK 11:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per MartinDK. --Ixfd64 11:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per MartinDK. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and urge author ton include references to current "buzz" about this in the article. SkierRMH,01:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions and in the list of computers-related deletions. -- Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 12:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of teams and cyclists in the Dauphiné Libéré 2006

List of teams and cyclists in the Dauphiné Libéré 2006 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Cruft: excessive to have a rider roster for ProTour races beyond the Grand Tours. This is the only example of such a roster. Mk3severo 12:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Just as in politics, we don't list the other 200 people that ran for the office and lost, why do we need a list of also-rans for every sporting event. SkierRMH,01:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National Action

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

Article was nominated for speedy deletion per A7, non-notability, but doesn't qualify: the notability of the subject has been asserted. I'm moving this to AfD instead. No opinion, but inclined to keep. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 12:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions and in the list of politics-related deletions. -- Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 12:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable as an extremist politcal party and also for its involvement in violence. There are too many moves to delete extremist movements from Wikipedia these days. They may not win elections but are notable for their critique of modern democracies and should generally be kept in my opinion. Keresaspa 13:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Notable as a well-known neo-Nazi grouplet. Books have been written about them (I Was A Teenage Fascist, for example), veritable reams of newsprint, mentions in parliament. Drett 15:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If you cite the books in the article you won't end up at AFD once again months from now. Uncle G 18:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a bad idea to get rid of such parties' articles. They should be kept and expanded with citations of their histories of violence and anti-liberty rhetoric. Sunshine hurts. But this article should be properly cited and then cloesly monitored to prevent pro-NA POV-pushing and removal of criticism. — coelacan talk — 17:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or delete all other parties that never have been in a parliament Alf photoman 19:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Needs improving with additional sources. I will attempt to wikif. But I don't have access to political reference material.Garrie 00:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and source. A Google News Archive search for "National Action" Saleam comes up with six references [20]. Capitalistroadster 01:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with better sourcing. SkierRMH,02:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Koufax Awards

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

I looked around, and there doesn't seem to be anything notable about this award. The site that hosts the awards pulls in a 1,376,468 on Alexa, and I have not found any non-trivial coverage of the award outside of the blogosphere. It fails WP:WEB and should be deleted. RWR8189 12:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 12:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a part of the blogosphere -- and things in the blogosphere are NOT a priori non-notable -- that draws 134,000 Google hits. And I fail to see the relevance of the award's website to the significance of the award, since the website isn't what's under discussion. For example, traffic ranking for "pulitzer.org" (for the Pulitzer Prize) only hits 170,449, "themanbookerprize.com" (for the Man Booker Prize hits 283,803, and "mysterywriters.org/pages/awards" (for the Edgar Allan Poe Award) hits 830,450. Using the website as some sort of measuring stick to talk about the awards isn't comparing apples and orange, it's comparing apples and power tools. --Calton | Talk 14:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment, it only pulled in a little over 500 unique Google hits, and they were almost exclusively surrounding discussion within the blogosphere. I haven't seen a claim of notability made, it doesn't look as though the award has been subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself, it doesn't seem to have won an award itself, and it doesn't seem to be distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. I just don't see it standing up to WP:WEB.--RWR8189 14:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Unique Google hits are only calculated on the first 1000 Gogle hits, and are thus a near worthless indicator of net existence for any search term that gets more than a 1,000 results (like this one clearly does). No opinion on the award otherwise, but don't dismiss it based on "unique google hits" please. Fram 16:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, per Calton. Guettarda 15:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• I would like to keep although I recognize (as a contributor/cleaner-upper) that sources are thin. I hoped that the 2007 round of voting would get some mainstream notice, but in the interim have found these:

• Blog awards: Like blogs, they're diverse, global and freewheeling Annenberg Online Journalism Review
• Academe September-October 2005 from the American Association of University Professors (side mention -- but print) direct link
• CJR Daily (blog of the Columbia Journalism Review)
• Rake Magazine blog
• Guardian blog

Also note that the website for the awards has changed, affecting its Google rank, and there are at least three separate posts for each year's awards voting process. But I don't dispute that the blog is primarily known for being the host of the awards. --Dhartung | Talk 20:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moshe Aryeh Friedman

Moshe Aryeh Friedman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

• Keep: Multiple, non-trivial, independent references = notable as per WP:N. Geoffrey Pruitt 18:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Clearly WP:Vanity and WP:NN IZAK 12:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for above reasons. IZAK 12:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not vanity but fails WP:BIO anyway. MER-C 12:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • And WP:NOT. IZAK 12:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

How so? MER-C 13:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

For example: Wikipedia is not a soapbox - this guy and the folks who posted this are trying to do a little PR for this totally unkown non-entity. IZAK 13:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

How can you be sure? Remember WP:AGF. MER-C 13:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not sufficiently notable, fails WP:BIO. TSO1D 13:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Rabbi Friedman is a crackpot lunatic whose participation in the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust only serves to aid and abet Anti-Semites who truly believe that The Holocaust never occurred. Friedman has received extensive press coverage over the years from publications worldwide, especially given that newspapers lap up the antics of an "Ultra-Orthodox" Rabbi who seems to team up with the most virulent racists he can find. His participation in the recent Iranian hatefest has been picked up by over 1,200 news reports. As such, claims of non-notability are extremely hard to justify, despite the individual's odious actions. Alansohn 13:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's not the first time he is in the news. I hear his name quite often. Personally I understand and am neutral regarding his actions. There is something to be said for it, and something to be said against it. If he decides to go, I won't be the one to stop him. --169.132.18.248 14:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The 'The Orthodox Anti-Zionist Society ' is an international organzition. Moshe Friedman is the head of that organization in Austria and he was invited to the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust. He is definatly notable. Jidan 14:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - How is this WP:Vanity? He clearly plays a significant role in controversial organization and the article is far from self-promoting. Geoff NoNick 14:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Definitely notable (as per above.)
  It is a borderline case for WP:Vanity. However, its main problem is a fishy adherence to WP:NPOV; but that can, and should be fixed by us, the editors. The article isn't written very well, and I may rewrite it once this debate is over (unless, of course, someone more knowledgable wants to do so.)
  - Dave314159 15:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Disgusting but meets WP:BIO - crz crztalk 15:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - crz crztalk 15:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I am an ultra-Orthodox Jew and an anti-Zionist. That is an extremely small community in itself, maybe numbering into hundreds of thousands of people. I haven't heard of this guy before. This man is an individual with no influence and no following. There may be 50 people at most who acknowledge his little organization. 75.3.230.167 15:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It might be easier to believe this statement if this weren't the user's first and only edit.--Dmz5 17:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: Notability is not subjective (unfortunately). --Howrealisreal 15:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Doesn't look like a vanity page, and probably notable enough. Better to improve this than to delete it. JLeander 15:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: This is a current event, with a person whose name has been cited numerous times relating to this event. There is a picture of him shaking hands with the president of Iran (http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/WORLD/meast/12/12/iran.holocaust.conference.reut/story.rabbi.ap.jpg) in the related article on CNN.com today (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/12/iran.holocaust.conference.reut/index.html) --Gdwessel 15:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Wikipedia records notable individuals though does not necessarily endorses their views. ekantiK ^talk 16:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Multiple, non-trivial, independent references = notable as per WP:N. ccscott 17:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Alansohn. His lunacy is notable. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep also per Alansohn. He may not be that notable to the majority (i didn't even know there was such a thing as a Jewish Holocaust denier), but he's notable enough. Mk623SC20K 18:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep very notable rabbi. KazakhPol 19:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I was disappointed just a few days ago when I tried to find information regarding this nut after I saw a picture of him, in full rabbi regalia, shaking hands with a smiling Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I looked to Wikipedia as always and could not find him. I was happy to see this rectified when I searched for him today! He may not be well known, but he is the first name that anyone has ever put to someone who is altogether Jewish, a holocaust denier, and a supporter of Hamas in the struggle against the state of Israel. That alone makes this rather strange dude notable. Moreover, the page is neutral in tone and factual in content -- this is not vanity. 68.218.8.145 20:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep How is this vanity? Regardless of his views, he is still notable. I think sometimes too much personal opinion affects the voting. MetsFan76 20:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's better that people know that there are wacko's out there, rather than trying to hide the fact. Bunthorne 21:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article deserves to exist, this guy has quite a following and some people might want to learn about him and his views. BTW disagreeing with the Zionist regime does not make you a "wacko". Not every Jewish person has to support Israel.
• Keep, precisely because he is a "wacko" we need an article about him, with a picture. This man is doing a very good job of making neturei karta like total fools, regardless of whether they have a case or not. The article should be worked on. FrummerThanThou 01:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He's notable nutcase. It does need to tone down the WP:POV though. SkierRMH,02:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ku Cari Damai Abadi

Ku Cari Damai Abadi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Of dubious notability. At best merge it into the PM's article, but without an English translation I'm not convinced even that is worth it. Akihabara 12:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete without further explation why this poem is notable. ccscott 17:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Even if the fourth Prime minister is himself notable, which is a given, that does not make everything that he writes separately notable. --Anthony.bradbury 00:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete w/ a mention of this in Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Also delete all of James Madison's grocery lists lists you come across ;) SkierRMH,02:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Run your boy

Run your boy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable gamecruft. Wikipedia is not a how-to site, not for things made up in school (or over the Internet) one day. Prod-warning added by Wafulz was removed by anon. Riana 13:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This is demonstrably a game-guide/how-to-guide. Wikipedia's not for those. Serpent's Choice 14:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 14:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a game guide—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Koweja (talk • contribs) 14:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
• Delete: I'm not sure whether run ur boy is made up in Internet one day or a widespread strategy in the game, but the topic is simply too specialised to warrant its inclusion. —Goh wz 14:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - WP:Complete Bollocks The Kinslayer 14:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; not a game guide because it does not say how-to, but it also doesn't say anything worth keeping. — brighterorange (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It's been considerably altered since I nominated it. riana_dzasta 18:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Doesn't make a difference, except now it sounds self-promotional as well. The Kinslayer 19:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I would say merge into the game's article, but it's so poorly done it's worth a delete. Lemmy12 20:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• im in ur wikipedia deletin ur articlez Danny Lilithborne 21:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete tactic in one very obscure internet game. WP:NOT a game guide applies nicely here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as prodder. No reliable sources=no article. --Wafulz 00:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Posted on talk page by Hawkki.
• "Why delete!? This is almost as big a thing as All Your Base.. and it has a page in wiki !!! Why can not this get a page? Forget about deleting."
  • To address this: AYB has numerous references in popular culture and citations- far more than this article. They key is verifiable material. --Wafulz 00:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Verifiable? So how widespread must the meme be before it is accepted? 10 users recognizing it? 100? 1000? 1000000? You cannot draw such "lines in the water". You must have something concrete. So many times have i seen people ask what someone meant with "run your boy", and thats why i initially created the wiki article. Fortunately, someone who actualy CAN write in english has reformatted it, so it looks professional. And meets all standards of a article in wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hawkki (talk • contribs) 01:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
  • Verifiable means there are reliable sources written about it. It has exactly nothing to do with how many people have heard of it- like you said yourself, it has to be concrete. And it meets none of the standards of a Wikipedia article- it needs verifiability, no original research, and must have a neutral point of view. Since it has no independent publishings about it, it is effectively original research and inherently non-neutral. --Wafulz 01:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't even fall into game guide category as there's no "guide", so it passes the Fails everything test. SkierRMH,02:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tournament of Champions

Tournament of Champions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable informal poker tournament involving a few people. Moved from speedy since it asserts some significance in its regional area, and it appears it wants to grow. Note that I have requested to move Tournament of Champions (disambiguation) to this page. Tinlinkin 13:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - not notable - NB. a note for others not to confuse this with World Series of Poker Tournament of Champions, which is notable. Carcharoth 13:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable, and looks like a complete vanity article by the creators of the event. "what blossomed from those weeks can never be forgotten and will be spoken of for generations to come" (but there were only 8 people involved...) --Maelwys 13:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - Meets CSD A7, does not assert notability. – Anþony  talk  15:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity and CSD A7. TonyTheTiger 22:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity and WP:V, and move Tournament of Champions (disambiguation) to this title. There should be something at Tournament of Champions, but what's there now isn't it. Dave6 01:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - there are thousands of groups that use this title, and this t'aint near the top of that list! SkierRMH 02:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers in music

Numbers in music (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Unsourced original research. Contested prod. MER-C 13:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge anything salvagable into Music theory. Agent 86 20:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Per nominaion. No sources but if some found put into Music theory as per above Agent 86.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 23:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete' per nom -don't see much to merge into anything else. SkierRMH,02:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Omega terror

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

Vanity press book, not even published when this article was created in October. PROD tag added, but removed without comment by an anon IP. Calton | Talk 13:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Desiresin

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

^{[Check Google hits]} Created, speedied, then re-created. Let's give it a full AfD this time. Non-notable website, fails WP:WEB. No sources that prove notability, almost nothing but blogs in ghits. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 14:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:WEB and nothing in the article shows notability, so I see nothing special about this website that warrants an article. Jayden54 15:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. RGTraynor 16:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aquinas College Perth Academic Studies

Aquinas College Perth Academic Studies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

User:Smbarnzy has not only heavily edited Aquinas College, Perth, but created a beautiful walled garden consisting of the sub-articles

• Aquinas College Perth Academic Studies
• Aquinas College Perth Leadership Structure
• Aquinas College Perth Boarding
• Aquinas College Perth Infrastructure
• Aquinas College Perth School System
• Aquinas College Perth House System
• Aquinas College, Perth Sport,

which I hereby all nominate for deletion. While I recognize the enormous effort Smbarnzy has made, the level of detail is both unprecedented and unencyclopedic. There are no external sources whatsoever given for any of these articles, and while the Aquinas College sources may be accurate enough, this lack of secondary sources may serve as a sign for the lack of notability of the information. As an extreme example, most of the Academic Studies article is a list of the subjects students may choose to take in grades 10-12. If there is anything extraordinary in this list (such as, say, "Religious Formation"), the article offers no information about it (while the main Aquinas College article does). Concerning a possible merge, I feel that for each of the topics the main article already contains an adequate summary. Huon 14:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge Back salvagable notable info Aquinas College, Perth article, provided it doesnt duplicate info already in main article. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 14:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Delete - I agree with Arnzy, the best course of action would be to merge all the useable information with the main article about the college and the delete these articles. Jayden54 15:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep while I recognise that User:Huon has acceptible/valid reasons for requesting deletion, some of these articles are expandable to encompass more than just Aquinas College. Merging back into Aquinas College isnt an option as these are the result of stripping Aquinas College down from this version diff only a couple of hours before they were nominated for deletion. I had just suggested User:Gnangarra/Aquinas as a way forward for the Aquinas article to those editors, that included making these daughter articles. In this case WP:BITE should also be considered and give the editors time to address WP:N and WP:V reqiurements. Gnangarra 23:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, no merge. The material in these articles is likely verifiable only at the school's website and other outlets associated with the school itself (e.g. the Hockey Club website). Information that can only be verified at primary sources should, in general, not be included at Wikipedia. External sources must take note of any information before we consider it notable enough for inclusion here. Pan Dan 23:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless verifiable sources can be found for this article such is who was Dux. Same with the associated articles. Capitalistroadster 01:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Postcards from the Grave

Postcards from Grave (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

the article is about a little known book which appears to no longer be in print KarlXII 14:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - can't find a lot about it on Google or anywhere else, and nothing shows that this book is notable in any way. Jayden54 15:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The book's actual title is Postcards from the Grave, note. Uncle G 18:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and rename to Postcards from the Grave, over 3000 google hits if you use the right title. A little Wikifying would not hurt either. Alf photoman 19:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Moved the article. Found two sources that prove notability. This article just needed a Deletionist like me to fix it. :) --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 21:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Endicott

Bill_Endicott (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Not notable. DigitalEnthusiast 20:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep A Top 5 finish in arguably the world's most famous car race confers notability. Just because it happened 90 years ago doesn't cancel this out. Caknuck 16:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Caknuck. Readro 17:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Reading of Wikipedia:Notability (people) states that "competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in... activities that are themselves considered notable" satisfy WP:N. It would seem to me that the Indy 500 would qualify and thus the article should stay. ccscott 17:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Cacknuck and CcScott... though I tend to think that the most famous race would be the Monaco GP Alf photoman 19:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Which is why I stated "arguably". I knew someone would mention Monaco, the 24 Hours of Le Mans, the Daytona 500 or the Paris Dakar Rally. Can't cater to everybody ;) Caknuck 22:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep clearly notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caitlin Ramirez

Caitlin_Ramirez (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

DO NOT DELETE - Caitlin appeared for well over a year and is Hector's daughter, so she may return. Kogsquinge 08:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Claudia Cortez

Claudia_Cortez (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• STRONG delete: C. Cortez appeared on BB for less than a year; not notable.Yrgh 10:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)yrgh

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Christian Ramirez

Dr._Christian_Ramirez (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• STRONG delete: Dr. C.R. appeared on BB for a FEW months; less than a year. NOT notable per Wikipedia standards.Yrgh 09:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)yrgh

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Efreeko

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

This company does not appear to show notability. --Alex 15:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Neither a search for efreeko.co.uk nor a search for efreeko returns any results. The website does, in fact, exist, but based on the results of my two google searches and WP:WEB (as it is a web-based nonprofit service) and WP:CORP, specifically The club, society, or organization has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the club, society, or organization itself, it doesn't even approach the required level of notability. Srose (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The site has been listed with Google and is awaiting the bot to visit.

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. As noble as this companies goals seem, the subject does not satisfy WP:CORP or WP:N. The article can be recreated if and when reliable sources (i.e. newspapers) take notice of the organization. ccscott 17:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

We are not a company. We are two individuals webdesigners who have created this site.

[edit] Erica Lovejoy

Erica_Lovejoy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

STRONG delete: Lovejoy appeared on BB for less than a year. Not notable per Wikipedia standards.Yrgh 09:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)yrgh DO NOT DELETE : Erica was in a MAJOR storyline in 2002 and is the daughter of Sheila Carter, who is one of the most well known soap villains ever. Kogsquinge 08:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:FICT. Minor fictional character in a soap opera. Fancruft with unencyclopedic level of detail. No sources listed. Parent article probably contains quite enough about this character, with no need to merge. Barno 19:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Parent article The Bold and the Beautiful contains thousands of words of excessive detail not needed for WP. Cleanup recommended per WP:FICT. Barno 19:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formula One Podcasts

Formula One Podcasts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Just a listing of podcasts having to do with F1. Too specific a topic to ever have a decent article on. Recury 18:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Formula One. Verifiable topic but too minor for its own article. No sources listed except primary source material. Almost no encyclopedic content, mostly just a directory which Wikipedia is not. Barno 19:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gabriela Moreno Forrester

Gabriela_Moreno_Forrester (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• DO NOT DELETE: Gaby was only on the show for a short time, but was in a front-burner storyline. Kogsquinge 08:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Then you should be able to cite sources that prove that. Currently, the article cites no sources at all. How can readers check that this soap opera character even existed, let alone did all of the things that the article says that she did? Uncle G 18:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harold Evensky

Harold_Evensky (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Evensky's book "The Investment Think Tank" provides an important contribution to the field of investment theory and practice. So, I see no problem keeping this entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AlbertaSunwapta (talk • contribs) 22:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. Many G-hits, including links to USAToday and WSJ articles. I agree that the article is a self-promoting mess, but the subject's certainly notable and the article's referenced to death. RGTraynor 16:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I-Am-Bored.com

I-Am-Bored.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Not notable website, little or no content to discuss. -Gdavidp 17:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete The site actually has a remarkably high Alexa rank (3,503), but I can't imagine what could possibly be said about it to fill out an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• It-Is-Deleted per nom. No assertion of notability. RGTraynor 16:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The site seems to be somewhat popular (Alexa rank of 3,503 [21] & ~579,000 Ghits for "i-am-bored.com" [22]). --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep High Alexa rating, interesting site. Edison 21:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Akihabara 22:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pywikipedia

Pywikipedia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Delete from namespace anyway. Perhaps this should be an article in WP space but I think it needs to prove notability to remain in namespace and I cannot currently find any sign of this? --BozMo talk 12:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Move to Wikipedia:Pywikipedia utcursch | talk 13:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Move to Wikipedia:Pywikipedia, I agree with BozMo about lack of notability for article namespace. Umeboshi 15:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to MediaWiki or even MetaWiki. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 21:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rockstars 2006

Rockstars_2006 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete. Article contains non-notable event which did not occur anyway. Reads like an advertisement. Gamesmaster G-9 21:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Poorly-worded and reads like it's been ripped off froma press release. The Kinslayer 09:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Make a website, not a Wiki. Lemmy12 20:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. If most of the tour occured as it seems to have then keep as a group of notable people unless there is a precedent against actual rock tours of notable people. TonyTheTiger 22:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I'm pretty sure you wont find individual articles for each tour a group has done. The Kinslayer 23:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steffy Forrester

Steffy_Forrester (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Strong delete: Steffy only appeared on BB for a FEW months (less than a year); NOT notable!Yrgh 09:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)yrgh

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tribute to the Troops

Tribute to the Troops (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete: This is a normal RAW except it is either done in Iraq or Afghanistan. Davnel03 19:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Should only be a note on the Raw page. --James Duggan 21:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per previous deletions of similar articles. Croctotheface 00:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Recurring but not inherently notable by itself. A section in the raw article for certain though. NegroSuave 05:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Should be on a wrestling Wiki instead, and just a note on the Raw article here. RobJ1981 06:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Aaru Bui ^DII 09:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Soft Keep I don't really see anything wrong with this article. Infact over a period of time (a few years) it would get bigger and look a better article. I shall add a link to it on the WWE Raw page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Govvy (talk • contribs) 12:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Comment It doesn't matter how the article looks. It is a special event raw that doesn't deserve it's on page. It deserves mention on the RAW page.

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dayton datlowe

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

This biography does not appear to meet notability standards and a large section at the end of the article, Relations, is mainly not biographical. If not deleted, it should at least be cleaned up and moved to a properly capitalized name. Regards, Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 15:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Aside from the obvious problems, this unreferenced article does not satisfy WP:N and does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) in my opinion. ccscott 17:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Agreed. It has no significance save to the person who wrote it. -- Kerowren 18:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Not enough information to establish notability. SteveHopson 21:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kari Keegan

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

NN actress. Fails WP:BIO. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Subject's IMBd profile lists four film credits over 15 years, only two of which can be construed as notable. Unless I'm missing something, then her body of work fails WP:BIO per nom. Caknuck 16:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. When "Biker Girl" and "Former Girlfriend" are the hallmarks of her career, that pretty much defines insignificance. RGTraynor 16:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. She was apparently the female lead in Jason Goes To Hell: The Final Friday. I'm not voting here as I don't know the film and don't know how significant it is considered to be, but it is part of a pretty well-known series. Loganberry (Talk) 23:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mick Love

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

An article on this individual has previously been deleted by AfD under the name "Michael Love", see here. However, based on comments on the creator's talk page, I believe the content may be significantly different. While his career as a member of the Old IRA and a soldier in the Irish Army seems to have been interesting, I don't seen any evidence of him being particularly notable. The biggest claim to fame is his involvement in the Easter Rising. A google search for "Michael Love" "Easter Rising"[23] only turns up two comments on message boards and there is no evidence given that he was a significant figure on the republican side in 1916. Anyway, fails WP:BIO. -- IslaySolomon | talk 15:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, violates WP:NOT#IINFO. The ONLY G-hit referencing this fellow is the Twelve Apostles Wikipedia article, and his name doesn't show up in the excellent and comprehensive history of the time written by Seumas MacManus. RGTraynor 16:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Actually, the content is pretty much identical to that of Michael Love (AfD discussion) and was created by the same editor. Uncle G 18:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Royales

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

Are notable how, exactly? Article does not assert notability, and they do not actually seem to have done anything. Google only gives some Athenian band - wrong continent, I'm afraid. Moreschi 16:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Failure to assert notability. —ShadowHalo 16:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Less than 140 G-hits, most of which do not actually refer to this band, and most of which do are blog entries. Fails WP:MUSIC, no evidence of major tours, charted hits, gold albums, or any other element of WP:MUSIC. RGTraynor 16:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - RGTraynor pretty much sums it all up; fails WP:MUSIC and nothing that shows that this band is notable. Jayden54 17:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Perhaps you should add 5star Fallout to this nom. Very similar story; might be a walled garden. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark David Brown

Mark David Brown (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Get Musical (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable biography, no Google hits, probably vanity autobiography. I also nominate his tuition system, Get Musical, also written by User:getmdb, which seems to be non-notable, no sources are provided. The ABRSM, to which it claims to be affilated, has no information on it. Huon 15:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both No assertion of notability. Fails WP:V and WP:COI. Caknuck 16:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per A7; no assertion of notability. Less than 20 unique G-hits on Google UK, most of which in fact do not refer to this fellow. The lead hit that does, ironically enough, is from a Missing Persons site. RGTraynor 16:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per RGTraynor. Danny Lilithborne 21:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warranty handling in the automotive industry

Student essay so far from being an encyclopedia article that the best thing is to delete and wait for a proper article. (Note that the author is a student at the Norwegian School of Management. It might be a good idea to check the work of the other students.) -- RHaworth 16:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete a How-to Akihabara 22:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baxter's Bus Lines

Baxter's Bus Lines (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable company, removed from the public transport network since article created. This article is effectively advertising. Joestella 17:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, as it "effectively" does not mention any of its current, nn services, only what it did when it was of note. If nothing else, move to a List of bus operators in Sydney, a to-be-existant spin-off of Buses_in_Sydney#List_of_current_bus_operators_in_Sydney. -- Zanimum 17:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The article amounts to advertising for a non-notable company. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doc Tropics (talk • contribs) 17:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Once notable, always notable. The fact that this company in Australia has divested its commuter operations does not detract from the fact that it was clearly notable when it was a commuter operator. A factual, NPOV article is not an advertisement. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The company used to operate public transport but now it doesn't. Does it meet WP:CORP? If it does the article should be improved. If not it should be deleted. PS can someone who knows how add it to Australian Articles for Deletion watchlist?Garrie 00:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Truthbringertoronto. Rebecca 00:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factory: The Musical

Factory: The Musical (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Prod removed without comment. Supposedly a film. I can find no indication it even exists. Certainly appears never to have been released. Based on 15-minute length, and the plot summary involving orphans, communists, and a Ninja overseer who turns out to be a wizard, I'm guessing amateur production by very young filmmakers. Not verifiable, no sources, not remotely notable. Fan-1967 17:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Note Based on names used, and some deleted article history, it appears that This is the filmmaking crew. Fan-1967 17:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping this would have been made by people in a non-English speaking country, given the babelfish quality of the text, but apparently not....--Dmz5 19:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on the Talk page, they're 14. Junior high is kind of like a foreign country. Fan-1967 21:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please Do Not Delete This Is A Real Movie. It Will Be Released On Video & DVD In The Next Few Months. That Is Not The Film Making Crew. I For One Am A 30 Year Old Film Producer—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Woomoobs57 (talk • contribs).
  • In general, thirty-year-old film producers do not make movies about communist ninja wizards, set years before communism was invented. Fan-1967 18:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• The coomusists in this film are luddites, a very early form of communism.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Woomoobs57 (talk • contribs).
  • If you believe that, you really need to study harder in history class. Fan-1967 18:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If your done insulting my inteligence, sorry mr clever, were not as clever as you are. this is a real film, it would be an outrage to delete this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Woomoobs57 (talk • contribs) 2006-12-13 18:12:33 (UTC)

• Laughing, but strong delete - and salt - no assertion of notability, the reasons given by the nominator, and WP:NOT a crystal ball. Moreschi 18:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - and it appears that this comes awfully close to being patent nonsense.--Dmz5 19:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Just the plot summary. I'm tempted to BJAODN that one. Fan-1967 19:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not on IMDb. Lemmy12 20:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ice helmet

I submitted this to proposed deletion, on the grounds that the article cited no sources, and there is no indication that the single movie prop mentioned was even called an ice helmet. The linked-to article doesn't even contain the word "helmet", and doesn't support this article at all. At the time, I also added a request for sources. The author, Salad Days (talk • contribs), who has recently given us earwig helmet, Beekeeping helmet (AfD discussion), and (deleted--Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)), removed both the {{prod}} and the request for sources without comment. It appears that not even the article's author has any sources that back this up. Uncle G 18:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Moreschi 19:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. joke. `'mikkanarxi 19:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I think this is pretty obvious. A prop worn in one scene from one movie is hardly notable. Article is one in a slew of joke/tantrum "helmet" submissions made one day. Wavy G 22:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. this is a joke. TSO1D 22:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Close WP:SNOW. Just H 23:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Garry Newman

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

Minor computer game / software developer. Only references are own site, blog and forum. Deizio talk 18:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity entry for non-notable individual. Doc Tropics 19:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Havin' a Wonderful Delete Danny Lilithborne 21:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Doesn't seem notable enough to have an article, although I did find a few minor press mentions (Google News) but doesn't pass WP:BIO Jayden54 21:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• De-1337 as per nom. Pete.Hurd 22:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Facepunch_Studios, Facepunch Studios has been deleted several times, this is more vanity advertising. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; also consider deletion of Garry's Mod. JDoorjam Talk 00:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Buss

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

NN actor. Fails WP:BIO. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non Notable actor. Obina 22:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Zirkle

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

Delete Non notable perennial losing primary candidate--LyonsTwp,IL. 18:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO you have to win to be notable for the political activity, and there is no other claim to notability Bill Boaks he ain't. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

My comments - Tony Zirkle is mentioned on both the Wikipedia article about Representative Chris Chocola and appears to have been a topic of discussion within the Talk section. Within the talk section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chris_Chocola#Tony_Zirkle), Bachs states "If someone wanted to link to a Tony Zirkle wiki entry that lists all of his known political views that is fine".

You do not have to win to be notable for a political activity. Cite Wikipedia's WP:BIO sub page on Candidates and Elections -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Candidates_and_elections -- "This is not a reason to delete candidate articles if the only problem is that the election article has yet to be written. Merger of the candidate articles into the election article may well improve Wikipedia."

Although the article is not as complete as I'd like it to be, it does provide preliminary documentation of Zirkle's views.

Also cite an "accepted" losing candidate page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Forchion

~~ jclayc ~~

[edit] Mingo ambient musician

Mingo ambient musician (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

I can find no indication of notability, and these websites hardly constitute reliable sources. The article does not assert notability, and Ghits are virtually non-existent. At any rate would seem to fail WP:MUSIC. Moreschi 18:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. —ShadowHalo 22:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conservative Halakha

Strong delete, Conservative Judaism and Jews rely on traditional Halacha when they seek a ruling, all Halacha books by and for conservaive Jews cite traditional Halacha sources. FrummerThanThou 19:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - crz crztalk 19:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Clarification what the nom means, apparently, is that this article is a WP:POVFORK of Halakha. No opinion on that yet. - crz crztalk 19:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious merge to Halakha - crz crztalk 20:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Crz. Unsure on spelling though. Just H 20:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep – from what I understand, Conservative Judaism does follow its own "halakha," which is partially derived from Orthodox halakha, but is definitely separate. --Eliyak T·C 20:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • So let's make it a section in Ortho halakha. (As far as I understand, it's essentially the same, anyway) - crz crztalk 20:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to Conservative view of Halakha or something like that. I think the topic deserves its own article, but nom is correct (at least in theory - in practice is another story...) that they do not have their own fundamentally different halakhic corpus. --DLand^TALK 20:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and/or rename - too large to merge.--Sandy Scott 20:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep This should not be in an RfD. There isn't even a claim that the material doesn't meet the usual criteria of WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS. The reason given for deletion -- that Conservative Jews do not have an approach to Halakha distinct from Orthodoxy -- represents a POV and is simply not a valid AfD criterion since it simply doesn't address the question of whether the content is encyclopedic (many reliable sources think the two don't approach things identically, but that's a separate issue.) The only question is where this content should be -- as a stand-alone or as part of another article, such as Conservative Judaism, Conservative responsa, Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, or Halakha. This question should be addressed in an AfM discussion, not an AfD. Finally, the Conservative movement made a very controversial decision last week about the issue of homosexuality. This article is the only place in Wikipedia that contains a detailed discussion of that decision. The AfD process should not be used to eliminate valid information about controversial (and notable) topics. Deletion is completely inappropriate. Speedy Keep. --Shirahadasha 22:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:POVFORK is a fine, if infrequently invoked, reason for deletion. You can't blame Frummer for not properly referring to it - he's a relative n00b - hence my insightful commentary immediately below the nom. Oppose speedy keep. - crz crztalk 01:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Depends. It depends on what is on the Halakha page. On the one hand, it is a POV fork and violation of policy if the resulting Halakha page had only, or predominantly, the Orthodox POV and not all halakhic POVs represented equally and fairly. On the other hand, if the Halakha page described Halakha and fairly summarized Conservative, Orthodox, and any other points of view (with pointers to specific articles for more detail), then there certainly is enough material about Conservative Halakha to merit its own page, like Conservative Judaism and Conservative Responsa. EqualsMCSquared 23:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Park at Burton-in-Kendal

The Park at Burton-in-Kendal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable private house/guest house. I grew up a mile away from Burton and have never heard of it. Zero Google hits other than this article, its own website and a planning application or two. Blisco 20:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete pn Akihabara 23:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ahlam (band)

• Delete Doesn't seem notable by WP:MUSIC. Just H 20:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep only if citations are found. Lemmy12 20:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 3 albums out, worked with notable producer, fair number of mentions online in English... considering they are/were from Morocco, I would say keep 'em. --Brianyoumans 21:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep citations wold make me more comfortable.... Ccscott 22:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cheryl Bridges Johns

Cheryl Bridges Johns (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Biographical article that provides no claim nor evidence of satisfying WP:BIO. Valrith 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Why, she is 'noted for her contributions'. Whatever they are; the article is kind of close-mouthed about that. --Brianyoumans 21:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• After looking online and finding a bio, I changed my vote to a weak delete. She does seem to have some academic notability, but probably not quite enough. --Brianyoumans 21:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The master ball

The master ball (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Main article Ball Revamped has been deleted Nethac DIU 20:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Poké Ball, dump current contents. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metroid Dread

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

I put this up due to the fact that there is no evidence that this even exists. So, go for it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Everythin' But A Good Time (talk • contribs) 19:23, December 13, 2006.

User:Everythin' But A Good Time started this AFD shortly before he was indef blocked for vandalism, but I don't know enough about Metroid Dread to invalidate the debate offhand. Canderson7 ^(talk) 20:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - There hasn't been anything on this game in nearly a year, and the last substantiated reports said that it was cancelled...not that there was ever much substantial information on this game anyways. — BrotherFlounder (aka DiegoTehMexican) 20:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sustainable Fashion

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

This is unreferenced OR, and may be a copyvio. — BrotherFlounder (aka DiegoTehMexican) 20:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Galactic (computer game)

Galactic (computer game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

a "rare" game for the Amiga, distributed only with a computer magazine in 1994. I shall dare the wrath of Amiga enthusiasts everywhere and say, "Non notable". Prod contested. Brianyoumans 20:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Stavros Fasoulas, who is somehat notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Galactic is already mentioned in the Fasoulas article. --Brianyoumans 23:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of maps in Battlefield 2

List of maps in Battlefield 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Looking back at the first nomination, I have no idea how so many people could actually think of keeping this gamecruft. Aside from the fact that the text appears to be copyrighted, the article itself only documents an aspect of gameplay which can easily be discussed summary style in the main article: the very definition of a game guide. The original nomination also cited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of maps in Company of Heroes and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of multiplayer maps in Halo 2 as precedent for deletion. If that isn't enough to convince you, try to remember some of Wikipedia's major tenets: WP:V, WP:NOT and WP:NOR Axem Titanium 20:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sue Richards (artist)

Sue Richards (artist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This person is hardly notable. Superdix 20:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• My experience has been that Richards has been using Wikipedia for personal promotion (especially of her blog). To me, "Breast of Canada" seems notable, but that might be because I am also from Guelph. Remaining neutral for now, though I would be willing to move to delete if convinced. Andy Saunders 21:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I've added a few of the multiple references I could find for this subject. She has been discussed in multiple, non-trivial and independent sources thus making her notable as per WP:N. This meets the primary criterion for notability and therefore the article should stay. Ccscott 22:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ninja vs Samurai

Ninja vs Samurai (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

one non-canonical user created map from a video game. Not verifiable, not notable, and includes primarily gameguide material. i kan reed 21:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. --Tarret 21:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I actually thought I'd tagged this for prodding yesterday, but I guess not. -- Kicking222 21:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - definitely not notable Chovain 23:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Derivations of conic sections

Derivations of conic sections (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This article seems to fall under the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: Instruction Manuals" section of the What Wikipedia is not guideline. It's essentially an instruction manual for how to derive the conic sections formulae from geometric definitions.

[edit] Baka (insult)

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

Article, while long, is little more than a dicdef with a lot of examples and therefore should be transwikied to Wiktionary and deleted here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge anything relevant to Otaku, if anything, and Delete Danny Lilithborne 01:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pierre Joubert

Pierre Joubert (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Bump from speedy. Suggest merging to a new article on the Joubert family, if relevant. Note: If deleted, Pierre Joubert (illustrator) should be moved back. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-13 22:19Z

• As a person who speedied it twice, I wholeheartedly agree with either a delete or maybe a merge. How notable is this Joubert family, anyway?--Thomas.macmillan 22:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evil Tutorial

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

Obviously a pointless page. Shall I count the ways this fails WP tests? Fails WP:NOT and WP:NOR, as far as I can see. David Fuchs 22:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - sigh. Ccscott 22:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nonsense because that's what is is. Whispering 01:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as nonsense per CSD G1. Agent 86 01:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete garbage, burn it. Danny Lilithborne 01:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book of marshall

Book of marshall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. JudahBlaze 22:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The page Book of marshall is tied with the traditions of Donald A. Wilson Secondary School. It is not just something randomly made up in school. It is, in fact, a very important part of the football team.

• After the AfD notice was posted, I saw the link to the Donald A. Wilson school in the article. There is no mention of the Book of marshall on the website. --JudahBlaze 22:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: A google search for "book of marshall" and "david wilson" returns no results. Dylan Lake 23:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Whether made up today, last month, or last year, it's still an inside joke made up at school one day that lacks any sort of encyclopedic value. Agent 86 23:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 01:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romanian Swadesh list

Romanian Swadesh list (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Bump from speedy. The article is not patent nonsense; it is translation of the Swadesh list to Romanian. Probably not useful to have translations of this list to every language though. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-13 23:02Z

• Delete per nom Subwayguy 23:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eloka Asokuh

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

Also nominating Jonathan Minnock, Shane Bradley, David Bell (footballer), Anthony Gorman, Matthew Crossan, Tom Mohan, Marc Mukendi, Fergal Harkin. All of these are footballers who play or have played for Finn Harps F.C., a non-professional Irish club. None of them have played at professional level. Oldelpaso 22:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Oldelpaso 23:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. HornetMike 00:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Angelo 01:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Kelly (artist)

Dave Kelly (artist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This article does not meet the notability guidelines for people as set out in WP:BIO (see User:Quirex's analysis) or WP:Notability. Jacj 23:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it, since all of the sources are web pages affiliated with the entry's subject, it also violates WP:OR. --Jacj 23:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] People from Plymouth

• Delete At best, this should be merged into the parent article, but there isn't alot there to merge. I mean, Napoleon? I know whenever I think of Napoleon, the first thing I think of is Plymouth, England... Just H 23:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pedro Camargo

Pedro Camargo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Bump from speedy. Possibly notable; does need major cleanup. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-13 23:22Z

[edit] Daio Wasabi Farm

Daio Wasabi Farm (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Bump from speedy. Time magazine says Daioh Wasabi Farm is one of the country's largets farms [24]. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-13 23:28Z

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as it certainly seems notable enough (either through being featured in Kurosawa's film or due to being a touristy spot). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I've done a bit of cleanup on the article, added a couple more references, a link, and Fg2 and Neier have added a bit to it as well. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin Dwyer

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

Vanity biog for nn composer. Fails WP:COI and fails to meet WP:MUSIC Pathlessdesert 23:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chronological list of anime

Chronological list of anime (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This article is another attempt at creating List of anime, List of Animes, etc. While it does a better job than previous attempts, it is still redundant. Categories under Category:Anime by date of first release and Category:Anime series already list anime by release date and listing studio and directors outside of the articles is creating unneeded duplication. There are over 4000 anime articles. If even a quarter of these are Anime series, OVAs and movies then the list would have to be 1000 lines long to be complete and would be too difficult to maintain. Squilibob 23:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete As the original creator of this entry, I admit in hindsight it was a bad idea, and it should be removed. Quiddity99 00:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Quiddity99

[edit] South Melbourne Cecil Street

A minor street in South Melbourne, not notable for anything out of the ordinary. -- Longhair\^talk 23:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 23:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

DeleteNo assertion of notability. Unless it is improved with some real assertion to being of historical interest. If the buildings on the street are of historic they deserve their own article. If there are enough articles relating to buildings on this street then recreate the article and link them together.Garrie 00:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)