Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 6

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

The result was Speedily Deleted by Zsinj under G4, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of automobiles that were commercial failures. Vary | Talk 15:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of commercial failures in the automotive industry

List of commercial failures in the automotive industry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This article, like its predecessor List of automobiles that were commercial failures, suffers from dealing with a completely undefined concept. There are no definitions of what constitutes a failure and the article will inherently be prone to speculation and POV conflicts. Unfortunately there is no way to deal with this concept in a manner appropriate for Wikipedia. For the deletion of the preceeding article see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of automobiles that were commercial failures-The rational for deleting this article is the same as that of its predecessor. Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 05:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• deleteThis is largely identical to the prior list and suffers from the same problem, mainly that it is inherently NOT-NPOV, which means that the list can NEVER be NPOV, and so it must go. This isn't merely a clean-up issue, it is subjective as to what can be considered a "failure" and thus, will never be neutral. The article is also nearly entirely unreferenced, and thus fails WP:V. --Jayron32 06:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Vague listcruft. --Brianyoumans 06:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Arbitary listcruft. MER-C 06:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The issue with this sort of article is that it can (and seems to have) turn into a spree of original research and weasel words. There are articles like it that that have been kept (eg. Films considered the worst ever), but they restrict themselves to only those cases that have reliable sources. If reliable sources can be found for a few cases, and if the article is scaled back to only those cases (and entries added only as reliable sources are found), then weak keep. --Interiot 07:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Good point-I agree. As is, the article, does however, face severe OR and POV issues. Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 08:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and salt; it qualifies under CSD G4 ("Recreation of deleted material"). Fails to even mention how they were commercial failures (i.e. how much money they lost), never mind provide sources, which would be practically impossible since such info is not made public by manufacturers. --DeLarge 09:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Good call, I didn't notice that. It has a few changes from the original version, but it is substantially a repost of the version discussed in the AfD. It has one extra source, [1] for what it's worth, but it looks like a G4 to me. Tagging it with {{db}}. --Interiot 10:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as a repost of previously AFDed content. It can go through deletion review once proper sources have been established per Interiot. -Mgm|^(talk) 10:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Qualifies under CSD G4, as a re-posting of deleted material, albeit under a new title. The previous AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of automobiles that were commercial failures) was deleted as a result. There are also POV problems, and it's ostensibly original research. If someone has reliable sources for this, then take it to deletion review, but due to lack of references, and the fact it's a re-posting of deleted material, it has to go. --SunStar Net^talk 11:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Waste of time. Who is to say what is a commercial failure and what isn't? ren0^talk 17:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep, original speedy-er retracts, but tagging for expansion. Opabinia regalis 01:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prince Gomolvilas

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

The article was nominated for speedy deletion per A7 (non-notability), but the notability is asserted, so A7 doesn't apply. I'm moving this to AfD instead. No opinion. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 00:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep The article needs to be cleaned up, nevertheless the topic indiviudal seems to be suffiently notable. TSO1D 00:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless reliable sources provided. Article claims lots of things, but that's meaningless unless such claims are sourced. For example, there's a claim about writing screenplays for Paramount, but there doesn't seem to be an IMDB entry under Prince Gomolvilas. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No IMDb entry because he's a playwright, not a filmmaker. Caknuck 02:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Am I correct that a lack of sources is cause to put a tag on the article and then find some sources, rather than to just delete the article? --Dmz5 05:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Usually that is the case, but most articles sent to AfD have other concerns besides verifiability. Caknuck 18:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep A cursory Google search indicates that he has achieved local notoriety. A San Francisco Chronicle article featured the subject this summer. Caknuck 02:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The whole thing is pure of vanity. It makes alot of claims but it has nothing to back it up.--M8v2 03:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:BIO needs two coverages. Also, it's a resume. Unless someone can clean this up, it cries out for deletion. MER-C 05:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Besides that San Francisco Chronicle article on him Caknuck found, a couple of independent write-ups of his work too. [2][3] --Oakshade 05:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A Google search pulls up a bunch of articles in various papers in addition to the ones above. [4][5][6] [7][8]--Prestonkgamble 11:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep WP:CITE per Dmz5, notoriety per Caknuck, Oakshade and Prestonkgamble. --ElectricEye (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Subject of multiple articles, and with recent tweaks is now sourced. --Falcorian ^(talk) 16:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Not notable to me, but (now sourced) clearly is to some people. DavyJonesLocker 21:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep please he is notable for bio guidelines we are not built on paper Yuckfoo 00:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Sharkface217 04:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I was the person who originally tagged the article for speedy deletion, because the article in its original form did not demonstrate the subject's notability. The improvements to the article since then are sufficient to convince me that the subject merits an article on Wikipedia. As things stand, the article is brief enough to warrant marking as a stub, but should not be deleted IMO. --stephenw32768^<talk> 19:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable, but certainly needs work. StayinAnon 07:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. However, it seems clear to me that this should be a redirect to GM Grimm, and I have boldly made it one. Note that this was my own action and not part of closing this AFD. Chick Bowen 17:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gravediggaz (other rap group)

Gravediggaz (other rap group) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC requirements for notability. This group never released any albums or made any news, and both members of the group (GM Grimm and Roc Raida) have their own articles to discuss their later works outside of the group. Additionally, there is a different notable group at Gravediggaz. Brad T. Cordeiro 00:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. If this was a short-lived point in their respective careers, it needs to show some notability other than that it was some brief confluence of hip-hoppers. --Dennisthe2 01:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. But be sure that this information (and that it's not that other Gravediggaz, man that's confusing) is mentioned in both rappers' respective articles. Antepenultimate 02:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:MUSIC point 6. A band is notable if it had a member that is otherwise notable. Seeing as both members have their own article undisputed by the nominee, their notability appears to be a given. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:MUSIC point 6 says "note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." This is an early band that never actually did anything, so a redirect would be appropriate, except for the fact that no one looking for information on GM Grimm or Roc Raida (whose page was copyvio) would search for "Gravediggaz (other rap group)". Brad T. Cordeiro 20:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per MacGyverMagic. --ElectricEye (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per MacGyver. -Toptomcat 12:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The cited point from WP:MUSIC also states that it is 'often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such,' and since this group never even released a recording, I think that applies here. As there are no incoming links and the article is at such an odd location, I don't personally see any need for a redirect, either, although I wouldn't dispute if one were created. A brief mention in the articles on the band's notable members should be plenty. -- Vary | Talk 15:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • A band can be notable even without recordings. Gravediggaz has had notable member(s) and satisfies notability guidelines. Are there any sources? --ElectricEye (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Gravediggaz are not only notable because of its members, they released several albums and were covered in major publications.[9] Gravediggaz (other rap group) never had any albums or any coverage in any publication. I actually can't find any verification that they ever really existed. Brad T. Cordeiro 18:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, it has notable members, but no notability on its own, which is why WP:MUSIC seems to recommend redirecting in a situation like this one. That would make sense were it not for the improbability of anyone ever typing 'Gravediggaz (other rap group)' into the search box. And no, there don't appear to be any sources at the moment. -- Vary | Talk 04:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per Mgm and Vary. --ElectricEye (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Alright, I'm somewhat new here, so maybe I can claim ignorance when I say: How do you reference Vary's entry as reasoning for your keep? Seems in favor of a delete! And then you have a "Strong Keep" with a strikethrough! Instead of creating a "perCrockPot abomination" of "keeps" and "deletes," just say whatever it is you want to say! I'm so confused! Antepenultimate 05:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep As per MacGyver. --Falcorian ^(talk) 16:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Vary. In my mind, Vary's thinking is impeccable. This is not a notable enough act for an article, despite technically passing WP:MUSIC, since they never actually did anything, and a redirect would be pointless since nobody would ever do a search using this phraseology. -- Kicking222 22:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment True, and well put: I'd likely argue inclusion except that keeping this article would do little except encourage confusion. Not worth it for one sentence of information! Antepenultimate 04:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per MacGyver. Sharkface217 04:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The article fails to assert notability and the group has never released any recorded material. Just because someone of questionable notability had something to do with it does not mean it is notable enough to warrant its own article, if that were the case then wikipedia would be knee deep in crap. NeoFreak 18:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I named my rock bad Led Zeppelin, can I have an article too? Danny Lilithborne 22:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Did your band have notable members? ^_^ --ElectricEye (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep on the grounds that they have a notable member. This is because of Wikipedia's policy on music, see guideline No.6. The reasoning is based on a technicality. --SunStar Net^talk 20:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:MUSIC: "It is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such". —ShadowHalo 23:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Yanksox 00:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (Life In) The Public Eye

(Life In) The Public Eye (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

The record company of Raven-Symoné, Hollywood Records, has not confirmed that this will be the next single on Raven's yet to be released album, nor have they confirmed that the song in question even exists. No track listing has been announced, and it is quite apparent that this page was created by someone with very limited knowledge in the subject area, most notably by the fact that they didn't even spell Raven-Symoné's name correctly. This article should be deleted because it is completely unsourced and lacks any supporting information. Rhythmnation2004 00:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• It should also be noted that an unregistered user, whose IP is 141.149.208.218, removed the deletion notice without giving any explanation. Rhythmnation2004 14:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 01:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MER-C 06:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete crystalballcruft. --ElectricEye (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: crystalbollocks Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 17:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Cnriaczoy42 21:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: per above.Bearly541 23:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: unverifiable Drunken Pirate 02:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and all the other coming songs from her album. While we're at it, you might like to check out Category:Upcoming singles. I'm not sure just about any single is worthy of its own article (except for maybe Stairway to Heaven, Another Brick in the Wall, Thriller, etc.) - see WP:DUMB on this one. Patstuart^talk|edits 14:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Crystal ball. NeoJustin 22:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom --61.114.193.19 14:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Kimchi.sg 08:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jessica Betancourt

Jessica Betancourt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Contested prod. Fails WP:PORNBIO Otto4711 19:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Playboy model. Men (and perhaps some women) all over the world likely have slobbered over her. --Oakshade 07:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe so, but does not appear to pass WP:PORN BIO. Delete Ohconfucius 09:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Firstly, as she's not a "pornographic actor," I don't think we apply WP:PORN BIO to this. Secondly, if she doesn't follow strictly WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO guidelines, then I'll cite the WP:BIO clause "just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." In this case, it's warrented. --Oakshade 17:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'll see your cite of the WP:BIO clause and I'll raise you Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a database of all persons. She took off her clothes a few times. Just because she happened to take them off for Playboy doesn't make an article about her warranted. Come up with a better reason than "Men all over the world likely have slobbered over her" for inclusion. Otto4711 21:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• I like that argument, actually. An as for your WP:NOTE argument, not "all persons" have posed in one of the most popular magazines in history. --Oakshade 22:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• I've had men slobber over me. Should I get a Wikipedia article for it? Otto4711 05:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Was it a result of you posing in Playboy? --Oakshade 10:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• No, it was for helping to establish the precedent that posing in Playboy does not in and of itself establish notability. [10] Otto4711 15:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• WP:PORN BIO is clearly meant to cover playboy models, as it's specifically stated (criterion 2) that "Performer has been a Playboy Playmate or a Penthouse Pet, or similar titles in other major magazines.", and as it stands, she fails. Please feel free to offer sources if you feel one of the other criteria may apply to her. Ohconfucius 01:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Exactly! It's criteria for porno ACTORS having modeled in Playboy, not for models. Read the title of WP:PORN BIO carefully: "Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors)". --Oakshade 01:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter whether or not she's a "pornographic actor," it matters whether she's notable enough to be the subject of an encyclopedia article.

We know that and that's what we've been discussing outside of the semantics of "actor" vs. "model". --Oakshade 01:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 00:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. Tulkolahten 01:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO, WP:PORN BIO, and WP:NOTE. TJ Spyke 02:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Some claim to notability for models (nude or non-nude) besides "appearing in two or three spreads in a popular magazine" needs to be made. I don't see that here. Caknuck 02:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete due to insufficient evidence that she satisfies WP:BIO yet. --Metropolitan90 04:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 06:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, appeared as one of many, rather than with any particular prominence. We can't write any more about her than would constitute a basic entry in a list. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to Ógra Fianna Fáil and redirect. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Barry Cumann (AfD subpage)

Kevin Barry Cumann (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

non notable student branch in Irish college, previous precedents set with deletions of articles on college branches of student organisations, suggest merging with Ógra Fianna Fáil Stephenh2312 13:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom with no merge needed. --Metropolitan90 04:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• I would advise against using notability issues as criterion for deletion, it's too disputed. 70.101.146.27 09:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, doesn't appear to be notable, and the long list of presidents feels like a COI. A redirect to Ogra Fianna Fail would be useful. (Radiant) 10:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• [Comments by Ernst Stavro Blofeld 11:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC) formerly placed here have been removed as they pertained to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Finnish films instead. --Metropolitan90 21:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)]

Something gone wrong here? Do these comments belong here or in the AfD just above this one, the one on List of Finnish films? -- 131.111.8.97 02:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I didn't see the List of Finnish films AfD on the same page of the AfD log because this entry appears in the log for both December 3 and December 6. Seeing Blofeld's comments placed in this subpage, with no entry for List of Finnish films nearby, I thought he was commenting on this particular article. I will notify him on his user talk page of what happened. --Metropolitan90 21:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep for the moment, extreme bad faith nomination by Stephenh2312 who seems to be a member of UCD's Young Fine Gael branch from his contributions. (Fine Gael are the main opposition party to Fianna Fail in Ireland.) The KBC article seems to be of good quality and has a relatively long edit list. I went to UCD myself KBC is certainly notable within the context of UCD societies. If there is a Wikipedia policy in place regarding college societies it should be linked and we should make our minds up based on that. Note: I have NEVER voted Fianna Fail in my life so I am not partisan in this, but this is a plain abuse of the AfD procedure. -- Blorg 12:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The most relevant proposed guideline here is WP:ORG. Please assume good faith on the part of the nominator; various other political party organizations at other universities have been deleted through AfD. --Metropolitan90 15:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Blorg. I think it's worth noting that I'm utterly uninvolved in Irish politics. -Toptomcat 13:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as normal, not notable, See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent State University College Republicans, which resulted in a delete, for comparison. — Xroot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Re: Blorgs comment: I'm apolitical. I have friends in Young Fine Gael and I'm familiar with the organisation and I occasionally edit articles on subects relating to them. I'm only going on previous precedents set and users should note I'm suggesting MERGING the article with Ógra Fianna Fáil which currently is a stub. -stephenh2312 22:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would not object to a merge and redirect into Ógra Fianna Fáil, was just concerned by your nomination, apparently after UCD YFG was deleted. Basically all the articles you have edited are to do with Fine Gael, and you have uploaded UCD YFG logos. So you must excuse me if I suspected partisan deletionism! -- Blorg 16:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
  • Comment. Also as you are apolitical I presume you will be listing YFG Letterkenny on AfD which I see you have edited? (for non-Irish readers, Letterkenny is a Donegal town around 1/100th the size of Dublin. -- Blorg 11:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Re: Blorgs's Comment. Because of Blorgs comments I think I'll have to give some background. I'm from a Fianna Fáil voting family. I am friendly with a lot of people in YFG. I'm not sure who I would vote for in a general election, but I'm leaning twords the Green Party. Anyway I noticed in the University College Dublin article that the Kevin Barry Cumann had an article on wikipedia and out of boredom I wrote an article on UCD YFG. The information on this was got from their website. It is the only article I've ever written and in the process I edited one or two others making links to the UCD YFG article. The UCD YFG article was later deleted apparently due to non-notablity and previous precedent. I personally think Wikipedia should change their policy on this but it's up to them. I think this article should be deleted and the relevant bits merged with Ógra Fianna Fáil in a new section say, 'notable branches of'. I understand this would create a precedent of its own and while it would work in Ireland it would lead to an overload of information on articles like Young Democrats in the US or any other party. It's up to Wikipedia. Blorg is accusing me of being partisan but you could look at the other side of the coin and accuse Wikipedia of having double standards. In any case I suggest a MERGE of the more relevant bits of the article -stephenh2312 17:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Blorg. Sharkface217 05:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per plenty of precedent. There really is nowt too special about KBC, just like the vast majority of student societies. Ohconfucius 08:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep until the information can be merged into Ógra Fianna Fáil, then redirect. JamesMLane t c 11:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Ógra Fianna Fáil. There are few reliable secondary sources at the moment, maybe someone with more familiarity could add some? Inner Earth 16:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge FirefoxMan 00:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per original nom. WMMartin 17:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. It was borderline between a merge or a delete, but I am uncomfortable merging something that is completely unreferenced; ergo, delete. Proto::► 11:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Shops at Biddeford Crossing

The Shops at Biddeford Crossing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Keep. Relatively notable development for an area which has not seen something of this magnitude, ever. This deletion request was started by someone out of spite for "strip malls" and his subjective opinion should have no bearing on the existence of this wiki entry.

Southcoast 18:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC) Non-notable place of local interest. Almost an ad. -Nv8200p talk 20:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Biddeford, Maine Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 21:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Canadian Bacon. Yankee Rajput 22:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NOTE. Tulkolahten 17:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. WMMartin 18:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom or Merge per WP:LOCAL. No preference, but I'm not volunteering to do the merge either. :) Xtifr _tälk 02:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- ßottesiηi ^(talk) 18:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as above per WP:LOCAL. JYolkowski // talk 00:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Tulkolahten 01:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge it already and stop relisting, the content can be removed later. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Community consensus is not reached yet ! Tulkolahten 21:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn. meshach 01:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. This is a strip mall rather than an enclosed shopping center, and doesn't even have its own web site. Do not relist this again as part of this same AfD; regardless of the outcome, enough people have commented by now. --Metropolitan90 04:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable because of the loss of wetlands in construction (see also the developer's preservation and restoral of other wetlands), and also because it is largest-ever commercial development in York County, Maine's southernmost county. It added a reference about the wetlands. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No verified claim of notability. Shimeru 10:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, dammit! -Toptomcat 13:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to article on the local geographic/municipal area. At 500,000 sq ft it is only half the size of a typical regional mall and not otherwise architecturally or historically notable. Edison 15:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the article and tear down the strip-mall, too. Frater Xyzzy 18:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. Only source is about wetlands being filled in to make it..... not promising. Shopcruft? Inner Earth 16:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Largest commerical development in Southern Maine with room for growth. Notable for bringing hundreds of jobs to the area and contributing to the local economy. 17:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.13.44.180 (talk • contribs).
• Merge into Biddeford, Maine. Appears to have great significance to the local economy, and appears to be locally controversial. --orlady 17:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP Just needs more info, thank you for your time. Rcehoppe 08:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:CORP, the relevant notability guideline. After 14 days on AFD, if there were sources, we'd have them. Southern Maine is more than just York County, Maine, it also includes at least Cumberland County, Maine (and under some definitions other counties as well), so the largest mall is probably the Maine Mall in South Portland, Maine. (The article on it was deleted under CSD G11.) Article makes the claim that "The strip center is noteworthy for being the site of the first PetSmart in Maine." That is not encyclopedic notability. If we kept the first location of every chain (store, hotel, etc...) in every state we wouldn't be an encyclopedia, we'd be a business directory, contravening the WP:NOT policy. GRBerry 03:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC) (The source page finished loading; the Maine Mall is 1.2 Million square feet, so more than twice as large. This is definitely not the largest mall in Southern Maine. http://www.ggp.com/content/live/aerialfacts/The%20Maine%20Mall_aerialfact.pdf GRBerry 03:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. Looks almost notable enough for its own article, but it does fail notability. Maybe make a section on it in the Biddeford article? --Wizardman 03:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No non-trivial coverage of subject by multiple, reliable published sources. -- Satori Son 06:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Orlady. Montco 06:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable website, WP:WEB refers. (aeropagitica) 06:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turbo island

I appreciate that the article's creator has attempted to demonstrate that this site meets some of the guidelines at WP:WEB. However, I simply don't see how a forum created 4 months ago can have enough "internet presence" to justify an article here. Joyous! | Talk 01:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, urban 75 doesn't count enough for an article based solely on it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete fails WP:WEB, forum is not even on its own domain (http://www.turboisland.proboards106.com).¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per Persian--M8v2 03:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. TSO1D 03:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was CSD G11 - crz crztalk 02:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Galyna Kyyashko

Galyna Kyyashko (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Article is self-written and self-promoting and lists no sources whatsover. Kyyashko also doesn't seem especially succesful or important. V. Joe 16:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, The creator of the article removed the Afd (and Speedy) template, which was absent the entirety of the discussion. Agent 86 01:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Reads like a resumé. Article created with a single use account, so this is a likely failure of WP:COI. Caknuck 02:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was belated Speedy Delete.--Húsönd 01:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LeBuna

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

The article is short in context and violates Wikipedia's Avoid Neologisms policy. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 21:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. Simonkoldyk 21:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - no context. Even if there were, we'd have a problem with a dicdef of French slang. B.Wind 01:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Tulkolahten 01:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. Tulkolahten 01:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• How much more discussion do we need? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. DS 22:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Gosteli

Was tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 (plus the only contributor was Jgosteli which raises strong WP:COI suspicions), but nevertheless the article does attempt to assert some notability, therefore I'm bringing it to AFD instead. My position is delete, appears to fail WP:BIO. Húsönd 01:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• delete Fails WP:BIO. Vanity--M8v2 03:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Claim to notability is running the Alberta chapter of a car enthusiast club (Mx-west car club, an article also created by Jgosteli, and which has a {{Notability}} tag on it). Doesn't do it for me. There's also a mention of a few "side roles" in movies and TV, but, as he has no IMDB credits I can find, I assume that means "extra". Fan-1967 03:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete does not meet WP:BIO requirements and ghits do not turn up anything notable.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 04:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I prodded the club because it is a non-notable chapter per WP:ORG and WP:COI. MER-C 05:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't meet WP:BIO and it is probably an article about himself (considering the user name) which isn't what wikipedia is for. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BIO -- Whpq 17:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as obvious self-promotion. Having "small roles" in one movie and one TV show does not merit an encyclopedia article. Wavy G 21:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as NN per nom and WP:BIO. ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Page has been updated to reflect less biased information - awaiting re-evaluation
• Keep per revision. Sharkface217 05:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's probably the initial author logged out, and none of the concerns have been addressed. MER-C 07:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per everyone above. --Descendall 08:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep New Revision - In accordance to WP:BIO, relevant links to web articles have been added. Keep if this information is satisfactory. --User:Jgosteli 14:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above.Inner Earth 16:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. NeoJustin 22:00, 7 December 2006
• Delete vain vanity in vain. Danny Lilithborne 22:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Guinnog. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Azn clan

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

nn, vanity, no citations, user's first contribution, bad grammar...Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 01:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per G1. --Dennisthe2 01:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all. Note that a merge has already been performed. Although it is probably the case that there is now too much detail in the article, that issue does not need to be decided here. —Doug Bell ^talk 12:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 1998 season

Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 1998 season (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

New page for one table is too much. I suggest merge to Shunsuke Nakamura or delete Tulkolahten 01:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Other nominated articles:
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 1997 season
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 1999 season
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 2000 season
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 2001 season
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 2002 season
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 2002-2003 season
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 2003-2004 season
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 2004-2005 season
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 2005-2006 season
Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 2006-2007 season

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Tw6dd 01:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the content too, it's useless. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Shunsuke Nakamura. - Neier 02:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Abbreviated Merge - other Celtic players do not have such lists, nor information on which day a goal was scored. The 'Goals in x season' articles should be deleted, but not unreasonable to first add to Shunsuke Nakamura a very short table summarising the total number of goals per each season (but not per game per season) David Ruben ^Talk 03:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Short table summarizing goals is already there in his parent article. Tulkolahten 08:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Smerge all No other player has articles as ludicrous as this, and if they do, those articles should also be merged (or deleted). Dare I say "Nakamuracruft"? -- Kicking222 03:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all and any others like it we may have missed. The information can be added to the Shunsuke Nakamura article as noted by David Ruben, but these articles are rediculous. Every single fact does not need its own article. --Jayron32 06:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If information is merged elsewhere, the article needs to be redirect to comply with the GFDL so the info is attributed to who put it there. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Shunsuke Nakamura's Goals in 1997 season seems to have been left off of the nomination unintentionally. Neier 08:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Added too, thanks. Tulkolahten 08:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Total numbers of goals are a common statistic, details about every single goal in a match or season are too granular a topic for inclusion (be it in the main article or as a separate one). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I just finished merging the tables, and added it to his article after a slight format change. Neier 11:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Great, I think we should change community consensus to delete these articles when all already mergerd in the parent article. Tulkolahten 11:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all. There is always a danger of too much indiscriminate information being collected about sports figures by rapid fans, and this is Exhibit A. I accept that standards of notability are notoriously lax for sport (who else can explain why we have articles on reserve goalkeepers for English second division teams?), but this really is a bridge too far. Legis 15:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Abbreviated Merge Same as David Ruben. Nakamura is Japan's David Beckham, so there are a lot of people who would disagree that his goals aren't notable (especially if you've seem some of his goals...). But it is kind of ridiculous. Either merge them into Nakamura's main article or create one article for all his goals. Captkrob 17:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is far more detail than RSSSF.com and most sports almanacs have. We should reduce the data to total goals scored each season, merge it in Nakamura's article, and get rid of the rest. We shouldn't set a precedent leading to databases of every single goal scored by Pele, Maradona, and every other notable footballer. Djcastel 18:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Josef Bican had 643 league goals and Pelé 636 goals, pretty long article should it be :-) Tulkolahten 19:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per above. Sharkface217 05:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or just delete. I don't care. Just do something with it.Patstuart^talk|edits 13:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Delete per Wikipedia is not an indescriminate list of information. Patstuart^talk|edits 18:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as Neier has already merged the content with Shunsuke Nakamura, I agree with Tulkolahten. DrKiernan 15:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all: Where's all of Theirry Henry's goals of one article. Oh, that's right, there isn't one. Someone's obsessed. Very pointless 86.20.53.195 17:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Cherniak

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

This looks like a vanity page for a blogger Watchsmart 01:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete None notable person/vanity--M8v2 03:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - His main claim to fame seems to be "While there has never been controversy over whether he should edit his own Wikipedia article, current policy allows him to and he has" - That pretty much says it all right there... Wickethewok 07:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Probably shouldn't be editing his own article with self-references to Wikipedia policy, but the second paragraph appears to contain at least one notable position he held. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - autobiography, check history. MER-C 12:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BIO and disagree that any of the positions held oare of sufficient note. -- Whpq 17:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. - Triviaa 19:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable person. Bearly541 23:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Claim to fame is that he is a blogger who edited his own Wikipedia article. Article in its current state is either a personal attack or the most ridiculous form of self-promotion I've seen yet. Wavy G 01:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. His blog has received several recent mentions in The Globe and Mail and other Canadian national media. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.173.222.175 (talk)
• Keep per Mgm. Sharkface217 05:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Also, the use of the word "vanity" in AFD discussions is now discouraged. Please instead use "conflict of interest" per WP:COI. NeoJustin 22:03, 7 December 2006
• Delete vanity :P Danny Lilithborne 22:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Agent 86 00:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RCSCC Victory

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

This is an article describing a sub-unit of a larger national unit that doesn't provide evidence of its individual notability. See WP:ORG Sancho McCann 02:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I would disagree on this one - the article contains several claims to notability. --Brianyoumans 04:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Claims aren't the criteria that articles about organizations need to meet - sufficient notability should be established through reliable and verifiable sources... maybe we should just tag it as needing references then. We'd need to find some third party materials or media coverage to satisfy WP:ORG though. Sancho McCann 05:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - claim of being the first sea cadet corps formed in Canada would distinguish this sub unit from the others, but no reliable sources are citeed. I've tagged with unref. -- Whpq 17:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Whpq. Sharkface217 05:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Whpq. Sancho McCann 06:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RCSCC Captain Vancouver

RCSCC Captain Vancouver (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This page describes a sub-unit of a national organization and provides no evidence for its individual notability. See WP:ORG Sancho McCann 02:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This looks non-notable. --Brianyoumans 04:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable chapter per WP:ORG. MER-C 06:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment this can be notable, but if so, we will have articles about each cadet corps, like we do for elementary schools.
• Delete - nothing to distinguish this unit from any other. -- Whpq 17:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mer-C. Sharkface217 05:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mer-C. NeoJustin 22:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 08:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 189 PORT AUGUSTA

189 PORT AUGUSTA (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This page describes a sub-unit of a national organization and provides no evidence for its individual notability. See WP:ORG Sancho McCann 02:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with nominator on this one. --Brianyoumans 05:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep, don't feed the trolls. — CharlotteWebb 03:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pete Wilson (wrestler)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- non-notable wrestler 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) 02:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable wrestler.BooyakaDell 03:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC) (see below)

According to his talk page, BooyakaDell is a suspected sockpuppet of JB196 who appears to have strong feelings with articles about wrestlers. Unless this vote is explained, I think it should not be counted. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. How do you figure he is non-notable? He is a two-time Stampede Wrestling Tag Team Champion according to the accomplishments section. According to our article: "Stampede Wrestling is a Canadian professional wrestling promotion based in Calgary, Alberta that for decades produced a weekly television series that is considered the forerunner of today's WWE." Champion in a televised Championship equals notability for me. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As much as I detest wrestling, I think this person is notable. Not a strong keep, (I wouldn't object to this article being deleted) but there is grounds for an article. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Even though Wrestling isnt usually my sort of thing I do belive this article has enough grounds to be kept. Jamesbuc
• Keep Notability is asserted in the article SirFozzie 15:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete changed to Null Vote Sheesh...BooyakaDell 16:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Competes in a professional league. Is a champion in it. --Oakshade 23:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mgm. Sharkface217 05:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I see nothing wrong with the page apart from the fact it still has a stub when it's closer to a 'start'. Govvy 10:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toru (album)

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

None notable album from a group who's article was deleted itself. M8v2 02:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 02:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. riana_dzasta 02:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it should have been deleted with the band. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delere: If the band doesn't warrant an article then the album doesn't. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 17:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment 1) there are several other albums for this band: Special:Whatlinkshere/Moana_and_the_Moahunters. 2) The band never seem to have an article anyway: Special:Log/delete&page=Moana_and_the_Moahunters. Patstuart^talk|edits 13:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - begone --61.114.193.19 12:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Yanksox 02:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weak man

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

Wikipedia is not for stuff made up one day. Unreferenced and unwikified. Contested prod. MER-C 02:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. 06:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Samia Munayirji

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

edits are all from ip users that add nonsense, article created by user with no other contributions Drunken Pirate 02:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable silliness. riana_dzasta 02:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Pieguy48 03:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete utterly non-notable bio (she won second place in a debate, WOW!) written by a highschool student and/or her friends. Rest of the article is overt attempts at humour. Wikipedia is not Myspace (and you are not funny--just thought I'd throw that in). Wavy G 03:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Bold text'Bold text'Bold textdont deleteBold text i dont know what ya'll are talking about this page is very informational. it is informing people of real things. you have no valid argument game over.

Please, while we've got you here...I'm dying to know about your invention, "The Wang Hat." Wavy G 05:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete I don't see any real claim of notability, and 80% of it is just silliness. --Brianyoumans 04:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Let me guess: Samia and a bunch of her friends were hanging out in the computer lab really bored one day... Richfife 05:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emotronic

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

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- nn neologism, this is just plain odd, but needs more research and eyes. 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) 02:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a neologism. --Dennisthe2 02:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless there are any notable artists in the genre. riana_dzasta 03:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Taking the first half of the name of Genre A, adding the second half of the name of Genre B and declaring a new Genre halfway between the two is a time honored, but totally pointless, tradition. Term is not more than the sum of its parts. - Richfife 05:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn neologism, 554 non-wiki ghits outside of myspace. MER-C 12:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MER-C. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mer-C. Sharkface217 05:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mer-C. NeoJustin 22:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. Danny Lilithborne 22:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedied. Friday (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tyler divelbiss

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

Pure nonsense. Speedy tag was taken down by articles creator. No reason given. Person and organization do not exist. M8v2 02:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Immediate speedy delete per fictional content such as "The minority group rented an ice cream truck fixed with a mounted machine-gun. A series of drive-by shooting occurred, and so far 14 were killed and 30 were wounded" in a riot at Kent State University over attitudes toward penguins. Newyorkbrad 02:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment (edit conflict) - immediate speedy delete? Hard to get much faster than a speedy. =) With tongue firmly in cheek, --Dennisthe2 03:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, but in my mind there's a difference between someone innocently adding an article about a non-notable person, and a blatantly fictional article that is being expanded with more and more bogus content even as I type these words. Newyorkbrad 03:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • This is now also a gross personal attack page in the opening paragraph (there is a real person with this name), and I'm invoking WP:IAR and blanking the contents. Newyorkbrad 03:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per A1. It's tagged A7 by a user named Yamaguchi, but it won't survive either way. --Dennisthe2 03:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per others, so tagged anyway. riana_dzasta 03:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. Original research; unverified; appears to be self-promotion by a non-notable, new "religion" (singular). El_C 03:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific religions

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

(contested PROD) Article is made-up category containing a single entity that is itself WP:NFT; no citations for either entity or category, and description of notability is decidedly weak. DMacks 03:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as original research. riana_dzasta 03:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom--M8v2 03:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Pieguy48 03:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ferrari (Wrestler)

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

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- not notable wrestler another one of these... more eyes please? 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) 03:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete None notable underground wrestler--M8v2 03:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 06:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MER-C, no assertion of notability apart from victories over a hip-hop artist, alcoholism, a broadcasting company and one other wrestler. I'm assuming they are the names of other wrestlers without WP articles. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom.BooyakaDell 16:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not worked for any notable promotions. DavyJonesLocker 21:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article was linked to on PWA Roster before being created. Chortin 23:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Just H 04:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Sharkface217 05:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mer-C. NeoJustin 22:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Ever been in WWE, TNA, WCW, ECW? No. By the way, this article, for whatever reason, looks massively created, very little facts, and with the name Ferrari (?!), I wouldn't be suprised. 86.20.53.195 17:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as non-notable wrestler. —Doug Bell ^talk 12:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Miller (wrestler)

Mike Miller (wrestler) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- non-notable wrestler. (another one of these...) 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) 03:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete None notable wrestler. Only 335.--M8v2 03:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Last time I checked there wasn't an arbitrary cut-off point. Professional sports people who make money doing their job are usually included, no matter what their rank. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 06:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly a professional wrestler because of the "He was ranked 335 in the list of top 500 wrestlers published in Pro Wrestling Illustrated in 2003." - Mgm|^(talk) 11:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Two of my fraternity brothers cracked the PWI top 500 in the late 90s simply by wrestling for a few months in a low-budget local circuit in Winnipeg. There's very little method to the rankings, so I wouldn't put too much stock in them. Caknuck 19:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - he was near the bottom of the barrel three years ago in a niché sport. Clearly fails WP:BIO. Should go. On a general note, we seem to have far too many articles on wrestlers compared to, say, ballet dancers (to take another form of choreographic entertainment). Legis 15:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mgm. Sharkface217 05:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - 335 of 500 in 2003? We already have far too much wrestle-cruft on here. And, has anybody actually read the article? It's unsourced, and has nothing to it. -Patstuart^talk|edits 14:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. It fails WP:BIO. NeoJustin 22:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above reasons. --James Duggan 05:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do note modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, do not that notability is not a speedy reason. Lack of an assertion of importance is —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cindy shi

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

Vanity page, non-notable

• Delete vanity page, non-notable. --Xtreambar 04:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Based on this profile, a college freshman who performed well in high school, but nothing to indicate top-level notability. Fan-1967 04:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Looking at the original version of the page, I'm guessing it was a prank written by a friend. Still, this ain't the place, now is it? - Richfife 05:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 06:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7 -- Samir धर्म 05:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leonard zimmerman

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

Author whose only claim of notability is an autobiography published by a vanity press. The article was prodded, with the article's author removing the prod without comment. FreeKresge 04:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Why don't you speedy delete this one? I don't see any real claim of notability. --Brianyoumans 04:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• You've got to admit that anyone who publishes an autobiography at 21 doesn't lack for confidence, but Delete as non-notable. Fan-1967 04:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As much as an inclusionist I am, I don't see why this subject is worthy of an article at this time. --Oakshade 05:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete does not appear to be notable enough Alex Bakharev 05:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Um, no. If he does make good on his promise to run for office, he'll thank us for deleting this lame article just like he'll thank his editor for removing 5 chapters from his book. - Richfife 05:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technisoft, Report Manager, and Service Manager

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

Service Manager (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Report Manager (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable company and products. "Technisoft" gets only self-generated g-hits and "Technisoft Report Manager" receives only hits on this company's website. Please see WP:CORP and WP:SOFT for Wikipedia's guidelines for corporation and software notability. --BigDT 04:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete them all per nom. They also sound a little adish.--M8v2 04:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all Three unique GHits for a piece of software is almost willfully obscure. - Richfife 05:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per above. MER-C 06:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all mmm. Tastes like spam. --Jayron32 06:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - at least one is a copyvio (see google's cache version; site is currently down: [12]) others are spam anyway. -Patstuart^talk|edits 13:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. NeoJustin 22:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The software listed is obscure at best, and the fact it only gets 3 ghits is testament to its obscurity. The pages also appear to read more like a spiel or advertisement. There is no reason, at this time, to keep them. --SunStar Net^talk 00:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Guidance please. Will agree to remove Report Manager, though would like to list it as a product under Technisoft. Service Manager is one of the most widely respected service management software products in use worldwide. A Google search of "technisoft service manager" will return 1100+ hits. At what point does a company or company product become notable enough to allow it to have a Wikipedia entry? Microsoft Dynamics GP is a competing product that does have a Wikipedia entry ... Accpac and The Sage Group distribute Service Manager and Report Manager worldwide. Refer http://www.sage.com/news.php?id=196 for a feature article on Service Manager. Fkrugerx 03:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• To further support my case. Service Manager certainly comforms to Notability test "The software is among the core products of a notable software developer or vendor." Refer http://sage.com "Sage is a leading supplier of business management software and services to 5.2 million customers worldwide." Technisoft is a development partner of The Sage Group and Service Manager is the company's flagship product. Fkrugerx 03:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• rm -rf * / delete - per nom --61.114.193.19 12:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP need to be cleaned up - BUT, overall I found it to be good article, thank you for your time. Rcehoppe 08:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence of meeting WP:CORP/WP:SOFTWARE. "Good article" is not a criterion for inclusion. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All as insufficiently notable per WP:CORP#Criteria for products and services and, as proposed, WP:SOFTWARE. -- Satori Son 06:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge and redirect. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duncan's Toy Chest

Duncan's Toy Chest (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Trivial Content. This is a fictional location that appears in only one movie. There is no reason it should have its own page, when most of the information it contains can already be found in the page for Rookery Building and Home Alone 2. Duncan's toy chest is otherwise never directly referred to in any other media or Home Alone movie. Ghilz 04:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge a brief synopsis to Home Alone 2: Lost in New York - Richfife 05:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. -WarthogDemon 05:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per the nominator. This doesn't require deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• I went ahead and did the merge and redirect - Richfife 02:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was The result of this AfD was Keep - Notability has been asserted. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emilia Attias

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

Non-notable, fails WP:BIO. Otto4711 04:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - This woman is an international supermodel. On the cover of lots of magazines, including Maxim. [13][14] [15] [16] [17] 75,300 ghits.[18]. --Oakshade 05:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I can't read Spanish, but there seem to be a lot of pages in Spanish on her. The pictures look good, though... --Brianyoumans 05:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I don't get supermodels and normally I like nothing better than !voting Delete, but... She's out there. 75K+ GHits. - Richfife 05:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Stubby, but there are enough references out there to expand should anyone choose to. Passes Primary Notability Criteria. Article should be expanded, not deleted. --Jayron32 06:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable per Oakshade. Needs expansion, but being a stub is not reason to delete. --Falcorian ^(talk) 16:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. No Guru 19:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of television personalities

List of television personalities (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list of anyone who's appeared on TV ever. Unmaintainable and unencyclopedic. Otto4711 05:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Certainly better served by a category, but even that strikes me as unnecessary. The subject is too all encompassing to be useful. What possible homework assignment could be aided by this article? You gotta salute the work that went into it, though. - Richfife 05:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - arbitary, useless, unmaintainable and indiscriminate listcruft. Worse still, it encourages people to create articles on non-notable losing reality TV contestants. And they have clearly been !voted off this island. MER-C 06:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete What MER-C said. --Jayron32 06:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MERC. meshach 06:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a prime example of an indiscriminate list. Listing everyone who ever appeared on TV is not useful or encyclopedic. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete phew, yeah, too indiscriminate. --Canley 13:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, a bare list of links, etc. But this article is just those things. Guy (Help!) 14:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, too broad etc. Punkmorten 17:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unreasonably broad in scope.-- danntm ^T _C 18:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A necessarily incomplete and ultimately pointless list of names. Not in any way an appropriate encyclopedia article.--Anthony.bradbury 19:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Why are so many people creating these pointless lists? If the same energy went into improving and referencing existing articles it would have a tremendous impact the quality of Wikipedia. This is list is particularly broad, pointless and Wikipedia is not a directory. WJBscribe 20:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A full-time staff of editors could work for years and not even make this close to complete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note This article has existed for over 4 years before getting an AFD. Is that a record? - Richfife 04:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note Did I say 4 years? I meant to say 5: [19] - Richfife 19:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above points. 4 years? Jesus. Sharkface217 05:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. The article existed 4 years ago bc Wikipedia was much smaller, and had less references. Now it should go. -Patstuart^talk|edits 14:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. 4 years is a long time on Wikipedia.NeoJustin 22:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft. Danny Lilithborne 22:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete too many. However, it could be Keep, and split into countries e.g. List of English TV personalities, List of French TV personalities, so the lists will be smaller. Only a suggestion. 86.20.53.195 17:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, nem con.. Guy (Help!) 13:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google Talk (game)

Google Talk (game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Completely non-notable "word game". Was deleted as an uncotested prod, and that deletion was later contested. WP:NOT for things you made up on the playground one day. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Is there a "Wikipedia is not for strange things you can do with Google" rule? If not, then I need to get cracking on the fun "Extreme Googling" game I came up with. - Richfife 05:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:NFT. MER-C 06:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NN and WP:NFT. tgies 06:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not the place to promote the crap you and your buddies made up --Jayron32 06:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all. meshach 06:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Just another algorithm. Fails the basic definition of a game. Because "Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interactivity." (the article fails to mention it needs players too). This aims to be funny. There's no way you can "win". - Mgm|^(talk) 11:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No credible sources, no credible claim to notability. Guy (Help!) 14:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - quick, please! Snalwibma 14:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as textbook WP:NFT.-- danntm ^T _C 16:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - if some historians sit down 100 years from now, and read this article, they will totally get the wrong opinion. The fact is, this game just isn't notable. -Patstuart^talk|edits 14:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no demonstration that this is at all widespread enough, comes across as Yet Another Clever Google Hack. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination Noclip 21:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. FirefoxMan 22:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - somebody snowball this thing. -Patstuart^talk|edits 06:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Junglebop

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

Obscure and non-notable music genre. 105 ghits outside of Wikipedia and myspace. Fails WP:V. Contested prod. MER-C 05:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. tgies 08:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of notability and verifiability. Prolog 09:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. But Jazz link to this page, so I put a request of comment in that article discussion. - Cate | _Talk 10:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'd just summarily remove it as this genre is too obscure and nn. I've done that before to a number of nn stuff which got woven in as spam. MER-C 12:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. James084 21:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. NeoJustin 22:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 22:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by Eagle 101. (aeropagitica) 06:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Human-capital Century

Human-capital Century (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- Non-notable neologism. 321 ghits 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) 05:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Doug Bell ^talk 10:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casey James

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

NN person, I don't see how it lives up to WP:PORNBIO. I know it went through 2 other AFDs but the first I believe was breaking WP:POINT and the second was no consensus. Also, now that we have a new guideline, I feel this deserves to be revisited. Dismas|^(talk) 05:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: For ease of reference by others, the first AfD is archived here and the second is here. Tabercil 06:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Clearly doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO or WP:BIO. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 09:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: checking before I run off and try and find / verify a few things, but I believe she qualifies under Criteria 6 for notability within Genre and also wondering if for genre oriented discussions, would the "playmate of the month" rule apply (Criteria 2)if they were of a similar title in a genre oriented magazine as opposed to strictly mainstream like Playboy / Penthouse? (ie. Hustler's Busty Beauties, Gent, Score, etc in this persons case)Charlam 00 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Doesn't come close to satisying any BIO notability guidelines. Valrith 16:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Charlam's comments and I don't see any reason to change the outcomes of the first 2 AfDs. --Oakshade 19:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per porn --61.114.193.19 12:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails pornbio, just another retired former cam whore.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Proto::► 10:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of wrestlers in movies

List of wrestlers in movies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is pretty indiscriminate "List of [your choice of profession] appearing in movies". Delete. Ohconfucius 06:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Indiscriminate, arbitary, unmaintainable listcruft. --The Way 06:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - you stole my deletion reason. MER-C 06:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per norm. meshach 06:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete that's gotta hurt! Guy (Help!) 10:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not indiscriminate at all. Has clear inclusion criteria and appears to be of a manageable length. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep, wrestling/movie crossovers aren't that common and have been something of a noted phenomenon. The Rock got a lot of press for it, so this would make sense as a list of similar examples. Needs cleanup and reformatting though. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment "it's not that common" doesn't seem to be borne out by the large number of names on the list. Legis 16:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the more interesting phenomenon is the few wrestlers who have a large number of movies, demonstrating something of a career, which this makes visible at a glance. If we wanted to prune it, we could separate out those who have only appeared in one movie from those who have done several. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As Night Gyr mentioned, it is an uncommon phenomenon. If you had checked that list, it covers a span of several decades with those few representing a profession whose members number in the thousands. Vladamire Steelwolf 07:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as an indiscriminate list. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Night Gyr. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. The nom says it all. Agent 86 23:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep "indiscriminate:" failing to make or recognize distinctions [20]. I see some clear distinctions in what this data is. The movie-wrestler crossover is a lot more special then something like a plumber-movie crossover. Then again, this could be dealt with in a category... so I'm wishy-washy on this. ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Categories can't tell you which movies they appeared in, or how many. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Night Gyr. Sharkface217 05:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. NeoJustin 22:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unmaintainable. Who is going to be responsible for this list the next time a wrestler appears in a film? Aside from the people adding cleanup tags to this, it has been sitting in a vacuum since creation. Salad Days 05:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling? It's not going to be that frequent an event, and usually garners some media attention. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Fancruft at best. What's next? Sports stars in movies? Reality stars in movies? RobJ1981 00:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Night Gyr. Vladamire Steelwolf 07:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• (Delete) but convert to a Category. Yep at the moment this is just a list. What the page really needs is a couple of paragraphs on how the wrestlers evolved from wrestling to acting. A few pictures inserted. This shouldn't really be a list at all. But what can be done is make a category of wrestlers in movies. That would be better. Govvy 12:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. No category is needed for this. As far as I know: we don't have a category for sports stars in movies, or anything similar to that. Wrestlers roles in movies, should be mentioned on the wrestler articles only. No article or category is needed. RobJ1981 03:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Aaru Bui ^DII 09:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 04:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shane Bower (wrestler)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- non-notable wrestler 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) 06:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Is 1-time International Tag Team Champion (with Chris Benoit) with Stampede Wrestling. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Competes in a fully professional league in a very popular sport. Passes WP:BIO. --Oakshade 23:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:BIO. Sharkface217 05:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to category, which is cheap and easy.. - Mailer Diablo 19:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of 1896 films

List of 1896 films (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Another set lists by the same someone who has mistaken Wikipedia for IMDB Lite at List of Finnish films. The beginning of a series of text dumps taken from IMDB (copyvio, not a reliable source) used to create a series of lists (better in categories) for indiscriminate information (WP:NOT#DIR), so the creator can ultimately create several thousand stubs on utterly non-notable films. In case there's any doubt about the creator'S intentions, take a look at List of 1896 films for the letter A and the letter B. Included are future text dumps from 1888 to 1910 and any potential text dumps through 2009, as the honking big template on the page seems to threaten. Calton | Talk 06:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete more categories masquerading as lists. Indiscriminate, and thus deletable. Also, a friendly-worded cease-and-desist request for this users talk page may be in order. --Jayron32 06:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The user is working with the Films WikiProject, I believe, in good faith. Her Pegship 06:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply I agree that the edits were made in good faith. I made some comments on the users talk page to explain the position that while we appreciate the effort, these organization attempts would be better served by categories than by lists. It is a noble cause, I agree, but poorly executed in this case. We want this user to continue to do good work here, just in a way that is more in line with policy. --Jayron32 07:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There's no indication we have articles to put in such a category, but the list clearly isn't working. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 12:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete good faith or not, we do nobody a service by keeping this in the pretence that it may one day be encyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. We already have year-in-film categories. We don't need lists with the same information. In response to the nominator, I don't believe lists can be copyrighted so I wouldn't call it a copyvio, and I don't consider IMDb to be a completely unreliable source either. But in any event, this list (and the others proposed) are not needed. 23skidoo 17:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per others. Punkmorten 17:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Sharkface217 05:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

For God's Sake everybody. I am redirecting to categories which already have lists. However I may need to draw up lists for films betweeen 1896 and 1910 as there are practically no films in the categories. Oh yes of course a lists of films by year is really unencyclopedic. You really amaze me people. Navigation box is remaining though - useful for connecting all years in fuilms not just near years/ User:Calton is a serious knob that he wants to delete everything I do Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirected everything to catwgories which serve as lists and also tell us what films exist on wikipedia. Case closed, Template will remain to navigate between the entire years of film histiry because at present in the categories it is by decade. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 17:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think it would be a good idea to maintain a list of redlinked films by year and nation of origin within the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films namespace so people working on that project can use it to work from. I am just not sure such a list belongs in the Mainspace. --Jayron32 16:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. No content. Entry may be recreated so long as there is content. El_C 12:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operations in Somaliland

Operations in Somaliland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- orphan. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason. The page is a redirect, if you look in the history. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 07:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Nothing links to Operations in Somaliland. The redirect was to Sayyid Mohammed Abdullah Hassan (Maxamed Cabdulle Xasan) aka Mad Mullah. I see no connection. Theres no need for this redirect unless someone is going to provide information about Operations in Somaliland --ElectricEye (talk) 07:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. MER-C 12:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jonestown, Demerara

Jonestown, Demerara (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

No sources provided, and googling the name turns up nothing but references to the other Jonestown, making me think this is a possible hoax. Even our own articles on Demerara-Mahaica and Demerara make no mention of it. Needs references, or else should be deleted as unverifiable. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep: No this is not a hoax. This is a real place. If in doubt, Google "Jonestown" "Mahaica" for confirmation of its existence -- for example, this. References I can do, but they might take some time. This nice little article was just about my first contribution. I sincerely hope it is not about to be done in by mere impatience. -- Lonewolf BC 08:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, but all I'm turning up on the name are mentions of people who happen to be from the place, nothing that supports anything actually stated in the article. I have no opposition to an article about a town, but we need to be able to source what we write. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That was just to show the place is for real. Full referencing I can't give you with that kind of immediacy. ;-) The point is that this is not some elaborate joke, and that I'd be grateful for some slack, at least timewise. I'm not suggesting that we needn't be able to source. -- Lonewolf BC 08:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Prod and AFD both take at least five days. Five days isn't that much of a rush to find a single source. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep: It's not a hoax. Maybe the article just needs work and it's contributors need to cite sources. --ElectricEye (talk) 09:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Withdrawn, reference provided. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediatpress

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

Non-notable company. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-06 07:41Z

• Delete fails WP:CORP (wow these pre-made asterisks are luxurious! only 2 left!comment and you'll see) James086^{Talk | Contribs} 13:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - and added another asterisk for the guy after next :-) Frater Xyzzy 18:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN, and thanks for the asterisk =^_^= --Dennisthe2 03:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. NeoJustin 22:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Proto::► 10:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pandagon

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

Non-notable blog. The site fails WP:WEB. The passing mention in Playboy is trivial and does not satisfy the WP:WEB requirement. Should be deleted. RWR8189 07:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It does not fail WP:WEB at all. It is a major political blog. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IrnBru001 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Folantin 08:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --ElectricEye (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 12:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: "The passing mention in Playboy" is that magazine's October 2006 list of the "Top Ten Political Blogs". This does not seem a "trivial" distinction. It thereby meets criterion #2 of WP:WEB: "The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation." – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 16:17, 7 Dec 2006 (UTC).
• Keep: it was just nominated as a finalist for "best liberal blog" in the 2006 Weblog Awards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.161.127.75 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

* Keep The Fox Man of Fire 20:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Pandagon is basically a hate site. It would do badly as a page in the wikipedia since it would encourage wiki nazis to police it and make sure that any evidence that it was a hate site would remain deleted. OTOH, they had a major dick fight with FARK tonight and they lost with Amanda's panty's getting so knotted up they disappeared up her slit. She then proceeded to moderate all the comments from FARK out while calling FARKers a bunch of rapists. http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=2460478 Yeah, so delete Mr.POV 06:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Its consider a major liberal political blog. If other blog have survived this (most likely POV) challenge this one should too. IrnBru001 20:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --HarmonicFeather 06:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you looked at the requirements of the standard? "Web-specific content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria." Three different example have been cited to satisify criteria two "he website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation." First the Play Boy award, second the Weblog Award, third being a featured blog at a major political conference. There is a fourth the Wampum Award that they have also won that I'm trying to find a good source for. So given these 3 example and given that I only need one how does this fail the test? IrnBru001 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. FirefoxMan 16:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Whether it can be fairly characterized as "a hate site" is immaterial. We're judging notability, not virtue. JamesMLane t c 17:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. yandman 17:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please explain why it doesn't meet the second criteria as I have suggested it does? This is a discussion not just a vote. IrnBru001 17:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The Weblog Awards and the Take Back America conference do not get articles, and they are sited as awards. Awards must be notable to be counted. Being in the top ten of a major magazine is not enough, unless it was above #3. FirefoxMan 20:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In your opinion. I believe both are important enough to get their own articles. I see no reason to think that the top ten of a major magazine isn't enough. Your claim in not supported in the guideline. The article mets the current guideline, you are now trying to change the guideline. The article needs to be judged against the guideline AS IT IS WRITTEN. If you want to change that guideline then discuss it on that pages talk page. IrnBru001 20:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not consider it an award to be in a list, and AfDs are supposed to be ask users for their input and opinion on the noteworthiness of a article. FirefoxMan 23:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge with Chandler, Arizona (which I've done). Proto::► 10:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chandler Public Library

Chandler Public Library (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

non notable public library system in Arizona; no particular claim to notability that I can see. Previous prod removed by User:TruthbringerToronto. Brianyoumans 08:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep It's a Public library in Arizona. --ElectricEye (talk) 11:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

And my left big toe is a body part. It still doesn't get an article. What is your point? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Expand. ^_^ --ElectricEye (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to wherever it is located. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Chandler AZ or add content and references to show notability. Edison 15:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Chandler, Arizona], or expand the article. (cf. proposed WP:LOCAL).-- danntm ^T _C 17:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Every library is different. The Chandler library has been involved with an innovative program to promote literacy and library use among people who live in public housing, for example. Maintaining a separate article for a library makes it easier to find information on the library by searching from a list or category of public libraries. Some libraries serve multiple municipalities and therefore don't merge well into a single town's article. In general, libraries have collections of books and other materials about their local areas that are not duplicated elsewhere, and the Chandler library presumably has a significant amount of information related to Chandler that may represent a notable collection, and as well a resource that a Wikipedian living in Chandler could draw upon to create articles based on print sources which are unavailable online. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge It is a public library. Sharkface217 05:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Chandler, Arizona]. I'm unable to find any useful sources for making notability claims but a town's libraries are a reasonable thing to have covered in a town's article. JoshuaZ 05:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or delete, whichever seems most appropriate. I don't really get what TruthbringerToronto tries to say here. Because someone in the Chandler region may use the library (or more specifically, some books, magazines, ... in the library) to compose articles for Wikipedia, we should keep the library article? I thought our policies indicated that subjects had to be the subjects of multiple verifiable sources by reputable publishers, not that the subject only had to be useful (or "different": every person is different, every snowflake is different, that's no reason to have an article). The sources added are interesting, but for me still too weak to keep this as a separate article (the first one is a very short mention, and the second is more of a directory entry, the Chandler public library being one of the more than 600 repositories in Arizona indexed on this site). While this library is more important than the usual village library, it still is not verifiably important enough to have its own article. Fram 14:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Edison, JoshuaZ. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I was referring specifically to the library's special collections of local material that could not be easily located elsewhere, such as local history materials and hard-copy or microfilmed back volumes of local newspapers. Most libraries have such collections. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I agree: every city and town (of some size) has a public library, and almost all of them feature collections of material on local subjects. Every town also has telephone directories, published by the local phone company (and, in recent years, other companies)... should we have special articles on them, or should that info be merged to the local articles so that Wikipedia researchers can find them? I would argue that these sort of things are so common and similar from town to town as to be non notable. --Brianyoumans 00:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment . No, the special collections of each library are unique and not purely local, such as Mount Allison University's collection of 19th-century and early 20th-century high school trigonometry textbooks, or the Toronto Reference Library's impressive Sherlock Holmes collection. In some cases, such a collection was built by a private collector and was later donated or bequeathed to the library, and bears the donor's name. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 15:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
        • If no one has talked about the collection in any detail in non-trivial sources it is very hard to see it as having any significiant notability. There's no reason not to include a note about the library details in the main articles but we simply don't have enough for a full article. JoshuaZ 17:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If we allow every public library to get its own article, we will be overrun with articles from the millions of libraries around the world. FirefoxMan 00:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If those hypothetical articles adequately demonstrate the uniqueness of each library, then the articles would make the encyclopedia better. In practice, if a library is not much different than other libraries, people are unlikely to contribute an article about it. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 15:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adams County Public Library. --Brianyoumans 17:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or delete per Fram. Inner Earth 11:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete - using a bit of judgement, not a single one of those sources is reliable, anyway ... if/when a reliable source does appear, the article can be recreated. Proto::► 10:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just Cause 2

Just Cause 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Pure speculation. Contested prod. MER-C 08:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NN. tgies 08:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a rumour mill. Prolog 09:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom. --ElectricEye (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - More than speculation. According to all of these reports (and many more), Avalanche CEO Christofer Sundberg confirmed it's really being made. [21][22][23][24][25] --Oakshade 03:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This "crystalball" is real per Oakshade: [26][27][28][29][30] --ElectricEye (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm surprised about this vote with the new info about it being reported that it's being made. --Oakshade 05:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, Oakshade, I agree. Sharkface, some people actually try study the AFD's you know. ^_^ --ElectricEye (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 04:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wii release data

This information is already present in Wii, verbatim. I see no need for a separate article for this. tgies 08:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hangon. Jecowa 08:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's no longer verbatim. I created this article as a split from the Wii article to reduce the size of the Wii article. So far I have brought the size of the Wii article down to 47kb from 58kb. It would be nice to be able to keep this data in a seperate article while limiting the Wii article to the data on English-speaking countries. Is this acceptable? Jecowa 08:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Great info and now broken up into better categories... so im not ready to delete just yet. MrMacMan 09:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Wii. Do we really need a seperate article. --ElectricEye (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment We don't need separate articles, but by separating them reduces clutter on the Wii article. Compare the size of the release data section of the Wii article to that of the Wii release data article. Splitting this section into a new article is desirable per Wikipedia:Summary style. This is also touched on at Wikipedia:Article size. Jecowa 11:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I see. --ElectricEye (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --ElectricEye (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, breaking out shortened the original article while maintaining useful well-sourced information. (I'm still not buying one). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, for the above reason (minus personal comment). Just64helpin 17:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Sosb 22:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Okay, you've convinced me :D tgies 22:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Uh... did the person requesting article deletion just vote to keep? MrMacMan 23:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. yeah no kidding kid get with the program we're trying to run an internet here tgies 04:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Can be made into a great article. Sharkface217 05:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Wii, will be irrelevant in a few months. Noclip 21:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now, anyway Tempest115 21:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep renominate in a few months FirefoxMan 00:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A needed split now that it's no longer current information. -Ryanbomber 13:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete following transwiki. Proto::► 10:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fideli Certa Merces

Fideli Certa Merces (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

• Wikipedia is not a dictionary Aussie King Pin 08:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Does this go to Wiktionary? --ElectricEye (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary which is a dictionary. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. So tagged. MER-C 12:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwikied. --ElectricEye (talk) 03:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --ElectricEye (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Call of Duty mods

List of Call of Duty mods (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Indiscriminate information, WP:NOT a repository of links or a web directory, 8 mods, only one of which is notable (and has it's own article anyway.) The Kinslayer 09:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. The Kinslayer 09:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. List of a lot of external links. Mods aren't notable from the one with an article. You can't put one article in a list. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a web directory. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 13:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mgm. Mods are generally not notable, a perennial problem for those who seek to include them. Somewhere else, please. Guy (Help!) 14:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge back into the Call of Duty article section on Mods any information not already there. -- Upholder 16:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The notable mods can have their own articles, but the list of non-notable mods shouldn't warrant a separate article. --Alan Au 17:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and comments above. Sigh. WJBscribe 20:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete a lot of mod articles have come up for deletion recently, so this may have been an attempt to sidestep that by listifying them. In any case, virtually no information, more like a list of external links, and we all know WP:NOT a web directory. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, per Upholder. Comment: Seems people are getting over zealous with AFD nominations, finally pushed me into getting involved after an article I wrote was nominated and butchered. Join the counter offensive by replying to the WP:CVG/D AFD debates. --MegaBurn 21:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Keep or Merge Highly notable game, and with notable modding community. Bfelite 20:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • 8 mods is not 'notable'. The Kinslayer 21:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Its a reasonable point, perhaps merge is better option. Bfelite 23:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mgm. NeoJustin 22:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Non-notable mods, significant mods can be mentioned on Call of Duty article. --Scottie theNerd 04:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nom. Half Life list as been deleted recently and if one list is not good enought to be here and gets deleted not because of being Half-Life but for being a list then following the same logic all similar lists should be also deleted. Snewerl 14:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: As Half-Life has one of the most extensive mod lists, if that list is deleted, others like it should definitely go too. --Scottie theNerd 17:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MER-C Nashville Monkey 09:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final Fantasy: Dark Chronicles

Final Fantasy: Dark Chronicles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- non notable fan 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) 09:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - A whole lot of crystal ballery. Fan-game projects based on existing big-money franchises rarely last long into their development before the lawyers send in the cease-and-desist orders. An uncompleted, unpublished fan game will almost certainly not have those all-important third-party, non-trivial sources for verifiability. Zero Google hits for "Dark Chronicles" "Ghost Game Productions". ~Matticus ^T_C 10:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Article is one big advert for a non-released fangame. "The game was started in July, 2006 and is scheduled for release in December 2007." Crystal-ballery to boot. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable fan game, unsourced and unverifiable crystal ballery, fails WP:SOFTWARE. MER-C 13:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - This article was speedy deleted yesterday and re-added this morning, I think perhaps that should've been the reason for speedy deletion. Timkovski 14:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It was speedy deleted as spam, and contained maybe one or two sentences that were "spammy" in nature, so I think that was a bit weak reason to delete it. Not really any worse than this revision; I think this one is even less spammy in tone. While it won't save the article, I say we go through AfD process just for the heck of it. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 18:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Apalling crystal ballery, I'm amazed how little information they have, yet can take up so much room on a page! The Kinslayer 18:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Rather nasty looking stub, if some decent information can be added I'll change my position. --MegaBurn 20:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fan game, and not even close to beinf released, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, 9 hits on Google, reads like a advertisement, pure vanity. Havok (T/C/e/c) 07:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Uh... someone's RPGMakerXP epic that is released next year. Or maybe the year after that. Maybe. Not yet worthy an article, sorry; welcome back if it becomes a sneaky mega-hit it once it's released... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Matticus. NeoJustin 22:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete fan game, the end. Danny Lilithborne 22:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic place names in America

Islamic place names in America (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Delete. Quite apart from the obvious unencyclopaedic purpose of this article- to promote what can only be an extreme minority viewpoint even among Muslim communities, namely that Islam had a presence in the Americas pre-Columbus- this article is misconceived as well as misinformed. Islam is a religion not a language, and it is no more sensible to claim that placenames are etymologically "Islamic" than it would be to claim they are Christian, Jewish, Taoist, Animist or whatever. The cited "source" drawn upon for the article hardly seems to be (and is not represented as) a credible one for this 'research', and as such the contents are indicative of OR. cjllw | TALK 09:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - as per reasons given.Maunus 11:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the source claims there were mosques and Islamic schools in America pre-Columbus. A highly improbable and definitely non-notable view.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I note that he establishes source and argues rationally. Are you accusing the initial author/editor of bad faith ? -- Simon Cursitor 15:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

He does not argue, and certainly not rationally, he presents clearly controversial research by one fringe researcher as uncontradicted fact. He doesn't establish that the placenames are either "islamic" or even that they are precolumbian (there is a town called Hell does that prove diabolical presence in preocolumbian ameria?) And he doesn't cite any complementary sources or accepted etymologies. If not exactly bad faith (which I might be inclined to think) the page is definitely pushing a bizarre and non-notable POV in a non encyclopedic manner.Maunus 15:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the one source doesn't check out at all. it's a totally different article. I also might like to remind you of WP:AAGF, assume the assumption of good faith. If we're going a theory this wild, then it needs to prove itself notable by several sources. As of now, it has 0. Patstuart^talk|edits 15:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. MER-C 13:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete soapboxing. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom, non notable view voldemortuet 16:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete OR Dragomiloff 18:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete really bizarre soapboxing GabrielF 01:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete weird - unless we can provide the names of each of the aliens at Area 51 (is this comment uncivil?) Patstuart^talk|edits 14:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom, clearly a fringe view held by a few individuals. Abstrakt 18:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. NeoJustin 22:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Wait a minute! Hey, guys wait a minute! First of all, WP:NPOV states:

by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority

Also

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article

Considering that we have Flat Earth, this clearly shows that this article could very well exist. As for NPOV and other editoria issues as "presenting theories as facts" and such, those are not grounds for afd, its only grounds for editing. Regarding sources, the given article indeed is about this topic. I also missed it, but if you scroll down a bit to the First Immigrants of the New World section, you will see it. Also, in that article they make claims of notability for those holding that view. A small example:

Barry Fell (1917 - 1994), British-born and distinguished Harvard professor of marine biology, wrote "Saga America" one year after his retirement in 1980, which proves the existence of Muslims in America.

Also:

Salih Yucel began to search for the traces of lost Islam in the United States just after his appointment to Redfern Mosque in Sydney, Australia, as a religious official, 14 years after his graduation from Ankara University‘s Faculty of Theology.

So the article is clearly sourced and makes claims of notability. So far, the above disscussion (this is not a vote) has been regarding this being a minority view and having NPOV issues, and i have referred to policy and precedence to prove that those are not grounds for deleting. And i have showed that the article is indeed sourced, makes claims of minority scholarship and is not a hoax. What arguments for deleting remain? --Striver 17:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither Fell nor Yucel are reliable sources (Feel was a marine biologist dabbling in the esoteric, Yucel is a moslem religious specialist, neither are hisorians nor are their theories even discussed by historians, this does indeed constitute a very small minority view - probably more people believe the earth is flat). None of the claims of references are verifiable the way they are quoted, and if they were verifiable it would only be in nonreliable sources. You haven't really shown anything with your lawyerism. Maunus 23:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

lawyerism? Is that an insult? They are not RS? Is that relevant? Are you arguing that the guys that view the earth to be flat are RS? C'mon. Or are you maybe arguing that they do not exist? "probably more people believe the earth is flat". Is that your view? Any support of it? I have a hard time believing that. --Striver 01:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• My only problem is that I don't see any case for this being a notable minority POV. IMHO, it looks more like the discertation that some Harvard professor believed, and decided to put on Wikipedia. Can you find sources that talk about how this movement has a following? If so, please do add them to the article, and clean the thing up so it doesn't look like it's being presented as factual, but rather, a small group of people hold the belief. -Patstuart^talk|edits 02:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• http://forum.mpacuk.org/showthread.php?t=19225
• http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/sequoyah1.htm
• http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/mamerica.html
• http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/africanm.htm
• http://muslimwikipedia.com/mw/index.php/Native_Americans_and_Islam

That should be enough to establish a tiny minority. Now, could you please provide me with one (1) Harvard scholar that views the earth to be flat?--Striver 04:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Listcruft. Wikipedia ain't for stuff made up in school one day. — Rickyrab | Talk 21:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh... sorry? How is that relevant to the works of a Harvard professor?--Striver 23:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless the Harvard professor has a notable following, we can't include every work that a Harvard professor has done, especially without noting that it's a fringe work. Once this place names thing becomes a notable movement, with many followers, then include it. Otherwise, it's just a few people. I should have phrased correctly above, BTW; tiny minority probably isn't enough. Please show that there is a decent belief for this, and I'll change my "vote". -Patstuart^talk|edits 06:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, which Harvard Professor? Barry Fell? Despite what the messageboard linked to proclaims, he has nothing whatsover to do with the contents of this list, nor anything really to do with 'establishing' pre-Columbian Islamic presence in the Americas. That source is quite evidently bandying his name about in a misguided attempt to associate some academic credentials behind all this. While Prof. Fell did indeed make a number of claims to have identified petroglyphs in the Americas as having non-American origins, such as in North African and (mainly) Celtic (Ogham) scripts, his ideas in this regard are assessed by the academic community as being outlandish, eccentric and are not seriously contemplated. He did not AFAIK ever claim or set out to claim Islamic presence, though.

Instead, the sole source behind this "research" seems to be a rather obscure figure associated with a mosque in inner Sydney, Australia, with absolutely no demonstration of any credentials, of any kind, whatsoever. This source is reportedly (and reportedly since we've only the word of the original messageboard poster to go by) claiming that not only are these localities in some sense "Islamic" -and per my nominating comments this makes no linguistic sense- ,but also that these localities had these names already, ie before European settlement came along, and thus the "proof" that there was Islamic presence pre-Columbus.

So we are being asked to believe that, for example, Medina, Washington is so named because that is what it was called long before European settlers ever got there. However, even cursory research will show that in this case the township was only established in the late 19th C., and the town's historical society gives a rather different account has to how its name came about- to quote: "A community meeting was held and three women were appointed to select a name for the community. Mrs. Flora Beloti’s choice was the name selected. She had decided on the name “Medeena”, after a popular Arabian city." (and this was in 1891, not 1291).

Clearly, it and presumably the other Medinas in the US were named after the original in Saudi Arabia, but not by any Muslims who were there pre-1492.--cjllw | TALK 07:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes Barry Fell conducted a very large study of west african and north african muslims linguistic roots in the Americas before Columbus. This is detailed in his book Saga America

"Dr. Barry Fell (Harvard University) introduced in his book Saga America - 1980 solid scientific evidence supporting the arrival, centuries before Columbus, of Muslims from North and West Africa. Dr. Fell discovered the existence of Muslim schools at Valley of Fire, Allan Springs, Logomarsino, Keyhole Canyon, Washoe and Hickison Summit Pass (Nevada), Mesa Verde (Colorado), Mimbres Valley (New Mexico) and Tipper Canoe (Indiana) dating back to 700-800 CE. Engraved on rocks in the old western US, he found texts, diagrams and charts representing the last surviving fragments of what was once a system of schools - at both an elementary and higher levels. The language of instruction was North African Arabic written with old Kufic Arabic script. The subjects of instruction included writing, reading, arithmetic, religion, history, geography, mathematics, astronomy and sea navigation. The descendants of the Muslim visitors of North America are members of the present Iroquois, Algonquin, Anasazi, Hohokam and Olmec native people. " And it was this Harvard research that formed the backdrop to further work of the rather obscure figure as you put its work 62.129.121.63 13:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... you are arguing regarding the truth factor of the groups theory, and that is actually irrelevant to this article. However, if what you say regarding notability is true, then i am less inclined to champion it's inclusion.--Striver 11:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The Academic discourse on pre columbian prescence of muslims in America is quite established . It is a shame that so many wikipedians are unaware of this recent acedmic historical research. Here are some books that cover the research in some depth

• Amir Nashid Ali Muhammad Muslims in America - Seven Centuries of History ISBN 0-915957-75-2
• Muslims in American History - A forgotten legacy Jerald F Dirks ISBN 1-59008-044-0
• Deeper Roots Dr. Abdul Hakim Quick
• Sylvian diouf "slaves of Allah"

What Wikipedians need to appreciate is that this acedemic research is relatively new spanning just 50 years. I have yet to see a barrage of reliable acedemic source that refutes these new findings, as these discourses are becoming increasingly acceptable amonst reputable Historians. 62.129.121.63 12:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. If this was a simple List of Islamic place names in America, without the WP:OR, I wouldn't have an objection. --Dual Freq 12:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep given the highlighted precidence of wikipedia minority viewpoints, given the clear wiki policy, given the irrefutable proof of the existance of a minority acedemic viewpoint from reputable harvard scholars, and writers on the existance of Muslims in the USA pre Columbus. And given that this particular list (as part of a whole series of articles) is built upon Harvard acedemics studies there is no other choice but to keep the article.

It is unfortunate that many of the editors on wikipedia are unaware of this important and recent acedemic study of the history of Muslims in America pre Columbus 62.129.121.63 14:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• comment given the above list of academic books, i stand by my keep. Howerver, the article needs to be sourced and to state that it a new and minority held view.--Striver 15:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Article is flawed with soapboxing. Per the Handbook of Texas, the origin of the name Medina in Texas comes from Spanish background [31] for the river (Pedro Medina), with the county getting its name from the river [32], and Medina, Texas in this same region [33]. This is probably not the only error of this article. Therefore, Delete. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 21:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I read the article it is fails WP:RS, [[WP:N] and WP:NOR. It is a fringe theory that needs to mentioned somwhere else as a mere line item in an article about place names in the USA but does not deserve an article.RaveenS 23:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Just awful... - crz crztalk 23:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The following professors also support the evidence of pre african (islamic) presence in America pre Columbus
• Harvard Professor Leo Wiener
• Ivan Van Sertima
• Cheikh Anta Diop
• Michael Bradley

These scholars contend that long before the arrival of the Spanish, Africans were already trading with, warring with, and inter-mixing with the native peoples of the Western Hemisphere [34] 81.178.99.202 23:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Mormon Muslims? Actually, learn to read. That is exactly what the article does not say. It says "from 1502 to 1900." — coelacan talk — 23:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment / replies:
  • - 62.129.121.63: on the contrary, it is your comments which give the appearance of unfamiliarity with the current standing of pre-Columbian historical research. To say "...these discourses are becoming increasingly acceptable amonst reputable Historians" is demonstrably false, at best misleading. Any readings done outside of the same material you have quoted (which is spammed and duplicated across a number of afrocentrist and other miscellaneous messageboards) -say, any peer-reviewed academic journal, Archaeology, Science, etc- would show that these ideas have no acceptance by mainstream historians.
  • - Striver,81.178.99.202- while some of these sources may indeed have held or still hold positions in academia -Fell, van Sertima, Wiener- to generally describe what they have written on these subjects as "reputable/academic works or studies" would be misleading. Their publications cited have not undergone any peer-reviewed academic process (which is what "academic publication" means), but instead are popularly published and are no more deserving of an 'academic' label than other well-known fringe/pseudoscientific writers like Erich von Daniken and Zecharia Sitchin.--cjllw | TALK 02:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Then call them "kooko theories" or whatever, i don't care what you call them. And rewrite to that effect. But this article meets the inclusion terms given by the Flat Earth Society. Being a mainstream science is demonstrably not a inclusion threshold. --Striver 04:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, According to user:striver and user:62.129.121.63 above explaination. Mak82hyd 02:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep -- it is clear that this is a researched theory, rather than an ephemeral hoax; also Keep because most of the delete arguments are based on either exclusionism, or resistance to the challenge this article represents to "mainstream" Fundamentalist Christian WASP so-called scholarship -- SockpuppetSamuelson
• further comment and clarification: if it is not already clear, it should be noted that the likes of Fell, van Sertima, Diop, Wiener, et al are not the direct or indirect sources for the claims made in this particular article- namely, that a number of "Islamic-sounding" placenames in the Americas have those names because they were called that by some supposed Islamic presence pre-Columbus. While these folks have indeed published works which postulate pre-Columbian African or Islamic presence, they are only mentioned by the messageboard site this material is taken from as being sources which are supportive of the general concept, and not the specific claim. There is no demonstration that any of these "academics" have made the connection on these placenames in their works. At all. The only attributed source for the claim on which this article is based -that all the Medina etc placenames in US are "Islamic"- is the Redfern mosque attendee Salih Yucel, and furthermore we only have the messageboard poster's word for it. Frankly, this is a very poor demonstration of any notable, "researched theory", and on the face of it is barely distinguishable from a hoax. "Fundamentalist Christian WASP so-called scholarship" has absolutely nothing to do with this either.--cjllw | TALK 09:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete some fringe theories are notable. This one is not per lack of reliable sources describing it. Eluchil404 10:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• reply to CJLL Firstly lets not denegrate Yucel as the Redfern Mosque Attendee, as he was a Doctorate student At Harvard and one of his professors was Harvard Professor Fell. His research referenced and detailed these half a dozen harvard and other notable academics works on the subjects. As yet You have failed to produce ANY evidence that the Acedemic circles reject these theories or that it is widespread, or that the research did not undergo Peer review. Yet the arguments for the inclusion of this article have consistantly give sound references of the Harvard historians support of this field of study.

p.s If you read the article that was referenced it says

‹ The template below has been proposed for deletion. See templates for deletion to help reach a consensus on what to do. › Yucel then traveled to the US to pursue his doctoral degree in "Religion and Mental Health" at the University of Boston; he is currently a preacher at the School of Medicine Hospital of Harvard as well as a member of the religious affairs planning committee of these hospitals. In addition to being on the administration of the Boston Dialogue Foundation, Yucel has researched the traces of Islam on the American Continent for years. The most important findings he notes also concur with the research of his former professor and member of the US Science and Art Academy faculty, Professor Barry Fell.

However this all acedemic as it is abundantly clear that this is a acedemic viewpoint that is backed up by half a dozen Harvard Professors as well as other Acedemics, and is contained in several Acedemic Books (which have been listed). And since the precedence and policy of Wikipedia is NOT to exlude minority positions your arguments are moot 62.129.121.63 11:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It is most certainly not clear. It is not our task to prove that the viewpoints haven't undergone peer reiew. It is the task of the article creator to refer to reliable sources something which he fails to do. Even if fivehundred harvard proffessos think the theory is sound it is of no importance untill one of them publishes a book about it or an artcile in a peerreviewed journal. The article links to a message board not to any artciles or books. Also being an academic doesn't mean that thei viewpoint hold any leverage at all - the are biologists and theologists not historians. Their statements about history or linguistics hold about as much value as bold claims I might make about quantum physics. Maunus 11:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I still await the peer-reviewed book from the Flat Earth Society.--Striver 11:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I could accept List of Arabic place names in the United States. As for the theory about pre-Columbian Islamic influence, it could be covered in the Barry Fell article, or in a stand-alone article that reports on the theory without adopting it. JamesMLane t c 17:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Proto::► 10:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable YouTube users

Notable YouTube users (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

A similar article to this, Notable YouTube memes, was deleted via AfD in October. This article actually pre-dates that one, so it doesn't really qualify for CSD G4. Tried tagging it anyway, but it was removed by an admin, so I'm bringing it here. Essentially, having a list article like this isn't necessary, as there already exists a "Notable YouTube users" list in the main YouTube article, and it isn't large enough to require splitting-off. And I contend that the AfD decision made for the later Notable YouTube memes list article applies to this one as well. WarpstarRider 09:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete There ain't no such animal. OK, maybe there is, but where is the objective definition? Guy (Help!) 09:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as mentioned by the article, these are only for those that have a wikipedia article. It is a way to consolidate them to save from having the lists interlinking in each article. Inexperienced editors continually add non-notable youtubers to the individual lists in the articles, this is one method of keeping them central and easily watchable. There is nothing wrong with any of those on the list - or there wasnt when I looked at the page earlier today, the articles are referenced etc. I see no reason to delete. Viridae^Talk 10:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The point behind this AfD is that the an article with the exact same purpose was deleted through AfD already; this should've been picked up and deleted along with that one. Also, as I mentioned, there is a central list in the YouTube article already. The lists in the individual articles have all been removed and pointed to that section. WarpstarRider 11:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Thats a good compromise as far as I am concerned. Change to Delete. (I was going to get someone with skills to create a template to achieve the same thing as this article, equally mitigating the constant inserting of non-notables.) Viridae^Talk 11:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WarpstarRider. --ElectricEye (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It only lists people who have been deemed notable through other means (WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, etc). Seems perfectly fine to me. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, better served by categories. A list will only encourage the accumulation of unverifiable trivia. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and form category because it seems they are all worthy of articles, I think Night Gyr's idea of a category would be good suitable. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • We already have Category:YouTube, and with 11 entries it doesn't seem to be overloaded, so anything youtube-related and article-worthy can go in there. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Way too indiscriminate. MER-C 13:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete very small list of four people, all of whom have their own articles. Makes more sense as a category, and indeed we already have one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment (and Keep) The list was deleted in August when it was replaced by a category. After the category was deleted, the list was restored. Since then, no one knew this existed, so it is out of date. Instead, many users have edited the individual articles of YouTube users to include lists of people (up to 15 or so I think) in the individual articles of each YouTube user with an article. This has led to constant excessive reverts as articles which are soon speedied are added then removed from each page. I was the one who pointed to this again last night, raising the awareness, and therefore opening up for the new deletion request. I had hoped that people would instead update the list and that the main article could point to this as well, leading to only one place where changes occurr. The nominator redirected all of the links to the main YouTube article specifically to the section with the list. The section was renamed shortly thereafter, which will now require changing all of the links again. It seems that a separate list article is warranted to me... (sorry if this is too much of a ramble.) --Siradia 15:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't realize Category:YouTube existed. I assumed after the previous category was deleted, we were out of options. I've updated items in that category. --Siradia 15:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete maintaining this would be a mess Dragomiloff 18:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. YouTube use is going to become less and less notable as time goes on. If evidence is found that George W Bush or the Pope use it, that would be notable. A list of notable people who happen to use YouTube is not. WJBscribe 20:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I find the basic premis of this list to be "People who have becomed notable because of thier interaction with YouTube." That seems reasonable. If the content is in the main article because it's small... that's fine. If it gets split into a side article due to size, that's fine too. Keep the content but keep a careful eye on it for spam. ---J.S ^(T/C) 21:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong and Speedy Delete: per Dragomiloff, and until YouTube start confirming the copyright of videos properly, it has the potential for assisting contributory infringement through linking to copyright violating material, something WikiMedia foundation attorney Brad Patrick can confirm if you ask him. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the copyright problems of YouTube.com has to do with this debate? Should we delete "YouTube" on the same grounds? ---J.S ^(T/C) 23:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• • As inappropriate as I consider this page to be, your argument is entirely off base. All of the people who became youtube celebrities did so through creating original content, so links to their content are not contributing to infringement. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• So this list will purely be people who were non notable before using YouTube, not a list of celebs who may or may not use YouTube. In which case, if the users are notable enough to be on this list, they would be notable enough to have their own articles and therefore a category, if they aren't notable enough to have their own articles, then the list as a whole doesn't satisfy WP:N and WP:BIO so and as such requires deletion. Either way, the article shouldn't exist. If we're talking about celebs who use YouTube, I have concerns over copyright violations too, do we really want a list of Notable YouTube users comprising every celeb who has had a sex video on the site.Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 16:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Catigorize pages. This page says nothing besides their orignal pages so just makee them catagories. Cnriaczoy42 22:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Should have gone away with the previous deletion. Watchsmart 06:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep -only because arguments put forth so far for delete are unimpressive. Too short? It can be expanded, especially as more notable users pop up. The category exists? We have other such lists, and this article isn't just a list: it has text. Too indiscriminate? No, it says notable, and only links to Youtube with articles. Copyright issues? that's just silly: like J.S. said, unless we want to nuke Youtube as well. -Patstuart^talk|edits 14:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Why can't we just make a category for these four. THeir is nothing that can really be said that isn't said on individual pages. Cnriaczoy42 22:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and Rewrite per my vote (Mister.Manticore's, actually) on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable LiveJournal users. Danny Lilithborne 22:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Cruft magnet. Truly notable individuals do not require a wikipedia article substantiating their notability. We don't have articles for "Notable Businesspeople" or "Notable Philosophers," rather Henry Ford's or Plato's notability is self-evident. The YouTube category, which already exists, suffices. Pop Secret 21:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Politics1.com

For prior discussions, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics1.com (Previous Nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics1.com (2nd nomination)

Politics1.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This site is undeniably popular, although not in the same league as Daily Kos, ranking just outside 70,000 on Alexa while Kos is inside the 2,000 mark, but the problem I have here is that I cannot find good sources to remedy the multiple "unsourced" tags on the article. It scores well on a Google search, but this is partly the result of rampant spamming (including to Wikipedia, where it has been linked as a source for numerous rumours in biographies - last I heard blogs were not a good source for such, but that's an aside). However, it scores only four passing mentions in Google News and seven on Factiva, which also appear to be passing mentions ("according to politics1, blah", where blah is a single sentence). All the content appears to be referenced to the primary source, and there is a lot of editorialising going on. I';m certainly not averse to keeping it if we can demonstrate that credible third party sources exist for the content - i.e. substantial critical review of the site, rather than just proof of existence - and we can clean it up to be properly neutral. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No sources, Google Link Search shows that pretty much every site linking to Politics1 does it simply as a footnote listing affiliations or listing random blogs on similar subjects. cacophony 10:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• In the first AFD discussion, Kappa pointed to where several potential sources are cited on the Politics1 web site itself. I've added citations for the originals, of a few of them, to the article for your reading pleasure. Uncle G 11:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Appreciate the work, Uncle G, it'll be interesting to see if these are judged by t'committee to be non-trivial coverage (one at least seems to rise above the level of directory-of-politics-sites). Guy (Help!) 14:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep It may be popular, but sources are still needed or they may be deleted especially if challenged. ^_^ --ElectricEye (talk) 11:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Undeniably non-notable. I have several <70k Alexa sites and none of them have pages on WP. --lesalle 16:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. (nn blog) Maybe WP:WEB ought to be adjusted for blogs to be included to have alexa <= 5000 or something. --timecop 16:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if no credible source can be found (my own webpage has a better Alexa ranking). Sam Hocevar 16:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No sources, not notable. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No sauce. Where is the sauce? MrMacMan 17:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• 6 potential sources were cited in the article at the point that I commented above. I suggest that the preceding three editors read the article again, carefully this time. Uncle G 18:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have looked over the sources listed... The 'Politics1.com Is One of...' is large large large list of 'the best sites' and no real commentary on downsides... for example The previous 'site to checkout' isn't posted on wiki The link to ' TV and Web are poles apart' is nothing more then a sites to possibly checkout article. I checked using my colleges database. As I don't believe I'm allowed to lift text ill say that they talk about, 'www.fearthis.com', 'theonion.com', 'jeb02.com' and several local sites for Illinois political office. Its a big list of sites and doesn't really go into deeper then "Thorough and smoothly laid out"... and The other Tribune article is more of the same... infact the title says it directly -- sites you might want to checkout. Meh, not enough actual discussion about the sites dealings, views, critics and necesary indepth coverge. Weak delete? Well beforehand, yes. Now that i saw that the articles people could find about were only typical 'check this site out!' I back my delete fully. MrMacMan 19:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You've omitted the Seattle Times and Broward-Palm Beach New Times articles, both of which go into detail on this web site and its founder. Uncle G 09:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - It's a popular website and I value the sources added that confirm it's importance and heavy usage during political seasons. --Oakshade 00:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Sharkface217 05:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. nn, unsourced. -Ich (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Once again: There are 6 potential sources cited in the article. Please read the article being discussed. Uncle G 09:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, cannot see why there are claims that this article is not sourced, somebody needs a case for Wikidumper? Alf photoman 15:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pn nn, vanity, no sources. Skrewler 20:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete notability doesnt matter... verifiability does... if it cant be verified it needs to go.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 10:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity, advertising, self-promotion and an external link. makes no sense to keep pages like this one. - Femmina 12:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, esp. the commentary by macman. Eusebeus 12:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Proto::► 10:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Kelley

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

Does not meet WP:NOT, is also autobiographical (and reads like spam). 2 of the links are to the author's own website (an advertising portal/on-line store), classifying them as advertisements. The Savannah cat article already mentions this person as one of the breed's founders, we don't need a separate article detailing his personal achievements or how popular his website is (none of which I can verify from a non-trivial source anyhow). Finiteyoda 09:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Also an autobiography. MER-C 13:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete Not an autobiography and comes from 2 reliable referenced sources (TICA'S Savannah Cat Breed Section and S.I.M.B.A). Finiteyoda says there are two links to Patrick Kelley's personal website. There are none. (If someone sees them please point them out) Finiteyoda has been aware of this page for quite some time and Finiteyoda's request for deletion comes only after his/her obscurely referenced additions to the Savannah cat article where edited. Toast222 06:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

First, Toast, I am not upset about you editing my references, I kept them and even cleaned them up a little further. My request came because I had just noticed Patrick's page, and per the rules, it's not the kind of content Wikipedia hosts. Also, Patrick does own savannahcat.com and the yahoo groups linked to from that site, I assume, since the contact e-mail for both is the same. Also, it is an autobiography, even if it has referenced sources; if you follow the WP:AUTO link, you'll note the definition is when someone comes to Wikipedia and creates an article about themselves, and why we frown upon that. Finally, you may want to review Wiki policy on Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry. Your first 20 or so edits here at Wikipedia were to add links to Patrick Kelley's breeding site, darkeggs.com, and the next 15 or so to add information about Patrick Kelley in various places and removing spam cleanup tags. I highly suggest reading more at Wikipedia:Community_Portal#Departments, because many of your contributions to-date look like spam. Finiteyoda 23:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Finiteyoda the Parick Kelley article has ONE link to a site that is owned by him (not TWO as you accused the article of having in your request for deletion). Obviously you said "two" because you thought nobody would check. I mean come on...you have researched every nusance of this article and you are an old pro on Wikipedia. Huge difference between 1 and 2. That said, the one site in question is recongnized by the majority of us as the breed site for Savannahs. Not spam. I have contacted Patrick Kelley about this article and he says he did not write it. I certainly believe him over you because...well..you lie. However your passion for Wikipedia and the Savannah breed are obvious and if this article is deleted I'm sure you and I can work hand in hand and write a new article on Patrick Kelley (and Joyce Sroufe for that matter) that is better suited for Wikepidea.Toast222 09:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if it's one site instead of two, but it doesn't change the argument any. Also, if Patrick Kelley is not user Pfkelley, you might want to tell him that someone on Wikipedia is impersonating him. --Finiteyoda 23:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - nn/autobiography --61.114.193.19 12:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - nn/autobiography (Was not aware of this rule..my bad)Pfkelley 22:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect to Marathon Trilogy. Agent 86 00:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marathon series

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

Not popular series of books listed as either out of print or ranking in the 1.88 millionsths per Amazon. The titles are carried in only about a dozen libraries in the world. The author scores approx 225 unique Ghits, mainly from booksellers' sites. Ohconfucius 10:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• No vote, but the article would probably make a good redirect to Marathon Trilogy - a considerably more popular series of computer games. Zetawoof^(ζ) 10:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I thought it was books related to the story of the Marathon Trilogy which definitely would be notable, however these don't seem to be notable, i suggest the Redirect as Zeta suggested. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep.--Kchase T 06:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shoko Goto

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

NN person. And now that WP:PORNBIO is a guideline, I thought that this article deserved another AFD vote. Previous discussion can be found here. Dismas|^(talk) 10:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete it is possible this article should exist on the Japanese wikipedia but not here. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Theoretically, since all the Wikipedias have the same goal, then any genuinely notable article on one should appear on all. Confusing Manifestation 02:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Here we go again. Expect to see every article in the Japanese pornography category targeted for deletion because it doesn't meet American standards of notability. The Japanese and American pornography industries are different and to ignore those differences is to create cultural bias at Wikipedia. To put things in perspective, consider a Japanese pornographic superstar like Hitomi Kobayashi. "...long hailed as Japan's Queen of Adult Video... It's been 16 years since her debut film and she has made 39 movies for the direct to video market..." [35] So, "Japan's Queen of Adult Video" fails the American test. Goto Shoko has been a major presence in the Japanese adult field since 2004. Mainstream outlet Amazon Japan currently sells 23 DVDs, 1 book and 1 VHS tape featuring this model. How many American pornographic actresses can make the same claim? In other words, within only 2 years, her output as listed at Amazon (there are adult-video only sites that will list more) has nearly tied the "Queen of Adult Video." Dekkappai 18:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep shoko goto easily meets at least two of the seven criterion.
  1. "Performer has been a Playboy Playmate (of the Year or Month) or a Penthouse Pet (of the Year or Month), or similar titles in other major magazines." she has been featured in Bachelor magazine, a premier big-bust adult magazine in japan. Bachelor has consistently featured well-known western models like chloe vevrier and linsey dawn mckenzie, and is similar to Score in north america.
  2. "Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche" shoko goto has had high output in the big-bust genre of videos despite being in the business for only two years. as verified by the number of her videos on amazon japan (a mainstream outlet that does not list all of her work), as dekkappai has already demonstrated.

i must talk about a comment made earlier that the article could be in the japanese wikipedia but not here. if it is important enough to be in the japanese wiki, why is an english equivalent of it not important enough to be here? --Hexvoodoo 21:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep AFAIK notable enough in the Japanese porn scene. It's not acceptable to hold people from non-English-speaking nations to higher standards of notability - it's not a 'notable to Americans' or 'notable to the British' or whatever standard. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all above (except nom). --Oakshade 23:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment So that we don't have to go through this again, wouldn't it be better for you, Dekkappai and Hexvoodoo, to either update the articles so that these questions of notability aren't consistently brought up or have the guideline updated to better outline who would and would not be notable enough for inclusion? The latter of those would probably be simplest. Considering not very many people outside of Asia, or possibly outside of just Japan, may know how big/established/notable/etc. Bachelor magazine is, it would probably save you a lot of headaches having to justify your keep votes. Dismas|^(talk) 03:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I apologize if I was a bit cranky up there, Dismas. You were probably unaware of the history behind this-- Earlier in the year, a certain editor who has expressed hostility to this subject on numerous occasions, nominated an extensive "List of Japanese Female Porn Actors" for deletion, edit-warred it down into only blue-links, claimed its function would be served by a category, and then succeeded in having it deleted. He then proceeded to begin systematically nominating for deletion every article in the remaining category. In other words, using underhanded means, he was attempting to censor Wikipedia of any meaningful coverage of the Japanese adult entertainment field. My limited Internet time has, since then, mostly been spent in re-working that list-- extensive sourcing, research, etc. It should be ready for presentation before very long. Once it is up, I fully intend to work on these articles, and make sure they're up to standard. I'll try to work on this particular one later today. If there was a discussion as to guidelines/notability standards in the pornography field, I missed it probably because I don't monitor the entire field, but just the Japanese subjects, which interest me. Regards. Dekkappai 17:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Thank you for the apology and clearing that up. I was unaware of the bad faith user or whatever you want to call them. Dismas|^(talk) 21:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the above, and I'm also perplexed by the attitude of trying to limit Japanese articles to the Japanese wikipedia. Neier 10:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 10:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete, nonsense from a vandal. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zelda tetras curse

Zelda tetras curse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

A non-existent game (Google returns no results for "Tetra's Curse"), or at best a future fan game, therefore completely non-notable and unverifiable. Author contested prod with own admission that it doesn't exist. ~Matticus ^T_C 10:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as even author admits it does not yet exist. JPD (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced and unverifiable crystal ballery, conflict of interest, failure of WP:SOFTWARE. MER-C 13:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per first sentence of article: "non-existent game". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bearly541 23:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nonsense. Pascal.Tesson 18:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of (minor) bridges in Toronto

List of (minor) bridges in Toronto (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

By article title, these are "minor" bridges, such as street-over-street overpasses. No notability established, no outside sources. Wikipedia is NOT a road map or travel guide. Serpent's Choice 11:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. We don't need to list all the bridges in the world. JPD (talk) 12:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 13:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DrKiernan 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable database cruft. Edison 15:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per what wikipedia isn't. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable and who cares? --Mig ^(Talk) 17:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - complete pointless. -- Whpq 18:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Wow, the title itself admits there are not notable! WJBscribe 20:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not notable. Bearly541 23:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. NeoJustin 22:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nukebidding

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

Appears to be a neologism; I can't find any reference on Google outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. Nothing at all on Google Groups. Blorg 11:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Maybe the description is too vague, but isn't this just the already well-known practice of sniping? Certainly appears to be a protologism with no apparent usage outside of Wikipedia and mirrors. ~Matticus ^T_C 11:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. JPD (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn neologism. MER-C 13:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fully agree with the nominator. This term doesn't even exist outside of Wikipedia. Jayden54 14:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - does not appear to be a term in general use and as noted by Matticus, article describes auction sniping.
• Speedy Delete. Was this in retaliation of losing a bid on eBay? Bearly541 23:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Superdelete, as not even a notable neologism. All article on google appear to be linking to WP; the guy may have may the term up. -Patstuart^talk|edits 13:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. NeoJustin 22:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete pointless. FirefoxMan 22:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Auction sniping, which is the phrase usually used for the activity described in the article. No content worth salvaging. Tubezone 10:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  Coment - do we really want to redirect for a term that doesn't exist? -Patstuart^talk|edits 16:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  Comment Well, having a redirect might dissuade someone from trying to recreate the article. Also, I've seen the term used, although the person using it probably made it up off the cuff. Tubezone 08:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars Diplomacy

Star Wars Diplomacy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

It fails under notability guidelines and has been tagged as such since august. During this time, few noteworthy edits have been made, and the article remains in the same state. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Notability not established. JPD (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 13:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; no reliable sources. That the game's designers are only identified by first name is not a good sign. JChap2007 14:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no claim to meet notability guidelines, no independent sources. Google search shows self-generated material and forum posts, but no coverage by major publications; outside hits appear (based on identical or near-identical text) to be WP mirrors. Topic has no relation to Diplomacy (game). Barno 18:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Along with this should SWDiplomacy be deleted, I suppose. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. NeoJustin 22:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Note that a merge of this does not make sense as the article contained the following statement:

Electrokinesis in fiction bears little or no relation to its factual namesake.

—Doug Bell ^talk 11:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)