Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Purge server cache

Contents 1 Eliza Branicka 2 List of vehicles in Kirby Air Ride 3 Soviet Union and Islamic Fundamentalism 4 Lenine 5 Hume Lake Christian Camps 6 Grosvenor PFC (AfD subpage) 7 Rapier Instructors 8 LibTom Project 9 Tom St Denis 10 Brahma Kumaris Info 11 Star Trek : Intrepid 12 Second Dominion War 13 Robert speed 14 Abdul Razak Mohaideen 15 The Legacy Corporation 16 Why is a flame blue? 17 Eos (fictional dog) 18 Rodney and Josh Strother racing workshop 19 Carole Antouri 20 Mobcasting 21 Ran (Bob and George) 22 Steely Dan trivia 23 Rolf H. Rothermel 24 Ron McVan 25 Hikari Hino 26 Skousen & Skousen 27 Dog Fart Neutralizing Thong 28 Mr. Laughalot 29 Owen Sound Collegiate and Vocational Institute 30 McIntosh Hall 31 Happy Now? 32 Casey Calvert 33 J.T. Woodruff 34 Wakefield (band) 35 Ronald Victor Markham 36 Nike Davis 37 Los Cerritos Middle School 38 Roots Festival 39 Northbrook waters 40 Lando (speakers) 41 peace breaker's muzzle 42 Rosalind Chetwynd 43 Wanna Buy A Duck? 44 Roseland Dance Hall 45 Rosemarie tissi 46 Rossiter System 47 Allen_Greenfield 48 Rowan public library 49 Tim O'Neil 50 Theodore H. Rowell 51 Invasive weed optimization algorithm 52 Royal Avenue 53 Royd Moor Wind Farm & Royd Moor Viewing Platform 54 International rankings of the United States 55 Rt. Rev. Clifton Daniel III 56 Bridgeport High School 57 Rules Monger 58 Carrie Ruxton 59 Russian military and robots 60 Out of Box Failure 61 Rural Action 62 OpenPBX by Voicetronix 63 Recommend removal of all articles and links associated with OpenPBX 64 New wave of british metalcore 65 Flash Flash Revolution 66 Signal (U.S. band) 67 Sorcery 101 68 K2xl Games 69 K.K. Chiu 70 KDKA Sports Showdown 71 TRN UK 72 Islamic leadership 73 Kahini 74 Jörg Bobsin 75 KaosPilots International 76 KaosPilot 77 Lothlorien Hall 78 Paddy Cunningham 79 Sexy football 80 Ben Packer 81 Uprightness of all Sahaba 82 Frank Albert Pangajow 83 Crazy Dumbsaint 84 Kalup Linzy 85 Promoting the use of renewable energy 86 Wario the Quario 87 TRN HD 88 Worldplace 89 Carolyn Jourdan (2nd nomination) 90 Wolfgang Designs 91 Mount Olive Lutheran Church 92 Meddiebempsters 93 Old Bonhomme Hockey League 94 Negrois 95 Orchestra Right Records 96 Punks and Nerds 97 Binhead 98 Mallcore 99 Karen Grass 100 Karl Bluestone 101 Kate Hutton 102 A. R. Leding Cactus Garden 103 Tommy Kaira 104 Varberg Fortress Moat Monster 105 Translations for Haley in Order of the Stick 106 Arthur Riel 107 Lothlórien Co-op 108 Salvatore Capezio 109 Salwa Khoddam 110 Samantha Findlay 111 Soupism 112 NNY 113 Sami khella 114 Shaquille Carroll 115 Rachael Ray Sucks 116 Shedao Shai 117 Stereotypes of Africans/Blacks 118 The eye of animated christmas EVE 119 Preston Ivan Lewis 120 Ambrosia Co-op 121 International Co-op 122 Summit Avenue Cooperative 123 Ambler College 124 Mazzolato 125 Dunja_Mladenic 126 Pierre Verdan 127 Helen Kim 128 Poemas de un portero 129 Amiot (car manufacturer) 130 Cambridge University Automobile Club 131 Xrista 132 Mary Applebey 133 Trixbox 134 Thames Valley College (London, Ontario, Canada) 135 Alan Lodge 136 Rated-RKO 137 Interim 138 Chu Wing Kit 139 The Other Sister 140 Leilani Bishop

[edit] Eliza Branicka

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

This woman seems only notable by marriage, and that can be included elsewhere. Triviaa 00:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Zygmunt Krasiński (other spouse is a redlink). Wikipedia is not a compendium of genealogical information. --Dhartung | Talk 02:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Dhartung.--Dakota 04:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge seeing as there isn't that much content it should disrupt the article. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 07:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per all of the above. — Seadog 16:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Dhartung. ---J.S ^(T/C) 18:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per the above. ← ANAS ^Talk? 19:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Zygmunt Krasiński per above --Neigel von Teighen 19:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per all. Kyo cat^{¿Qué tal?♥meow!} 23:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of vehicles in Kirby Air Ride

List of vehicles in Kirby Air Ride (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic, unreferenced, gameguide matieral, not in prose format. Doesn't belong here. Clyde Miller 00:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fancruft that should be speedy deleted. KazakhPol 00:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Timkovski 00:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Stripped down and merge to the main articleKirby Air Ride. Basically, just the list of cars. The rest can be left out and this deleted. -WarthogDemon 00:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete mostly list cruft and game guide-ish, Wikipedia is not a game guide.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment not even as a list on the game page? And I would mean a simple list of names; not with their stats and speed and such. -WarthogDemon 00:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Can merge some info, but even merged can be argues as fancruft. --Wizardman 01:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and maybe the base list on the main page.SkierRMH 02:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, completely guidish and unencyclopedic. Zip424 02:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Fails WP:NOT. MER-C 04:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per reasons given in nom. ArmAndLeg 04:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Austin2040 04:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NOT (game guide, there is no need to list every vehicle and discuss it). Also, creator of this article did so in order to 'stop an edit war' (IE, someone was deleting this from the Air Ride article because it was unsuitable, so this contributor just started a new article). It's all there on the Kirby Air Ride talk page. QuagmireDog 05:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you care? I was just trying to stop people bothering me about putting it on the game's main page! It was there before, and nobody did anything about it!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Link 486 (talk • contribs).

We care because we want to make a good encyclopedia, and this doesn't help. From what I can tell, several people have expressed an interest in including a list on the main page of the vehicles, but only the vehicles (no stats). I have no problem with that, but I don't think this article needs to be here.--Clyde Miller 14:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete wikipedia NOT. — Seadog 16:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per reasons provided. ← ANAS ^Talk? 19:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Baristarim 19:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, I don't care if it's not in prose form, whatever the hell that is. You're all mocking me, ruining something I put my effort into. I don't know who gave you the right to do that, but I'm not going to stand for it!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Link 486 (talk • contribs).

Look dude were not trying to mock you here, and we're not ruining something you put your efforts into. We are working to reach a consensus about this article and the information in it (by the way, prose is complete sentences and paragraphs.) Maybe this information has a place on StrategyWiki, Encyclopedia Gamia, or GameInfo. Take a look at those to add strategy guide material. As for Wikipedia, I think the only suitable answer is to delete this article and put a small list on the main Kirby Air Ride article.--Clyde Miller 22:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. We're just trying to follow the rules of WP:NOT, not trying to mock you. Chill. Kyo cat^{¿Qué tal?♥meow!} 23:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Pure fancruft, and per above. Kyo cat^{¿Qué tal?♥meow!} 23:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Smerge core content to Kirby Air Ride; that article could use it better than a separate page. TTV|talk|contribs|email 03:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge This is fancruft by itself, but a reduced version could be helpful to the main article. -- VGF11 02:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Union and Islamic Fundamentalism

Soviet Union and Islamic Fundamentalism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

POV nonsense. This is an incredibly biased, unsourced article with no justifiable reason for existing. There is no such thing as "Arabic Islam" and "Central Asian Islam" has no "relationship" with the United States. Chechnya and Dagestan are not even in Central Asia. KazakhPol 00:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - bascilaly unverifiable with little accurate content.SkierRMH 02:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. OR essay, stub, no potential to be anything more. Dragomiloff 03:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 04:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 09:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TSO1D 14:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Note also that we have a conventionally titled Islam in the Soviet Union article, which wants some expansion. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — Seadog 16:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per SkierRMH. ---J.S ^(T/C) 18:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced, inaccurate, POV and biased; and all in only five lines.--Anthony.bradbury 19:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 19:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Baristarim 19:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ORish, insufficient context, inaccuracies, and material on the same general topic without these issues already exists on Wikipedia. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 21:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lenine

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

View single debate

That's not an Wikipedia-article, reads like copy&paste. IMHO it's not possible to wikify this here. Should be deleted Hedwig in Washington ^(TALK) 10:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I've got rid of the massive MTV-Unplugged text dump (although someone is welcome to re-add it in a more judicious manner) and had a quick run-through with a wikification pencil on the rest. The subject of the artist is verifiable and appears notable. Certainly the album "Falange Canibal" got press attention, and I'd expect that the same is true of the rest of his discography. A lusophone editor should be able to shed more light on this, but there doesn't look anything wrong with it now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 00:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, seems notable by cursory Google search. Adding Allmusic, etc. links. --Dhartung | Talk 02:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, BigHaz cleaned up the problems with this article. Hagerman^(talk) 07:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Apparently the article has been cleaned up a little, and at this point, it definitely should be kept. SupaStarGirl 15:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep yeah pretty notable, on amazon too. — Seadog 16:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per allmusic entry. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as a copyvio of this page. No prejudice for a non-copyvio recreation however. ---J.S ^(T/C) 18:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Clear copyvio as above. Virtually word for word. --Anthony.bradbury 19:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per copy vio.. Baristarim 19:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• DELETE Doesn't matter if it was 'cleaned up', the remaining info is still a copyvio. Seen more than one good article deleted because of this kind of lazy copy/paste editing. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 22:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment as far as the copyvios go, I've done the best I can (just now) to work around that. I'm hampered by a lack of experience with the man's music (or familiarity with Portuguese sources), so if anyone else can paraphrase things better they're welcome to join in. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hume Lake Christian Camps

Another apparently entirely unnotable summer camp, like all the other ones that have been deleted here in the past. Grutness...wha? 00:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Wizardman 01:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - and WP:CORP, nn business.SkierRMH 02:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete definitely per nom.--Dakota 04:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 04:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no sign of reliable third-party coverage to build an article beyond a Yellow Pages entry. Pascal.Tesson 15:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, nothing else really to say about this. — Seadog 16:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of notability. ---J.S ^(T/C) 18:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. But their hearts are in the right place.--Anthony.bradbury 19:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 19:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Baristarim 19:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rapier Instructors

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

Probably not uncontroversial enough for a prod but this article is as close as you can get to Wikipedia becoming the Yellow Pages. Spam magnet to boot. Seems to have been spun-off the rapier article so maybe merge back but by all means cleanup. Pascal.Tesson 00:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, maybe merge some salvageable things into the main article. But kill the list, definitely. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, list of instructors can change and the text is non notable. Bearly541 01:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. - 70.105.138.175 01:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If they has articles I'd suggest this be a category, but seeing as how that's not the case I'll stick with the deletion. --Wizardman 01:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - yep, reads like the Net/Yellow PagesSkierRMH 02:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all.--Dakota 04:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 04:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. TSO1D 14:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable and per nom. — Seadog 16:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and don't merge. If their are notable rapier instructors, recreate as a "List of notable rapier instructors" ---J.S ^(T/C) 18:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Baristarim 19:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, a merge would probably be pointless.-- danntm ^T _C 04:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not a directory. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 13:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LibTom Project

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

This software is not notable according to any criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (software). The author has requested its deletion, saying, "With respect to Tom_St_Denis I did not put the page there, nor do I want a page about myself on Wikipedia. Please remove it. Same goes for LibTom_Project. I don't think Wikipedia should be polluted with small projects and people, and I certainly don't want to be known as a person to cause such pollution."[1] — Matt Crypto 01:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

i wrote it to complete a bit what was already there, but as Tom itself asked, please remove it.
Alejandro Mery 01:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say it's CSD G7 material, but delete per nom anyway. MER-C 04:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 19:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Baristarim 19:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Only reference is to the LibTom project's web page, and there is nothing in the article that says that LibTom is considered to be of great importance. For comparison, I notice we have no article about LibTiff, which I'd guess is more important; it is of moderate importance in that it is actually used in the implementation of many commercial and open source applications which deal with TIFF files. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, delbleated this page already. BTW I've closed libtomcrypt.com until both pages have been removed. Enjoy. -- Tom

[edit] Tom St Denis

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

Non-notable crypto software author; subject has requested page be deleted, saying, "With respect to Tom_St_Denis I did not put the page there, nor do I want a page about myself on Wikipedia. Please remove it. Same goes for LibTom_Project. I don't think Wikipedia should be polluted with small projects and people, and I certainly don't want to be known as a person to cause such pollution."[2] — — Matt Crypto 01:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep 50k ghits for his exact name, published author with his books on amazon, reviews of said books out there....it's not a slam-dunk keep, maybe, and the article has some NPOV issues, but he seems notable enough to warrant an article. Darkspots 03:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Maybe in a year or two WP will be big enough it'll be a no-brainer to keep articles on marginally notable programmers/authors, but for the moment I don't think so. Also ghits is a misleading metric here, because the subject is very active poster on usenet and other forums. Arvindn 05:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per darksposts. — Seadog 16:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Less talk, more deletion. -- Tom
• Keep He might not want his page to be up there, but what counts is notability. 50k google hits is ok for a keep.. Baristarim 19:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Son of a ..., other cryptographers have more ghits like "Brian Gladman" who has ~55khits. Are we to make pages for them as well? Just delete the damn page already. -- Tom

• Keep Yes, in a completed Wikipedia those cryptographers should have articles as well. --Nick Roberts 20:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I don't know what are the policies, but if the subject asks to remain anonymous, it's a sign of respect to do so. Alejandro Mery 21:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete out of respect for the subject. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 22:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm about to apply my personal "book notability" test, which is "a book with Amazon sales rank of better than 200,000." (I picked that number when Wikipedia had about 400,000 articles, reasoning that less than half of Wikipedia's articles ought to be about books. I've stuck with it, for no good reason. However I've found it to be a good way of discriminating between "real" books and self-published and/or very obscure academic titles). Dpbsmith (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Cryptography for Developers has Amazon.com Sales Rank: #106,787. (Bignum Math at #220,533 doesn't quite make the cut). He's a real author of a real book. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• If we're going to decide to keep the listing could we at least make it a bit more informational and less ripped from the bio of my latest book? -- Tom
• Keep. I think he is notable enough in his field. Published author, publishers provide biographies (Elsevier, O'Reilly). Needs a clean-up. QuiteUnusual 23:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Update Well fine, y'all want to keep the page. My only suggestion is that it gets a clean up and reflects who I really am (positive and negative, it should be truthful and lets face it I'm not a perfect fellow). Also, probably should merge the LibTom page into this. (Note: I still want the page to be deleted. I'm only offering more acceptable alternatives in case for some reason deletion isn't possible, which it should be because it's about me...!!! ... ok enough wiki'ing, I'm a bit drunk off of Redbull Vodka at the moment... weee...) -- Tom

Suggestion. It's not considered a good idea to edit articles about yourself, but I don't see why you couldn't draft some paragraphs or suggest some changes on the article's Talk page, Talk:Tom St Denis. Be sure to indicate any sources we could use... Dpbsmith (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't want to come off as rude. I'm just really motivated to have the articles removed. It's also probably not a good idea if I draft paragraphs about myself. That'd be kinda self-serving wouldn't it? The current article lacks details to be of interest to anyone, and even if it were flushed out with more content I still don't see what's so notable about myself to warrant an article. If you guys think you're going to hurt my feelings by voting for deletion you're mistaken. I'm the one who pushed for the deletion in the first place! -- Tom

• Comment: it seems to me that neither the act of publishing books nor posting lots on the Internet provides notability. I'm usually happy to let sub-notable articles be, but when the subject is a non-notable living person who has expressed a wish not to be included, then we should not include them. Please be certain that this person is genuinely notable before we keep it against his wishes. — Matt Crypto 09:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Suggestion: Some local media may be doing interviews with me about my doings (setup by my employer ...). If the community wants to keep the article about me, maybe they can use the published interview(s) for material? -- Tom
  • Yep, that sort of thing is an ideal source. — Matt Crypto 17:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You're digging your grave on the notability question, Tom. Cheers, Darkspots 17:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • What does that mean? Once and for all, I'm for deletion. But failing that, I'd at least want an article about me to be interesting :-), you know, sanity gives way to ego. -- Tom
      • I think you've been very clear, actually, Tom; nobody here doubts your earnest desire to see your article deleted. What my "digging the grave" reference to is that you are saying that new sources proving your notability are about to emerge--the best sort of sources for showing notability, that is, genuine media that's independent of you. The nominator claims that you are non-notable, which would, according to policy, be the only real reason to delete the article. You're bringing forth new evidence of your notability, thus undercutting your expressed desire. Darkspots 19:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Ah, gotcha. Well, to be honest I think it's the marketting folk at my job who talked the local media into it. Though they do seem intrigued about my politics and how I "used the Internet to build a Career." I'm not trying to say what I've been doing for the last five years was trivial or unimportant. I just have to question, in the face of all the other OSS projects out there, how unique and notable it is. It'd be like if you were a really good coal miner. Even if you did a good job, worked hard, etc, do you deserve a wiki article? The only real thing that stands out between myself and other OSS developers is my desire to release to the public domain instead of copyleft. -- Tom
          • We take these things one at a time. Plenty of people argue (these are folks arguing to keep their articles, you understand) that there are many articles of, say, bands just as notable as theirs. Doesn't matter, all you can evaluate is the article in front of you. Same argument applies to Tom St Denis, just in reverse. And, coal miners are not inherently notable, they have to do something truly unexpected to achieve notice. Guys who write books, on the other hand--keep your nose clean, work hard, get the reviews, you get a wiki article. Plus, Tom, you've got a catchy name for your product. Never underestimate the power of a catchy name. Darkspots 21:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, I've added info to the talk page if you guys want to rebuild the article and keep it. At least with some details it'll be worth having the slightly elevated profile around.

[edit] Brahma Kumaris Info

Non-notable website. Lack of secondary sources. If relevant, material could be merged into Brahma Kumaris after deletion. (Note: that article and involved editors are in the evaluation stage for an ArbCom case. See WP:RFAR#Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and merge any material based on secondary sources to Brahma Kumaris, as nominator. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:WEB, if possible delete under CSD A7. Tarret 01:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Brahma Kumaris. SkierRMH 02:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge as per nom, and if AfD fails it needs a hell of a lot of clean-up. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 04:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:WEB. MER-C 04:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable article. Plenty of independent google hits. The article was only created a mere 24 hours ago. Let's give it some time to develop before debating whether to axe it. Looks like there are already some interesting sources given at the bottom of the article - if given time, more sources will likely be appended as well. Smeelgova 06:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
  • Comment - no, it doesn't have many google hits - a query on "Brahma Kumaris Info" returns hits on info about Brahma Kumaris and not information related to the webpage Brahma Kumaris Info (brahmakumaris.info). The search string "brahmakumaris.info -site:wikipedia.org -site:brahmakumaris.info" (excluding wikipedia and self-references) returns more relevant results, and those aren't too many: 287. Most of which are link listings and message board postings. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment search for link:www.brahmakumaris.info or link:brahmakumaris.info shows zero links to this site. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly using wikipedia for advertisement purposes. It goes against [3] and it does not have any credibility (as far as notability of the author,degrees,level of expertise, etc.) avyakt7 15:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable and reads as an advertisement. — Seadog 16:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in agreement with Jossi's 'no links' comment. IF there are good sources showing that the group the site says it represents exists is notable then I'd suggest refactoring the article to discuss the group. Since their site isn't notable I think this is unlikely. Antonrojo 18:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Baristarim 19:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. It does make page one of Google for a search on the 'Brahma Kumaris' [4] but despite references on Rick Ross, Cult Information Center, The Cult Awareness and Information Centre and other counter-cult or cult-watch experts, it is probably too early to feature it - so would fail WP:WEB.

As there is a documented history going back to the 1930s, I suggest merge with Brahma Kumaris or move to new article on counter-Brahma Kumaris activity and/or page for support groups for cult survivors as per Unification Church, Scientology controversy etc. 195.82.106.244 02:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete does not meet WP:WEB criteria #1. Sethie 06:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 10:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Hornplease 08:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Brahma Kumaris RaveenS 23:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek : Intrepid

Star Trek : Intrepid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

non-notable fan game Mnemeson 00:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:WEB and smacks of fancruft. SkierRMH 02:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 04:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable forum game.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. — Seadog 16:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no independent sources, this does not pas WP:WEB.-- danntm ^T _C 16:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Baristarim 19:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. FirefoxMan 00:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fangame, the end. Danny Lilithborne 01:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --Nlu (talk) 08:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second Dominion War

Second Dominion War (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

fancruft with no canon backing, prod removed by author of article Mnemeson 00:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and need to search out links/references to this fancruft (see above AFD). SkierRMH 02:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Here we go. There's about 10 articles on fan films out there, do they require a deletion too? I'm slightly reluctant because they seem reasonable articles. MER-C 04:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Useless fancruft. MER-C 04:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TSO1D 14:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete lacks any independent sources.-- danntm ^T _C 16:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pointless in-universe OR fancruft rubbish. An offshoot of this, which does assert its notability. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis...not solely a summary of that work's plot. -- IslaySolomon | talk 16:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Actually, it's an offshoot of this, which doesn't, and is also up for AFD. Star Trek: Intrepid is, I feel, notable, but the forum game which shares its name is not. --Mnemeson 17:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Ah, I stand corrected. All the more reason to delete. -- IslaySolomon | talk 17:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Fire at will Delete, as Memory Alpha doesn't have an article on it; therefore it's not notable in Star Trek. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Baristarim 19:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Disavian. Memory Alpha is the definitive Star Trek Reference, and if they don't have it, it isn't Star Trek. FirefoxMan 00:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - based on non-notable, and non-canon, material. Quack 688 09:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert speed

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

Not notable, reads like a bio. No other hits for Vitix Robert Speed on google. Akihabara 01:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. - Triviaa 02:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:BIO at the very least. Note also that Google search for Vitesse Systems "Robert Speed"[5] also turns up nothing of promise. -- Antepenultimate 02:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:BIO SkierRMH 02:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete failure of WP:BIO. Ø info on him at http://www.vitesse.com/. --Dakota 04:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 04:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete does not live up to the bio standards. — Seadog 16:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete db-bio. Danny Lilithborne 01:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abdul Razak Mohaideen

Abdul Razak Mohaideen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Person seems non-notable (100 google results), went 2 months with zero references or any verifiable information added. Should be deleted. Plus, IMDb profile contains only 2 films and no info. Wizardman 01:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• k: Tag for cleanup and references instead Akihabara 02:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been tagged for months on both cleanup and references, as well as wikification. Those would be hard to acomplish with so little information on him. --Wizardman 02:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails both WP:BIO and WP:PROF, and w/ 2 IMDb hits, doesn't look like it would pass either. SkierRMH 02:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above concerns. — Seadog 16:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete searched with Arabic, no results. ← ANAS ^Talk? 19:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  11:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)"
• Keep & possibly just stub it (that appears to be an essay just c&pasted). regards this nomination, 2 mnths with those templates obviously not enough when the wit who put them there didn't bother categorising it, please note this, article wasn't brought to the attention of anyone who might know the area (i've {{Malaysia-bio-stub}}ed it & found 1 relevant category. please pay more attention & remember WP:BIAS. also, anas, arabic not the best language to search for malaysian films/directors  ⇒ bsnowball  15:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Legacy Corporation

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

Also nominating the Edison A. Bardowell article, CEO of this organization. Non-notable organization (drum and bugle corps, as outlined in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Drum Corps, are notable as nationally touring music ensembles, but this group has never fielded a corps). No webpage for The Legacy Corporation currently exists, the corps returns no results at Corpsreps (a catalogue of drum corps), no result for the nonprofit at GuideStar, and no results for the CEO that aren't mirrors of his Wikipedia page. Delete. Mr Bound 01:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Nothing more than an ad Akihabara 02:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like a hoax to me; no hits other than listings and Wikipedia mirrors. --Brianyoumans 02:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:ORG. MER-C 05:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. TSO1D 14:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. — Seadog 16:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Baristarim 19:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Wizardman 21:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is a flame blue?

Why is a flame blue? (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This is simply not an encyclopedia article. It is a question with a huge load of awful handwavy conjecture as to what the answer might be and contains no valid, correct or verifiable information. There is NO need for a merge as the quality of information on this page is horrific and I've already added a nice section explaining the blue color of flames to that article. Deglr6328 02:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Darkspots 02:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Unsalvageable. --Dhartung | Talk 03:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. Plus some discussion of flame being blue can be found int he main article. --Wizardman 03:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Burninate per above. MER-C 04:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Why hasn't this been deleted yet? per nom. -- Antepenultimate 06:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Burn with a mauve flame as per nom. SkierRMH,08:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced essay with no sources or fact-checking carried out. including reading the flame article. (aeropagitica) 09:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete cannot be speedy enough for this magnus opus. TSO1D 14:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Why does this still exist? -- Kicking222 17:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. This article should meet the same fate as the deleted article "Why do men but terrible presents?". Sr13 18:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Does meet any speedy criteria I know of, but it is unsourced and redundant.-- danntm ^T _C 18:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A speculative lecture with no factual content.--Anthony.bradbury 19:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete ..speedy. ← ANAS ^Talk? 19:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Baristarim 19:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This is a list of questions to guide students' thinking about why a flame is blue. That kind of content is quite appropriate for a Wikibook teaching physical science, but it's not an encyclopedia article. Fg2 01:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Asobi wa owari da! Delete Danny Lilithborne 01:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete with a purple flame. - ∅ (∅), 02:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikibooks FirefoxMan 16:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eos (fictional dog)

Eos (fictional dog) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

non-notable minor character in only vaguely notable book; if you look the customer reviews on Amazon, none of the plot summaries even mention the dog. The Wikipedia page on the book mentions the dog prominently, but it was created using the information from Eos (fictional dog) after I prodded the article. (see talk page). Brianyoumans 02:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. This is reason articles have "Characters" sections. From the looks of it, the main book article needs all the help it can get; it is certainly premature to start separate pages for individual characters from that book. However, I would like to mention that using customer reviews at Amazon as some sort of notability test is frightening. -- Antepenultimate 03:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• delete No evidence this is a notable fictional dog. Obina 10:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. First of all, the novel itself isn't very notable, and especially is one of its minor characters. Second of all, this was already completely merged with Funeral Games, so keeping it with the same context would be silly. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. SupaStarGirl 15:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Michealas10 — Seadog 18:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Baristarim 19:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Wizardman 21:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete that's one obscure fictional dog. Salvageable content might find its way in the book article but even that article has little place on Wikipedia. Pascal.Tesson 07:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carole Antouri

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

• Delete. NN, appeared on one talk show. Ckessler 02:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Less than 50 ghits, and most of them appear to point only to the one indicent. SkierRMH 02:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral The "Advocate" article about the couple: [6] Darkspots 03:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable Baristarim 19:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. --Wizardman 21:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mobcasting

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

neologism. someone makes up a word on their blog, and suddenly it needs a wiki article? also, the article almost reads like a blog, other than the first paragraph. Skrewler 02:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NNNeologism. (ooh, do I get an article for my dubbing a 'non-notable-neologism' that way?!) SkierRMH 02:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• 56,000 hits = Keep--Deglr6328 02:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NEO should clear up any misconceptions anyone has over using Ghits for a neologism: "We must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." Any questions? -- Antepenultimate 03:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. YAWN (yet another worthless neologism) Dragomiloff 03:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• BAHLEET (Strong Delete). --Staos 03:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. YAWN is exactly right. MER-C 04:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable made-up word. no reliable sources. and no, bloggers and blogs are definitely not reliable sources. many external links. - Femmina 10:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO. --Wizardman 21:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO and because article has no references and all external links are to blogs, rather than unbiased sources. cacophony 23:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Send it to sleep with the fishes (I know it's not referring to that kind of mob, but I couldn't resist). Danny Lilithborne 01:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ran (Bob and George)

Ran (Bob and George) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This is a webcomic character. According to the article, it's a recurring cameo role in a sprite webcomic. As popular as Bob and George may be with it's 60k Alexa rank, it's cameo characters aren't notable or encyclopedic. - hahnchen 02:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Bob and George or Sprite Webcomic (and a weak merge at that). SkierRMH 02:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Risnm 07:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete duplicate of an entry in Characters of Bob and George and an entry in Bob and George. It's slightly larger than the Characters entry, but it's only because of the unencyclopedic trivia section. --Kunzite 15:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kunzite (and WP:FICT). — Haeleth Talk 17:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kunzite. Nothing worth merging. Danny Lilithborne 01:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without merge, entirely non-notable character per WP:FICT. Seraphimblade 04:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rolf H. Rothermel

Rolf H. Rothermel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Importance has not been asserted. I found only one google hit other than wikipedia. Credibility not enhanced as creator is person himself, and his only contribution. Akihabara 02:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:BIO Dragomiloff 03:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 04:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom WP:BIO and WP:COI. SkierRMH,08:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Baristarim 19:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hikari Hino

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

Person is not notable. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not notable, particularly as no entry in Japanese wikipedia Akihabara 04:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Doesn't seem to meet WP:PORN BIO. MER-C 04:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable and does not meet WP:PORN BIO; she has a redlinked entry on the Japanese AV女優一覧 (List of AV Actresses). If she's not notable enough to have an article in Japanese, she's more than likely not notable enough to have one in English. --Limetom 05:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Risnm 07:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The use of WP:PORN BIO for Japanese performers is highly controversial, as many editors are of the opinion that the Japanese industry is sufficiently different from the American industry that many of the provisions of the guideline are inapplicable. However, the article as it stands does not seem to claim any real notability even within a Japanese context; the filmography section is not impressively long and does not indicate how major a role Hino played in the cited titles, no appearances in other media are mentioned, etc. — Haeleth Talk 16:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Mainstream source (adult sources would no doubt show more) Japanese Amazon shows 24 DVDs currently available for this actress. How many American porn stars have 24 DVDs at Amazon? 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..." [7] So, "Japan's Queen of Adult Video" fails the American 100-film test. For more comparison, the nominating editor has recently edited at a one-sentence stub on an actress with one (1) known, minor appearance in one (1) known film, verified only by one (1) link to IMDB. Yet he previously mass-nominated articles in this category for deletion on "notability" grounds. 24 DVDs at Amazon is certainly a sign of reaching a broad audience, and far more notable than the subject of the other article. If this article needs improving, let's improve it. My online time is taken up with re-instating a list the was deleted through what I am convinced are dishonest means. Once I've got that list (lists now) back up, I fully expect to spend my time improving these articles. I'll try to do some work on this one today. Dekkappai 18:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

1. 1. The article had been tagged for questionable importance since September. Nothing had been done to add more meat to it.
   2. There is no article for this actress on Japanese WP.
   3. There is no established guidelines or rules here to say that "24 DVDs at Amazon" makes a Japanese porn actress notable. I personally don't think it does.
   4. What other editing I do and what other articles I nominate for deletion is irrelevant to the fact that this actress seems non-notable and hardly anything had been done since the article's existence to assert her notability. However, if you think the Helen Kim article I edited should be nominated for deletion, by all means, nominate it. I myself question that actress's notability. Heck, I'll nominate the article myself.

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think the Helen Kim stub should be deleted. I think it should be improved. Deleting it would prevent a better article from being written on Helen Kim, and thereby remove valid information from Wikipedia. The exact same thing goes for the more notable, and better developed article on Hikari Hino. I don't edit there, but I watch the Japanese Wikipedia. Many recently red-linked actresses there have new articles, and I won't be at all surprised to see one on Hikari Hino started soon, since she clearly deserves one. Dekkappai 21:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add - I understand you are having a difficult time assuming good faith. But let me point out that I tagged this article with the importance tag three months ago[8]. When I nominated it for deletion[9], it had the exact same content in the article as it did when I tagged it for importance three months ago. Namely, it had two sentences, with a short filmography. I am perfectly justified in nominating this article. Furthermore, I want to repeat that there is absolutely no criteria anywhere on English WP that says "24 DVDs on Amazon" establishes notability for Japanese porn actresses. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above and please see systemic bias Baristarim 19:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If anything, having 24 DVDs available at Amazon indicates that Japanese "porn" actresses are not in the same league with "porn" actresses of other cultures, and to try to force one standard across all cultures is a good example of bias as mentioned above. Neier 23:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment (Edit conflict) I really doubt this is a case of systemic bias. She is non-notable, and if there isn't a Japanese article on her, there probably shouldn't be an English one. A quick Google search brings up mostly adult sites and such, and I really don't see any verifiable sources in either an English or a Japanese search. I have nothing against an Idol having an English page, its just that there are no reliable sources that prove her notability; even if modified to include Japanese versions of things, I don't see her passing WP:PORN BIO. --Limetom 23:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The bias comes in treating the Japanese and American porn industries as if they were the same. Obviously they are not. Creating standards for one which the other is expected to pass is a way of creating cultural bias at Wikipedia. Suppose those of us interested in the Japanese side said an actress needed to have 10 videos at Amazon in order to pass notability. How many American porn actresses would pass? Also, if you know anything about Japanese popular culture, you know that these actresses/idols are far more visible, and therefore more notable in Japan than their American equivilants are in the U.S. When I was in Japan, I saw models and actresses exactly like this one all over TV, not to mention magazines, newspapers, photo books... all in standard book stores, not hidden away in an adult book shop. Dekkappai 00:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• The bottom line is, there is no seperate criteria for Japanese porn stars here. So she has 24 DVDs listed on Amazon. Why and how does that make her notable? Why does that make her stand out in the industry she's in? These are questions that have never been answered. There are hundreds and thousands of different industries and how they are perceived in different cultures. For example, calligraphy artists are probably more well-known in East Asia than they are in Western countries. The question here is - how does having 24 DVDs listed on Amazon establish that she's widely known? Do we have any information on how many people are buying these DVDs from Amazon? And exactly how many consumers would make her notable? What if only 10 people purchased her DVDs on Amazon? The American porn industry and the Japanese porn industry are not exactly the same, but maybe you just have to accept the possibility that the average Japanese porn star is simply not very notable. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment amazon japan is a major retail outlet, and i fail to see why you are requesting obviously unattainable information such as the number of sales. are the notability of north american porn stars hinging on their sales on amazon.com? do you really wish to establish a guideline for all porn stars to sell a verifiable number of videos? it is very true that the japanese porn industry is different from the north american one. it is also very true that one shouldn't base notability on the "probability" that someone might not be notable, but facts such as proven presence in a major retail outlet.--Hexvoodoo 04:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• The notability of North American porn stars do not hinge on their sales on Amazon. And if they had 24 DVDs on Amazon without meeting WP:PORN BIO, they would be considered non-notable. If we know how many DVDs this person is actually selling, we can try to establish notability. Given that we have no such information about DVD sales on Amazon, saying "24 DVDs on Amazon" is an unverifiable claim to notability. Like I've been saying, how does "24 DVDs on Amazon" establish notability? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment getting unobtainable info such as unit sales on amazon japan (just like it's impossible to get sales numbers on amazon.com) doesn't directly meet anything in WP:PORN BIO, however it establishes the fact that she has been prolific in the short time she's been in the business, which is a criteria in porn bio. --Hexvoodoo 18:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• How exactly does it establish that she's "prolific"? Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Do we even know that some of those 24 DVDs don't show the same exact scenes? I ran a search for her on Japanese Amazon, and even though I don't read Japanese, between my English and Chinese reading, I can spot which DVDs are simply "best of" videos that show scenes that are in other DVDs. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment i think it's safe to say that amazon japan doesn't violate anything in Wikipedia:Verifiability. if it says hikari hino is in these dvds, i am going to believe it. even if we want to be picky and discard anything mentioning "best of" (and btw we can't verify that those are indeed compilations featuring duplicate scenes), we still have 19 dvds in 1.5 years. that is still prolific --Hexvoodoo 19:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not disputing that she is in those videos. I'm questioning how the availability of those videos on Amazon automatically qualifies her as having a prolific career. Like I said, what if only 10 people ever bought those videos from Amazon? Is she still notable then? That's completely unverifiable and it's an unverifiable claim for notability. Besides, who exactly decided that "24 DVDs on Amazon" is enough for Japanese porn actresses? Who came up with that arbitrary number? I don't see any guidelines that mention this. What if she had 20 DVDs? 15? At what number is notability achieved? I can completely agree that the American and Japanese porn industries are different, but what makes "24 DVDs on Amazon" notable, and who gets to decide that it's sufficient? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment first of all, it is complete conjecture when you say maybe only 10 people bought her dvds. just like if i were to say maybe a million people bought her dvds. since this is completely unattainable information, not just for hikari hino but for just about any porn star, we should leave out baseless conjectures. second, there is no set number that universally defines prolificness, and that is good, because you acknowledge that japanese porn industry is different from american porn industry. in my opinion, and those who have voted keep, more than 1 dvd per month is prolific by japanese standards. thus she meets the prolificness criteria of WP:PORN BIO, and is notable. --Hexvoodoo 21:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• The fact that the information is unattainable is actually my point - it's unverifiable, so yes, we should leave that information out. Which means "24 DVDs on Amazon" does not necessarily show notability. And the filmography section of the article actually only lists 11 videos. Furthermore, the prolific guideline in WP:PORN BIO specifically states "Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche. I'm afraid that has not been shown yet. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment yes leave the sales information out (which means conjecture about how her dvds might have low sales is pointless) as it is unverifiable. however, being on an established retail outlet with more than 1 dvd per month does show that she has been prolific - which is the point. what is actually listed in her article's filmography is obviously not a full list (again, see amazon japan), and having an incomplete filmography is of course not a reason for deletion either. her movies fall into both "asian" and "busty" genres, so she qualifies. --Hexvoodoo 23:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Once again, the availability of those DVDs do not serve to establish how well known she is. We don't know how many people actually buy those DVDs. Thus it's an unverifiable claim. And she may or may not fall under the busy genre, but to put her in the Asian genre, you'd be guilty of the same cultural bias that's been mentioned here. That's a western perspective. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment this is getting comical. you just agreed that sales numbers shouldn't (italics yours) be used at all, because it's all conjecture. you also seemed to understand that 24 dvds on amazon japan is only being used to indicate prolificness, a criteria for notability, not to directly prove notability. now you turn around and sing the old tune that amazon records are no good for notablity because you don't know the sales numbers. let me repeat this again: amazon records are to prove prolificness, and don't use the sales numbers as an argument because they are not known. unless you have something new to say about this - i have established prolificness. now let's go to the gnere part. she is a metric G cup and her films are in the busty genre. and yes the asian genre is culturally biased, yet it is an established genere. i however am not using my cultural bias to attempt to delete an article for a foreign actress because i think "maybe only 10 people bought her dvds".--Hexvoodoo 02:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I think its a safe I know about as much about Japanese culture as you, Dekkappai. But as the policy stands right now, she's not notable. Perhaps it would be better to restart the discussion about Idols (currently in the archives) of WT:PORN BIO? Also it would probably help to put a notice on the WP:BIAS. As the policy is right now, she's not notable. After looking over all of the relevant information, I would have to say that the policy, in my opinion, probably does need to be changed. For now, I'm going to stick with policy, though. --Limetom 01:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I certainly didn't mean to question your knowledge of Japanese culture or anything else, Limetom, and hope you didn't interpret me that way. I only meant to point out the differences in the cultures and the inadequacy of the policy in this case. I missed the discussion going on in those two areas, but will try to bring up the issue there. I understand your position-- the policy is inadequate, but it is the policy. My position is that policies, when seen to be inadequate or obviously biased, should be ignored, interpreted or modified. Regards. Dekkappai 20:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Meets criteria 7 of WP:PORN_BIO: "Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche." She has been in at least 24 videos in a year and a half; prolific by japanese adult industry standards. the fact that she is not yet in the japanese wiki is not a valid reason to delete - it is not a criteria in WP:PORN_BIO. --Hexvoodoo 04:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment WP:PORNBIO is only good for North American English-language porn. It is systematically biased WP:BIAS against *everything* else everywhere in the world (including North America, since there's Spanish and French language porn). WP:IGNORE PORNBIO is useless in this case, ignore it. 70.51.9.22 07:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I was about to go gripe about the 100-film requirement at the Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) guideline, but now I see that this old requirement has been replaced with, "5. Performer has appeared multiple times in notable mainstream media outlets" So there is no reason to delete this article for lack of notability. 24 DVDs is "multiple," and Amazon is a mainstream media outlet. Notability is established. Dekkappai 21:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Amazon is not a media outlet. It's a retail store. Media outlets are news channels, mainstream magazines, TV, mainstream movies, etc etc. Criteria #5 specifically points to Air Force Amy as an example of this. The article for Air Force Amy was kept because she appeared on HBO multiple times, not because her vidoes appeared on Amazon multiple times. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • "Amazon is not a media outlet." Sure, sure, Hong. Look on the bright side. At least your effort to delete the Helen Kim article seems to be going very well. Dekkappai 23:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Really have no idea what the point of that comment is. Helen Kim is not notable and an article on her ought to be deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notability has now been established as per WP:PORN BIO criteria #5 #6; from my knowledge 24 films in a little over a year is notable in Japan. --Limetom 00:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• deleteIf there ever was a case that showed the absurdity of numerical guidelines, this is it. I would take this article more seriously if one on this actress had been in the Japanese WP.DGG 05:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No compelling evidence of notability. "Because she's Japanese typical standards do not apply" is not an argument for establishing notability. Fairsing 05:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skousen & Skousen

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

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- {{db-corp}}. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason, Looks to me to assert just enough importance as to not be a speedy. Also was disputed with a {{hangon}}, though I got there before the poster had a chance to justify why. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No assertion of notability. eaolson 04:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:CORP. MER-C 04:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - doesn't appear that there's enough there to warrent expansion of the article. SkierRMH,08:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I tagged it as {{db-corp}} (which is, last I checked, a valid speedy template). After the hangon was added, author added the citation to the one cyber-squatting case, but that doesn't IMO make the firm notable. Per the cited findlaw link ([10]), seems to be a very small firm. Fan-1967 14:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Baristarim 19:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly an advertisement, and if {{db-corp}} won't do, then surely {{db-spam}} would?--Anthony.bradbury 22:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Looks like they only have 3 lawyers on their books - not really big enough to be notable unless they have some important/famous cases. Lethaniol 17:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dog Fart Neutralizing Thong

Dog Fart Neutralizing Thong (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

I nominate this article for deletion per WP:SPAM. This appears to be an ad rather than anything relevant to an encylopedia. And the whole idea of a "fart neutralizing thong" just doesn't pass the smell test for me, or maybe I can just blame it on the dog. :) Akira 03:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unfortunately this doesn't appear a hoax. It's still WP:SPAM and unencyclopedic. Good for a laugh though :) Dragomiloff 04:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. per spam, spam, spam; and if that isn't good enough, then Wikipedia is not a dictionary. But also good for a laugh per Dragomiloff. I can't believe we're giving this the benefit of the doubt. -- Antepenultimate 04:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN then delete per above. MER-C 04:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as patent nonsense. Everyone knows that thongs make farts whistle - I'd rather smell the darned things than be whistled at by dogs' hindquarters whilst going to buy tabs. QuagmireDog 05:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN deserves this one then dump it like a bad odor (or should that be odour? :P)) Wintermut3 06:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - even though it did give me a great idea for a "friend's" Kwanza gift. SkierRMH,08:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as patent nonsense and/or spam. -Switch ^t 09:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• speedy per spam --Peregrine_^AY 11:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-sense. TSO1D 14:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but I'll endorse the BJAODN. As an owner of two boxers who have the ability to clear a room quickly, I only wish.... Fan-1967 14:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, although my Christmas shopping problem is now over. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete inadequately source and likely nonsense.-- danntm ^T _C 18:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Baristarim 19:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Fumigate and BJAODN - This article smells like BJAODN fodder... of course, it could be the beans too. :-p Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 20:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Patent nonsense, should be in Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, or Uncyclopedia. --SunStar Net^talk 20:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as spam. After looking at their website and googling for Flat-D I am completely undecided as to whether or not the product line is for real or whether it's just a joke. Apparently products of this kind are bought by or for dog owners as joke gifts... see example, right. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The company's website has links to what seems to be an authentic CBS News story[11] I guess the company and product line (Flat-D) are legit and just might be worth an article. There's no indication that this particular product is of any importance, however, so my delete vote stands. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete patent nonsense substub. - ∅ (∅), 02:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, unencyclopedic, substub. WP:NOT a directory of every novelty product in the world. -- The Anome 15:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Owen Sound Collegiate and Vocational Institute

Owen Sound Collegiate and Vocational Institute (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable school, no assertion of notability except for existing for 150 years. The only verifiable this I could find on Google was that the school exists. Contested prod. MER-C 04:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable alumni, such as Norman Bethune and Agnes Macphail. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• comment - do notable alumni confer notability by contact?--Dmz5 04:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep: there are a tremendous amount of high schools with entries in wikipedia already. while i realize that commonplaceness (that's my neologism!) is not really a good benchmark for notability, it will be tremendously time-consuming to clean out all the nn schools here and keep them out in the face of millions of seniors looking to score 'spirit points' for boosting their alma mater on wp! frymaster 07:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete First, alumni alone do not confer notbility. Second, there's little that's notable about this school, and what is notable is not verified. If what is notable is unverifiable, then there's no discussion to be had; if it is verifiable, I would still !vote to delete the article. -- Kicking222 17:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep unless we witch hunt each and every school this is a keep. Existance is notibility. Plenty of small towns etc which have no notibility besides existing are in here along with schools. Wiki's not paper as long as the article is factual and NPOV keep it.--Xiahou 00:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Existence is not notability. A weak claim of notability is made, but it is unsourced, as is in fact the entire article. Sources are not optional. Additionally, little information is provided beyond a directory entry. Do not oppose merge/redirect to Owen Sound, Ontario or some other suitable destination, if the inclusionists prefer. Shimeru 06:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I don't think that existence constitutes notability, yet the article makes explicit claims of notability. Expansion and better sourcing will go a long way to making this a better article than it already is. Alansohn 06:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Without multiple non-trivial reliable published sources independent of the subject, it should be deleted. —Centrx→talk • 10:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: nothing in the article or in the 67 distinct Google hits[12] indicate any independently verified notability. I don't see any indication of the school being discussed wrt the notable alumni (did their time at this school have any profound influence on their later careers, as discussed in biographical articles or some such?). Fram 12:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• feel free to contact the wikischool project and witch hunt them all down unless they meet this mysterious "notability" and google searches of course for a school are not going to turn up a whole lot. The internet is not the be all end of of information (yet) so unless something newsworthy was published about a school online besides the schools page what else could there be. So unless there is a major news event or serious "notable" alumni are we to delete each and every school on wiki?--Xiahou 01:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• delete, and I actually found a verifiable reason. Ontario ranks its schools every few years, and the results are at [13]. The current ranking of this school is 5.6 points out of 10; in the previous round, it was 5.7, so it isn't improving. Let's look at all the Ontario schools. Numbers are numbers. (smile)DGG 05:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not notable, except for the 150 years of history, the commemorated notable alumni, notable speakers, meeting the proposed WP:SCHOOLS guideline - oh wait, I guess it is notable after all. Silensor 05:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McIntosh Hall

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

I don't believe that residences at universities get their own articles. There is nothing of note about this particular building. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 04:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Nothing notable about this one. MER-C 05:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - You might want to take a look at Category:University and college dormitories. I've seen other university residences on Wikipedia, and aren't convinced that they're all notable or encyclopedic, but there's quite a few on Wikipedia. - hahnchen 05:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • One article on a particular subject/location/person/thing does not provide precedent for another article on a very similar subject/location/person/thing. -- saberwyn 14:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There are certainly reasons a dormitory might rate an article, e.g. if it's a listed building, but this doesn't. --Dhartung | Talk 16:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nothing in the article indicates anything notable about this dorm.-- danntm ^T _C 20:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced and unremarkable. Shimeru 06:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Now?

Happy Now? (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Of the eleven (proposed) standards at WP:SINGLE, the single does not meet one. ShadowHalo 05:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. OMG it got #132 in one country! -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 06:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete while humming 'Who's crying now?' SkierRMH,08:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't pass all none of the eleven criteria of WP:SINGLE, but #132 is pretty high considering the fact we have articles over non-charting singles, yet it still isn't in the Top 100. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Baristarim 20:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete yeah, #132 in one country, with no other claim to importance, does not cut it.-- danntm ^T _C 20:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. To clarify, singles don't need to meet all eleven criteria, only two or three. —ShadowHalo 20:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, charting single in a large country. Can be expanded somewhat with tracklistings from the retail single. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:SINGLE clearly states that it has to be in the Top 100 chart, #132 is close, but certainly doesn't pass that criteria. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • That's nice. WP:SINGLE is merely proposed, and seriously flawed, so I'm not compelled by it in the least. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Regardless of WP:SINGLE, why exactly is a song which charted number 132 in one country notable? That seems like it's rather trivial. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
        • The question is why isn't it notable? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
          • That isn't the question, but the answer is that it's not particularly hard to chart 132 in one country and not chart everywhere else. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casey Calvert

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

This article was created out of fandom. The article in question is of a person that is part of another article (see Hawthorne Heights) and has no important information about him/her that can or already is stated in that article. see notability guidelines. Human historian 05:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect Sympathise, but why not just redirect to the main article. Akihabara 05:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. MER-C 06:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Akihabara - no need for this one.SkierRMH,08:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] J.T. Woodruff

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

This article was created out of fandom. The article in question is of a person that is part of another article (see Hawthorne Heights) and has no important information about him/her that can or already is stated in that article. see notability guidelines. Human historian 05:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect Again, why not just redirect. Akihabara 05:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. MER-C 06:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. SkierRMH,08:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wakefield (band)

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

NN band -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 05:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Improve. It's worthy of inclusion, but it lacks in content. If someone can add more noteworthy information, than I'm fine with it being on there. If not, Delete. Human historian 06:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete Nothing of note, per nom. Akihabara 15:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. The best this band has going for them, notability wise, is that they apparently have the former drummer from Good Charlotte... but once you dig a little deeper, you find out that this drummer left Good Charlotte just before they made it big (he's like the Fifth Beatle of crappy emo/psuedo-punk bands!) In the article's defense: The band does appear to have been on a major label and released two albums, satisfying some of WP:MUSIC. However, no sources or even an attempt to describe these albums as successful. -- Antepenultimate 23:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald Victor Markham

Ronald Victor Markham (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Whilst apparently true, of little note, and I'm not convinced this page isn't just an attempt at smearing. Wikipedia is not a database of people charged with various countries' securities fraud. Akihabara 05:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedydelete. The sources don't exist. Even with the one added, it's not notable. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • They may be old, it doesn't appear to be a hoax -- I've added the link I found. I still think this should be deleted. Akihabara 05:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Some trader who engaged in securities fraud. Not exactly exceptional or earth-shattering. Fan-1967 14:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Being bad isn't a reason to include SkierRMH,07:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nike Davis

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

Fails WP:BIO. Contested prod. MER-C 05:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per MER-C. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 06:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Verified only by subject's own website, which does not sufficiently assert notability. Heimstern Läufer 07:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, don't see possiblity of expanding. SkierRMH,08:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Los Cerritos Middle School

Los Cerritos Middle School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Not a encyclopedia worthy article. No signifigance other than the schools website Supersean 06:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: While schools have a pretty good record surviving AfD, I don't think this one should stay unless real notability is asserted. All this article seems to provide is a mundane description of a nondescript middle school. Heimstern Läufer 07:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral I tend to agree, except that Wikipedia is chock full of these school articles; why this one. Akihabara 07:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I really think Wikipedia should have a lot fewer school articles than it does, but I'm certainly not going to go around hunting them and nominating them for deletion. For now, I'm just concerned with this one. Heimstern Läufer 07:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Unless there is a general move to remove all schools based on notability criteria, I don't believe it is fair to single out this one. This page is not even in the lower middle of current school articles on WP. TSO1D 14:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete the worst kind of non-notable school cruft, half of it is unitelligible, fails WP:SCHOOL. NeoFreak 19:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

But that's not official policy yet. TSO1D 00:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This true but it makes sense to me (my vote being my opinion) and last I checked WP:V, WP:OR and WP:N were. All of which this article fails. Then again that's just my opinion. On the topic of "unfairly" targeting this school, well editors trying to clean up wikipedia can't be everywhere at once. Right now I'm working my way through one topic myself and after that I'll move on to another. NeoFreak 02:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Unsourced, no claim to notability, POV, attack page elements. Fails WP:SCHOOLS3 and WP:SCHOOLS. I don't think there's even anything that can be salvaged to merge -- the name of the school is already mentioned at the locality's article. Shimeru 06:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable school as per WP:SCHOOLS3 - and I'll be one of the ones working at culling out all of the nn schools when SCHOOLS# becomes a policy :) SkierRMH,07:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- unencyclopedic, unverifiable, unsourced. Article contains no assertion of notability of any kind. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Eusebeus 01:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Conejo Valley Unified School District, no reason not to. Silensor 05:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roots Festival

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

Little more than an ad, for something not particularly notable. Akihabara 05:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. When I worked at the local newspaper, I remember writing things like this for the Community Calendar section. Somehow I thought Wikipedia was better than that. -- Antepenultimate 05:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Could probably be speedy deleted Bwithh 06:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, borderline speedy. MER-C 06:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - nn community event. SkierRMH,08:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Northbrook waters

IIRC, gated communities fall below the threshold for articles unless there are exceptional reasons for keeping the article. On this occasion, there aren't. Delete. Grutness...wha? 05:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Akihabara 06:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Show me a documented instance of a historical event or a notable celebrity that is living/has lived here, and then maybe I'd opt to Merge it with the Rangiora, New Zealand article. Antepenultimate 06:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 06:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - quick google doesn't give anything that refers to this (i.e. celebrity residences, scandals, etc.) SkierRMH,08:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lando (speakers)

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

Nomination for deletion Looks like a failure of WP:CORP. ~52 google hits for this company's flagship product. About 4 non-spam/wikimirror hits for "lando speakers". I'm very sympathetic to WP:BIAS but I don't think there is a systematic bias issue here as 1) We're talking about a luxury electronics product that should have international recognition if it really is encyclopedically notable and 2) Brazil culturally dominates Google's social networking service, Orkut, so its not like this product comes from a country behind in their googling Bwithh 05:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete A thinly disguised ad. Akihabara 06:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 06:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete to speedy, would have speedied it if I came across it first. SkierRMH,08:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TSO1D 14:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Sneaky advertising. "I don't trust Lando." Wavy G 00:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Just to say that I did not speedy-nom this as I don't believe it was deliberate spam. I looked at the edit history and user page of the article creator and concluded that he is just a Brazilian music enthusiast. anyway, that's what I thought Bwithh 01:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I created the article! Believe me, I have no relationship to the manufacturer lol: I just have a pair of those and they are quiet popular in Brazil and even elsewhere. But hey, democracy speaks, so if you wan't to delete, go ahead! :-) Matias 12:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, just to clarify, this is a discussion to generate consensus within policy and guidelines... Wikipedia is not a democracy Bwithh 20:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rosalind Chetwynd

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

Not notable enough. Only hits on Google refer to being Shackleton's mistress. No mention on Shackleton's page. Not enough information to merge into Shackleton's page. Akihabara 06:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:BIO. Borderline speedy. MER-C 06:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Hagerman^(talk) 07:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, as we all put our mistresses' articles on our "to do" pages... SkierRMH,08:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. - Triviaa 21:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - that Google hits only refer to her as Shackleton's mistress, and that she isn't mentioned on his page, are not reasons enough to justify deletion, but only shows that Google and Wikipedia often are insufficient tools to judge importance. Rosalind Chetwynd was an extremely interesting lady: an American middle-class woman, born Rosalind Secor and daughter of a New York lawyer. She travelled to London in 1900 and married Guy Chetwynd, heir to a baronetcy. She later divorced him and developed a life-long attachment to Jack Barnato Joel, a well-known British-South African financier, mining magnate and horse-breeder, part of the Joel family. He supported her and her son Victor Chetwynd for many years, and continued to do so even when she started her long affair with Shackleton. She, in turn, presented his wife to the Court. At the age of 33, she became a rather successful actress in London, using the stage name Rosa Lynd (picture at the National Portrait Gallery [14]) and performing in classic venues such as Wyndham’s Theatre and the Comedy Theatre, for which she even was manager for a while. She also started her own theatre company, The Rosa Lynd Company, which performed both in Britain and on Broadway. Thomas Blomberg 20:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thomas - could you put some of that, with refs, on the page? You've already posted about 4 times the content of the current article. Thanks. Akihabara 23:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roseland Dance Hall

Roseland Dance Hall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Seems quite unremarkable, nothing of note asserted. Akihabara 06:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 06:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - gsearch didn't come up with anything notable happening here. SkierRMH,08:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Shimeru 06:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rosemarie tissi

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

OK, so she's apparently a real font designer. Nothing asserts why she is more notable than any other font designer. A promotional article, not encyclopaedic. Akihabara 06:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 06:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: doesn't sufficiently assert notability. Heimstern Läufer 06:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:BIO for sure. SkierRMH,08:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pseudomonas 09:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rossiter System

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

Not sure if this is an advert/bio or the beginning of a real article. Looking for others opinions. Akihabara 06:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep the article needs a major rewrite, not sure it should be up for AfD. Pretty close to it however.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 07:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as spam. First google hits are for rossiter.com and surgerysucks.com, which happens to be registered to Mr. Rossiter. If it quacks like a duck... -- Bpmullins | Talk 22:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as spam/advert/bio/? SkierRMH,07:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allen_Greenfield

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

Having checked all books penned by this person, they are evidently publications from various vanity presses and do not constitute genuine contributions to literature so much as exercises in vanity. Also, subject is an institutional personality of a religious organization, "OTO." Actual contributions to society as a whole are dubious. Further, claims regarding to Science Fiction Fandom contributions remain unsubstantiated as do claims of investigating various UFO-related phenomena. No second or third party information exists verifying subject's claims. — MensKeperRa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• See also: first nomination.
• Found this in the first nomination. Procedural listing. MER-C 07:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete In the few months since the AfD, absolutely no cleanup has taken place and the significant edits are still made by the subject himself. [15] The whole content is unverified as it is written by the subject himself, in complete disregard of our guidelines regarding conflicts of interest. His importance as an author is not supported by any reliable third-party source. We can't just continue to have articles survive AfD with the promise that they'll be cleaned up if that cleanup is never done. If this is kept, then the admin should clear the whole unreferenced content and bring this back down to a stub. Pascal.Tesson 07:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• deleteI see no reason why being a member of a religious organization is a minus, and I think his claim to have been a past-president of the Atlanta Science Fiction Organization probably could be verified. Perhaps if the article were retitled: Vainest autobiography in Wikipedia it might be notable. DGG 05:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rowan public library

Rowan public library (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Not a notable library. Akihabara 07:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• delete, non-notable --Peregrine_^AY 11:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The writing style and content makes me fairly certain this is a copyvio (the second paragraph on seem like they're right out of a pamphlet), but I can't find an online source that it matches. Shimeru 06:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, -WP:CORP. SkierRMH,07:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theodore H. Rowell

Theodore H. Rowell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

At first it looked OK. On second glance nothing of particular note or importance, likely just a puff piece. Akihabara 07:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, was ready to give it a second chance as he's from around me, but he was just a local businessman/politician. --Dhartung | Talk 16:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep on reconsideration. Some poking around indicates he may be notable as the "discoverer" (although the science was done by somebody else) of burbot liver oil's vitamin content, making the "trash" fish an economic resource. There are very few sources, though. --Dhartung | Talk 23:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. Seems to be notable, if barely. I added an award reference to the article but unless someone is willing to do some more digging and clean up this article I'm not really ready to argue all that hard for its inclusion. NeoFreak 19:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP Overall I found it to be good article, thank you for your time. Rcehoppe 08:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invasive weed optimization algorithm

Invasive weed optimization algorithm (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

A new algorithm, apparently unused by anyone, no followups listed. I believe this to be vanity, especially since the author of the article is apparently also the primary author of the only reference. In short, there is no sign this is of any relevance at all to computer science, and signs of self-promotion. --Gwern (contribs) 07:28 9 December 2006 (GMT) 07:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - 14 non-wiki ghits. Fails WP:V. MER-C 08:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. TSO1D 18:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Puff Puff Delete - When I saw the name, I thought it was something made up while high one day. :-p Still lacks any notability or verifiability, however. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 20:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it can be verified alright. Just check for the included reference. Problem is notability. --Gwern (contribs) 21:17 9 December 2006 (GMT)

• Delete exists, yes, but non-notable. Now off for brownies, chips, cookies, cheese, donuts... SkierRMH,07:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete One essay, written five days ago, is not a reliable source. Wavy G 07:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Avenue

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

Non-notable, worthless article. Akihabara 07:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - just another ordinary road, no assertion of notability. Unreferenced and unwikified. MER-C 08:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. TSO1D 14:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete wow, surreal reading... near nonsense, but as a road, bye-bye. SkierRMH,07:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Royd Moor Wind Farm & Royd Moor Viewing Platform

Royd Moor Wind Farm & Royd Moor Viewing Platform (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

NN, one google hit. Akihabara 07:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:V, 4 ghits. MER-C 08:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete also fails -context= test. SkierRMH,07:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International rankings of the United States

International rankings of the United States (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic list, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International rankings of Singapore. Delete. – Chacor 07:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Akihabara 08:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 08:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand with an explanation for each category and ranking so it is more than a list. Very useful and a good read. It is not indiscriminate at all, its a very well defined article. It just needs more text to place the information in context. IT can be merged into the United States article but that article is already too large and is already being broken into smaller articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to relevant lists. It is useful to have ranking information but not isolated from the competitors, as it says nothing about who and - more important - why other countries are ahead or behind. Alf photoman 21:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the rankings are always of interests and informative. It's kinda like the CIA factbook, but has the potential to be better, more comprehensive, more updated, and well-referenced; unlike the CIA which does not reference the sources. --Vsion 06:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Unencyclopedic listcruft. – Chacor 07:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Look at the site (again). It's a useful short compilation of sources for national rankings, that additionally gives the US rank. This is a useful grouping which I do not think appears elsewhere in WP. All they need is a more descriptive title. Quite different from an indiscriminate collection of information. Keep it and I'll find a title: I suggest: Sources for national rankings..DGG 05:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rt. Rev. Clifton Daniel III

Rt. Rev. Clifton Daniel III (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable, fandom. Akihabara 08:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Most of it is pure garbage (i.e., the part about God being a North Carolina fan, etc.) Even if it were cleaned up, though, there's still no proper assertion of notability. Heimstern Läufer 08:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete NN, fluff, etc.SkierRMH,08:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and SkierRHM as a non-notable, POV, extreme vanity article that fails WP:RS and WP:V. NeoFreak 19:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, believe it or not. It's a pile of nonsense right now, but he is an ECUSA diocesan and so notable. I've added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglicanism and will rewrite it. -- Bpmullins | Talk 22:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Bpmullins, although as has been noted elsewhere, it should also be moved so that the article name does not include his Style. David Underdown 09:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Bpmullins. WikiProject Anglicanism is trying to add, clean up, and expand articles on diocesan bishops. Carolynparrishfan 15:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bridgeport High School

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

Through Special:Random I found this disambiguation page which consists solely of red links. Somehow, I don't think we need a page for a list of links to non-existant pages. —Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 08:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Keep Doesn't follow conventions established at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Individual entries, nor can this article in itself ever do so. Possible violation of WP:NOT#IINFO. Gracenotes ^T § 08:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  Alansohn created Bridgeport High School (West Virginia), a seemingly notable high school. If this trend (hopefully) continues, this page will be required. Thanks, Alansohn. (Note: perhaps not all of the schools on this page are notable; this shall be left to the discretion of those analyzing them.)

  Also, please note that the WP:MOS issues had to do specifically with the existence of articles, thus making them relevant to this discussion. If a disambig page doesn't "act" like a disambig page, there's no use keeping it. Gracenotes ^T § 04:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the phrase "Bridgeport High School" occurs 30x in en.wiki - and none of them gives notability for their high schools. SkierRMH,08:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment At least one of the existing Wikipedia references made an explicit claim of notability for a Bridgeport High School. I created the article Bridgeport High School (West Virginia), which makes a few claims of notability and provides at least one blue link here at this disambiguation page. Alansohn 00:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 08:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I could see the logic if some of the school articles existed, but currently none do. TSO1D 14:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Changed to Weak Keep I agree some of these articles will probably be created one day. TSO1D 00:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - given the trend to finding high schools notable, I suspect that in a few years these articles will exist, and why should anyone have to do this work again? Newyorkbrad 19:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: It's a disambiguation page that links nowhere. While high schools may be notable, a list of high schools that don't have articles is something else entirely.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 22:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  Comment There is no such trend. Quite the opposite in fact- the last few months have seen highschools being deleted in a variety of cases. JoshuaZ 06:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Sooner or later, one of these high school articles will be created, and it will be incredibly helpful to have this article serve as a placeholder to allow these articles to be predisambiguated. This will prevent the mass confusion of using "Bridgeport High School" as a title and then being forced to rename it when a second "Bridgeport High School" article is created. The argument that anyone can determine that not a single one of these schools will ever be able to demonstrate notability is patently ludicrous on its face. And if folks likes User:Gracenotes are bothered by WP:MOS issues, the solution is to fix them; not to use it as a poor excuse for deleting an article. Alansohn 23:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I strongly dislike the "all schools are notable" or similar nonsense but this would be useful at minimum just having redirect to the various school districts that contain the relevant schools. And since one of the schools at this point is not a redlink and has clear notability I think it is easy to justify keeping at this point JoshuaZ 06:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — One link now exists; likely others will as well. (Rolling eyes at the usual school article-related rhetoric. :-) — RJH (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful as a disambiguation page, not sure why we would ever want to delete this. Silensor 05:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep If it had no blue links, then I would have said delete. And, Alansohn's H.S. actually is notable--site of a notable civil liberties controversy--although, Alansohn, I would still try to scare up some notable alumni.DGG 06:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, it's the best I could come up with in 20 minutes on a Saturday night. And there are so many of those darned Bridgeport High Schools out there, which makes it incredibly difficult to match up alumni to schools. If only there was an organized list of all of the Bridgeport High Schools -- maybe even with their locations -- it would be so much easier to fulfill this request... Alansohn 06:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rules Monger

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

not encyclopaedic Akihabara 08:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - nn neologism, 723 ghits. MER-C 08:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. Danny Lilithborne 01:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - neologism, small communities' use. SkierRMH,07:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carrie Ruxton

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

Expired prod. However a source provided by Bhadani on the talk page shows the article definitely deserves an AFD. Just listing here, No opinion from me. Srikeit 08:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm that the above source refers to the correct individual. No opinion from me, either. StuFifeScotland 14:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Even if that source shows a different Carrie Ruxton, the article should still be deleted. SupaStarGirl 15:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Minor accomplishments in one's field, fails WP:PROF. --Dhartung | Talk 16:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Out of Box Failure

Out of Box Failure (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This is a nn neologism, 829 ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 08:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Akihabara 08:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - It's commonly used in technical support to describe a hardware related failure on first use. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 22:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- The term is certainly no neologism. It is a real term and was already in use in 1992, when I recall first encountering it. It's used both as a legal term in warranty agreements, and as a descriptive in articles and user instructions. This is a commonly used term and as such should be covered by Wikipedia. Further, this term is used both as a common language descriptive, and a legal term in at least the telecommunications, wireless, and PC industries. Something I also want to highlight is that companies such as HP and Lucent use the term in legalese, which is a strong statement of support, considering the cohorts of lawyers both of them command. And finally, the term describes a common user experience, which should have a name other than the marketing-coined hide-the-ball terms that I run across every now and then. Thus, I strongly recommend that this article not be deleted, and instead be embraced as an industry term in common use.

Aki Korhonen 23:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment Maybe so. It still needs sources; hopefully, you'll be able to find some. :) Danny Lilithborne 01:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete merely a gloss on bathtub curve; could redirect. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• KeepIt's been in use for years, and is frequently reported in computer magazines. Unlike other terms, this is indeed known by many ordinary people. Needed some citations, though, so I've put some in. DGG 06:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rural Action

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

Nothing notable here Akihabara 08:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Appears to be a well-established grassroots group that regularly recieves grant funding from multiple sources. I have Wikified the page, added external links (including at least two that constitute independent sources, I believe - There are likely more, this is a rush job), noted two state-level awards recieved by the group and categorized this article. Needs to be expanded, not deleted. -- Antepenultimate 16:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I agree. They exist. The article is more 'up to wiki standards'. Wiki's not paper. It should stay as long as its factual and NPOV. Which it is. --Xiahou 00:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Factual and NPOV do not = notable. I have no opinion here, but just saying. The point of the nomination is that the user felt it was non-notable. That it is factual does not address that point.--Dmz5 01:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. If we want to get specific, this subject easily passes WP:N by being dicussed by multiple, non-trivial third-party sources. -- Antepenultimate 01:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Just needs a better description--the article is too modest. DGG

[edit] OpenPBX by Voicetronix

OpenPBX by Voicetronix (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:CORP BJ^Talk 08:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 08:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete also per nom. Appears to be attempt to promote product over several other articles as well. Calltech 12:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Legal wrangles are irrelevant here. Wikipedia is to report knowledge,including common misconceptions. Even if some of these PBX companies will be banned from using this name, we will still have legal rigths to write "formerly knwon as..." or "erroneously known as...", whatever the judge will say. `'mikkanarxi 21:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't know enough about the projects in question to venture an opinion about their degree of notability and whether they deserve to be kept or deleted, but I hope this is done solely on the basis of their merits and not influenced by legal threats. Of course, any use of names of the respective projects / products / organizations / companies should be well-sourced and based on actual usage in the real world (not neologisms made up on Wikipedia), but if one of these usages should happen to be a trademark violation, it is not Wikipedia that is violating the trademark; it's only reporting on it. *Dan T.* 21:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect this is complete nonsense. I am not affilliated with Voicetronix OpenPBX in any way and I have no interest in promoting it. I created the page because somebody who created the original OpenPBX page made a mistake to use a common law trademark of Voicetronix for an unrelated project called "OpenPBX.org". This mistake had to be corrected.

The name OpenPBX must not be used to refer to the OpenPBX.org project. If this practise spreads, then Voicetronix may start taking legal action and that would mean potential trouble (at least in Australia) for the open source community project "OpenPBX.org".

Of course you could simply delete the "OpenPBX" page and simply carry on with the new, properly titled "OpenPBX.org" page which I created as a legal replacement. However, since this is a site where any member of the public can create a new page, it is very likely that somebody will create another "OpenPBX" page again to describe "OpenPBX.org". The best way to prevent this is to have a page that lists the known uses of the name and links to the properly titled pages.

I created another page for Voicetronix' OpenPBX software because it is also an open source software package, so why would it not deserve equal treatment and this ensures goodwill from Voicetronix not to start complaining about the name conflict.

If the view of Wikipedia is that open source projects can only have an entry if they are not controlled by a single vendor, then you would also have to remove the Asterisk PBX page because Asterisk is an open source project controlled by a single vendor, Digium. You would also have to remove many other entries on open source projects, MySQL for example.

So, why is a page about OpenPBX by Voicetronix inappropriate advertising while a page about Asterisk by Digium is not?

Stswp 14:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Stswp, please check the criteria established for adding an article about a company or product WP:CORP. Simply writing a one or two statement article with no significant citation does not meet WP guidelines. Adding a link to your article compounds the problem because it appears promotional. The article needs work or should be removed. Calltech 15:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Avoidance of legal trouble for OpenPBX.org

The article is neither about a company nor about a product. It is there to inform people about the possible confusion that may arise, in part due to Wikipedia's original wrong doing, that is improperly using a trademark in the title of one of its pages.

Note that we (OpenPBX.org) did not create this problem. Wikipedia did. If Wikipedia had not been using the name "OpenPBX" incorrectly in the title of one of its pages, this would not be an issue now. We didn't ask for this. We never use "OpenPBX" anywhere, we always use "OpenPBX.org". The least we can expect from Wikipedia is assistance in solving this problem and making sure the improper use of Voicetronix' AU trademark to describe or refer to OpenPBX.org does not happen again.

We have amicably resolved this very same issue amicably on the Voip-Info.org wiki site after talking to Voicetronix. There we have repurposed the "OpenPBX" entry to become a disambiguation page linking to an "OpenPBX by Voicetronix" page and an "OpenPBX.org" page (and further linking to a third party using OpenPBX in the name of a software). This is a solution Voicetronix has agreed to and it therefore avoids any potential disputes which would be harmful to our project.

If you do not agree with the solution presented, a solution Voicetronix has agreed to, then please advise an alternative.

Simply deleting all references to Voicetronix' OpenPBX is not a solution because it would only introduce a level of indirection, thus still consitute the use of the name "OpenPBX" for refering to "OpenPBX.org".

If you were to delete the OpenPBX page altogether, then there is no guarantee that somebody will not create the page again and use it to describe or to refer to OpenPBX.org.

Whatever happens, this has to be resolved in such a way that

a) Voicetronix can agree to the remedy taken b) the same problem is unlikely to occur again in the future

If you mean to suggest that the solution I presented will be accepted under the condition that more information is added to the "OpenPBX by Voicetronix" page, I am happy to ask Voicetronix to edit the page following the Wikipedia guidelines for content. However, if I ask them to do so and the page is then deleted, that would only exacerbate the problem, so we will need to have a commitment that the page will not be deleted as long as it has balanced information about Voicetronix' OpenPBX software. Also, Wikipedia should allow a grace period. It is not always possible to have a refined detailed page right from the start. Most wikis entries evolve incrementally over time.

Please note that OpenPBX.org is a not-for-profit, vendor-independent, community driven open source project run solely by volunteers. We do not have a legal defense fund and it would be extremely unfair if we suffered harm because of Wikipedia's improper use of a trademark drawing unwelcome attention to a name conflict that could otherwise be managed. I expect Wikipedia to be helpful in such a way that our project suffers no harm.

thank you in advance for your assistance

Stswp 17:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete OK, but so far you've said nothing that shows why this entry doesn't violate WP:CORP. If Voicetronix feels the need to take legal action against OpenPBX.org, then it should do so. I don't see where that is Wikipedia's concern, though, since OpenPBX.org has their webpage under that URL. Perhaps the better solution would be to add an entry to OpenPBX.org to clear up the ambiguity, if it can be cleared up without a lawsuit or an edit war. At any rate, a solution which creates an entry which isn't in coherence with Wikipedia policy doesn't seem to be a viable answer to me. (Sorry for not signing on first edit.) LaughingVulcan 18:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Voicetronix and rewrite about company Voicetronix the company seems decently notable, with 75,000 google hits and listed as finalist for a number of awards on their news page. I'd recommend moving this to Voicetronix and turning it into part of an article on the company. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Additional news story about the company: [16] (requires subscription to view, but existence indicates notability)
• Keep but rewrite as stub as some kind of disambiguation. There appears to be some sort of real-world legal or tradename dispute that Wikipedia should not be involved in, but a stub containing a sentence or two to avoid confusion would not be out of line. Newyorkbrad 19:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment OpenPBX already exists as a disambiguation page for the term. BJ^Talk 00:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per Calltech's later suggestion. All related articles should also be deleted. Doc Tropics 20:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia is involved

Wikipedia got itself involved the moment it started violating Voicetronix AU trademark. Let me try to explain this again ...

• Wikipedia maintained a page called "OpenPBX"
• this page described the project which is actually called OpenPBX.org
• this action by Wikipedia legally counts as "passing off"
• OpenPBX.org did not create this page
• therefore OpenPBX.org was at no time passing off as OpenPBX
• instead, Wikipedia was passing off OpenPBX.org as OpenPBX, which is illegal

Thus, Wikipedia has been in conflict with the law and we ask that Wikipedia provide a remedy.

In such cases a proper remedy is universally considered to require two elements:

1) the infringing party (Wikipedia) must stop infringing

and

2) the infringing party (Wikipedia) must ensure that no future violation will occur

If the references to Voicetronix were to be removed, this would not let Wikipedia off the hook, because if the OpenPBX page still refers to OpenPBX.org, then Wikipedia would still be using the name "OpenPBX" for referring to "OpenPBX.org", thus Wikipedia would still be passing off, Wikipedia would still be in violation of the law.

If the page OpenPBX was to be removed entirely, this would not constitute a remedy becaus there is no mechanism in place that will prevent a member of Wikipedia to make the same mistake again. In order to qualify as a remedy, Wikipedia would need to somehow lock the page title so that it is no longer possible to create a page with the title "OpenPBX" unless the party trying to create the page can show that they are legally entitled to do so.

Another (theoretical) remedy would be for Wikipedia to make sure that the OpenPBX page cannot be viewed in Australia.

Now, for those who still don't understand why Wikipedia is at fault here, let me try to give you an analogy:

You cannot sell Pepsi Cola in Coca Cola bottles in your pub. In that case, you (the pub manager/owner) are at fault. Pepsi Cola is not at fault. Both Pepsi Cola and Coca Cola are victims of your actions in such case. Both Pepsi Cola and Coca Cola are entitled to remedy. In such a case you cannot simply stop and say "Oh, sorry" to remedy. The claimants are entitled to a remedy designed to make sure you will not do it again (for example, by firing the pub manager).

Stswp

Response to BJ stating "OpenPBX" already exists as a disambiguation page.

The page is now a disambiguation page, because I modified it this way. However, in order to satisfy as a remedy, this page must show the different uses equally. Therefore, if the Voicetronix part of the remedy were to be removed as proposed by Wikipedia members, then it would no longer be a remedy. It would become an infringement again.

Stswp 08:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia not above the law

A reminder for those Wikipedia members who seem to believe that Wikipedia rules somehow have higher priority than the law: You are mistaken. If you believe that proper legal remedy does not have to be provided because Wikipedia rules don't allow it: You are mistaken. Wikipedia is not above the law. If Wikipedia rules are such that they rule out proper remedy, then those rules are null and void because the law trumps Wikipedia rules. I suggest those Wikipedia members should treat the law with more respect. Thank you.

Stswp 08:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment First off, the OpenPBX trademark is not held in the U.S. where the English servers are hosted so Voicetronix has no legal recourse against the foundation. This doesn't really matter though, it is not Wikipedia editors jobs to deal with legal issues except for copyright infringement, if somebody has a legal issue they can contact Wikimedia Foundation who will take the needed action. Also I have no idea what laws you are talking about, it seems to be Australian laws but they don't apply here so I have no idea why this is an issue. BJ^Talk 09:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, one possible remedy would be to stop any page titled "OpenPBX" (without .org) pretending to be about something other than Voicetronix' OpenPBX from being served to viewers in Australia. The location of the servers matters not as trade agreements and other treaties between countries universally acknowlegde each others property rights including trademarks.

In any event, it is both puzzling and disheartening and to see that Wikipedia editors don't seem to have any interest in solving a problem which could be so easily solved, and apparently no interest in serving the public by providing information in a way that avoids confusion about two similarly named entities.

Stswp 10:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem if the disambiguation page mentions both and the open source article stays at OpenPBX.org. There is no need to have an article on this. BJ^Talk 10:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that if the page called "OpenPBX" discriminates in favour of OpenPBX.org, then it becomes a de-facto vehicle to use the name "OpenPBX" for referring to "OpenPBX.org", which is what the problem was with the page as it was. The only change would be a level of indirection. Indirection doesn't solve the problem.

As for "the open source article" I am not sure why you are making that distinction. Yes, our project (OpenPBX.org) is purely open source, vendor-independent, vendor-neutral. However, Voicetronix' OpenPBX software is also purely open source (there is no commercial license option) although it is not vendor-independent and thus not vendor-neutral.

If open-sourceness is a criterion, then their (Voicetronix) software should not be disqualified. If vendor-independence is a criterion, then Digium's Asterisk software (for which there is a page) should not qualify either. In fact, Asterisk is not even as purely open source as Voicetronix' OpenPBX is, because Asterisk is dual licensed.

Whatever the criterion for being a commercial product might be, it doesn't seem to be applied equally to all.

Stswp 12:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Both are commercial products, the policy I'm suggesting this page be removed under is WP:CORP. BJ^Talk 12:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Compliant

If the criteria you refer to is "The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.", then the entry is compliant.

Please, type "OpenPBX Voicetronix" into Google and click over a few of the many pages which are returned. You will find that there are many articles about their OpenPBX software, in many languages, by publications/websites which are not affiliated with Voicetronix, amongst them the number-one resource on VoiP+Telephony "Voip-Info.org", an unrelated but significant Japanese VoIP info site "Voip-Info.jp", Linux Magazine, mailing lists, forums, blogs etc etc.

Stswp 13:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Legal observations to the above by user:FT2

First off, I would say that if there are multiple uses and referands for the term 'OpenPBX', then disambiguation either in the article, or via a separate disambiguation page, seems very reasonable. Likewise if one form of OpenPBX is closely tied to a given company such as Voicetronix, and other uses of the term are not, then titling that article "OpenPBX (software by Voicetronix)" is no different than titling another article "Neo (Matrix character)" or "Little Shop of Horrors (1986 film)". So this issue should probably not have gotten this far.

However, there's a second side to it. People who claim legal issues where those legal issues are dubious, or simply act heavy handed, are inevitably going to not meet the best of receptions, and somewhere along the line that seems to have happened here too.

Wikipedia article titles are simply references, much like an index in a catalog. If "OpenPBX" is a reasonable term some people might look up openpbx.org under, then it has as much call to the article "OpenPBX" as a commercial product of the same name might have. There is unlikely to be any confusion because the articles do not attempt to claim that openpbx.org's work is the product by Voicetronix. That would be what passing off means. Passing off implies pretending that one thing is really something else, and there is no passing off here, nobody is being fooled or tricked by it. I'm sorry, but legally openPBX.org have as much right to be indexed under OpenPBX as any other user of that name. That an article is titled OpenPBX is not making a legal claim that they are the only people with an interest in the name OpenPBX.

As stated, any number of ordinary disambiguation remedies would solve this, as best I can tell. But that's my $0.02 worth on it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recommend removal of all articles and links associated with OpenPBX

OpenPBX, OpenPBX.org and OpenPBX by Voicetronix should all be removed until several issues are resolved - i.e. potential trademark violations and establishment of unbiased, third party citation under WP:CORP.

Two organizations both providing PBX solutions using the same name (no matter what the technical differences) are open game for dispute and litigation.

So far we have only heard from one of the parties involved who is by definition non neutral. Rather than getting in the middle of any potential disputes among outside organizations and because none of these articles appear to be strong in the WP:CORP category, they all should be removed immediately until the above issues are resolved. Placing WP:Afd on the other two and linking the discussions here. Calltech 14:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Response

As stated before, there is no dispute between OpenPBX.org and Voicetronix, instead there is an amicable agreement to manage the situation in the way that was applied to the voip+telephony information site at www.voip-info.org, that is:

• a disambiguation page under the title "OpenPBX", that page treating both uses of the name equally
• one specific distinguishable page for each use with a description of the specific software/project
• the disambiguation page then referencing the specific pages equally and without prejudice

A problem only arises because Wikipedia editors apparently want to discriminate against one project over the other. It is this discrimination that poses a problem.

Stswp 15:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I am discriminating based on Wikipedia policies and I still fail to see how this poses any problem what so ever. BJ^Talk 19:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The United States Patent & Trademark Office has said: "When a trademark, service mark, collective mark or certification mark is composed, in whole or in part, of a domain name, neither the beginning of the URL (http://www.) nor the TLD have any source indicating significance." In other words, at least as far as U.S. trademark status is concerned, sticking ".org" at the end of a name doesn't change its nature or status compared to the unadorned version. Personally, I can't stand sticking domain endings at the end of company, organization, and product names, and favor slicing them off wherever possible. *Dan T.* 19:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see removal being good advice, at least in that way. If they were non verifiable or non notable, then deletion would meet the relevant deletion policy criteria. But the comment here is "delete because the names are problematic". Thats not good grounds for deletion; its good grounds for careful disambiguation, without implying any preference to the "ownership" of the OpenPBX "title". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree with you, FT2. The argument of trademark and service dispute and lack of WP:CORP, go hand in hand. Good disambiguation, however, doesn't solve the problem when two products in the same industry have the same name. Disambiguation only works when the same name is used for two or more uniquely different products or definitions - here OpenPBX refers to a PBX software solution that apparently two groups claim registration rights. Frankly, it points out a weakness in the notability requirement with both organizations that neither would defend their apparent claims of trademark or service mark rights. There have been no citations to support WP:CORP. voip-info.org is listed in the both article's external links, but this is a self-publishing wiki that allows companies to write information about themselves and others can comment. This certainly does not qualify for WP:RS or WP:NPOV. My main point is that since there appears to be a conflicting use of names between two organizations, perhaps the bar should be raised when establishing WP:CORP. Calltech 23:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem really. If the title refers to two separate products (even if in the same field, same function and same title), then we can disambiguate the two, or have one combined article that says "there are two version"... and has a section on each. Either will work. By contrast, if there is one product, and multiple parties are claiming title to it, then again we have no difficulty. We have one article, and note the ownership and involvement dispute. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, in case anyone still listens, as failing WP:SOFT, no sources for any substantial third-party coverage. Ignore the utterly confused legalese for now. We don't care about who owns which trademark, we just record who uses what term, which does not infringe on anything I am aware of under any law I am aware of. Sandstein 22:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)#

Delete The suggestion that Wikipedia is passing off is laughable. (Passing off is the act of presenting yourself in a manner deleberately likely to cause confusion between yourself and another's identity. Wikipedia is clearly not doing this even if it is wrong.) Just delete this nn company and ensure that the .org is correctly referenced. --Backface 18:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New wave of british metalcore

New wave of british metalcore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Only 13 google hits, some of which are mirrors. Not notable. Seems to be a neologism made up by Metal Hammer simply to describe Exit Ten, as all Ghits refer to its use by Metal Hammer in relation to Exit Ten. Switch ^t 09:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 09:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and New wave of british mediocore SkierRMH,07:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Non-notable magazine-coined term. Prolog 19:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flash Flash Revolution

As Ashibaka said when he prodded it, there are no reliable sources. Nothing comes up in the Google news archive. No other reliable sources are listed in the article or can be found. --SPUI (T - C) 09:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The article does not meet the notability requirements for either WP:WEB, WP:SOFTWARE, or WP:GAMES, whichever one is more applicable here. The article is also not verified (WP:V) by reliable source(s). --Limetom 12:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I doubt this Flash game is cited in any reputable source. Ashibaka tock 16:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to new article Dance Dance Revolution simulators and clones with other articles such as StepMania, Dance With Intensity, pydance, Text Text Revolution. Failing that, redirect to Dance Dance Revolution, which has a section on Simulators and clones, since the history doesn't need to be deleted from view. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-09 18:58Z
• Normally I'm all in favor of deleting things as non-notable, but at this one I hesitate. It's been active for at least four years now (I think; seems like I've been playing it at least that long) and has a million logins (not users, but whatever). 1400 people are currently playing. (I am just throwing out stats that I see on the site right now.) It does not meet the cited notability threshholds, but perhaps we should consider ignoring all rules? Deltopia 21:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I highly doubt those stats, and that's the problem with using primary sources. Ashibaka tock 23:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I read through the first nine pages of google hits (after searching on "Flash Flash Revolution") and got a zillion links to the game, mirrors, and blogs, and virtually nothing written -about- the game. Frustrating. But without secondary sources, you're right, it lacks WP:V. Changing my vote to delete or merge. Deltopia 17:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep. Frustrating, yes, but as an administrator of the site, I must object. It'd be nice if we had a PR team behind the website getting us noticed in major tech blogs and news publications, but we don't. If someone doubts the number of users of our website, they can go to the forums[17] and see the vast scope of the website for themselves. We have 76,000+ active users - a number greater than DDR Freak's total number of logins. According to Alexa [18], we get more pageviews than either DDR Freak or Konami's official website - yet those two articles are certainly notable. I can also share some behind-the-scenes server statistics: this past Friday alone, FFR was played 309,757 times. FFR is kind of a web anomaly - it's not very often that such a massive community is built around a flash game. Though primary sources may not be the best sources, I'd rather use the website as a source than delete or merge the article altogether. I'd say that IAR seems to be crying out to apply to articles about subjects that are exceptions to the rule, so I'd say it applies in this instance. - Chardish 17:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Quarl. --REALiTY 23:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Kjbd 06:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP - This article has been around quite some time, as the website has been aswell. The site boasts over one million members, has over 300,000 active games daily, has been featured on several TV shows (Notably The Screen Savers), has been featured on several high profile blogs (Joystiq, Kotaku), and boasts music from several high profile artists, especially in the Bemani scene.

SPUI, I believe this is a bad faith nomination. SPUI has been banned from Flash Flash Revolution in the past, and perhaps has a persnoal vendette against the site? I don't know, but this is a notable website, and deserves an entry on Wikipedia. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 19:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or merge and redirect per Quarl if you must. No reliable sources. Voretus^talk 03:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no reliable sources. I made the article but I honestly don't care, it sucks anyway. Moogy^(talk) 03:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - pretty notable, on par with other simulators such as StepMania. Its site has an Alexa rating of 28,256, which isn't bad. --FlyingPenguins 03:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorcery 101

Sorcery 101 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

I speedied this as a recreation of an already deleted page (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorcery 101) but the creating user argues that this is a revised and improved article and that reasons for the previous deletion are no longer valid. Relisting to see what consensus says. No stance Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - reads like an advert, no reliable sources provided, written largely from a non-real-world prospective which is banned per WP:FICT and WP:NOT, notability is not asserted and no important reliable sources support notability. Moreschi 11:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Moreschi. MER-C 12:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This comic is on Keenspot which is by invitation only. There are outside thrid party sources linked. If you need verification for information it's all in the comic it's self and is sited as such. And if the article reads badly then give this version more time to improve because this versions only been up for less than a weak. TheAmazingTick
• Keep - Notable per WP:WEB criteria #3, published through a well-known/notable/whatever online publisher, Keenspot. References one independent third-party source, a review in a student newspaper.[19] Content is verifiable as a reference to the fiction itself (see WT:V#Verifiability of television episodes as support). An in-universe perspective is not a reason to delete the article but a reason to improve it. – Anþony  talk  17:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If the consensus here is that the article is seriously flawed, I recommend stubbing it and starting over rather than deleting, as the subject is clearly notable. – Anþony  talk  22:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Everything else on Keenspot seems to have an article, why not this? It seems well written to me. --Phred Levi 18:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as both a recreation of previously deleted material as well as web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. Moreschi is correct in all of their points as well. -- Dragonfiend 19:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Moreschi. Non-notable sub-culture webcomic. NeoFreak 19:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It does not make sense to vote delete "per nom" when the nomination is explicitly neutral. Since when is Keenspot a "sub-culture" in the context of webcomics? Henning Makholm 03:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - The article has been revised and it includes external references now, the lack of which was, as far as I know, the main reason for deleting the previous article. And, as it has been said before, other Keenspot comics have entries, so why not this one? -- GabiAPF 19:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)— GabiAPF (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep. Article seems rather crufty to me, but might be improved. Being on Keenspot is sufficient for a webcomic to be notable in my opinion. Henning Makholm 03:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The author of this webcomic has asked that the readers revise the article, so it is constantly being improved and updated. The comic has a large following with a growing number of interested readers. Also - since other online webcomics from Keenspot have entries, this one should as well. I have been reading this comic for a little over a year and I have seen the transfer from ComicGenesis to Keenspot. Keenspot would not have invited Kel to host her comic on that server unless the comic had a large following. I see no reason to delete this entry in Wikipedia. Kaelan69 21:24, 09 December 2006 (Central Time)

— Kaelan69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• "Keep". Does not read like an advert. At present, the page is neutral and informative about the webcomic. This webcomic is hosted on Keenspot, indicating that it has an established and significant community of readers. I see no reason to delete. modernknight 22:52, 09 December 2006 (EST)

— Modernknight (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete notability is not subjective, significant reliable third-party reporting does not exist. Nothing much seems to have changed since the last AfD: a single piece in a student paper does nothing to demonstrate notability, nor does appearing on Keenspot. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Keenspot is notable as displayed at Talk:Keenspot#Keenspot notability. And because of that this webcomic passes the WP:WEBTheAmazingTick 14:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It hasn't been accepted at WP:WEB; Talk:Keenspot is not a policy, or a guideline, or even a widely cited essay like User:Uncle G/On notability. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that Wikipedia:Notability (web) says, "Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article." In other words, even if a webcomic host is notable, each and every webcomic it hosts is not. Also, keep in mind that WP:WEB is only one guideline, and it should not be read in isolation in such a way that it contradicts official content policies like Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. -- Dragonfiend 18:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • But number 3 in the WP:WEB clearly says that "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." And Keenspot is notable and indepedent of the creators of the comics that it publishes. Which makes all it's comics pass the WP:WEB, which should be enough to at least let the article remain for more than the week it has been up. So that it can be stub and be improved upon. TheAmazingTick 20:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Keenspot is not "well-known" outside of its subculture. Note that the idea that "Wikipedia should have articles on every Keenspot comic" didn't work on the first AfD for this webcomic, or on any of the many other previous Keenspot-related AfDs that have resulted in deletion, so it's unlikely to be effectiv ein this "do-over." Again, this is because we can't stretch the WP:WEB guideline to the point that it lets us write about topics we personally feel are "notable" by resorting to original research, our own points of view, and other unreliable sources. As far as I can see, the only new information since the last AfD is that this comic was written about in the weekly student newspaper of a college with an enrollment of 2,200. This is not the type of multiple reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that we, as an encyclopedia, require. If you'd like to write webcomics-related articles without the burden of our content policies, I suggest comixpedia.org. -- Dragonfiend 20:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
          • WP:V States that there is an exceptions for Self Publish/dubious reliabity sources if claims aren't contentious, it's obvious who wrote it, and it's not self serving. As for keenspot not being "well-known" in the outside world there are article about it in both the San Francisco Chronicle and Publisher's Weekly.TheAmazingTick 21:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
            • The claim that this topic has had any great impact or is historically significant is not reliably sourced. That this article has already been deleted once would signify that such a claim is at best "contentious." Yes, I know that Keenspot has been written about in a few decent sources (I'm the one who added the two newspaper references to the Keenspot article). This does not make it generally well known outside of its subculture. For what it's worth, we've deleted articles on websites with much better sources and larger readership than Keenspot. This is getting really long. The basic idea here is that for encyclopedia articles we need sources that are at least as good as those we'd use for a junior high school research paper. We don't have those for this article. -- Dragonfiend 22:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] K2xl Games

K2xl Games (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Not an article about the company despite the title. If the games were worthy of an article, it should be under their own names. I don't see any reason to believe the games are notable. Akihabara 11:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Almost a speedy. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Unreferenced. MER-C 12:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - see also WP:FICT - much of it reads like a non-real-world-perspective game guide. Moreschi 13:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 23:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, agree with MER-C, but think it's bad enough to bump up to speedy. SkierRMH,07:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom, except at least one game seems notable enough. Maybe a full rewrite could salvage it but its probably better to start from scratch. --MegaBurn 03:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete a game guide/advertising hybrid of an article. The Kinslayer 15:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] K.K. Chiu

K.K. Chiu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Not particularly notable - I could only find one non-Wikipedia ghit, from which 50% of the article is a CopyVio. Akihabara 11:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Moreschi 13:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I think it fails WP:NOTE, lack of sources. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - One independent ghit does not notability make. SkierRMH,07:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KDKA Sports Showdown

KDKA Sports Showdown (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Nothing notable; just another talk show. Akihabara 12:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - no assertion of notability. Moreschi 13:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Half the stations in the country have a sports talk show after the Sunday late news. Not notable. Fan-1967 14:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Not notable? Its on TV in a major city. It exists. The article is factual though short. Its NPOV. So what if half the stations have a sports talk show. So be it. This is wikipedia not paper. Wiki has articles on every tom dick and harry in every book and video game and TV show. This is a TV show. Nothing 'un'notable about it. Thousands must watch it to be on in a major city network affiliate. Whats the number to achieve 'notibility'? Keep it.--Xiahou 00:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Nor is it TV Guide. If this is kept, should we also have an article on every local TV program? Fan-1967 17:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• if they add them, sure. I can look up a character from a 1940s independent comic, I can look up something about a small monument in a very small town on here. I can look up 1 shot characters of a TV series. Tid bits of information, but a tv show seen in a major city TV market doesn't meet "your" criteria of being 'good' enough. Considered indescriminate? How many people need to watch and in what area for a TV show to be discriminate and be included my 'your' definition?--Xiahou 01:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic leadership

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

It reads like a large piece of original research, prohibited per WP:OR. Worse, it is almost completely unverified and unreferenced, see WP:V. Moreschi 12:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 12:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I see no OR here but rather a well-written article about the historical devlopment of the concept of religious leadership in Islam. The title is somewhat vague but the body of the article leaves no doubt as to the concept at issue. Allon Fambrizzi 13:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
• Keep Agree with Allon; likely a misnamed article. Should be renamed and be given clearer context. Akihabara 13:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article needs references and several sections need to be developed, and I agree that the concept of "Islamic leadership" should be better defined in the lead, but the subject seems encyclopedic and worthy of inclusion. - Eron ^Talk 13:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Tentative Keep Stubify Not well-written but seems to be an encyclopedic topic. To be a well-written encyclopedia article, the content needs to begin from reliable references, not whatever the editors know off the top of their head. Article currently almost entirely lacks references for what should be a topic much written about in external sources. Stubify to allow a new start Bwithh 15:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable topic, just needs work. SupaStarGirl 15:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all above. This is not original research (novel connections between facts), this is simply an article without many references. --Dhartung | Talk 16:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I must disagree. It is as novel as an article about 'American Leadership', which claims that all Presidents of the US have had something in common because they swore an oath to uphold the same document. Hornplease 05:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not encyclopedic, not referenced, not verifiable. Unless someone is volunteering to re-write in an encyclopedic manner, I almost think this would be more work to cleanup than to start over from scratch (so maybe delete and re-submit as an Article for Creation?). Deltopia 23:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. Please. Not only is this OR, it will always be OR. Its not an encyclopaedic topic if nobody bothers to think of "leadership" as having certain aspects particular to Islam. Hornplease 08:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - cleanup not a reason to delete.Bakaman 18:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kahini

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

No notability justification for including in English-language encyclopaedia Akihabara 12:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Normally, I'd say disambiguate but nothing in the wiki contains the word, so delete as an article on a name with no notability or assertion thereof. MER-C 13:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Dicdef. Delete per nom and MER-C. Moreschi 13:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as dicdef, no need to disambiguate. SkierRMH,07:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Hornplease 08:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jörg Bobsin

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

Unreferenced and unwikified autobiography. Seems to be a bit like a resume. Article on German Wikipedia is of similar content and may also be deletable. Contested prod. MER-C 13:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Unreferenced dreck. Moreschi 13:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- Kusma (討論) 20:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per no as WP:BIO and autobiography. SkierRMH,07:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete orphaned dead-end article. It's too bad, for if a third party would take the time to rewrite and source the article, it could very well be a keeper. But not this unsourced mess. B.Wind 04:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KaosPilots International

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

Likely spam. Authors only contributions relate to this article and KaosPilot. Only contributors are author and IP address. Akihabara 13:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - reads like the world's biggest advert and gets only 560 Ghits, so doesn't seem notable either. Moreschi 13:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. On top of it all, the sources are KaosPilots, KaosPilots, KaosPilots, KaosPilots, KaosPilots, KaosPilots, KaosPilots, KaosPilots, KaosPilots, KaosPilots, and a student newspaper article about the KaosPilots. SupaStarGirl 15:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete weeding through the ghits is like reading copy paper... SkierRMH,07:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KaosPilot

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

Spam, similar to KaosPilots International above. Akihabara 13:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - same reasons as in related AFD. Moreschi 13:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as with KaosPilots International. SupaStarGirl 15:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11 and so tagged. Looks like it could feasably be a copyvio too, but I shan't check. Ohconfucius 12:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lothlorien Hall

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

I'm willing to be proved wrong but at the moment I can see no clear indication of notability in this article. All the sources mentioned seem to be in some way connected with the USCA organisation. Fails WP:Notability--Edchilvers 13:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - no assertion of notability. Moreschi 13:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Just a rambling essay. Akihabara 13:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Also see related nomination at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lothlórien_Co-op Irongargoyle 19:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - nn corp/building/entity. SkierRMH,07:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paddy Cunningham

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

I can see no clear indication of notability in this article. Fails WP:Notability-- Vintagekits 13:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Article needs work but I can see why he would be notable--Edchilvers 13:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Its a vanity page, the guy is a TV researcher and has added nothing to anything imo, also no hits for him on google (except for his own vanity webpage) Vintagekits 13:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Possibly notable but requires a cleanup and references. I've added that to the page. Akihabara 14:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment He is listed as a radio presenter on the MediaUK website and the radio station for which he works is played at commercial outlets across Ireland. I'd say he just about qualifies--Edchilvers 14:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If that qualifies as notability then pretty much everyone in the world could have a wiki page, he is listed as having a job, so what its not notable. There are no hits for him on the net apart from what he has created himself. Vintagekits 14:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I see that the article was written by a certain User:Padmund who seems to have made no contributions to Wikipedia other than this one. I suspect that this may be an autobiography but this does not mean to say that he is non-notable.--Edchilvers 14:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment from my view it is a autobig, he even lists being an extra in an Irish Soap as one of the things that he has done! say no more Vintagekits 14:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep So what does it take to qualify as notable for some people. Hits on google are apparently the be all end all notability solution. They guy works on a large radio show, on TV. Thousands know who he is. Wiki's not paper. Every tom dick and harry who has been on TV has a page. As they should. Well he's one.--Xiahou 00:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you for really? he works on a "show" that is piped out of 200 Spar shops in Ireland - no one knows who he is, its a totally unreferenced autobiog. Vintagekits 00:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • so whats the magic number qualifier to achieve this status of "notability" then? --Xiahou 03:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • There is no number - they guy is just not notable. Google is just a good start to see if there is any notability. When you say he has been on TV - he hasn't - its an autobiography - Please note the language he uses - he states he has "contributed to many shows" - what does that mean, he could have just made tea, photocopied, what? "contributed to a number of well known newspaper publications" - no reference to any of these again and I could find anything on the net either. "working for the famous Radio and TV personality Bruno Brookes" - again doing what, cutting his lawn? again no reference to anything like this on the net! "Stations previously worked on include" again didn't state what he did there, I have spoken to people at two of the stations that he listed and they state he was never a presenter there, so what was he doing, photcopying again, fixing the mcis?! "Also appeared on the Irish Current Affairs Show Prime Time" - please not the word "appeared" - this is Irelands version of Question Time on BBC1 - he never appeared on the panel, so either he is lying or sat in the audience (which is not a notable) and then he states he was an extra on a soap opera - thats almost laughable. Its an autobiography and a vanity page in my opinion. Also noting that is stated can be verified! Vintagekits 13:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• "So what does it take to qualify as notable for some people" - no need to ask here, read WP:BIO. Deizio talk 16:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Not even one of the notability assertions have been substantiated with a citation of any kind. At this time there is no verifiable information to show this should be kept. In fact it should have been speedy by someone on PC Patrol. It also looks like the initial editor is the subject of the article, so qualifies a vanity page that might be allowed on the user page. ww2censor 13:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable vanity page. Bastun 13:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, vanity. Keep rationales above display lack of knowledge about WP practice and no assertion of notability. Deizio talk 14:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity page Subwayguy 06:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. NN Vanity. Guliolopez 11:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sexy football

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

Notability in doubt. Poorly sourced (there is but one source that describes the term in its featured use). Seems like a personal opinion. Full of self references. May be a candidate for Wiktionary. No enough substance. Doesn't fit into existing universe of aricles on soccer. In short, a very starnge article on a very strange topic written in a starnge tone. Aditya Kabir 13:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Soccer; failing that, transwiki to somwhere. Moreschi 13:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Merge with Soccer. Akihabara 14:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A non-notable and badly-defined term used by a single person, and is not an official term for the game. Therefore, I don't suggest merging it into Soccer. Instead, transwiki it to Wiktionary or the Wikiquote entry of Ruud Gullit. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge With soccer. I disagree with Michaelas, the term in used by more than one person (I have heard multiple commentators saying it), however I don't believe it warrants a separate article. TSO1D 14:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet it isn't an official type of Soccer and merging it with Soccer would be pointless as there are probably hundreds more similar terms invented by individuals. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki or Delete - per nom and the comments by Michaelas10 make sense. Jayden54 16:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 20:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's not notable, and at best probably an opinion piece. --SunStar Net^talk 20:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I see no reason to merge it into the football article. There are hundreds of words and terms out there that describes various playing styles. – Elisson • T • C • 21:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete just a naff term used to describe teams that use an exciting style of play, not really regarded as an especially serious term, and not really a recognised actual style of play in itself such as, for instance, total football ChrisTheDude 21:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. --Wizardman 21:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki or Delete no enough sources to satisfy WP:NEO and thus keep here.-- danntm ^T _C 22:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no substantial content to merge, it's just a 10-year-old neologism. Qwghlm 02:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - dictionary definition, no more no less. Don't even merge. - fchd 09:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no merge, laughing at the people who want to merge this to a redirect page. Punkmorten 19:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not good at all for transwiki. Don't merge with football (soccer); a very short reference on Ruud Gullit would be quite enough. --Angelo 22:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Packer

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

No reference to support notability claim. Fails WP:BIO. Edcolins 13:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, no assertion of notability. Moreschi 13:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't appear to be the least bit notable. A college student who has "theories" about robots, which, as far as I can tell, aren't anything new, nor substantial enough to warrant an article about him yet. If he ever does invent the first thinking robot, well...WE'RE DOOMED! (I don't think we have anything to worry about, though) Wavy G 00:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, nn bio fluff piece. SkierRMH,07:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete CSD A7. B.Wind 04:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uprightness of all Sahaba

Uprightness of all Sahaba (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Several reasons here. Firstly, large chunks of it read like original research - someone's personal essay - particularly the Shia section. This violates WP:OR. That particular section is also completely unreferenced: see WP:V. Much of the article is heavily POV: take sentences such as "Shi'a reject this view with multiple arguments especially since there is absolutely no evidence in the Qur'an of any such immunity with regards to all the companions of Muhammad nor the sub companion groups who followed later in history as being infallible and free from sin", and furthermore "Did not the archers leave their stations to collect the booty and allowed Khalid Bin Walid to advance onto the Muslim Army from the rear? So can these greedy people who disobeyed the Prophet be considered as pious? Disobedience of the Prophet is disobedience of Allah!". Not only is this POV but the tone is completely unencyclopaedic. Lastly, I would also question this term's notability. It only gets 100 ghits, most of which seem to be Wikipedia and various mirrors such as Answers. Moreschi 13:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep and Clean up I have to agree that in its current state the article is inadequate but the topic can be important enough to deserve an article. TSO1D 14:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep please do not missuse afd as an RFC aimed at cleaning up an article. And obviously, it is not a term, it is a concept, and its existance it well established even in the present bad state the article is in. Nom, speedy withdraw this mal-placed action and help me clean it up from POV and OR. --Striver 16:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crazy Dumbsaint

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

Non-notable band. Fails WP:Notability--Edchilvers 14:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Akihabara 14:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Glorified garage band. SkierRMH,07:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I wonder if they succeeded in their June 2006 attempt to get together and record that EP. This verges on speedy delete territory. B.Wind 04:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kalup Linzy

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

Mixture of autobiography and advert. Of dubious notability. Akihabara 14:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Article needs references but, if true, I'd say it qualifies--Edchilvers 14:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've found a review of his work from the New York Times and from what it says I'd say he certainly qualifies [22]
• Keep, touring performance artist, easily meets WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 16:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Expand and keep - meets WP:V and WP:BIO, but details are seriously lacking. If Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow merits a Wikipedia article (and that has been debated at least twice), so should Kalup Linzy. B.Wind 04:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Promoting the use of renewable energy

Promoting the use of renewable energy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Prod was removed three months ago with no comment. No improvement since. Not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Fan-1967 14:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Renewable Energy--Edchilvers 14:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete entirely, the only content is soapboxy. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 14:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Akihabara 15:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete too preachy.-- danntm ^T _C 22:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as soapbox, noninformative. SkierRMH,07:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge whatever isn't already duplicated there into renewable energy Dragomiloff 12:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wario the Quario

Wario the Quario (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

substub, notability concerns (unsure of song guidelines) Will ^{(Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?)} 14:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. The second line, about a phrase coined by some unknown person, is clearly what was deleted in the first AFD. As for the song, it's difficult to imagine how any song could be less notable than this. There's one myspace page and the other links are Wikipedia or mirrors. -- Fan-1967 15:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non notable song, and nothing to show any notability. Jayden54 16:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Are you kidding? There must be some way to speedily delete this. I'd say {{db-repost}}, but the first AfD was almost two years ago. Still... this is garbage. -- Kicking222 17:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete complete nonsense. Article was written by a vandal. Wavy G 01:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete please! Complete nonsene. SkierRMH,07:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete db-context. Danny Lilithborne 00:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carolyn Jourdan (2nd nomination)

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

Page was deleted on 5 December after nomination on grounds of "biographical article on an unreleased book, failed on criteria for notability for people or for book". Page was recreated 7 December, and edited through 8 December, but without addresing the original reasons for delete, i.e. book is still unpublished and author is no more notable now than she was four days ago. Quotes about the book from celebrities are irrelevant - the book has still not been published - and serve to make this more of an advert than it was previously. Emeraude 15:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. A non-notable author with an unreleased book. I suggest to permanently protect the article if it's recreated again. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Jayden54 16:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:NOT#CBALL certainly doesn't apply here, as the book was confirmed. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I didn't know that, thanks for letting me know. I'm sticking to my vote though, as the notability claim still stays. Jayden54 17:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • And the book has not yet been published, could be cancelled, and may not be notable even when published. And writing one book does not, in itself, confer notability. Emeraude 17:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete article is unsourced and reads like spam.-- danntm ^T _C 23:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - let it hit the charts and then recreate, until then, it's crystalballin'. SkierRMH,07:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - my opinion remains unchangde from the first AFD. BTW, the link in the AFD notice in the article points to the origina AFD. -- Whpq 18:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mount Olive Lutheran Church

Mount Olive Lutheran Church (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

No sign of notability. If this church is notable for its history or architecture, Google books and news give no sign of that. A cursory look through the 201 unique Google hits for "mount olive lutheran church" -site:mountolivechurch.org -site:mtoliveluth.org pasadena -site:myspace.com shows nothing promising. De-prodded without comment. Pan Dan 15:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Doesn't seem notable, and doesn't pass WP:CHURCH (proposed guideline for churches). No sources to show notability either. Jayden54 16:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete The article has been up 3 weeks or so and does not yet have any references, let alone references saying it is notable in some way. If the art or architecture have been noted by independent reliable sources, or if something historic happened there, now is the time to note it. Nothing popped up in a survey of publications. Edison 21:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn church with not much possibility of the proposed church guideline. SkierRMH,07:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meddiebempsters

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

An a cappella group at Bowdoin College. Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Canderson7 ^(talk) 15:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Don't think it meets WP:MUSIC so delete. Jayden54 16:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Reluctant delete - I'm torn. I don't think that the tour to Korea gives them the notability they need (a lot of college a cappella groups do international trips these days). With the age of the group, I imagine there is probably something notable in their past that might get them up to and over the WP:MUSIC notability standards, but there simply aren't any citations for it. Without good citations (and the group's own web site really isn't that, especially now while their server is down), "probably notable" doesn't make it. JDoorjam Talk 18:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a combo of WP:BAND and WP:MUSIC - can't get reliable independent notablity references. SkierRMH,07:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - WP:BAND and WP:MUSIC are the same thing. JDoorjam Talk 18:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• EXPAND - The article does meet WP:Music due to the Korean tour. Also, this group has played a vital role in the popularity of a cappella in the United States. With such a rich history, this article is in need of a consdierable expansion, not deletion. How is this group different from all the groups listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Collegiate_a_cappella_groups —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.5.230.205 (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Old Bonhomme Hockey League

Old Bonhomme Hockey League (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

I proded the article before realizing that it had already been proded with the tag being removed by the article's creator. In fact it was also tagged for speedy deletion but that was also removed by the creator. Wihtout any explanations of course... In any case, original research. The idea that inline hockey was invented in Missouri in 1990 is at best dubious. No sign of any third-party reliable sources. Pascal.Tesson 15:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:V. Claiming to be the birthplace of the sport does infer notability, but only if true and verifiable. Caknuck 17:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the claims seem to be more than dubious. SkierRMH,07:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable with no reilable sources. And as for the claim of invention, highly dubious as hockey with regular roller skates has been played for ages, so the introduction of rollerblades is a natural evolution that would have occured in mutliple places. -- Whpq 18:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Negrois

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

Unsourced WP:NEO, no major edits have been made since it was created in March. _JD^talk 15:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per WP:NEO and WP:NOT since it offers nothing more than a dictionary definition. Jayden54 16:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fewer than 700 ghits. Fails WP:NEO. Caknuck 16:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced neologism. TSO1D 00:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - between dicdef & neologism. SkierRMH,07:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. <<-armon->> 04:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC) _JD^talk 15:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orchestra Right Records

Orchestra Right Records (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This is a record label that currently represents six bands. ^{[Check Google hits]} Ghits total 12 for "Orchestra Right Records" and even searching for "Orchestra Right"+label" brings very few relevant articles in the first five pages. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 16:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I am also adding two of the label's clients:

Herowin - Music available on MySpace only; record not released yet. Few relevant Ghits for the name, and none of them indicate that the subject meets WP:MUSIC.

Paperfilm 67 - No album released yet, but his friends (including Herowin) like his music. 55 Ghits for the name, 17 of them "unique".

... discospinster _talk 16:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Punks and Nerds

Punks and Nerds (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Appears to fail WP:WEB - there's no evidence that this is an especially notable webcomic AdorableRuffian 16:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It seems a collection of these comic strips has been published commercially but otherwise there's nothing else here to elevate this above the countless many other web comics. The article is pretty much entirely OR and if there aren't multiple non-trivial published works to be cited then there's no article to be had. -- IslaySolomon | talk 16:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WEB & CITE, nothing makes this one notable. SkierRMH,07:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Webcomics. This webcomic has over 20,000 readers. This webcomic has been nominated for numerous awards. What more do you want? More? Fine. It has been in multiple interviews, a few found At the webcomics list, GGL, Comixpedia, as well as college newspapers. Punks and Nerds originated the very popular [Doug Raped Patti] phenomenon found in [collegehumor.com] and YTMND, which can't be directly linked to because ytmnd is a banned link. Also forced the Pringles entry to be locked up after a mass wave of vandelization after a joke was made from this specific strip in July (see edit history in Pringles). In the end, if it's still required to be deleted. That is okay, so be it. :-) JoshMirman,03:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This comic has a wide following. If things are going to be delisted due to lack of interest by a few, Wikipedia will soon lose relevance.--Xmb1121 08:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This webcomic is very popular and has spawned a few very popular internet memes. Evil Vin 18:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Keep it this webcomic is really what helped me get though the tough times back when I was in high school; this webcomic holds a really dear place in my heart. I would hate to see this webcomic go annotated in Wikipedia.
• Expand This comic has spawned a meme or two. If those were included in the article, with links, I think it should definitely be kept.
• Keep. One of the more popular webcomics out there. --Czj 02:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Binhead

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

All 'references' are from user-edited sites. One relevant and one unreladed def on Urban Dictionary, a geocities web site, a few dozen hits in a you-tube search (all but two of which were uploaded by a user with the same username as one of the editors) and a livejournal community. Lots of google hits, but that's not surprising considering that the article says the inventors have been promoting the site game online for 'five or six years.' Wikipedia is not for things made up by a group of friends in Manchester one day. -- Vary | Talk 16:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Notification of this AFD has been posted to the binhead community blog on livejournal. -- Vary | Talk 17:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Binhead is a game that I'm pretty sure has been in exsistance for many years either as a drinking game or a smoking game (going by various names as mentioned in the article) We did not invent this game as with many drinking games (lots of which have wikipedia articles) the actual origin of the game is lost. I agree the article my contain serveral references to a specific groups of people in Manchester and London, however this is not suprising as they wrote the article. Ginjarium 17:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I am gathering some more references for the article now. I have already found many more references to Binhead, Drop the Dime and The Rizla Game from a variety of websites Ginjarium 18:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and Salt WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:NFT, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOTE, WP:OWN, WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:OR etc. I honestly can't think of any reason to keep this. "They want to delete the Binhead article again" is particularly incriminating. -- IslaySolomon | talk 18:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Salt as per IslaySolomon Bwithh 19:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• This isn't the first time that this article has been put up for deletion I don't deny that, the article was upheld then because it is a well known drinking/smoking game. To be honest I don't see the problem with letting the binhead livejournal community know about this discussion as they are people from all over the world who play binhead and can probably defend this article far better than I (also to let the original article writers know the article is being discussed). Anyway the community post has been made private as it bares no relavance to this duscussion other than informing the community. Ginjarium 19:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Ginjarium is referring to the prodding soon after the article was created, not a previous AFD discussion, so 'upheld' isn't entirely accurate. Prod tag was added by Rory096 here, seconded by Ohnoitsjamie here, and removed a few edits later by single purpose account Es0terika here. -- Vary | Talk 19:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Many of the reasons for not deleting this article are mentioned here. Ginjarium 19:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• References

As I said I would I have done some quick google searchs and have found several more article on the web which support this article most of the stuff I found was irrelevant as it was mainly dicussions in obscure smoking forums. This is by no means a complete list but is just some of the sites that mention the game several of which are linked to the article writers and several which have no link to me or the LJ community members which wrote this article:

BINHEAD

Everything2.com http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=829962 Cannabis.com http://boards.cannabis.com/showthread.php?t=54517 Spankmag http://spankmag.com/f/d.cfm/cc.62880/o_r.21/p.htm Wordweb http://wordweb.info/3/lookupframe.pl?BINHEAD Dooyoo http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/tobacco/rizla-blue-king-size/1022270/ Urban Dictionary http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=binhead Geocities http://www.geocities.com/playbinhead/ Livejournal http://community.livejournal.com/binhead/ Utube http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=search_videos&search_query=binhead&search_sort=&search_category=0&page=1 myspace http://groups.myspace.com/binhead

Drop The Dime

Webtender http://www.webtender.com/handbook/games/dropthedime.game webtender http://www.webtender.com/handbook/guide/sec-09.ghtml

Cups

Everything2 http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=cups

I'm still looking but these are just the few turned up by quick google searches. Cups is a name I hadn't heard the game called before but looking at the article it is the same thing under a different name. I've heard it called the rizla game in the past. Ginjarium 19:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per IslaySolomon, close this AfD early per WP:SNOW. The people (all SPA's, looks like) who want to keep this article can't even come up with single reliable source, so we already know where this is going. Tubezone 02:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete & Salt and please close as per Tubezone's request. SkierRMH,07:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and padlock this puppy - no reliable sources, despite the sockpuppetry. "Binhead" appears most often in Yahoo and Google searches as a nickname for Osama bin Laden, mainly in political blogs and forums. B.Wind 04:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no reliable sources available, and seem unlikely. -- Whpq 18:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Your arguments put forward for the deletion of this article, as you summarised are that wikipedia is not for things invented by a group of friends in manchester. I have to concure with you on that point. The issue I would like to raise is that it was not invented by a group of friends in manchetser. It was given a distictive name "binhead", and as stated in the article is known by many other names.

You feature a large number of drinking games on wikipedia, yet a quick search turns up no smoking games. Yet the third hit on google for a search on smmoking and games turns up:

http://www.amsterdamaged.net/forums/general-chat/1243-smoking-game.htm,

which to all intents and purposes is the game known as binhead.

Atherton2 21:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mallcore

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

Dicdef, but more importantly, the article's entire purpose is to disparage its subject - to tag some set of metal bands with a derogatory label, while elevating others to "not mallcore" status. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Akihabara 17:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Urban DICDEF for WP:NFT concept. Largely made up of OR. Providing external links to fansites is not verification by reliable sources. -- IslaySolomon | talk 18:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Article is only used to decry, and there is no sign of it's conclusion going any further than the heads of a small number of editors. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 19:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand article is NOT for attacking nu metal, I have repeatedly put in the correct info about the subject---that it is viewed as the "proper" term for nu metal, since nu metal is not viewed as metal---only to see it deleted every time. I even referenced this article before only to have it deleted. NOTE TO EDITORS: Metal-Rules is a perfectly legit source in the metal community. If it doesn't meet Uncle Wiki's requirements for Reliable Sources, then I suggest rewriting them. It's highly regarded in the metal community. And mallcore wasn't made up in school, it was made up on a website (metal-rules if I'm not mistaken) several years ago. Not hearing it until now is no excuse for claiming it isn't legit, isn't notable, isn't widely used, or any other such nonsense. Ours18 21:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• that it is viewed as the "proper" term for nu metal, since nu metal is not viewed as metal---only to see it deleted every time is blatantly POV, and if anything, furthers the argument that this is an attack page. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit; nearly every metal fan I've personally met does not consider nu metal to be metal, hence my statement. Apparently, I'm not the only one here who has had that experience. If Wikipedia talkpages count as evidence, we wouldn't have to even bother sourcing it; look around the metal (specificly nu metal) band talk pages. And for the record, I actually listen to some mallcore bands---I have no problem calling them such. Ours18 05:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It's rather pointless for mallcore to have its own article. It should maybe be a few sentences (or less) on the nu-metal page. PhantomOTO 23:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and something used by a small group doesn't make it notable on a worldwide scale. SkierRMH,07:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. You must be kidding me about the "small group" right? Ours18 08:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect If the term is synonymous with Nu metal then put the info there. Static Universe 18:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Negative, it has no genre meaning at all, it is pretty much only an insult. As written above, a sentence (one should suffice) in the Nu-Metal article (as Mallcore is usually used on that genre) will be enough, if at all. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 21:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete The article may need a lot of clean up, but I the term is sufficienty used and important to have its own article. The term is used a lot between extreme metal fans, and it is commonly used on Encyclopaedia Metallum (certain bands even have it as a genre!). The term Mallcore does not only apply to Nu-Metal bands, but also to bands belonging to other metal subgenres, so I think that "a sentence on the Nu-Metal article" would be not right. The term is not synonymous with Nu Metal, although many nu-metal bands are labeled as mallcore by some metal fans. I am willing to re-write the article from A to Z if that helps. --Zouavman Le Zouave 10:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Valid article based on commonly used term.Hoponpop69 23:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as there is no way to keep this article unbiased and in a NPOV. Inhumer 04:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karen Grass

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

Collective "Karen Grass" gets no non-wiki ghits, does not satisfy WP:Notability. Akihabara 17:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. It seems as if she's written one non-notable paper, and that's it. -- Kicking222 18:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom... 0 ghits. SkierRMH,07:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - "Karen Grass" doesn't get the Golden Donut award as "Karen Grass" yields 457 Google hits and 196 on Yahoo Search... but close enough to establish a definite lack of notability. B.Wind 04:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Holy guacomole! God help us all if we started allowing wikipedia articles to everyone who's written a thesis. Fails WP:BIOOhconfucius 13:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karl Bluestone

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

Article fails to explain how this guy is more notable than any other murderer. Also drifts off-topic in the last two paragraphs, no references. Akihabara 17:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Unfortunately, there are thousands of murders worldwide every week in today's society. Not all of the people responsible for these crimes are notable. Serial killers, yes. People like Peterson who get lots of media attention, yes. But murderers who kill "only" 3 people and receive very little media attention (Google News had nothing so I had to use plain google) are not notable. Srose (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, depends where a murder occurred it may be something for the local news or make headlines all over the country. With the few murders (less than 10 a year) that happen in some Nordic countries this could have been very notable regionally, but hardly make the news somewhere else. Alf photoman 21:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn murderer, per Srose. Creator seems to have been trying to make some sort of point about police weapons training, based on the digression at the end. -- Vary | Talk 21:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, nn, esp concerning worldwide view. SkierRMH,07:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete about 50 Ghits if you discount Wikipedia-related content. How ever tragic the story might be, this is simply not encyclopedic material. Note also that the article has gone unedited since its creation which indicates very low interest to expand this in any way. Moreover, the content is unsourced and, for all we know, doubtful. Pascal.Tesson 06:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kate Hutton

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

Almost gave this a db-bio, but I decided to be cautious. Nothing of particular note I can see. Akihabara 18:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, she is the subject of two media citations already in the article. --Dhartung | Talk 23:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have cleaned up the article (some of which was cut-and-paste from The Advocate), so it now reads as an encyclopedia article. --Dhartung | Talk 23:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Dhartung: Subject of two independent media articles = Passes WP:BIO with flying colors. -- Antepenultimate 23:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per cleanup by Dhartung ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A. R. Leding Cactus Garden

A. R. Leding Cactus Garden (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Garden no longer exists, apparently was removed when a bio building was expanded Bm gub 18:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I was going to suggest a redirect to New Mexico State University Botanical Garden (per the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Places of local interest#Adding information about places of local interest). However, this result worries me. In addition, this site only lists the place as directory-style information. Even if this place is verifiable, it's not notable. Gracenotes ^T § 18:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly not notable, particularly if the University thought so little of it that they built over it.--Anthony.bradbury 19:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Ummm, probaly nn when it existed, and now that it's gone... a bit more nn? SkierRMH,07:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tommy Kaira

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

The article was nominated for speedy deletion under G11 (spam), but doesn't qualify. A7 (non-notability) doesn't apply either, because there is an assertion of notability. I'm moving this to AfD instead. No opinion. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 18:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Sorry if it is rubbish i just thought it should be created because it was the only read link on GT car lists so i thought it was worth creating, but everyones entitled to their opinions I understand, I dont mind if it gets deleted I just thought it was a good idea thats all...DINOMAN 18:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep About 47,000 GHits; not a vast number, but clearly the Company possesses some notability.--Anthony.bradbury 19:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Looks notable to me, despite the article being a sentence. A brief web browse shows it could easily satisfy WP:CORP. CiaranG 19:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and cleanup! per CiaranG FirefoxMan 00:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - company exists and is notable, although this article is presently a sub-stub (I'm going to see what I can do about that). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Kjbd 06:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Varberg Fortress Moat Monster

Varberg Fortress Moat Monster (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Completing incorrectly added nomination. [25] User added nom to log instead of creating a nomination page. No vote. -- Vary | Talk 18:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a story mentioned a few times and not again since, really, at least to my knowledge. No expansion is really possible and it isn't very noteable. Unless there's something I'm missing that can be added to it. Also entirely done by one user. --CF90 16:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It's already mentioned on the last line of the Varberg Fortress article. SkierRMH,07:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Varberg Fortress. Upp◦land 09:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translations for Haley in Order of the Stick

Translations for Haley in Order of the Stick (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Unnecessary depth. Lines lack any context away from the relevant webcomic strip. Translations can be found at the subject site, so no need to come here for information. Tailkinker 18:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Explain what metric is used to determine when an article is "unnecessarily deep". Explain how hyperlinks to the translations do not contribute to context. Explain why duplication of knowledge is specious in this, or any other case. The burden of proof must be supported. --ttogreh 19:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment now: why is this list relevant? Alf photoman 21:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "this"? Order of the Stick? Haley's translation page? The deletion discussion page? Something else? Be more specific.--ttogreh 21:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that he says "this list", not "this", and the only list involved in this whole thing is the list of translations, it can be safely assumed the article under discussion is what he's referring to. Feel free to answer his question. --Tailkinker 00:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I could have sworn there was no "this" in his question. Sadly, I am not perfect, but I am capable of admitting when I am wrong. It is relevant because a significant number of people researching Haley Starshine might also research her cryptograms, which are an integral part of her character. If Haley Starshine is relevant, than a substantial part of her dialogue is relevant.--ttogreh 01:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that she's currently been afflicted with a temporary condition that causes her to speak in cryptograms has no bearing of any kind on the nature of her character. She's the same person with the malady as without it. At most, once cured, the affliction will be a minor side-note to her character history. And precise repetition of dialogue is rarely important when assessing character. Have a look through articles on real people here; they all manage to describe their character without frequent reference to dialogue, so to suggest that a fictional character cannot be described properly without it is hardly reasonable. --Tailkinker 18:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. If you can't understand half of her total dialogue, you are doomed to not understand her character very well. Moreover, comparing a fictional character to a real person is a strawman; they aren't the same thing.--ttogreh 23:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's not a straw man, that's an analogy. You might like to look those concepts up. Individuals have personality, abilities, traits and a personal history whether they're fictional or not, making the analogy entirely reasonable. But feel free to consult the many biographical pages for fictional characters that can be found on Wikipedia. You'll find that they all manage to give a perfectly good insight into the character in questionn without resorting to repeated quotes. --Tailkinker 08:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

An analogy is a similarity in some respects between two things that are otherwise dissimilar. As such, all analogies are strawmen. I have found, in my time on this earth, that analogies are only used when an argument is weak and easily dismissed with relevant facts.--ttogreh 20:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as fancruft. Fancruft for a webcomic. --Dhartung | Talk 23:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Your superfluous second sentence betrays your prejudice against webcomics. Moreover, Explain and defend your decision to describe the page as fancruft.--ttogreh 01:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no such prejudice. But webcomics are almost always of thin notability. I have read Order of the Stick and enjoyed it. But this is fancruft -- the sort of thing that fans compile about whatever their otaku obsession is, to possibly nauseating detail. Wikipedia is not a compendium of insignificant facts. --Dhartung | Talk 01:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I am convinced that such polemics are more of an attempt by those responsible for Wikipedia's bandwidth and server costs to keep costs down than anything else. Really, how can any consensus be reached on what is, and is not, significant? MILLIONS of people, with MILLIONS of different reasons for it, view Wikipedia daily.--ttogreh 02:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I am approximately as m:inclusionist an editor as it's possible to find who frequents AFD. I would agree in the sense that Wikipedia isn't paper, but that doesn't mean that we keep everything. The more things we keep the more maintenance is necessary, the more pages to vandalize, the more we look like "pop culture central", and so forth. There are many reasons apart from "server costs". --Dhartung | Talk 02:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand why some editors seem to think that pop culture is less worthy of encyclopedic mention than other topics. Fancruft, listcruft, and whatever else you lot like to call minutiae and miscellany... it IS important.--ttogreh 02:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the definition of 'minutiae' is "a small, trifling detail". A trifle, pudding jokes aside, is defined as "an article or thing of very little value". So, no, as it happens, not important. --Tailkinker 08:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Every time you type, you betray your pedantic nature ever further.--ttogreh 20:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment And every time you type, you waste everyone's time. See, you're not the only one who can nitpick. Danny Lilithborne 04:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you commented; you said you did not want to discuss this issue any further. Is it perhaps I touched a nerve? Got a little closer to the truth about who you really are than you find comfortable? I am just text on a screen, and yet you felt compelled to tell me that I waste your time. Do you realize how incredibly paradoxical your comment is? You wasted your time... telling me that I waste your time.--ttogreh 05:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Be careful, if you follow that chain of logic too far the universe may explode. ^_^ Danny Lilithborne 05:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - and I like this webcomic. But this is getting pretty deep into the realm of "indiscriminate knowledge," of which Wikipedia is not a repository. FreplySpang 01:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I must reiterate myself. How does one ever reach consensus on what knowledge is, or is not indiscriminate?--ttogreh 02:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

How indeed? Perhaps using consensus. And a process of discussion which articles to delete in a transparent, open fashion. --Dhartung | Talk 02:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into the The Order of the Stick article. SkierRMH,08:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Do not just delete for the simple fact that it's the kind of thing that someone might look up on wp. who cares how relevent it is in the grander scheme of things? all that matters is that it's likely that someone would come to wp to find the info out, so the info should be findable via wp.

having said that, i dont really see why this page can't just be linked to from the article on OotS or Haley, other than the fact that the info is more ordered on the article page than in that forum thread --Dak 10:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete this is obvious listcruft and I refuse to discuss this matter any further. Danny Lilithborne 00:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that leaves very little to debate, and gives all of us an insight into your personality, doesn't it?--ttogreh 02:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. This information is not "about" any particular subject. Rather, it is a collection of quotes. It belongs in WikiQuote, if it actually belongs anywhere, but not in its current indiscriminate form. And it is indiscriminate -- it does not discriminate, as it (ostensibly) includes every single cryptographed line Haley has spoken. There has been no effort to present only the relevant, encyclopedic information. The Original Party Slurm 06:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for suggesting a more proper avenue for this article, rather than just saying "it's crap", and calling for its deletion.--ttogreh 20:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge - Why not merge with Haley Starshine under spoiler tags? If not an external link on the Haley Starshine page should point to another source for the translations. -- Ari 00:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Riel

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

NN business person, notable in a very limited context. Ckessler 18:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete- Not notable--SUIT 19:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom, low ghits. SkierRMH,08:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lothlórien Co-op

Lothlórien Co-op (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable housing cooperative. Virtually identical to the article at Lothlorien Hall which was also nominated for deletion. Irongargoyle 19:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Akihabara 00:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and per parallel rationale on "sister" nomination. SkierRMH,07:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salvatore Capezio

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

NN ballet-shop owner. Probably someone's grandfather. Nekohakase 19:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Akihabara 00:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Capezio article - and they do make some of the best jazz shoes & Scottish dance ghillies I've worn ;) SkierRMH,08:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salwa Khoddam

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

NN teacher. Nekohakase 19:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep It seems to me he may qualify as notable. Akihabara 01:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Samantha Findlay

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

non-notable. Nekohakase 19:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, having a college athletics record is not enough for notability. --Dhartung | Talk 23:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soupism

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

Neologism? Doesn't supply any direct sources, and Google turns up nothing related for a search on soupism philosophy. FreplySpang 19:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for your concern. I thought this article was appropriate as the philosophy is put forward in a book published by a top American university. If necessary, however, this article can be deleted and I can instead submit an article on the author of the book. By the way, please forgive any etiquette or technical errors as this was my first article. Sevenofrhymes 20:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Please note that I have edited the article to make clear that the philosophy is set forth in a published book, Escaping God's Closet, which won a Lambda Literary Award. Sevenofrhymes 20:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this is a neologism. The book was a finalist according to the Lambda site (being a winner might have conferred notability for an article on the author). [26] Wikipedia is not a soapbox, no matter how interesting the ideas. --Dhartung | Talk 23:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete as neologism, nn further use. SkierRMH,08:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neologism not in significant use Dragomiloff 12:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NNY

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

The article looks alright, but I believe this musician fails WP:MUSIC. In fact, I can't find any good sources on Yahoo/Google documenting his achievements. Some of his work was released by netlabels, but that doesn't really seem enough to merit inclusion. Húsönd 19:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:VSCA. All sources are self-promotion like purevolume. --Dhartung | Talk 23:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, nn person, tons of self/promo ghits, but not much else. SkierRMH,08:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sami khella

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

NN artist. Possibly vanity. Nekohakase 20:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete seems to have more notability as a doctor than as an artist, but still not enough to pass WP:BIO. -- Vary | Talk 20:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete probably would not pass WP:BIO in either category. SkierRMH,08:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shaquille Carroll

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

NN vanity page Nekohakase 20:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, article is premature per WP:BIO, but I wish her luck and look forward to her article being recreated when she makes the olympic team in 2012. -- Vary | Talk 20:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete as WP:BIO, maybe in 2012, but not yet. SkierRMH,08:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shedao Shai

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

Nonsense, or seriously needs explanation. Nekohakase 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to List of minor Star Wars characters. -- Vary | Talk 21:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per Vary - as it stands it's simply a nocontext article. SkierRMH,08:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stereotypes of Africans/Blacks

Stereotypes of Africans/Blacks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Subjective nonsense. It represents violations of WP:NPOV and WP:OR at their worst, and has no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Ezeu 20:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Who decides what constitutes a stereotype? Who decides how notable a stereotype must be? Most importantly, why does this need a seperate article? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As above. Alun 21:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nomination. Edison 22:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please note that no rationale has been presented that would justify a speedy delete, see WP:CSD. hateless 01:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. Stereotypes exist and are standard objects of sociological and psychological research. Of course, the article is badly written and POV, but this is not a deletion reason, only a reason for improvement.--Ioannes Pragensis 23:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete I've never heard of half of these stereotypes but this article's a great way to start them. This article is also very poorly sourced (how do do you document the existence of a stereotype in an encyclopedic way?) Timelist 23:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Apparently this all goes back to the article Ethnic stereotypes in American media, from which the author extracted and created the following (see the Talk pages):

1. Stereotypes of Africans/Blacks (Talk)
2. Stereotypes of American Indians (Talk)
3. Stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims (Talk)
4. Stereotypes of Asians (Talk)
5. Stereotypes of Europeans/Whites (Talk)
6. Stereotypes of Jews (deleted 20 July 2006)
7. Stereotypes of Latinos (Talk)

Some of them have turned out Very Well, but this one has unfortunately become a magnet for WP:OR and WP:POV "I think that Xxx should be in the list, too!" additions (lists tend to do that) ... maybe some of them have grown crufty and should be AfD'd as well (as was done with "Stereotypes of Jews").

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnic stereotypes in American media 2 for further discussions related to this article ... if you delete the unsourced lists and partially protect it, there may still be a place for it in the "Stereotypes of ..." WikiVerse. But, yeah, the existing "article" blows chunks. —72.75.105.165 23:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Keep and rewrite. Stereotypes exist and are standard objects of sociological and psychological research. Of course, the article is badly written and POV, but this is not a deletion reason, only a reason for improvement -- exactly what Ioannes said I agree with, keep it redo it. Shouldn't have to delete a page just to recreate better. Just improve current. Wiki's not paper. --Xiahou 00:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Xiahou. hateless 01:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep and rewrite. I agree that the article is in terrible shape and is of no academic value right now. I created the article (split off as mentioned above) because I feel that it's important to have legitimate academic information about racial stereotyping available in an encyclopedia, and I still stand by that. I don't feel that the "no one can be the authority on what stereotypes are notable" arguments are valid because there's tons of research and scholarly work done in these areas. However, on the other hand, it doesn't seem that there are any experts on this topic spearheading the rewrite for this article. The article is doing more harm than good at the moment by spreading wrong information so I agree that deletion is a viable option until an expert comes along and re-creates it; but a better option, if someone informed in this area was willing to take on the task, would be to rewrite. --Drenched 01:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete possibly original research or POV fork? Dragomiloff 12:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The eye of animated christmas EVE

The eye of animated christmas EVE (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This is a hoax, there is no such programme. Zero Ghits for the supposed title plus the external link in the article is fake ChrisTheDude 20:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:V. -- Jeandré, 2006-12-09t21:04z
• Speedy Delete - probable hoax. SkierRMH,08:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 00:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preston Ivan Lewis

Preston Ivan Lewis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Fails biography notability (specifically academics), is probably autiobiographical and advertising. Previous prod. -- Jeandré, 2006-12-09t20:58z,

Comment Given that the deletion process has started to garner a bit of media attention [27], it would be nice to have reasons for deletion that aren't stuffed with jargon and acronyms. Catchpole 22:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What does the existence of what amounts to a filler article have to do with the use of acronyms, especially if those acronyms are linked to the policy? Otto4711 23:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Nomination made reader friendlier as per WP:WOTTA, using SkierRMH's vote, especially since it's autiobiographical. -- Jeandré, 2006-12-10t12:59z

• Delete as per nom, spelled out, it's a biography piece, probably autiobiographical, could be considered as spam/advertising. And, the submitter missed WP:PROF. Nuf? SkierRMH,08:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ambrosia Co-op

Ambrosia Co-op (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable housing co-op. Otto4711 21:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. Akihabara 01:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete has been around since 2/06 with little improvement. SkierRMH,08:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Co-op

International Co-op (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable housing cooperative. Otto4711 21:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. Akihabara 01:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - looks like part of a project, but nothing happened with completing it. NN corp. SkierRMH,08:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summit Avenue Cooperative

Summit Avenue Cooperative (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Another housing co-op but its connection to the founder of House on the Rock may confer minimal notability. I'm leaning toward no but can be persuaded. Otto4711 21:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Building, not co-op, has connection to father of founder (it was his son who made it a tourist attraction). That's two leaps away from notability in my book. --Dhartung | Talk 22:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't really fit the title, does it? But even as a corp, is still nn. SkierRMH,08:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

144.92.184.50 21:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)===Nottingham Cooperative===

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

Another housing co-op. Less clear-cut than the others, may have sufficient notabilty based on connection to Frank Lloyd Wright or as a music venue. I'm leaning toward not notable but would hardly cry bitter tears if others disagree. Otto4711 21:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. There is no connection to Frank Lloyd Wright, only a connection to an acolyte of his, who doesn't (yet) have his own Wikipedia article. There is no landmark designation for the structure. Non-notable. --Dhartung | Talk 22:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There are many reasons why someone would be interested in reading up on Nottingham Co-op on wikipedia. not only are affordable independent housing co-ops which are open to people of all occupations a dying breed, but this one in particular is a unique music venue in that it takes no money and is also a residence, and yet has managed to stage a fair few quite notable bands (many with wikipedia pages, as is demonstrated on the page) . nottingham has been featured on the front page of a local weekly just for that reason. it has had a particular influence on the culture of madison and on the co-op movement. nottingham is at least as influential as many things that do not get targeted for deletion, such as shopping malls, local sports teams and the madison museum of bathroom tissue. Acornwithwings 20:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• As I said in nominating it, I don't have strong feelings about it one way or the other. But please, don't resort to "it's as good as X" as an argument for keeping. Each article stands or falls on its own merits and the existence of one article has no bearing on whether another article should exist. Otto4711 03:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, the last sentence is frivolous. However, the rest of my argument stands (albeit poorly worded).144.92.184.50 21:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

(Just to avoid confusion, the IP address was me). Acornwithwings 00:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ambler College

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

I am a student at Temple University which owns Ambler College, and I can say that it no longer called "Ambler College," and it is basically just an auxiliary campus of Temple's main campus, which is in downtown Philadelphia. There really isn't too much that can be added to this article that already isn't said in Temple University#Pennsylvania. I orphaned the article from the main Temple University article because it is insignificant and should be up for deletion. Crashintome4196 21:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - seems notable enough for its own article, which could easily be expanded by a subject matter expert to include its history, how it became part of Temple University, if there are any notable faculty or alumni, etc. But it should be moved to Temple University Ambler. Otto4711 21:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Except, uh oh, that space is currently occupied by a copyvio notice. Otto4711 21:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mazzolato

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

Term used in one cited fiction work for execution by bludgeoning. Dicdef at best. No cites to show the term is in general use. No sign the article will be expanded. Edison 21:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete And it's not the word for 'bludgeon' in Italian, which would be randello (noun) oppure colpire con un randello (verb); and execution is giustiziare. SkierRMH,08:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Danny Lilithborne 00:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dunja_Mladenic

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

Non-notable professor, fails WP:PROF. Previous prod (not by me) reverted. Seems like a delete to me. Aagtbdfoua 21:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete does not meet WP:PROF or WP:BIO. SkierRMH,08:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete run-of-the-mill academic per nom. Leibniz 17:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Helen Kim

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

Not notable. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep Bad faith nomination. See nominator's discussion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hikari Hino. Moreover, the subject has appeared in a major film, and a better article could be written on her. Deleting this stub prevents that, and removes valid information from Wikipedia. Dekkappai 21:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that this is a bad faith nomination. How exactly is this actress notable? One singular minor role in a major film does not pass WP:BIO. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment To clarify why this is a bad faith nomination: The nominator edited this article, and saw no reason to recommend its deletion last week. Previously he had systematically nominated for deletion multiple articles in the Japanese adult actress category. When his efforts to erase that category began failing, he stopped for a few months. Now that he is again trying to have articles in that category deleted, starting with Hikari Hino, his editing hypocrisy at this article was pointed out. He then retaliated by nominating this article for deletion. Dekkappai 22:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I "saw no reason to recommend its deletion" then because I was only mass categorising actors/actresses that day. If you check my contrib history on the same day, you'll see that I put the same category on 10 other actors/actresses. I apologise if it did not occur to me, while editing with the intent of categorising articles, to nominate articles for deletion if they ought to be nominated. I'll try to do a better job next time. And please assume good faith. If you believe this article ought to be kept, please actually make an argument to show that she is notable under WP:BIO. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Kill Bill Delete. Never saw the movie, but looking at our article on it, it looks like she had a very minor part because the character she plays is nowhere mentioned in the plot summary. So if that role is her only claim to fame, it's doubtful that there are many reliable sources we can use to write a verifiable article on her. 43 unique Google hits for "helen kim" -wikipedia actress "kill bill" -site:imdb.com. Pan Dan 22:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Obviously correct, Pan Dan. But this article was up for 2 years, the nominator previously saw fit to edit it, and nominated it for deltion today simply out of petty retaliation. Dekkappai 22:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no redirect, lack of notability. From WP:BIO: "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." Notice that films and productions are in plural. I also see no bad faith at all, that an editor would edit a page does not imply he thinks its an acceptable page; people should be allowed to change their minds. No redirect, because there are a ton of Helen Kims out there; there is a chance there is a H.Kim out there who has or soon will have notability. hateless 00:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete db-bio. One minor role in a major film doesn't cut it. Danny Lilithborne 00:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no redirect. She has one minor film role to her credit. That doesn't pass muster for WP:BIO and redirecting to Kill Bill would be confusing for anybody searching on Helen Kim as it would nto be at all obvious why the redirect occured. And as for this being a bad faith nom, I can see where an editor who is busy on a specific task of categorising could come back and nom for deletion. And does it matter? Based on merits, the article should be delete. -- Whpq 17:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "it would nto be at all obvious why the redirect occured" -- makes sense. Her role in the movie was apparently so minor. Have changed my suggestion above. Pan Dan 21:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poemas de un portero

Poemas de un portero (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable poem. 47 Google hits, most of which mirror Wikipedia article Edison 21:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete 1 ghit en espanol! SkierRMH,08:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As nominator. This seems to be a non-notable poem written by a possibly notable author when he was in high school. Does an artistic work of no known merit get an article because the author won a couple of awards for other works later? Seems like a slippery slope that woul lead to a lot of undistinguished stuff getting its own pullout articles. It could get a mention in the main article about the authro (which I believe it already has.) Edison 15:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amiot (car manufacturer)

Amiot (car manufacturer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

"Amiot-Peneau", "-wikipedia", and "-answers" (as in, "answers.com") only turns up 36 Google hits, all of which appear to be either Wikipedia clones of this article or Wikipedia clones of other Amiot car articles or of articles that have to do with anything ("analytical chemistry"?!). Rmky87 14:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no reliable sources to show notablility; fails Wikipedia:Verifiability.Inner Earth 14:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete few ghits is a telling sign, no reliable resources cited.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a dab page (rewritten), we have a few Amiot-thingies to disambiguate, and potentially many more based on articles at de.wiki and fr.wiki, as well as missing Dictionary of Canadian Biography subjects. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment when you put it that way, I guess that makes sense. Thanks for wikifying, by the way.--Rmky87 20:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep lack of sources, but old enough so some sources might appear in the near future by some french contributor. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:47, 9 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≈^≈talk≈ 21:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment if the title is now, "Amiot (car manufacturer)", then why is the article still about the alleged power pack?--Rmky87 22:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment it was about Amiot car manufacturer originally, but it was replaced by disambig before AfD closing. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment No, it wasn't: it was about an alleged, turn-of-the-last-century power pack (sp?), then a disambiguation page, then the same page with a new title that promised a treatment of the car manufacturer Amiot but delivered no such thing.--Rmky87 18:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'd really like to see an article about this subject, but as is, the article is unsourced. Delete would seem fine until someone can create a proper article. Tragic romance 08:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xrista

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

Contested Prod. Original Prod reason was 'Does not adequately establish that this person is notable. The magazines, artists and record label cited do not appear to be significant enough to establish notability'. Additionally, the original author blanked the page, this might make it speedily deletable under G7. Tra (Talk) 22:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per CSD G7. --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per G7. hateless 00:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete not only per WP:CSD#G7 but also WP:BIO SkierRMH,08:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete db-bio. Danny Lilithborne 23:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Applebey

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

No independent sources to show notabiliity. Edison 22:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Even if verified would fail notability if no other source of importance. The article's raison d'etre seems to be a quote of hers due to the NAMH dispute with Scientology. --Dhartung | Talk 22:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - outside of one incident, nada mas. SkierRMH,08:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trixbox

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

Merged to List of Asterisk PBX distributions BJ^Talk 22:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thames Valley College (London, Ontario, Canada)

Thames Valley College (London, Ontario, Canada) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This was originally considered for deletion in this AfD, but was moved during the discussion from Thames Valley College to the current title, resulting in some comments about the wrong page. Relisting now for further discussion. Opabinia regalis 23:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Nomination: This article appers to be an advertisement for a Diploma mill. See my comment in the article's talk page for more info. This article either needsto be deleted or transformed, so that it makes the true nature of this "organisation" is made abundantly clear, especially considering that prospective "students" may use this article to research the subject. Also the article's contents are not verfiable and the organisation(s) is/are not notable. As such the article in question should be deleted. -*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 15:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC) (edited: 10:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

• Delete as and per nom ---*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 15:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not a diploma mill, but rather a career college in London, Ontario, Canada which offers training in areas such as medical office administration. It does not offer degrees. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_learning#United_Kingdom and London Medical School ( http://www.londonmedicalschool.org/wst_page2.html ) - not to be confused with the many genuine, lawful and high-class medical schools in London. Why would a supposed legitimate education institute be investigated by Trading Standards. -*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 20:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The early edit history of the article does not help its case. --- RockMFR 05:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, it may be better to keep the article but heavily re-word it so that it reflects the suspicions about the subject. Specifically mentioning its apparent links to London Medical College, which has a Mobile/Cell Phone for its main contact and an accomodation address fax number. It would also be beneficial to mention the fact that London Medical School was recently investigated by Trading Standards. -*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 20:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and mark the others for speedy delete. Obvious commercial spamDGG 03:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete now that I know what article we're lookign at. The lack of info about anything, including its own site, points to a possible mill. --Wizardman 16:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article makes no claim to notability. There's thousands of career colleges, unless it's otherwise notable, it shouldn't have an article -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 18:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Post-secondary institutions are generally notable. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rated-RKO

Rated-RKO (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

There is no need to have an article on every temporary tag team pairing that comes along. Each of the wrestlers in question have an article already. The temporary tag team alliance can be noted there. Otto4711 23:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Basically agree with what the person below said. Two of the top superstars in the company, and they're Tag Team Champions right now. What? Should we propose to delete the Kings of Professional Wrestling stable page as well? Put this as temporary, but this is mostly stupid.--Faded 17:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Every reason to keep it. Factual, NOPV. Notable the top wrestling promotion on TV one of the top tag teams. Notable stars in it. Just mention it was temporary. Wiki's not paper.--Xiahou 00:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep as a bad-faith nom. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rated RKO dated less than a month ago, which was nearly unanimously kept. Overwhelming consensus is that all WWE Tag Team Champions are notable. --RoninBK_ETC 01:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• If you want to vote speedy keep, go right ahead, but keep your false accusations of bad faith to yourself. Otto4711 03:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep(For Now) Rated-RKO is in a very active state. The article can only be built up. If it is a good enough article when finished then that would be okay. There are problems with the article which I removed. The problem at current is putting Lita down as winning the Woman's championship as Rated-RKO. This would be incorrect, because an alliance or stable helps each other out. Lita had no help or was either escorted to her match. If the article continues to be built around bad data then it will end up being prone to removal. So as long as Rated-RKO stays clean and correct I see nothing wrong with it. Govvy 01:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Rated-RKO has become the tag team champions, and they are feuding with arguably the most popular tag team today (DX). This is a very notable tag team, and I am left to wonder what thought process motivated this nomination. -- THLR 01:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: He did it only to justify deleting Christian and Tyson Tomko because I mentioned it's only been two months for Rated RKO whereas that combination had been done for years, is still strong now, and proven notable during its time. And as for Govvy's statement about Lita winning the Women's title being bad data: Orton didn't get help from Evolution when he won the world championship. Yet as far as all parties are concerned, he won the title as a member of Evolution. He didn't stop being a member til after they destroyed him, remember? So Lita being Women's Champion as Rated-RKO's valet is not bad data. As far as I'm concerned, keep Christian and Tomko, keep Rated-RKO, and keep Lita's title reign as part of Rated-RKO.

• Actually, I did it because in my opinion a two-month old tag team is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, which is exactly what I said in nominating the article. I'm getting really sick of editors over the last couple of days failing to assume good faith on my part. Regardless of whether there's an article on Christian and Tyson Tomko, it remains my opinion that there should not be one on this tag team. If enough people disagree that consensus is established to keep this or any other article, so be it. But you need to knock off this bullshit phony accusation of bad faith. Otto4711 13:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• The overall consensus established by countless wrestling afds in the past says that holding a title is equal to notability, with the exception of teams like Ric Flair and Roddy Piper. -- THLR 20:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Flair and Piper were thrown together and have absolutely no recognition as a true tag team. Rated-RKO was allied together with a singular purpose, and their gimmicks - while already similar in nature - were put into a noticeably more unified stance after they banded together. Based on that alone, Rated-RKO is a definite keep unless they suddenly break up out of nowhwere and lose the tag titles. Yes, they are a two-month-old tag team, but they are the it team on the scene right now on RAW, and general consensus is they will last considerably longer than two months. 172.149.224.143 00:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• My point exactly. With the exception of transitional champions like Ric and Roddy, holding the belts is equal to notability. -- THLR 05:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• However, what determines whether tag team champions are transitional? We may have thought that Flair and Piper were transitional, and with enough time we can determine they were transitional champions (time being relative here, as I think it's fairly safe to say they ended up being just transitional champions), but can we really make that judgment now about Rated-RKO? There's arguments for and against it. I would say don't be quick to make pages about a tag team that's held championships just because they seem to not be transitional champions. Anakinjmt 06:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• We can judge now that they won't be transitional champions because it looks like they will be a part of one of the best tag team divisions Raw has had since Edge and Christian, the Hardy Boyz, and the Dudleys. With DX, the Hardy Boyz, Rated-RKO, and maybe MNM, it is fair to judge that there will soon be a tag team revival on Raw, and the current tag team champions will be a part of it. The stage is perfectly set for Rated-RKO to become one part of a resurrected tag team division, and at this particular time it would be unwise to delete this article. If it turns out that I am wrong, then there is nothing stopping another afd, but right now this article meets the standards of Wikipedia. -- THLR 22:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Aren't all tag teams temporary by nature? They last just as long as they are popular/infamous. This one is pretty "big" at the moment and both of the wrestlers are notable. A definite keep I must say. --Eqdoktor 12:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• KeepI thought they would break up after cyber sunday but they are the tag team champs now so they should be around for a while. any team that has teamed regularly should have an artile, especially if they have won titles. --Nymetsfan 18:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep WWE Tag Teams that have won Championships Need I say more? semper fi — Moe 22:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Should Edge and Hulk Hogan have an article? Should The Rock and Chris Jericho have an article? I'm all for keeping Rated-RKO, but I'm not buying the excuse that all tag team champions deserve articles.Mshake3 00:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: This page is good so far and it will only grow. Apparently Rated-RKO will be getting a new member in Kenny so they are not going anywhere anytime soon. Both wrestlers have many fans including myself and this team is already making a great impact, there's no point in deleting this page. - KelVintage
  • I doubt Kenny will join. TJ Spyke 22:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Personally, it doesn't matter to me if the page survives on its own. I think it can for as long as Rated-RKO remains a team, which judged on their heat right now, I would guess it will last at least till Wrestlemania. And, just another comment on Edge and Randy Orton as individuals, forming Rated-RKO seemed like a good idea. Edge needed to get out of the WWE title picture for a while, and Randy Orton really didn't have anything good going on at the moment (as far as I'm considered, putting Carlito in a feud with Randy Orton was lack of use of Orton's talent, despite my feelings on him, he's still a fantastic wrestler), and putting the two of them together as a tag team and having such a high-profile feud with DX was a good call. Just keep that in mind when voting for or against deletion: their feud with DX is a huge feud right now, possibly the biggest feud going on in the WWE right now, which would suggest reason for keeping the article, them being such a noteworthy team right now. Anakinjmt 03:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: Article meets criteria.. as it is both named and has had a title run... however just being named, or just having a title run isnt a suitable criteria unless no individual articles exist --- Paulley

• Keep: What's to say they are a temporary tag team? Rated RKO I doubt is a temporary team, as they draw ratings with their feud w/ DX. The last time there was a vote to delete this, everyone wanted to keep it. If they were to be just a small temporary team, WWE would not go out of their way to give the team a name such as "Rated-RKO". They would simply call them "Randy Orton and Edge". Also the fact that they are the current holders of WWE's World Tag Team Championships, so I think this article is very notable to keep. --James Maxx 14:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Bad-faith nomination. They are dominating the storylines, have been tag champs for over a month, and no sign that this is just a "temporary alliance". TJ Spyke 22:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep: I personally believe teams that have won a championship, especially a major championship like in WWE, and even more especially if they are top-tier guys, dominating the storylines (as TJ Spyke alluded to before me).-- FPAtl (holla, holla, holla) 03:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interim

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

WP:WINAD PhilipR 23:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to existing Wiktionary if possible; else delete and move Interim (album) to this title. - Apparently this article was created in good faith in order to provide something for all the people who had erroneously linked to Interim from an article expecting a definition. The linking articles need to be remediated to link to Wiktionary. Cheers, PhilipR 23:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, interim already at Wiktionary. hateless 01:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• ACK - with the number of articles coming into this one, there is surely a way to expand this article, isn't there? Now someone's just going to move that crummy Interim (album) back in that slot, and all 8000 links there will be wrong. If there is ever a case to WP:IAR, it's now, especailly as the article could expand. -Patstuart^talk|edits 02:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Ah, delete and unlink all the links to it from other articles. Really I don't think this could be made into a proper article, it's a dicdef for sure. Why other editors go about making "interim" a link is beyond me. If anyone moves Interim (album) back to Interim, track them down and impale them with a trout. Herostratus 04:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, I de-linked it from most everywhere, therefore this article can now be deleted. (There are a few links to "the Interim" (capitalized) which was apparently some sort of renaissance Church thingy. Those should remain and perhaps someday someone will write an article about "the Interim", whatever it is.) Herostratus 05:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Good point. Why the heck are people wikilinking that? Maybe we could make it a disambig page, saying "1. wikt:Interim, 2. Interim (church thingy) (with red link; possibly it refers to something with an article already?), 3. Interim (album)" Patstuart^talk|edits 05:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chu Wing Kit

Chu Wing Kit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

(1st AFD) White collar crime. Notability concern has not been addressed since February. Story generated news blurbs, no wider discussion, and has no encyclopedic importance. Pan Dan 23:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. White collar criminal with no encyclopedic notability. Wikipedia is not a news service archive. Media coverage does not automatically translate into encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 00:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom fails WP:BIO SkierRMH,07:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Other Sister

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

I think thier should be the reason why i cannot keep this article.User:Newyorkcatwhite

• Strong keep - Film starring recognised A-listers. Grutness...wha? 00:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if, for no other reason, the nomination does not articulate any sort of reason for deletion. Regardless, internationally released film with notable stars. Otto4711 00:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious KEEP why is this even up for deletion? --Xiahou 00:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. - Walkiped ^{(T | C)} 01:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and cancel this AfD as BF nom, one of a series of weird nonsense edits today by this editor. Tubezone 01:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Bad faith nomination. And block user. Edits are nothing but vandalism: [29] Wavy G 03:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - bad faith probable vandal. SkierRMH,07:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP Overall I found it to be good article, thank you for your time. Rcehoppe 08:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leilani Bishop

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

No sources, no claim of notability. Edison 04:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - This appears to be a very prolific super model. Was on the cover of Allure and Flare magazines and I see she was a Tommy girl. [30] [31][32] --Oakshade 06:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - She's also on the cover of Hole's Live Through This album. Not sure I'd qualify someone as a "supermodel" who's been modeling for 15 years and can only muster a one sentence stub. Static Universe 17:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• comment For whatever reasons (verification of notability difficulties?) models just aren't covered well in general, it seems. There was recently a similar issue with frequent cover model Emilia Attias. Only one sentence. --Oakshade 18:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment So if you find reliable and verifiable sources, please add them to the article. There is virtually no content in it and no sources. Nothing to distinguish this person's article from hundreds of articles about people of no notability. Edison 17:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  Many would argue that a model being on the cover of those magazines automatically means she's a notable model, even without the typical sources that verify notability. --Oakshade 22:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There are probably occasionally people in ads or covers who are not famous supermodels. Not everyone appearing oon a cover probably deserves an article. So please find a way to cite to the cover, or list the covers as part of the article with the issue date in the text or listed as a reference, in addition to posting images of the covers (which someone might delete). Again, there are articles for literally thousands of utterly non-notable individuals which are also without references, and there needs to be some sources in this one if the person is famous in some realm of achievement. Otherwise it will stay a sub-stub sourceless article and likely come up repeatedly for deletion. The covers were not part of the article Dec 10, and the model's gender was incorrectly stated. Cites to a few articles would also help to inform the reader and establish notability. It said "He has one son, born in 2003. He proposed to girlfriend Mashonda Tifrere in 2004." So what's the story on that? Edison 01:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  Interesting essay. Won't knock it. I'll only comment about deleting the gender-confusing sentence. As it didn't make any sense and not sourced, I thought it was best to delete it. If someone wants to restore it, I would suggest clarfication on the "he" and being married to the apparently female Mashonda Tifrere and maybe a citation to back it up. (my guess is the article creator cut-and-pasted from the wrong text). --Oakshade 01:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)