Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
< September 14 September 16 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Contents

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martingale paradox

This is Usenet kookery that has made it to Wikipedia, e.g. [1] Originally prod'd by someone else; the author has contested it (note the similarity of the author's userpage to the Usenet content). What makes sense in the article is either trivial or does not justify the rest of the article. Chan-Ho (Talk) 00:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge (hopefully by someone who understands math better than me) whatever is salvagable into Martingale (probability theory). Agent 86 00:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: There is nothing worth merging that isn't already in the articles on probability. Please excuse me if I gave an impression otherwise. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 00:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I concur; there's nothing salvagable from the article. Gene Ward Smith 03:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect; I don't see anything worth merging. (The "redirect" part is optional; it's possible that someone might consider it a paradox that martingales don't let you beat fair games of chance, so it's a semi-plausible redirect, but borderline.) --Trovatore 00:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I made sure to look up "Martingale paradox" on Google, Google Scholar, and MathSciNet, to make sure at least the term was not common; I found only one paper on MathScinet (which also turned up on Google Scholar) and few hits otherwise on Google. So I wouldn't really recommend a redirect, but I guess redirects are cheap, so that would be ok with me. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 00:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Wikipedia works on a consensus, and I dissent from this deletion. Just because an article may need cleaning up, does not mean it isn't legit, and doesn't have references. Just look at the Sleeping_beauty_paradox, it is marketed as a fictional paradox, which is trivial and was posted to a usenet group by a kook claiming to go to MIT. At least my results are backed up by concrete mathematics, which as you say may be trivial. But the math behind the results is not. Why don't you debate marcov chains with me, and see how well you understand them? --User:AntiochCollege (Talk) 8:51PM, 14 September 2006 (EST)
      • Comment: Consensus is general agreement; it does not require unanimity. Furthermore, the Sleeping Beauty paradox is non-trivial and coherent (and I don't believe Jamie Dreier is a kook or a liar, either, at least not in this context). Your article is largely incoherent. More specifically, it's a series of attempted proofs that are invalid and/or severely under-specified, even though the statements being proven happen to be true. I'll outline what appears to be salvageable on the discussion page. Emurphy42 01:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment:I posted a rebuttal to your argument, and don't understand why a conversation wasn't initiated before this deletion process as it is outlined under the guidelines for Consensus.--User:AntiochCollege (Talk) 10:12PM, 14 September 2006 (EST)
  • Delete So obscure as to be practically unknown. It's not Wikipedia's place to publicize an unknown theory. Fan-1967 01:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge & redirect to Martingale (probability theory) --Infrangible 01:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and do not merge. This has little to do with martingales, is not enlightening, and likely violates WP:OR. —David Eppstein 01:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; do not merge. This article is quite simply wrong, as the discussion of the coin-flip game makes clear. The fact that there are three methods for A to win has nothing to do with the odds unless the methods are equally likely (which they are not). Septentrionalis 01:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC) and protect against recreation per Four Dog Night Septentrionalis 03:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and certainly do not merge per nom and per Septentrionalis. Michael Kinyon 02:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with prejudice; do not let an article by that name be recreated. Do not merge. Do not redirect. -- Four Dog Night 02:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete— Usenet kookery indeed. The opening sentince sets off alarms. Retain only if the references can be established as relevant and supportive. - Williamborg (Bill) 03:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice. I consider it possible that a paradox involving martigales could occur, although I don't recall having seen one. But there's nothing here which resembles a paradox. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Arthur. —Khoikhoi 03:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Gene Ward Smith 03:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete my 2c --Darkfred Talk to me 04:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: nothing in it seems salvageable at all. No "paradox" is described. Whoever came up with the "theory" needs an introductory course in probability. --Storkk 07:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The bits that make sense are obvious to anyone with any knowledge in the field, the rest is incoherent and indecipherable. Dave 07:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Apparently the article was written in direct violation of Wikipedia policy: "[title:]Corey's Gravity Theory Featured On Wikipedia [text:]Read all about it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_paradox [...] So I can self publish my work in a journal or on a website like Wikipedia" - alt.magick,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.stat.math,sci.physics.relativity Harald88 08:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Dave and Harald88. Gandalf61 09:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: This article contributes nothing to what is already included in Martingale (probability theory). The 'mathematics' is dubious. Assertions are unsupported. (Don't primary schools still require students to 'show your work'?) There is no 'Martingale paradox'. Martingale statistics simply leads to results that may not be consistent with a priori expectations - a common event in mathematics.Tadchem 13:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Incoherent. Ergative rlt 15:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • If you want to delete this you are going to have to catch me arrest me or kill me, because you can't ban me.*—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AntiochCollege (talk • contribs) . Moved from top of article back to correct location --Brian (How am I doing?) 17:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Gibberish, Original Research, Not Verifiable. Delete the Article with a nuke (prejudice) and salt the earth with the ashes. Perma-ban the user for blant violations of Wikipedia policy. I assumed good faith at first but it's clearly not at this point. -Brian (How am I doing?) 17:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Crypts0141 (talk • contribs) has created stochastic paradox as a duplicate of this article, and has also nominated Sleeping Beauty problem (AfD discussion), mentioned above, for deletion. Uncle G 22:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nonnotable crankery. Perma-ban is in order for the author. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. What is not WP:OR is trivial, and what is WP:OR is mostly incorrect anyway. There's nothing to merge here. It's not at all clear to me what the "paradox" is supposed to be in the first place. --- Deville (Talk) 18:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete as a mercy killing and author's request. I won't object if this is recreated if it meets the suggested notability guidelines. Yanksox 01:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Gothic Romance

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Delete. A show that, by the article's admission, "has yet to be aired on public television or cable". Google search for "Cross: A Gothic Romance" brings up nothing. Notability is not established. Prod tag removed by author. ... discospinster talk 00:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Response That's because it's just starting up. We are currently in progress of setting up our website and decided to give Wikipedia the first go so people would know what it's about before hand. This is a very large database and we knew our article interested many people by our fanbase on livedigital and myspace alone so we decided to create a comprehensive article showing the basis of the show before we air it that way people aren't left in the dark. And by fanbase we mean the people (well over a thousand) who have seen our earlier work when it was under the title "The Fallen" which we had to change because of issues with ABC Family over their new series.

    So again now that I have explained that please give me a valid reason as to why this should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shintou (talk • contribs) .

  • Can we just Speedy Delete this? The comment above sums it up fairly well, it's not an encyclopedia article, but a means to preview an up and coming production for the audience. This isn't what Wikipedia is for. - Hahnchen 00:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Do all of you disregard anything your members have to say and just point out anything you see unfit and prod at it until the world agrees or is there a special club wankers like that can join?

    Yes it is a form of a preview but there is basis behind it. The script has already been released and clips have been shown, and once the whole thing is finalized which will be soon, it will go straight to the internet. Now then I don't see the point of wasting everyone's time by deleting it right now when you could wait a few weeks and let us post up a full (over 40 minute) episode. It's not logical to waste all of that time.

    And if this is an advetisement then what the bleeding hell do you call you ctrl+alt+del article? It's basically the same exact thing except with pictures of the comic strip and by the end of the week we will have screen caps on it so what's the bloody difference? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shintou (talk • contribs).

  • Delete As advert and Wikipedia is not a webspace provider. Also violates WP:V. --TheFarix (Talk) 00:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Addendum There is absolutely nothing in the article that is of encyclopedic value. Also, this article runs afoul of not just the section of WP:NOT that I linked to easier, but several other sections including, publisher of original thought, indiscriminate collection of information, and crystal ball. --TheFarix (Talk) 01:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • No body said it was. Everything you are saying makes no sense. I'm not hosting anything here nor am I posting blogs or social articles. This is a valid article pretaining to a webseries and I don't understand the bleeding problem. Just tell me what the bloody hell I have to do to make it okay and I'll do it, until then you're just spouting off at the mouth for no reason and it's getting quite annoying. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shintou (talk • contribs).
  • Delete Wikipedia is for stuff that is already notable, not to help something become notable. TJ Spyke 00:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a free forum to gain exposure for amateur fiction. Fan-1967 00:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per Hahnch. --Aaron 00:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • But the thing you don't seem to realize is that it is notable just to a smaller audience who has already seen our previous work. If only large notability was accounted for then movies like Donnie Darko wouldn't be here either.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shintou (talk • contribs).
  • Even as a horrible showing by Hollywood standards, over 50,000 people saw Donnie Darko in the theatres. You have anything comparable? Fan-1967 00:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If you want to know about the policies for articles like these, see WP:N. Wikipedia is a tertiary source which means that anything from primary sources are considered original research. Perhaps you can show some reliable third-party sources? And don't forget to sign your posts by using four tildes (~). Remember to stay cool. ColourBurst 00:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete being unaired television series. And Shintou, try reading the article on what is Wikipedia is not to understand why we have a problem with this article. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your creation or build up hype for it. This is an encyclopedia, not a web forum. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 00:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Fuck it just delete the bleeding thing. Thanks to those who were atleast courteous about it and sod off to those other poncey little wanks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shintou (talk • contribs).
  • Speedy Sod off quickly please. Danny Lilithborne 00:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually we have between 3000-5000 who have seen our work alltogether so yes we have something somewhat comparable. And for the guy above me, does it just turn you on being an asshat or were you not loved as a child and obviously an adult. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shintou (talk • contribs).
  • Listen here, I have been a fan of this "Show" for as long as it has been just a thought. I loved it, and if you would like to see it, then wait till there new stuff coems out, and check it out. As far as being noteable, there are many people that have seen this, and like it. I don't see any fit reason to delet. please keep so that futer people may enjoy this. And no, this is not being used for advertisment in my opinion. It just give the fans, like myself, a broader sorce information. I ask you humbly, please keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.184.2 (talk • contribs).
  • Thanks Mate ^_^ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shintou (talk • contribs) 2006-09-15 01:08:53 (UTC)
  • Delete It may be really terrific, but until it creates a buzz independent of its creators, it's not suitable for an encyclopedia. I cleared up a few typos anyway. Dina 01:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Pessimistic Sense of Inadequacy

A non notable webcomic posted by the artist, found here. There are no external sources for the article (a short discussion with the author about these can be seen on the talk page), and the comic is hosted on a free web host which only manages an Alexa rank of 90,000. It's domain name, http://fesworks.com is not ranked. - Hahnchen 00:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Appears non-notable. Jefffire 08:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable per nom. Cool3 19:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no reliable sources, Wikipedia is not an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 19:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Dragonfiend. —ExplorerCDT 21:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per nom. Wickethewok 18:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Grandmasterka 00:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nukeland Cinema

This is a non-notable webcomic, found here. Googling "Nukeland cinema" shows 70 unique links, none of which from a reliable source (professional reviews, commentary etc.) The website returns an Alexa rank of 1 million. But the kicker really is the de-prodding comment, "ALOT of the webcomics listed on the wiki don't meet those criteria. That's a bit rediculous to expect of a WEBCOMIC." No, it's ridiculous to expect this webcomic to appear in an encyclopedia, as well as the other webcomic trash currently on the Wiki. - Hahnchen 00:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

As you note. Existence of other crap should be reason to delete it too, rather than including more of it. - Mgm|(talk) 09:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"trivial coverage" does that not include mention/interviews on various radio stations? Such instances have occurred both on the "DJ Glowsticks" radio show, located in New Brunswick, canada, and in ermac's radio show several times throughout his "web" career. Also, my site has been around for near three years, and no, I don't know what this "Alexa" is all about. I never signed up for any such service. If you wish, I can provide my awstats traffic info, but even when I WASNT updating for months, I was getting over 300 uniques daily. At my best, I've gotten over two thousand. Also, I see MANY "lesser" (by lesser, I mean lesser in webfame, fanbase, archive size, and such, not lesser quality) webcomics that DO have articles here. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v87/Cthon98/Misc/april.jpg <-- Check it out. I wasnt updating that month (Busy with work) AND I didn't have ANY ads running. Cthon98

  • Comment As far as I know, it's possible for webcomics to fit the WP:WEB criteria, (When I am King has non-trivial coverage, PvP won a major award, etc) so "it's impossible to meet the WP:WEB criteria" is not true. Please also note that notability is not a popularity contest, so citing things like fanbase, archive size, "webfame" do not matter. For example, Derek Kirk Kim's Alexa ranking always falls very low (partially because he has a very sporadic update schedule), but he's won three major comic industry awards (Eisner, Harvey, Ignatz), so he gets an article. ColourBurst 23:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete we can start with this webcomic. Musaabdulrashid 23:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete Again, don't radio broadcasts count as this sort of coverage? - Cthon98
  • Comment It depends. I've seen interviews used as sources before, but different types of interview give different types of fact-checking. For example, the NPR interview in Derek Kirk Kim's article gives a synopsis of who he is, the works he's done, and the awards he's won. But the interview itself, including things he talks about, are primary sources (see WP:RS). And that's not the only article about him (not to mention he passes other criteria). It also depends on how it's mentioned - you didn't say which radio station interviewed you, and the times it was broadcast, so nobody could (even if they were inclined to) get a transcript or a recording of the interview, so it's still unverifiable right now. ColourBurst 00:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Alright. You're the only one who hasn't been a dick about this, Everyone else is "get rid of this trash, and then the others" sort of thing. If someone had been polite about stuff, I'd be alot less pissed than having my work called trash. - cthon98
My apologies if you were offended by some of the comments in this AFD. Many of long time editors(including myself) sometimes become jaded at seeing everyone placing anything and everything on the wikipedia. We prefer someone other the creator of the primary source to create an article on the wikipedia, especially if the editor is new (as it raises suspicion whether the article was created for sake of promotion rather than to help the wikipedia). --Mitaphane talk 04:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Main reason I submitted it was because I saw several other photocomics on there, some of which had only been around half as long as mine. That and the TKT article had mention of my comic, and a link to an article page for Nukeland, but the article page was lacking, so I thought I'd put something there. I really wasn't attempting to do it for self promotion (otherwise I would have included links to comics I felt to be my "best of") - Cthon98

I see you haven't been "properly" welcomed, so I placed a welcome message on your page. On the other hand, the Twisted Kaiju Theater has a lengthy article, but is rather short on sources. The most it can claim is a short blurb in a Toyfare issue. ColourBurst 15:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for all the above. —ExplorerCDT 21:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - No reliable sources, doesn't meet WP:WEB. Wickethewok 18:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, ready for redirect. —Xyrael / 11:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Semitism in the 21st century

  • Delete/Redirect as completely synonomous with New Anti-semitism and Anti-semitism. I don't see anything here that isn't also mentioned on the other articles or worth merging. Musaabdulrashid 00:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Anti-semitism. Unnecessary fork. KleenupKrew 02:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Anti-semitism per KleenupKrew. --69.156.205.157 03:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect If there is anything of value in the article the place for it is on Anti-Semitism or in a sub-page. I oppose the information diaspora :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkfred (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep but expand. Also go deeper into the causes. --Prof.Thamm 07:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - still a bit stubbish (more like skeletal) but Anti-sematism is over 100K long so this is a pretty reasonable spin-out (i.e. a necessary fork) WilyD 13:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - We acctually already have a timeline style fork for Anti-Semitism. It is located at History of anti-Semitism. The section for the 21st century links to this article, which was created about 4 days ago. I now suggest we Remerge as well as Delete/Redirect. Musaabdulrashid 22:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Ditto to what Musaabdulrashid says.--Cúchullain t/c 03:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect per nom. Also, mark-up included, 100K isn't a long article. I can think of about 2-3 dozen similar subjects that top out at 200-250K —ExplorerCDT 21:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with & redirect to History of anti-Semitism as per Musaabdulrashid, with the forking left to the editors of that article. Themindset 20:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - it's an appropriate fork from History of Anti-Semitism (which is 66K). JASpencer 06:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect to the album. None of the many keep votes were able to provide any sort of reliable sources to justify the song having its own article, despite not having been released as a single. This article is very limited in content as it is anyway. Grandmasterka 01:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EBay (song)

Originally {{prod}}ded [2] citing "not a single, not notable outside album", subsequently removed with edit summary: "deprod" [3]. Full disclosure, I originally {{prod}}ded the article.

Article continues to provide no claims of notability, nor does it provide WP:RS. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. A great song and this page is useful
  • Keep. This song is very popular within Yankovic fans, and I've seen many fan videos for it on StupidVideos and YouTube. It is also from one of Yankovic's most popular albums. --Case Of The Punks 00:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a notable Yankovic song. SliceNYC 01:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable song by notable singer. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 01:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'm a Weird Al fan and find the song amusing (not his best, but that's a debate for another day), but I'm not convinced that it's notable in and of itself. For a song which wasn't released as a single to be notable, it really needs to be significant, and much as I'd love to I just don't see that here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 01:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: I'm not paticularly ogreish, in fact I'm a big fan of Weird Al's, but I want to ask: what about the song is notable? The article doesn't offer any WP:RS to purport notability, nor am I aware of where it's any more notable than the other non-single songs on Poodle Hat. If the song has more notability than I'm familiar with, where is it? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom, BigHaz & pd_Thor Bwithh 03:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge, let's not betray Weird Al fans who need an explanation of this song. Kappa 06:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - one of my favorite songs, captures the essence of eBay --ArmadilloFromHell 06:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Re-direct. Every album track will be a favorite of someone, somewhere. Unless there is reliable claims of wider notability, it should be deleted or, perhaps, if genuinely popular, redirect to the album. Rockpocket 07:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. There's not enough info for its own article there, but the fact people are making fan videos show it's popular enough not to delete entirely. - Mgm|(talk) 09:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment can anyone find third party coverage? Otherwise, merge is probly best. WilyD 13:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - as in nomination. Springnuts 14:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Poodle Hat. The single isn't notable in and of itself. A Train take the 14:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge - seems notable to me. - CNichols 15:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • How so? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non-singles don't need articles outside of the album they are featured on (even then, singles don't necessarily need their own articles). No useful content to merge, though a section in the album article about the song would be fine of course. Wickethewok 17:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into List of songs by "Weird Al" Yankovic. The only info in the body of the article is trivia that doesn't need it own article. Deli nk 19:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to the album. A great song, and we'll have loads of readers looking for it, but it still doesn't deserve its own article. (Also, it shouldn't have come to AfD in the first place, someone could have been bold instead.) KissL (don't forget to vote!) 07:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - There isn't enough information listed to warrant a merge. (The list of things bid upon is not worth mentioning in Wikipeida.) -Freekee 03:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per others. Arbusto 06:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - could be classified as an internet meme (and frequent copyvio), doing rounds at blogs etc. Not released as a single, but the track most often referred to. Ace of Risk 15:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • As the article has none, do you have WP:RS for this? An infinite number of quizzes, themes, and short-termed memes "do the rounds" on blogs, but they don't make it as articles either. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete and redirect to the article on the album. Not notable enough to have its own article. Some of Yankovic's earlier songs would be first on my list of songs needing their own pages far before this his-career-has-gone-way-too-deep-into-the-shitter drivel.—ExplorerCDT 21:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Weird Al songs. They all can have plenty said about them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment - with respect, that can be said of any song by any notable performer. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 21:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
i actually disagree with this. "Weird Al" songs fall into three categories - songs that are direct parodies, songs that are indirect style parodies, and his polkas. In each case, a lot can be said about all three. I'm a huge R.E.M. fan, but i know full well a lot can't be said about every track on, say, Reveal. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not convinced. The way I see it, any song is notable and significant to a fan of the performer. The example I tend to use here is that my father would be able to cite chapter and verse of why such-and-such a Rolling Stones B-Side is of massive significance to the band's evolution, but in the general public's eyes that simply isn't the case. Where Al is concerned, I'll grant that his singles are automatically notable, but there really needs to be something significant about his album tracks to warrant them having their own articles. Despite what some contributors have said here, I just don't quite see that it reaches that level. Amusing song, though, no doubt about it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 23:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is a notable track by Weird Al Yankovic. Merges should be suggested on the talk page of an article, not here. Yamaguchi先生 22:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FedEx Flight 597

This is not a major aviation incident. No one died, the cause of the crash is not peculiar; its just a plane that crashed. It has no encyclopedic value. – Zntrip 00:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. the plane just suffered some damage, it didn't crash and no one died. TJ Spyke 00:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not even a crash. They had mechanical trouble and had to turn around. A few people didn't get their packages on time the next morning. So what? Fan-1967 00:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Things like this happen all the time. And what are the concequences? A few late packages and a plane that needs fixing. --Supermath 01:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Current event that's no longer current. Hard to tell whether it is in any way unique until we have the final NTSB report. Does anyone know the rest of the story? Williamborg (Bill) 03:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as it fails notability. Wikipedia is not an "aviation incident" database. --Dhartung | Talk 04:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete. It can be, but this is not a notable incident. - Mgm|(talk) 09:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lance Latham

Fails WP:BIO. Article asserts no notability, I get less than 2,000 google hits, which includes this article as hit #4 and Lance's unrelated to this one.[4] Arbusto 22:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

contribs) 04:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment The wiki article doesn't mention awana. Your cyberhymnal.org bio claims he "co-founded" it; whatever that means, whatever year, and with who? Lastly if he is a notable musician please provide WP:RS that he meets WP:MUSIC. There are some serious WP:V issues, and a keep vote shouldn't be made because someone's personal website makes claims. As of now the article still asserts nothing. Arbusto 07:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as he helped develop the Awana curriculum, which is apparently popular in evangelical circles. Sort of a combination of scouting and Sunday school. Article barely touches on this.--Dhartung | Talk 04:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. NeoFreak 05:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. His contribution to Awana is notable, as per his biography. Rockpocket 07:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious Keep He has a biography written by Dave Breese who is notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article. Bagginator 08:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: According to amazon.com, this "book" (ASIN: B0006YL5G8) is an unknown binding published by Awana in 1978. So its self-published by Latham's group a decade before he died. It isn't even in print and has Amazon.com Sales Rank: of 2,191,303-- Just 190,000 shy of cracking the top two million. That "book" does not pass notablity criteria. Arbusto 17:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - older stuff google is poor-ish (and not exactly the kind of thing that easily makes its way) but thereis some essence of verifiablility/.encyclopaedic value here. Be nice if it were better referenced, but I buy the idea that it's somehow verifiable. WilyD 13:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It will need to be expanded and referenced, tho.--Cúchullain t/c 04:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the comments made above. Yamaguchi先生 23:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phil Fernandes

I put the notability tag on this, and someone pulled it off. This is a person with an unaccredited doctorate (it is called a diploma mill by some) who is a teacher at Shepherds Bible College (an unaccredited place without a wikipedia article and also referred to as a degree mill).

Subject fails WP:BIO, and article asserts no notability. Arbusto 22:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: per nom. Justin 07:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable author, debater, and evangelist. --Joshy194 12:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This is Joshy194 first and only ever edit. He even knows how to sign his user name. Arbusto 16:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. His publications aren't so tremendously notable as to accord him any notability. For that matter, the fact that everything leads to a Fernandes or Fernandes-linked source makes me suspicious. Claims that his debates with Dan Barker make him notable are also suspect - Dan Barker debates anyone he comes across, pretty much. Captainktainer * Talk 16:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO and per nom -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 17:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fabio Sassi

vanity article Maestlin 01:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • weak delete—I like artists but this is rather weak in wp:bio - notability. Make a case & convince me I'm wrong. Williamborg (Bill) 03:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete obvious case of WP:VAIN or WP:SPAM WilyD 13:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable person. I don't even see if they say he's notable. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 17:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DSCWP

Prod removed without comment by author. Supposed to be a profile of something called the "Democratic Socialist Consortiunist Worker's Party". Except for a few free web pages, cited in the article, I am unable to find the slightest, barest hint that the group exists at all. Totally fails WP:V. -- Fan-1967 01:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Per nom. DSCWP returns no link on google except wikipedia. Geocity page is down due to bandwitdh limit (how is that even possible?), alternative contain a photo album of obvious fakes with "DSCWP" stamped on. Painkiller is the only poster on google group, and the posts at the blog mirror Painkiller edits on wikipedia so it's safe to assume it's his too. Someone else might bother to check myspace and aol. A little digging on Painkiller supposed myspace (my eyes hurt) account show that he claims to be Toshiro Reinhardt, whom according to himself is the alias of DSCWP's leader. Googling Toshiro Reinhardt links to other blog and fake political parties that I won't link to for fear of giving them undue wikitraffic. A lot of nonsense going on here, which might make it worthwhile to examine this user other contribution to wikipedia. Jean-Philippe 03:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • delete my hoax sensor is going wild, WP:RS and all. --Darkfred Talk to me 05:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. The user's primary contributions are either to this article or large unreferenced POV chunks in a handful of other articles. --Dhartung | Talk 05:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - wikipedia is not for something thought up in school one day. BTLizard
  • Delete; fails WP:V with no WP:RS. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete might not be a hoax, but certainly is vanity in trying to promote a one man party and unverifiable. "Minorities Unite, Fight the white" hehehe...--Jersey Devil 01:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Hoax. Non-existant, and otherwise if it does it's non-notable. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 17:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was CSD A6, I have already deleted this. --- Deville (Talk) 04:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TCU Library Scandal

Non-notable school story will always inherently fail WP:NOR and WP:V. alphaChimp(talk) 02:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as attack page and description of unremarkable people per WP:CSD A6 and A7. This article about disputes among employees of a library/computer lab appears to violate the privacy of living people and serves no apparent encyclopedic purpose. I could find no verification for anything in this article except that some of the key players were in fact co-workers of each other at TCU. --Metropolitan90 04:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Steel 23:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arnold & Mr. Fish

Contested Prod. New webcomic that hasn't even appeared yet. Search of google returns only four posts in thewebcomiclist.com forum. At this point, practically unknown. Wikipedia is not for promoting new ventures. -- Fan-1967 02:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Excuse me, but those pages happen to total over 1,000 hits. This webcomic is highly anticipated, and a website is being developed. There is no reason to delete this article, for this webcomic will be released on its own domain in less than 20 days. This article is being finished tonight, complete with pictures, and will be professional. I have no idea why you would delete a professional article, when little 11-year old girls are making unprofessional character pages for their favorite shows/movies. Your deletion is a personal vendetta, and I know you're the one from the talk page. Good day. Oh yeah, and your Google search is unrealible, since you included quotes. I deleted the link for you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dmurawski (talk • contribs).
    • If you have an alternate search to propose, feel free to do so. Do not edit other people's posts. Blanking this discussion will accomplish nothing. All edits are visible and reversible. Fan-1967 02:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - We have little 14-year old boys making professional articles about their favourite webcomic too. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, or webcomic advertising board. - Hahnchen 02:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • My god. You are ruthless animals. Quit doing this. I'm trying to write a professional article here. I'm reporting this.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dmurawski (talk • contribs).
  • I suggest you write the professional article at comixpedia.org and then transfer it over if it ever attains anything close to WP:WEB. Or possibly save it in your userspace. - Hahnchen 02:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You are just a lonely old man who has nothing better to do than delete articles because they aren't "fit" enough. You're causing me to have a nervous breakdown. If you try to delete my article, which revolves around a featured webcomic with 1,000 hits, I WILL report you. And if this message does not show up, I am going to go insane. Quit. Deleting. Other. People's. Hard. Work. -User:Dmurawski
    • Comment I will not delete anything. After five days, an administrator will review the discussion to determine the consensus of the community. You can read about the process at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. -- Fan-1967 02:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Come on, it doesn't even exist yet. If it lasts some months and gains a following, then it gets a WP article. VT hawkeyetalk to me 02:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Then it gets a WP article? Does Britney Spears's fifth studio album have a right to have an article? It isn't even confirmed other than in interviews. No press releases. Do I have one? Yes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dmurawski (talk • contribs) .
      On talk pages and in discussions, please sign your posts by typing four tilde's (~~~~) at the end of your entry. It will translate to your user name with the date and time.
  • Delete Non-notable webcomic that fails WP:WEB. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This means it reports on subjects that have already achieved mainstream acceptance. We do not make editorial decisions on what is significant, we rely on other reliable sources to do that and report on their decisions. When your webcomic has made a significant impact that has been reported by independent sources we will be happy to include an article on it. Until then, I'm afraid Wikipedia is not going to cover it. Thanks, Gwernol 03:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Come back when your comic achieves notability. You can always recreate it then, with proper verifiable references about what a success it has been, and a more positive attitude towards our policies and to common civility, I hope. Good luck, but this is not the place to advertise it meantime. --Guinnog 03:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • "Ugh." I swear you people don't listen. I already told you, ONE THOUSAND PEOPLE have voted on it, 75% approving it, and wanting to see more. Among webcomics, it can't get more mainstream. You are all personally attacking me, and I wish you nothing but the worst for being so very, very cruel. Please, whoever decides whether to delete my article, look at its quality and over-one-thousand-people fan base. Thank you, very much.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dmurawski (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete without a comment, as that would be akin to kicking over a dead rabbit. Danny Lilithborne 03:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment—I just read your article; you write rather well for an early article and will make a solid editor. I'm sure it feels personal (my first deleted article felt that way too), but it is almost assuredly not—I don't yet know you & I’d doubt the others who commented here do either. We did indeed understand your assertion that "ONE THOUSAND PEOPLE have voted on it, 75% approving it, and wanting to see more;" but you do not provide a link or other reference, so it is hard to verify & Wikipedia policy requires verifiability. Since this is an encyclopedia, not a promotional medium, we do guard carefully against folks who use it for advertisements. Please read WP:WEB and adjust the article if you can to meet the criteria there. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 03:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I couldn't provide a reference, as the website's server is down as of now, and I can't reach the URL.
  • Delete per nom. What does it mean for 75% of respondents to "approve" a comic that they haven't even seen? We need more reliable sources than that. See also this thread for a poll in which this comic did not fare as well. --Metropolitan90 04:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I realize you're close to the article's subject. But the opinions expressed of the above editors are not personal. If you really want to report people (but for what exactly?), you can open up an WP:RFC. But, you need to show that they're violating policy (read WP:POLICY), you need to show that they have failed to see your side of the story, and you need to show that another person has done the same thing of them. And by threatening to report for deleting your article, and calling other people names, you yourself might not be WP:CIVIL. Now. We have a policy for webcomics and other web content on Wikipedia. It's called WP:WEB. Please take a bit of time to read it over (also read WP:V and WP:RS, they determine what type of sources are needed to fact-check an article). Please also note that as editors, we have no power to delete an article; only administrators have this power. AfDs stay up for at least five days. That's plenty of time to make your case. ColourBurst 05:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • ... and administrators are just editors, too. (Well, I am, at least. ☺) Uncle G 12:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete being an unreleased, non-notable webcomic. A random web poll is not a reliable source, the comic fails WP:WEB's guidelines for notability, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox on which to promote your creations. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 05:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Encise 05:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Encise
  • Delete. per nom Mr Stephen 09:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Non-notable vainity page. illspirit|talk 12:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Googling for "Arnold & Mr. Fish" gets zero results. Trying "Arnold and Mr. Fish" gets one - a forum post by the article creator with four replies. Totally non-notable. illspirit|talk 13:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Grandmasterka 01:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misadventures etc.

Webcomic with no assertion of notability. Hosted on a website called pawspace with an Alexa rank of 3.5 million. The article itself seems to suggest that this is not a notable comic. - Hahnchen 02:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. It admits it has a small fan base, but that is not the problem. The problem is WP:WEB, and it fails to meet the threshold. ColourBurst 05:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As the article sugests. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 17:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fails WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS. Wickethewok 18:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Grandmasterka 01:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North Way Christian Community

This is a non-notable individual Church location. Deprodded by creator with no substantial change. I have contacted the creator to inquire about changes and got no response. There are 133 unique Google hits [5], but most appear to be directory entries and none I investigated would augment notability to encyclopedic levels. Erechtheus 02:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. NN, OR and advert. NeoFreak 05:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Prof.Thamm 08:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • This isn't a vote as much as it is a discussion. Would you care to expand? Erechtheus 08:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: per nom, and WP:VANITY Justin 08:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete parishcruft. Carlossuarez46 19:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No assertion of evidence of notability, most significantly no links to independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:ORG. GRBerry 01:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Grandmasterka 03:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Team Nexus

A webcomic here hosted on a personal website with no Alexa rank. No assertion of notability in the article. - Hahnchen 02:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Appears to fail WP:WEB pretty convincingly. Rockpocket 07:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment (as a fan and the one who originally started the article, I don't know if I should vote or not). I haven't been able to find any specific notability criteria for webcomics, first of all (and - correct me if I'm mistaken - there's no actual policy regarding notability as a criteria for inclusion), so I had no way of determining whether this deserved an article or not. However, what's wrong with having an article on a non-notable topic so long as the information contained within is verifiable and NPOV? CameoAppearance 07:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
There's a variety of verifiable things that can be found about me, MacGyverMagic, on the web. Still it's not a good idea to make an article about me, because I didn't do anything of note. You should apply the same to webcomics or any other topic. If a webcomics fails to get any sort of Alexa ranking and Googles badly one can assume it doesn't have enough readers. While we're not paper, we can't include everything that ever existed upon the face of the earth. Allowing every single webcomic in would mean Wikipedia could be used to advertise new comics and WP is not a place to advertise. Webcomic guidelines are included in WP:WEB. And while notability is heavily debated, a complete lack of it, is generally seen as a valid reason to exlude something. Hope this helps. Try taking a look at Comixpedia. - Mgm|(talk) 09:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator.
Forgot to sign my vote. - Mgm|(talk) 09:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails to satisfy WP:WEB. As an aside, CameoAppearance, I appreciate your honesty and restfulness. The notability criteria, while highly disputed and by no means perfect, are usually effective in requiring that the subject of an article is noted enough to have other people create preexisting reliable sources on which an decent article can be developed. Unfortunaley, while the guidelines don't make it as clear as they probably should, WP:WEB is the notabilty guideline that controls webcomics, because webcomics are a form of website.-- danntm T C 06:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't meet our content policies, as the article is unverifiable through reliable sources and wikipedia is not an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 18:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 18:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per Dragonfiend. Wickethewok 18:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JN Kellett Elementary

Article tagged questioning notability thrice [6] [7] [8]. Initial {{prod}} [9] removed w/o substantiation [10]; {{prod}} replaced to initiate discourse [11], removed again w/o substantiation (removal in accordance with {{prod}} policy) [12] by kappa (talk • contribs).

Per both {{prod}}s and repeated attempts to request {{notability}}, article provides no claim of such. Furthermore, elementary schools have a precedence of removal/merging/deletion in the absence of notability (this is as opposed to high schools), iinm. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is obviously a hot topic, but I have always been a firm believer that elementary schools are not notable in and of themselves. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 02:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge, no reason to deprive interested users of the chance to read about this school, for example how they were named a Flagship School of Promise despite over half its families living below the poverty line. [13] Kappa 02:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Elementary schools are not inherently notable, and I don't see anything notable about this one. TJ Spyke 03:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 03:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete despite those who will be deprived of the opportunity to learn that this School or the writer of its Article can't properly Capitalize the mission statement. Opabinia regalis 04:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The mission statement has been removed, but the editor faithfully used the exact capitalization found on the school district website. --Usgnus 05:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per deletion policy. Furthermore, elementary/primary are often kept, regardless of perceived notability. --Usgnus 04:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Um what in WP:DP are you refering to? And the claim about elementary schools is a) false and b) irrelevant. JoshuaZ 04:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • What aspect of the deletion policy supports or requires the non-deletion of this article? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
      • WP:DP#Problem_articles_where_deletion_may_not_be_needed --Usgnus 04:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Among other problems that lists articles where deletion "may" not be needed so I fail to see it being very binding. Second of all I fail to see any relevant category for it. JoshuaZ 04:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, from my POV, a stub with potential. From your POV, perhaps, "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article", where the subject is public education in South Carolina. --Usgnus 04:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
            • I'm not objecting to articles about public education in South Carolina. That doesn't mean we need an article on this specific elementary school. JoshuaZ 04:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
              • Then the solution is merge, not delete. Every elementary school is a branch of public education in SC. --Usgnus 05:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
                • That doesn't mean every one of those details is notable enough for inclusion in an article about public ed in SC. JoshuaZ 05:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
                  • Perhaps not, but that can be dealt with once the merge happens. Of course, IMHO, it's not so minor a branch. --Usgnus 05:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Futhermore, I can't find anything in WP:DP#Problem articles where deletion may be needed that applies. --Usgnus 04:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. JoshuaZ 04:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC) switching to abstain'. The three different awards listed make an arguable case for notability. I'm not persuaded by it but I don't feel confidant enough to call for deletion. JoshuaZ 05:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - article makes explict claim of notability in the form of state recognition as a Flagship School of Promise. A review of the statement of this honor highlights the school's accomplishments in light of the poverty of many of the school's students. Other schools nationwide would benefit from following the pedagological models used at JN Kellett Elementary. Alansohn 04:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I have seen no evidence that this is a notable award for a south carolinan school in there income bracket. At this point there is massive inflation in school awards. Almost every school gets some form of them from the state so one such award by itself does not necessarily confer notability. JoshuaZ 04:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Nominator made false statement, suggesting there's a precedent to merge or delete elementaries. Obviously, there's virtually never a consensus to delete. Merge has been done many times, though most of the time, a stand-alone aritcle is the ultimate result (hundreds of new ones, each month). Schools are an important topic, and the there's a ready supply of vefifiable information. No reason has been given for deletion. Its already been demonstrated that this article is expandable, and more can follow in the future. --Rob 05:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Please base your vote on the article instead of the nominator. - Mgm|(talk) 09:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Nominator made false statement. --Prof.Thamm 08:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Please base your vote on the article instead of the nominator. - Mgm|(talk) 09:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Although poorly phrased, he (or she) is clearly addressing the fact the the nomination contains (at least one) false statement. Nominated upon false grounds is a reasonable part of a keep argument. WilyD 16:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Usgnus said that elementary/primary are often kept, regardless of perceived notability. This is true, but not because they should be. They are kept because a large population of editors interested in schools don't want to delete any school articles despite specific concerns about the article. The kept articles are usually kept due to no-concensus rather than keep concensus. - Mgm|(talk) 09:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per the award mentioned.- Mgm|(talk) 09:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per spike. Its claim to have been the first to win the Flagship award appears to be false (9 other elementary schools won it a year before it. There appears to be no limit to the number of winners of this Flagship award, or the red carpet award. Ohconfucius 10:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: That the article's claim about the circumstances of its recognition as a Flagship School of Promise "appears to be false" seems to be false itself. In fact, the article's statement that "The school was the first elementary school in the county to win the state's Flagship School of Promise" appears to be true. The awards were first given in 1999 and no Oconee County school won. In 2000, both J. N. Kellett Elementary and West Oak High won in Oconee. Hence the wording "The school was the first elementary school in the county to win the state's Flagship School of Promise". Thus, this explicit claim of notability seems fully supported. Given the size of the state of South Carolina, the number of schools in the state, and the relative poverty of the district compared to others in the state, this seems to be a genuinely notable award and the circumstances of the win at Kellett only make it more notable. Alansohn 11:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep cites multiple third party sources, is on an encyclopaedic subject. No rationals have been offered for deletion. Roughly speaking, it passes every policy or guideline that could reasonably be applied. WilyD 13:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the continued use of notability as if it were the standard continues to sound alot like a DID NOT - DID TO argument. Unless someone can take issue with the content of the article as being invalid or vanity, I really don't see the argument for AfD. --Wakemp 14:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Not only that, but the general concensus is Notability is not subjective - i.e. this school is indisputably notable (which may or may not matter) per the sourcing. WilyD 16:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Um what? Notability criteria exist all over. A lack of subjectivity doesn't make something magically have to one way. JoshuaZ 18:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the reasons that are described at User:Silensor/Schools. Also meets WP:SCHOOL meta-guidelines. Silensor 17:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Silensor, to be blunt. You're being ridiculous. You just paste your keep argument for all schools. Once again you a) ignoring the fact that WP:SCHOOL is a rejected guideline and b) ignoring that many of the claims in User:Silensor/Schools have been refuted or have been shown to be seriously flawed while others only make any sense at all for highschools or colleges. I would therefore ask the closing admin to discount Silensor's opinion when determining consensus. JoshuaZ 18:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: Silensor has put a great deal of thought into developing criteria that lean towards an eventualist / inclusionist approach toward school articles. I would hope that we can each approach an argument that we disagree with by using a counterargument that directly addresses the issues raised and does not attempt to have someone's opinion tossed out because we disagree with the argument or approach. Why are Silensor's arguments any less worthy of consideration by the closing administrator than those of Ohconfucius, who may have misread the supporting information regarding the Flagship School of Promise award, or those of Khoikhoi, whose entire argument for deletion consists of the two letters "nn". Alansohn 19:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment First I note that you did not respond my point that Silensor cited WP:SCHOOLS as a guideline when it is a failed guideline. I presume from that you agree that that qualifies as ridiculous? Part of the reason Silensor's posts are so annoying is that everyone now insists that I go through an spend the time and effort explaining why almost nothing in his essay is relevant for this school. I'll list some of them here. (Maybe I should just make an essay "problems with Silensor's school essay and just post it in in an equally unhelpful and robot-like fashion") But just a few that have problems in general or in this case. 1- most Wikipedians are not eventualists so if we play by consensus this is very weak. 2- under this argument firehouses and town squares and city halls all need their own articles or need to be included. Are we prepared to do this? This argument also conflates keeping the articles with having the content somewhere (possibly merged). An argument for retention of information is not necessarily an argument for keeping an article. 3- why not we imposed such a rule on WP:PROF where the people in question have far more uniqueness that is obvious from a google search than random elementary schools. 4 - close to irrelevant without such a system in place. 5 is the strongest argument for keeping these schools and it is a good one from a pragmatic perspective. However, we don't include small bands or minor academics on the same basis. It isn't clear to me why schools should be different. 6 is almost a strawman argument which I've never actually seen on either WP:SCHOOL discussions or school AfDs. I'm in total agreement with the response there. But since no one has asserted it in this AfD it is irrelevant. 7 Obviously irrelevant to the case at hand since Jimbo was talking about highschools and this is an elementary school. 8 there are independent reasons for including cities (such as the fact that almost any biography article mentions where soemone is born, so there is a consensus that this fact is in some sense notable). In any case if this is a consistency issue I wouldn't mind merging or deleting some small town articles. 9 Is not a grammatical sentence but if it is an argument for consistency then I agree with that. However it isn't at all clear from 9 why the consistency (assuming that's what he means) should be to keep them all. WP:PROF and WP:MUSIC are applied in consistent fashions. JoshuaZ 04:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
      • JoshuaZ, Silensor's writing of an essay is in fact awesome. When it fell out of the awesome tree, it hit every branch on the way down. If you're making the same argument again and again, there's no reason to write it again and again. Silensor's reasoning on keeping schools (which is, in fact, a field where there's essentially no policy that applies beyond WP:V, so you have a tremendous amount of latitude) is the same in multiple cases - why would he want to repeat it again and again? Why would we want him to repeat it again and again? Everyone who's arguing for deletion of primary schools is making the same tired argument, even when it clearly doesn't apply (like this school, which has established indisputable notability) - to call him rediculous is just plain mean in addition to being verifiably false. WilyD 20:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Please reread WP:NPA. I said he was being ridiculous. I didn't engage in a personal attack. I commented on his actions. If you want to argue that it wasn't the most civil comment you might be right and my wording may have been uneccessarily harsh. JoshuaZ 04:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
      • JoshuaZ, you seem to misunderstand the meaning of the word "consensus". You're asking a fellow admin to ignore the opinion of a member of the community when determining consensus. The whole point of requiring consensus is we don't do that. We don't exclude those an elite few disagree with. Now, you're certainly not alone in opposing Wikipedia's policy of requiring consensus to exclude certain topics. Most critics of Wikipedia are appalled that "just anybody" can contribute. They think only a select group of "qualified" people may participate (typically "qualified" means people who think like themself). You obviously agree with them, and think you're one of of those "qualified" people, and Silensor (and presumabely me) is not. If you want to edit an encyclopedia that excludes those you disagree with, then......... --Rob 03:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Thivierr, with all due respect AfD is not a vote. Admins are free to disregard statements that are unproductive or have little or no policy basis. In this case, I have trouble seeing the statement as useful. JoshuaZ 04:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Given the glaringly obvious nature of the usefulness of ThiveierrSilensor's contribution, it's seems exceedingly unlikely that any closing Admin would overlook it. While all relevent policies and guidelines might dictate keep on this article, we can always form a concensus against that in exceptional cases. WilyD 17:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
            • My comment was reffering to Silensor's post not Thiveierr's. In any event, I have since written a response to Silensor's essay User:JoshuaZ/Schools. JoshuaZ 17:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
            • Commenting to correct version- Whetber or not Silensor is an experienced user and such is irrelevant to whether he is making a good argument. To use an extreme example- I have almost 10,000 edits at this point (yay for editcountitis) none of which are automated. If I wrote in an AfD keep or delete based on "because the Invisible Pink Unicorn said so" I would hope my comment would be ignored or given very little weight.
  • Keep, notable award-winning school. bbx 02:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Although my initial challenge has been refuted on one point of fact, I do not believe that it fundamentally changes the validity of my argument that the award, unlike the vast majority of awards we use as a criteria for assessing notability, appears to be non-discriminatory. If all schools are given the award, does that make them all sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion? There are often multiple winners in any given county, and therefore its value should not be overstated. The default presumption for elementary schools is unlike secondary schools, and inclusion because an area is poor, or because the segmentation is so small as to make every school unique by definition (and thus notable) is clearly extending the logic to an extreme. My delete vote is maintained. Ohconfucius 02:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - verifiability over notability. --Myles Long 16:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the reasons that are described at User:Silensor/Schools. I applaude Silensor for putting together such a page. I have been considering the merits of doing something similar for other topics that I care about and now have a working model. I must say I find it odd that JoshuaZ found Silensor's remarks ridiculous. To site a proposed guideline that failed to reach consensus is not ridiculous, given the high bar for concensus. I certainly don't know the inside-baseball scoop on votes. But when I look at the WP:SCHOOL page and the WP:N page I see that both are proposed guidelines--not offical policy. Yet on page after page of these kinds of debates, exclusionists love to reference WP:N as though it were writ in stone. At worst, Silensor should have referenceed WP:SCHOOL as a proposed guideline that he agrees with. As for creating a page with his arguments for keeping an article and then pasting it into one of these page--it's a good idea. It saves space and it suggests a consistency of thought regarding the issue. It is esspecially appropriate in this kind of case, because his argument is not about whether this school has sufficeient notabiltiy or not (in which case specific arguments about the school whould be expected). It is a general case argument that notability concerns are mis-construed here. I tend to agree. The whole notablity thing to me is unfortunate--but obviously other people have differing views. On way in which these debates go is what is the proper notability criteria. These argumets are usually analogical. Is the current case more like A (for example Bios and music) with high notablity requiements or more like B (for example Towns) with lower notablity requirements. Reasonable people differ. But I think Silensor grasps an essential point in arguing for very low notablity requirements for elementary schools--they are important part of almost everyone's life for an extended period of time. JoshuaZ claimed (rather ridiculously, I thought ;)) that if we include articles about elementary schools we must also include articles about every town square and every firehouse. No, the analogy is wrong. Elementary schools play a role in all people's lives far different from that of town squares and firehouses. I think Silensor could have framed this point better. He used the term 'unique', which others rightly pointed can't be the deciding feature. Everything and everyone is unique is some fashion. Rather, what shapes the identity of a school (and thus, in some sense its uniqueness) is the people that go there. The underlying theme in Silensor's argument is that Wikipedia has to connect to things that are importantly relevant in people's lives. I agree with this. Over the life of a school (elementary, high school, college) thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people will pass through, sepending 6 hours a day in the earliest years of their lives. Those schools have a significance to people far more than a band, or a town square, or a fire house. That significance confers a certain notablity. It transcends any awards etc that a school may have won. In this way, schools--all schools are like towns--even the smallest towns. They are a central aspect of our lives (whether we recognize it or not). On this argument, elmentary schools are NOT different from high schools and colleges regarding notablity and should be treated the same. That anyway is what I take from his argument, and I tend to agree. Obviously others disagree. Finally, while I have been critical of JoshuaZ's comments, I commend him for taking the time to create his own page in response to Silensor's arguments. I find more merit in Silensor's claims than JoshuaZ does, but obviously some arguments are stronger and some weaker. But this is exactly the kind of reasoned debate that I think is the Wiki way. JoshuaZ in many ways has the harder path. Not only does he have to deal with the general "meta-level" claims raised by Silensor et.al., but he must also deal with the specific claims from those who fight this battle on the traditional notablity grounds. Jdclevenger 20:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
It is nice to see something which is an actual response to what I posted. However the argument that since everyone is affected by schools is simply irrelevant. If the poeple who are being affected are not notable than whether or not they were affected doesn't matter much. Furthermore having an affect on everyone's lives clearly isn't enough by analogy. Everyone is affected by their parents. That doesn't mean every single parent in the world merits an article. People are changed by their pre-school day-cares. Should we have special articles for each pre-school? Furthermore, I would argue that in many ways people are affected far more by their town halls where all the decisions for schools and other institutions arise. Similarly I can make an argument for inclusion of firehouses- there isn't much more of an effect than what one gets from saving lives and possesions. And firehouses are frequently used as voting locations and town meeting places central points of the democratic tradition that transcend any other issues. They really aren't that different. This is why for things like WP:BIO and WP:PROF (despite the fact that profs influence 1000s of students in some ways far more directly than a college itself) we insist in those cases of having real criteria and not this blanket keeping. JoshuaZ 21:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Also as to the matter of being on a harder path- I'm not on a harder path- I don't want all schools to be deleted I want real consideration to go into whether or not a school is kept. If a school has specific claims of notability then by all means it should be kept. This is not the case here. JoshuaZ 21:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment There are two points in reponse. JoshuaZ offers this response to the "affected by" analogy, "having an affect on everyone's lives clearly isn't enough by analogy. Everyone is affected by their parents. That doesn't mean every single parent in the world merits an article." Parent's of course have a huge affect on their one or two or twelve offspring. If we found a parent (foster or otherwise) who looked after 25,000 children over the course of his or her live, that would be notable in of itself. Not just because it was so rare (although that would be true). But because that one person (or that one school) touched so many lives. The second point is the intimacy of the effect. Without a doubt, town halls and fire houses, and police stations (and state and national capitals) all have a profound impact on the quality of lifes. But it is almost always a invisible, distant impact. Many people don't know their city councilman, or state legislators, or even their congressmen or senators. and tend to be quite ignorant (often happily so until something goes wrong) about what these people do. But they understand and remember and think about what their schooling was. There is a day-to-day intimancy that makes schools different from the other cases. Regarding the analogy between professors and schools, there are also two points. WP:PROF is about notability of academics--in a sense a subset of WP:BIO. I have argued that WP:BIO is the wrong level of analysis for schools The second point is that WP:PROF is of course not policy, but a guideline. I actually think that it is TOO restritive, for essentially the reasons that JoshuaZ suggests, "...profs influence 1000s of students in some ways far more directly than a college itself) we insist in those cases of having real criteria and not this blanket keeping."; but with the opposite outcome. I read this as a reason to lower the bar on WP:PROF. Again, I find these notablity debates to be so much red-herring. Notablity, as I read WP:N is a shorthand way of evaluating the veriviability, realability, and NPOV of an article. It can also be used to assess whether the article violates WP:NOT about not being an indiscriminate collection of information. Those ARE the policies of Wikipedia. No one (that I have seen, but it would be easy to miss) has argued that this article or many like is not verifiable, not based on relaible sources, does not have an NPOV. It does not fall under any of the 7 categories on Not and Indiscrimate Collection of Information. I think where there are real concerns of an article violating THESE polices, notablity can be a way of judging the issue. But too often, debates about notablity overwhelm all other issues. This shifts the debate from the merits of the article vis a vis policy, to debates on the merits vis a vis AN instrument to assess policy. Jdclevenger 21:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as an award winning school, this is worthy of documentation. Yamaguchi先生 22:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- JN Kellett is, no doubt, a small elementary school; however, it has done so much to gain noteriety. The school has become known as a technology model school. The teachers go to extensive training to be the best at what they do. The Red Carpet School award, while applied for by almost every school in the state, is only awarded to those schools who show excellence in student conduct, friendliness, and staff capability at all times. This school deserves to have its own wiki site. To think that every elementary school, fire department, and court house will desire to have its own wiki page is completely unrealistic. Despite the vast spread of the internet, there are still some people who have no idea what a wiki is. I feel that those schools, fire departments or court houses that desire to take the time to make a wiki site, should be allowed to do so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.166.131.128 (talk • contribs).
    • — The preceding discussion comment was the first contribution by 12.166.131.128 (talk • contribs).<noinclude>
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per the nomination withdrawn. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 17:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kuata

No evidence that this is an actual martial arts concept. Google kuata gives a bunch of results on a Kuata Island in Fiji; kuata +"martial arts", +fighting and +technique also give us nothing martial-arts related but WP-derived sources. VT hawkeyetalk to me 02:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

delete this is not necessarily a hoax, although it does ring the bells, perhaps a dic def for a concept not used in english. If so it should be a redirect anyway to Shadowboxing. although i question the need for uncommon non-english word redirects. --Darkfred Talk to me 05:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I have been bold and reworded the article to be about the island in Fiji, which is far more notable than the martial arts term, if that even exists. Shall we close the AfD?--Cúchullain t/c 04:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Retract by submitter cool by me. VT hawkeyetalk to me 23:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toby Meltzer

Tagged as A7. Notability claimed (see talk). No vote, have at it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep It would be ridiculous to delete this article about a surgeon of worldwide acclaim. Shame on anyone who deletes this article. He is even refered to in several other Wikipedia articles. One of the ironies of Wikipedia is that few people do this to puny minor Hollywood psuedo celebrities of little cultural significance. Meanwhile, somebody like Dr. Meltzer, a pioneering surgeon, known worldwide by people who ought to know about him, who spent decades in medical school and perfecting his craft, of important historical significance, gets put on this list by ignorant people without a clue. People need to STAND DOWN from this kind of Wiki behavior unless they can demonstrate some reliable reason for doing so. There is none in this case. Removing this article would violate written Wikipedia policy. Nobody commenting has shown good basis for removing it. I VOTE NO, regarding its removal. What kind of luddites are making these decisions? Who created this nomination, based on what research or criteria. Go check on the discussion on the article page about this.Janniejdoe 16:48, 14September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article and talk page discussion demonstrate notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep re. my comments on the talk page. Relevant, notable and well-established in his field, Toby Meltzer is one of the United States' most well-known GRS surgeons - Alison✍ 04:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep That first comment nearly convinced me to vote delete, it looked so much like the typical sockpuppet attack you see here. However I remembered seeing this guy on TV so keep. --Darkfred Talk to me 05:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, apparently not just "prominent" for sex-changes but opinionated in the various debates about it. --Dhartung | Talk 05:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cannot see evidence of WP:PROF here. JFW | T@lk 07:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Providing some references for his key innovations (so we can judge their citation index) would be helpful to make me reconsider my vote. JFW | T@lk 07:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • There are a bunch of citations on the talk page. He's also featured prominently in the IJT - Alison✍ 17:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. He only gets 7 citations on Medline, which is less than I'd expect for a surgeon of the pioneering status claimed. Can anyone point to an independent review, preferably in a peer-reviewed source, which asserts his importance? Espresso Addict 22:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. You need to check the talk page for this entry. Toby Meltzer, MD has numerous articles in available through pubmed. Also because he is no longer a clinical professor, and is instead a practicing surgeon, is importance and reputation are based on his work, not on "publish or perish" pseudo importance. This surgeon's work is innovative and important, and important to people who read about the related wikipedia articles that mention him. And somebody removed my signature from my KEEP VOTE above.JanniejdoeJanniejdoe 16:48, 14September 2006 (UTC)
  • I checked the edit history for this page. No one removed your signature from your "vote", but someone did add the {{unsigned}} tag after you forgot to sign. -AED 06:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice towards recreation if references for key innovations are provided, as per JFW. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable per Wikipedia policy. As is, the article lacks reliable sources and citations for claims. The burden to verify is on the editor(s) who wish to include the information, not on the reader(s) to look elsewhere. (This edit by Janniejdoe is troubling in that it makes up 80% of the article and smacks of copy-and-paste.) -AED 06:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Dr. Meltzer is an immensely notable doctor in the transcommunity, much like Marci Bowers and Stanley Biber. I am working with the article's editors to input reliable sources to back up some of the "pioneering technique" claims (So far all I've found where blogs, self-published sites and medical journals that you have to pay to access and verify). Some of the resources that I did find and add into the article gives ardent claim for notability-like performing 400-500 SRS surgeries a year. The source I added goes on to note that on average only 800-1100 are done in the US in a year. He also has numerous peer reviewed contibutions to notable medical journals. (See article's talk page and Google Scholar. Overall I think this article is a valuable entry in an area that is scarcely represented on Wikipedia due to systematic bias. It is not in a perfect state but the subject is certainly notable enough to deserve an entry. Agne 15:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability established through book references (added since AfD) and 2100+ Google hits. Meltzer does not grant media interviews and keeps a low profile, which may make him less visible than other surgeons, but he is probably the most prolific American specialist in these procedures working today. Article could use references for his cricothyroid approximation innovations as well. [14] Jokestress 06:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Reading comments here and seeing the googles, he seems quite worthy Ekehoe 06:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Subject is well-known in his field, has appeared in various television programmes and is one of the primary SRS surgeons in the US - Lyndau 16:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • delete As much as it pains me to give the black-ball to another Plastic Surgeon, with all due respect, as a practicing Plastic Surgeon myself, I'd submit that Dr. Meltzer is not someone widely known within the field of plastic surgery despite a clear expertise in a very specialized area. His academic work & writing are relatively modest and I'd submit he clearly falls short of professional noteriety to really merit an individual entry. A talented surgeon yes, but not someone I think most of his peers would single out as someone wiki-worthyDroliver 04:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the point here is that WP is not peer-reviewed, thus the criteria are different. It's not that the guy is notable within his peers, but that he be publicly notable for some reason. So it's not the field of plastic surgery, but the field of SRS - Alison✍ 18:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) Comment Actually, Dr. Oliver's comment enhances Dr. Meltzer's encyclopedic worth by virtue of being an expert in (as you note) a very specialized area. In an area that is under-represented in Wikipedia (relevant to systematic bias), after the late Stanley Biber, Dr. Meltzer is probably the most notable SRS surgeon. He is certainly the most prolific in the US. In deleting this article, we sharply decrease Wikipedia's value in being a comprehensive source of knowledge in this area. Unless, of course, the area of GLBT related articles (and in particular transgender-related articles) is, in itself, not worthy of encyclopedic inclusion. Please don't interpret that as a Strawman because I'm not contending that anyone here is arguing that. Rather, I want to emphasize how relevant the Dr. Meltzer article is to Wikipedia's desire to overcome systematic bias and be a free source of knowledge to all--in all areas of encyclopedic merit. Agne 18:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I would disagree with your rationale somewhat. If we're to catalog contemporary or historic physicians, I think there must be some threshold as to someone's notability. In medicine you've got to assess their historic signifigance in the field, academic achievment (did they publish extensively or produce influential sentinal papers), professional status (were they leaders in their field) , and consider other ways for which they've gained noteriety. Dr. Meltzer is clearly not going to meet at least the first three of those milestones if you poll other surgeons I'd argue. A "comprehensive" source would certainly contain entries on transgender issues, but featuring a successful surgeon who performs the operation but is otherwise lacking in historic/professional stature is diluting things too much I submit. Again, it pains me to argue against inclusion of a physician someone has felt enough about to profile and this isn't a slight against Dr. Meltzer. Droliver 01:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
You missed my point entirely, sir. The problem with your rationale above centres around the "otherwise lacking" and "if you poll other surgeons". This is not peer-reviewed, firstly. Secondly, Dr. Meltzer is at the top of his specialised field and is thus notable. Thirdly, when I started the article, it was not that I "felt enough about" the subject, rather that WP was incomplete without mention of Dr. Meltzer for all the reasons I have previously stated. - Alison✍ 03:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I would concur with Ali. His stature among his peers is only relevant in the regard (in respects to notability) of whether or not he is viewed as an expert in his field. I would think a Biologist specializing in elements of Creationism is not highly noted for "historic/professional stature" among other biologists, however if those biologist concede that he is the "expert creationist" in their field then he has notability in his field for the benefit of a wikipedia. Remember, wikipedia is geared towards the reader and those who will be moved to want to research and look up such information in an encyclopedia. There are far more people interested in who is the expert of SRS surgery then in "who do the plastic surgeons regard highly among their peers". Agne 04:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think this is someone that in a non-notable (see WP:Bio). Wikipedia doesn't have the bounds of a normal encyclopedia-- but at the same time I don't think it should be the place to look-up super-specialized surgeons that may be well-known in their super-specialized field. Sexual reassignment, I think, borders on non-notable (WP:Notable). Why write a bio on someone in a field that barely makes it on the radar? I think this article pales in comparison to Gary K. Michelson --even though it is written a lot better. Also, I think Meltzer pales in comparison to say Stuart W Jamieson -- another surgeon that does a slightly less obscure surgery (pulmonary thromboendarterectomy) and doesn't have a WP entry. Nephron  T|C 03:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you want to contend that Sexual reassignment is non-notable then your delete vote would be supported by that contention. However, I think you are mistaking in that regard. Compared to your pulmonary thromboendarterectomy, "sexual reassignment" -wikipedia gets 101,000 ghits. "Pulmonary thromboendarterectomy" -wikipedia gets 30,200. In Google news, "pulmonary thromboendarterectomy" gets 0 hits. "Sexual reassignment" gets 58. This minor comparison also doesn't take into consideration that often "sexual reassignment" is shorthanded to "SRS" or "GRS". Agne 04:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Your point about Google is mute. If you search for anything related to sex-- it will give you more hits. Some would say the internet was invented for porn. If you're talking medical literature-- the situation is the reverse. A search on PubMed for "pulmonary thromboendarterectomy" yields 202 hits versus for 104 "sexual reassignment".
Any case, if "...only patients with symptomatic acute pulmonary emboli are counted, approximately 2500 individuals would progress to chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension in the United States each year." [15] We're talking the same order (of magnitude) here. It is like breast cancer and prostate cancer-- they kill about the same number per year... but you're more likely to find info on breast cancer[16] than prostate cancer [17] 55 million vs. 19 million hits. Nephron  T|C 04:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
First, I will note that my search was done in "quotes" which meant the results were specific to the type of surgery looking for--not just random sex stuff. Secondly, take a step back for a moment and think what is more likely to be searched for on Wikipedia. An article on SRS or Pulmonary thromboendarterectomy? Conversely, would an article on the most notable SRS surgeon or most notable Pulmonary thromboendarterectomy surgeon get the most interest by readers and editors? Agne 04:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
My point was that SRS is a rare bird and that a Google search is not necessarily a good representation. Any case, I see the cruft (WP:CRUFT) will likely stay-- it seems WP has critical mass of SRS enthusiasts. It's just like how the inventor of Neuticles got their own article. I suppose it could be said that one person's cruft is another person's gemstone... and admitedly I've probably written more than my share of medicinecruft articles... so I'll leave it at that. Nephron  T|C 07:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Folks, that's "sex reassignment" (sexual means something quite different to sex). Google responds with 230,000 hits for that, and goognews gets 130, which is far more representative. - Alison✍ 04:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Doh! You're right. Thanks for catching my gaffe and your right. That is a far more compelling representation. Agne 22:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. In my opinion, the only medical procedure more controversial than sex reassignment is abortion. With how much various groups that are a part of the religious right get riled up by the concept of SRS, the surgery is, in my mind more notable than a "Pulmonary thromboendarterectomy" or most other procedures. Given the controversial nature of the operation, I feel that the surgeon that appears responsible for around 50% of the surgeries is notable enough for inclusion. --- The Bethling(Talk) 05:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please the person is notable and well established in his feild plus many book references Yuckfoo 21:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per my esteemed colleagues above. --Myles Long 21:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep... I personally know one patient who flew 1200 miles for surgery by this guy.  ALKIVAR™ 03:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was author requested deletion. alphaChimp(talk) 03:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Penispenispenis

An article about a non-notable internet trolling phenomenon. Somehow, I doubt it's going to serve as anything other than trollbait. Of course, it also fails WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:WEB. alphaChimp(talk) 02:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete This definitely does not qualify for an article. Delete it. -- P.B. Pilhet 02:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. We had it happen here and it wound up on BJAODN. Well-written and formatted, though. I hope this user stays around. - Lucky 6.9 02:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 02:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete basically serves no purpose other than to glorify BS that bored teenagers do while wasting time online. — NMChico24 03:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I was just goofing around a little. You're right that this doesn't really qualify as an article lol.--NoobGuy55 03:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    Comment. Although this technically makes it an author request (CSD A1, I believe), should we let this AfD run its course to permanently prevent creation of this article (future creations would be CSD G4)? alphaChimp(talk) 03:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    Comment Isn't this CSD G7? "speedy request by only editor"? Your call. Bobo. 03:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    Comment. Woops, you're right. alphaChimp(talk) 03:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    Comment. If I don't delete it, another admin will. alphaChimp(talk) 03:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect all band members to band page. (Although from perusing the articles I suspect there is nothing to merge.) --- Deville (Talk) 15:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PJ DeCicco

Non-notable by himself. Band he is in is barely notable -Nv8200p talk 02:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge into the barely notable band. Unless notability of the band is better established, I believe that article runs the risk of a future AfD as well. ju66l3r 03:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. I'll nominate his cousin for deletion as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Authalic (talk • contribs) .
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was fly away, mistakenly created article! Grandmasterka 08:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional characters who can fly

This page is a list that was started accidentally as an article instead of a category. As far as I can tell, it's been completely transferred to Category:Fictional characters who can fly, and isn't needed anymore. HKMarks 02:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete This article is made redundant by the category of the same name. Could maybe be speedy deleted as a "non-controversial maintenance task." --IslaySolomon 03:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Categorize and delete. I'm all for lists, but this one has no additional value over a category. No red links, no non-alphabetic ordering, no annotations. - Mgm|(talk) 09:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep categories can't replace lists. Please see WP:LIST if you're unclear on this point. If the list has no encyclopaedic value, the category should be deleted as well, since they cannot be redundant. WilyD 13:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, it was created by a new user who thought they were creating a category.(old revision) It contains no additional annotations, and is ordered just like a category. If it had any redlinks or anything I'd agree, but... --HKMarks 14:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • YOu could probly db-author then - but I won't argue to delete encyclopaedic content just because made in error - it's not fruit of the forbidden tree or anything. WilyD 16:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I think it should be deleted... but if it isn't we can just rename it to "List of fictional characters who can fly," hope someone decides to maintain it, and hope it doesn't turn into listcruft and/or stub bait. : P -HKMarks 19:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination. Orsini 19:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. Clay4president 02:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was MERGE to American Indoor Soccer League. Herostratus 06:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canton Crusaders

Non-notable, never existed THB 21:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion, so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
bainer (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. alphaChimp(talk) 01:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arctic metal

Contested prod; non notable term, lack of content, unsourced. IronChris | (talk) 03:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. This term has more to do with a home improvement store in Brooklyn than it does the music world. Non-notable...and the rest of the nomination as well. ju66l3r 03:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another nn interpretive variation of metal. Rockpocket 07:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non-notable term. Prolog 08:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable term -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 17:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Yamaguchi先生 23:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. alphaChimp(talk) 01:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Jazz Fusion

No opinion on the subject, but this is a personal essay in a totally unencylopedic tone. Opabinia regalis 04:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Reads like a magazine article. Not encyclopaedic. ---Charles 04:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, as Wikipedia is not for essays. SM247My Talk 06:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. Rockpocket 07:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.UberCryxic 22:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. per above. —dima/s-ko/ 03:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Yamaguchi先生 23:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. The raw vote total is 6-3 Delete. One of the Keeps is Weak. So the numbers say Delete. As to arguments, not meeting WP:BIO is a strong argument if true. My analysis is that it is true. WP:BIO asks for actors to have appeared in "well-known films" and so forth. Regardless of its artistic merit, Brand Upon The Brain! is an indepentt 90-minute black-and-white silent that has, at least not yet, attained the status of "well-known" as far as I can determine. I'm not seeing a counter-argument to overcome the failure to meet WP:BIO. So with both numbers and argument favoring Delete, I so close. Herostratus 09:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Katherine E. Scharhon

Non-notable person; doesn't come close to meeting WP:BIO. Valrith 04:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep based on IMDB entry. Encise 05:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Encise
  • Delete, seventh-listed actress on one film-festival indie entrant (itself barely notable). Get that lead part and come back to us. --Dhartung | Talk 05:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The cast listing is purely alphabetical, so it seems impossible to determine how big the part is, but, as you say, the film itself is of pretty marginal notability. Fan-1967 14:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete IMDb entry does not make somebody worthy of encyclopaediuc attention per se. SM247My Talk 06:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete one minor role is not enough to pass acting bio guidelines. - Mgm|(talk) 09:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This person is non-notable. --RMHED 12:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepComment: It was my understanding that the cast links were part of the article stub. (I apologize if that’s not the case. I just thought Wikipedia wouldn’t want “dead links” if they could help it.) I also think there is a misunderstanding as to what the film is or who plays what. When the stub was created random people from the film were listed in alphabetical order. The film is new, but I also thought Wikipedia prided itself on keeping up to the moment and being ever-changing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.185.104.214 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepAnother Comment: I have in fact seen this film, and can say that this person is in fact a lead role. I am disappointed by people's inability to correctly analyze article information before making snap judgment posts. It saddens me that people jump to the worst before actually reviewing the true information. This article and its information deals with independent film/a Canadian film maker/and film history. If in fact independent film/film festival films, or film history, does no interest you - or you don't know a geat deal about it, I wonder if perhaps you should refrain from posting. Just because information does not fit into what you personally are interested in, or does not show up on YOUR radar, does not in fact mean it should be "chucked out". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.185.104.214 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article has been expanded from its previous version. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - does not yet meet WP:BIO. BlueValour 21:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hilltop computing, Hilltop Computing (redirect)

Notability/importance in question. Basically an ad for a non-notable company. ghits: [18] — NMChico24 04:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete NN company, fails WP:CORP. TJ Spyke 04:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ---Charles 04:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. SM247My Talk 06:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: we agree that this article is not appropriate. We apologize for any inconvenience! ---HilltopComputing
  • Delete. per above. —dima/s-ko/ 03:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. alphaChimp(talk) 01:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James L. Barr

Non-notable biography article, fails WP:BIO. Only hint of notability in the article is his company. Searches on the company return nothing applicable: "James L. Barr Consulting": [19]
"James Barr Consulting": [20]
And, for what it's worth, the article appears to vanity. --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete:The article has a nice pic, but it's still a failure of WP:BIO. --Hetar 04:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - judging from the comment that the author placed on this page before the first deletion reason was placed, it's definitely vanity. I didn't see any indication that this gentleman met the bio guidelines before placing the notability tag on the page. To the author: please read the above guidelines, and the verifiability requirements, which give an indication of why the article has been nominated. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Encise 05:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Encise
  • Delete per nom. SM247My Talk 06:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable, vanity. BTLizard 09:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vain vanity in vain. Danny Lilithborne 18:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Yamaguchi先生 23:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Punkmorten 18:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tête-bêche

dictionary def Darkfred Talk to me 04:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • The article would be useful on wictionary, so I will not vote delete, perhaps my nomination was too premature. --Darkfred Talk to me 05:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • This is not a dictionary article about a word. It is an encyclopaedia article about a concept in philately, i.e. a particular pairing of stamps. We delete articles on concepts if they are perpetual stubs that cannot be expanded (because no information from sources beyond the stub content actually exists), although in some cases article merger is the better solution. The obvious target for such a merger here would be the as-yet-unwritten article on postage stamp printing, which would explain for starters how cliche replacement can result in tête-bêche pairs. Uncle G 11:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
      • As per the comments above and below feel free to WP:SNOWBALL this as keep. I withdraw my nomination. --Darkfred Talk to me 14:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep The information here goes beyond a dicdef I think and is more conceptual - it is a definition in a particular context. Perhaps merge into philately. SM247My Talk 06:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This clearly goes beyond a dic def. - Mgm|(talk) 09:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per MacGyverMagic. --MaNeMeBasat 14:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A while

dict def, very common phrase Darkfred Talk to me 04:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete Wiktionary entry on 'while' is already adequate. SM247My Talk 06:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete (see below). Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary. (please tell the creator). I will slap anyone who dares to link to this in the article space with a wet fish. - Mgm|(talk) 09:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually... speedy delete. It already exists on another project and it's clear no encyclopedia article can be written on the subject. - Mgm|(talk) 09:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete absolutely a dicdef. I'd like to see it speedied but I'm not sure which criteria would allow for that. Cool3 19:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Year 10,000 problem

Year 10,000 problem was nominated for deletion on 2004-11-09. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Year 10,000 problem.

This article is all original research. The only sources on this are a few joke articles which were not written by reliable sources anyway. Fails Wikipedia:Verifiability, and probably Wikipedia is not a crystal ball as well. Xyzzyplugh 05:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete It's Original Research and bad original research at that. Most of the article's just wrong. Fan-1967 05:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article itself says: This may not be a problem in the year 10,000, as it is unlikely that any of the technology or software in use today will still be active at that time. I'd go even further. I doubt any computers in operation today will even exist then. It may deserve a merge to the Y2K problem where it was originally mentioned, but it certainly doesn't deserve its own article. - Mgm|(talk) 09:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Mgm (except for the part where s/he proposes the IMHO unnecessary merge). -- NORTH talk 10:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - this is a legitimate topic that has had some media exposure. Someone's going to type in "Year 10,000 problem" and expect to see something. My only concern is the use of a comma; there's no need for a separator. --AlexWCovington (talk) 10:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per User:Uncle G's recent addition of existing code which now is failing. (Would have been keep, otherwise, as people would expect to see an article on the Y10K problem.) And the comma has been discussed. I agree it shouldn't be there, and there was agreement the first time, but not the second time after I improperly reverted a move. You may bring it up again at WP:RM, if you wish. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep sourced, encyclopaedic - article is in obvious need of cleanup, but that's not an AfD issue. WilyD 13:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As the nominator of this, I think that, given the sources Uncle G has found, merging this with Year 2000 problem would be reasonable. The majority of this article is still about the Y2k problem, with basically one paragraph which is actually about the "year 10,000" problem. As Uncle G's source on this also mentions the possibility of a year 100,000 problem, and as the creation of Year 100,000 problem is therefore possible but undesirable, merging seems the best course to me. --Xyzzyplugh 13:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comments Unless I missed something, the sources are: (1) a 1998 public opinion poll about Y2K, with a footnote at the very end about the alleged Year 10,000 problem, but no references or sources to support its existence; (2) An April Fool's day post about the problem (3) An essay that there might be such a thing (with no technical description of an actual issue), so we better look at it; (4) A fanciful blog posting from the year 9998 (still with no technical description of an actual issue); (5) A posting that actually invites responses to a humor page; (6) Another fanciful blog entry, this one purportedly from 9996 (still no technical description of the problem).

      All modern computer systems store dates as a number of days since January 1, 1900. There may conceivably be an issue in 2079, when that number passes 65,536, the number which can be stored in one 16-bit word of computer memory. The only verified issue about year 10,000 is that Excel formatting routines can't handle displaying the value. That's it. Fan-1967 14:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

      • All modern computer systems store dates as a number of days since January 1, 1900. — If that's the premise that you based your earlier "Most of the article's just wrong." comment upon, then we have articles on time_t, Unix time, and Time (computing) that you should read. ☺ Uncle G 14:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
        • True, there are other time storage formats. None of them have an issue with the year 10,000, because none are storing the year as decimal text. Fan-1967 14:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
      • There are now systems that use ISO date format (the one used at the top of this discussion) internally, and you can bet that some of them assume a 4-digit year. Gazpacho 01:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep has sources and examples, discusses a notable computing phenomenon. - CNichols 15:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and do not recreate this crystal ball until the year 9990. --DrTorstenHenning 16:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is clear crystal balling folks. First off, does anyone actually believe that current software/hardware is going to be used in the year 10,000? Common sense says, No, no one will be using them in 7990 years. That said with how fast computer technology is evolving, this is fairly a null pointed article. As someone who derives a paycheck from the industry, this is complete and utter non-sense --Brian (How am I doing?) 18:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. There's no reason to believe that the epoch will still be in use, much less the systems. Gazpacho 19:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. -AMK152 03:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per tha above: OR, crystal balling, lack of respectable sources. Sandstein 05:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There is another aspect of the phrase 'Year 10,000 Problem' that is not in this article, but could be. We use this phrase in our software development group and I have heard others use it in others groups with an ironic twist. It describes a problem that would require a systematic examination and overhaul of all the code to address a theortical problem whose real significance approaches zero. "That's a Year 10,000 kind of problem--let's leave it for my successor." We also have occasionally used this rather non-ironically to describe in a generic sense any kind of problem that would require large scale code examination for a payoff, that while perhaps important, does not produce new features and is not very sexy. Obviously this by itself would not be the basis for inclusion in the article. But if my description of the phrase had wider currancy and was verifiable, it would provide a non-crystal ball componant for the article that would be useful. Jdclevenger 13:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There's the problem: "if my description of the phrase had wider currancy and was verifiable..." Doesn't seem that it is. Fan-1967 13:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete complete and utter nonsense. Plus the problem would actually occur in the year 65536, as years are now most often stored in 16bit's. --Darkfred Talk to me 16:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Absolute rubbish. We might as well have an article on the Year 100,000 problem as well. - Hahnchen 15:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - The Y2K problem turned out to be science-fiction as well, so even if this "problem" turns out to be nonsense, there should still be some evidence on the sort of nonsense it was. Furthermore, please note that i ended up reading about this issue after some research on "The Long Now" project which should be deleted as well if we do decide that such long-term thoughts are none of our business. -— Eyeprotocol (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete per nomination. This is a non-problematic. The only problematic part is very addequately dealt with in the Y2K problem, which is already past and well documented. The remaining hypotheses and theorisations are so crystal ball (ie it won't happen for another 8,000 years) that it falls off the scale of WP:NOT; 2079 is still 73 years away. Ohconfucius 09:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Seems worth having per the discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and iron out any original research issues (the article does contain some referential notation). Yamaguchi先生 22:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - it's well written, it mentions the inherent humor value, and balances it with the real issues, which may not be catastrophic, but do exist. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. alphaChimp(talk) 01:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Localization issues in Star Wars

Obscure Star Wars trivia regarding the minutiae of translations of Star Wars in various scandinavian languages, does not justify a wiki entry Artw 05:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete Wikipedia is not the place - I doubt Wookipedia would want it either. SM247My Talk 06:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm actually quite sure Wookiepedia would like this, but it doesn't belong here. A Train take the 14:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as either fancruft or original research in linguistics. --DrTorstenHenning 16:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per all above. Orsini 19:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Few notes here:

  • The Article was not yet finished
  • I was going to make a topic on SW's discussion page about adding more info on it.
  • This was not intended to compose only of obscure trivia.
  • Finnish is not a Scandinavian language.
  • This is not original research, it's all confirmed fact.
  • I was intending on adding similar information regarding localizations in other countries

I couldn't open wookipedia, but I'll try it on IE and see if I can make an improvement. -TheHande 10:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

    • Wookieepedia was misspelled in the above link. It's here if you want to see it. -LtNOWIS 20:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. alphaChimp(talk) 01:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cora Galenti

Likely fails WP:BIO, Google renders 33 results. Plain translation from a journal article. Reads like an advertisement. Húsönd 05:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete not encyclopaedic, a mere journal article translation. SM247My Talk 06:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Daniel.Bryant 08:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per SM247. --MaNeMeBasat 14:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. alphaChimp(talk) 01:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defeatschool

[Check Google hits] Non-notable website, fails WP:WEB. --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Doesn't register at all on alexa or google. Godaddy.com, where the domain was registered, turns up that the domain has existed since September 7, a whole week. (A white pages search appears to find that the site owners are running it out of their home.) Wikipedia is not for promoting new, unknown ventures. Fan-1967 05:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Defeatarticle per nom and above, painfully non-notable. SM247My Talk 06:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete hard to establish notability for a website in seven days Nigel (Talk) 12:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This one speaks for itself. WP:WEB anyone? — NMChico24 20:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleteschool - NN site, fails WP:WEB Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 23:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was move to Wikipedia:WikipediaFS. Mangojuicetalk 16:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikipediaFS

Non notable Wikipediacruft. 909 Ghits. Rory096 05:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: It is self-referential to boot. Though the tool could use a mention on some list of wikipedia tools(wherever that would be located). --Mitaphane talk 07:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
That would be WP:TOOLS. - Mgm|(talk) 09:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikipedia:WikipediaFS Computerjoe's talk 15:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Move per Computerjoe. Danny Lilithborne 18:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. not really self-referential, but not notable either. I hope it doesn't use write-through caching. Gazpacho 19:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Move per Computerjoe. Hołek ҉ 12:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Move per everybody and their brother. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - no independent reviews to establish that it works well. BlueValour 22:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mangojuicetalk 16:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mythic Russia

This appears to be a non-notable game, as far as I can tell. It's self=described as a "standalone" so that seems to influence its impact. I've prodded it twice (one time it was seconded), and the prods have been removed without improvement and without discussion. I'm bringing it to the community for further input. It is unsourced/uncited, so my conclusion is Delete. Akradecki 05:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Jusjih 07:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 03:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. It seems to be widely discussed on the Web: 4000 Google hits for "Mythic Russia" HeroQuest. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, I'm the author, so I'm biased (obviously I'd hope it stays but equally accept the will of the wiki); the only comment I would make is that use if the word 'standalone' is intended simply to note that this is not just a supplement for an existing game, but a game in its own right, albeit using the HeroQuest game engine under license. --Mark Galeotti 14:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for now. It is lacking any independent reviews. I have no problem with it coming back if it proves a success and that can be documented. BlueValour 22:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Fairly notable recent release in the RPG community by a notable RPG author, and the first game apart from HeroQuest to use the HQ system. And incidentally, you shouldn't have prodded it twice. Once a prod has been removed it shouldn't be restored, as clearly stated in WP:PROD. -- Necrothesp 01:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted by Lucky 6.9 under CSD G4. MER-C 08:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Western Double Standards and the Kurds

Short essay-type article. WP:NOT a soapbox. Article title itself is a serious WP:NPOV problem. However, as there are actually sources here (seemingly in short supply with many new articles), I'm open to the possibility of a merge & delete (not merge & redirect) with a serious POV tone-down, if an appropriate article can be determined (perhaps Kurdish people?) --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I agree -- if the sources are good, they should be incorporated into the appropriate articles (subject(s) of the criticism, article(s) about Kurds, and such). Beyond that, this particular page sounds more like a personal essay than an article. Better to move the content elsewhere, since it's probably good stuff. Luna Santin 05:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US Double Standards and the Kurds. This has been discussed before... --Cat out 06:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mangojuicetalk 04:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gynaika

Non-notable Greek language magazine/ad/promo for Nea Aktina A.E (deprodded with no good reason) ArmadilloFromHell 06:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This magazine is extremely well-known and important to Greek culture. How are culture defining events supposed to be reported for counties that do not have everything posted on the internet such as Greece? As any Greek of the significance of Gynaika Magazine and I assure you he/she will be able to write the same article. YellowSubmarine 06:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps in http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9A%CF%8D%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%B1_%CE%A3%CE%B5%CE%BB%CE%AF%CE%B4%CE%B1 --ArmadilloFromHell 06:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Gynaika Magazine cannot be found in the Greek Version of Wikipedia. Moreover, the first women's magazine should not be confined to only the knowledge of Greek speakers. YellowSubmarine 07:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep per TruthbringerToronto. - Mgm|(talk) 08:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I've done some formatting. - Mgm|(talk) 09:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - seems notable enough. BlueValour 22:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: may be notable, but where's the proof? This article fails WP:V. --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Natalie Russell

Her murder did make major news at the time, but Wikipedia is not a memorial and I don't think this stub would be expanded much further with encyclopedic information. I was going to redirect to Paul Denyer but out of respect for the victim decided against it. -- Longhair 06:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Longhair 06:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions --- Longhair 06:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. SM247My Talk 06:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.--Jusjih 07:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see how it would respect the victim. Besides, we should be thinking about the encyclopedia and people putting here name in the search engine would be looking for him, but he'd show up in the text search anyway. - Mgm|(talk) 08:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Computerjoe's talk 15:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Seems unlikely to be expanded beyond stub. Cnwb 04:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Unlikely that the article will expand beyond it's current contents anyway. Lankiveil 11:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC).
  • Comment, Paul Denyer and the Frankston Murders are a well known criminal case in Australian law as well as being an integral part of Victorian history. The victims names are encyclopedic as future research, analysis or historic assessment may substantiate. The stub wasn't created as a memorial, but if an article is not warranted may I suggest its inclusion as a section within the main Denyer article? Encise 02:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Encise
Comment: Natalie Russell makes mention in the first paragraph of Denyer's article. If you can expand on information there, go ahead. Be sure to provide reliable sources for your contributions. -- Longhair 03:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Enough with the mass nominations. The next trainwreck I see like this will be speedily kept. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kim Hunt

I am nominating a series of biographical articles. The articles are Million Dollar Winners in Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. While their achievements are notable in the scope of the show, in scope of WP:BIO they are not. Since this is an important topic for the show, I have created a List of top winners in Who Wants to Be a Millionaire and copied the information in each article I've listed for deletion. If this nomination fails, then I request the removal of List of top winners in Who Wants to Be a Millionaire as it will be redundant. Mitaphane talk 07:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The other articles are:

Delete, per nom, unless one does something exceptional in the next few days. Jefffire 08:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep/Comment. I don't think a mass nomination is appropriate because not all of these persons are on the same footing. In particular, it seems to me that Carpenter achieved bona fide renown and in addition was involved in more than one event likely covered by the press. My keep applies to Carpenter's article. In addition, I'd like to comment that I'm not sure I see how a list of non-notable people would be worthy of an article. If these articles are deleted, the newly created list article should also be deleted. Finally, I think the tactic being employed here is ill-advised and against the spirit of AfD. It creates a de facto referendum on whether content should be presented in one form or another instead of focusing debate on the suitability of content for this encyclopedia. AfD should be about content, not form. Erechtheus 08:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (nominate only the non-notables of the list). A spot check also produces Nancy Christy was the first woman (May 8, 2003) to win the top ($1,000,000) prize on the United States game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. You can say what you want, but to be the first woman to do something, is notable (even if it's a bloody game show) I don't think a mass nomination is in order here either. There's at least two people in this list who deserve an article in my view and if someone doesn't deserve their own article, it doesn't neccesarily mean a list of WWTBAM winners is not notable. This needs a different approach. - Mgm|(talk) 08:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep all. While Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate source of information, neither is it a paper encyclopedia. Major winners of gameshows should be notable enough for inclusion. Brisvegas 09:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC) After mulling over some more, I figure that since the entries would still be listed, it makes no major diifference. Changed vote to neutral.

  • Keep the Carpenter page at least, Listify the others. Carpenter's WWTBAM victory was very notable in it's own right, (citing press coverage.) The other winners may be notable enough to list, but not on their own page in my opinion. AfD Precedent says spelling bee winners et. al. are considered notable. It should be noted that Carpenter's first AfD nomination resulted in a No Consensus. --Roninbk 12:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Each article should have their notability judged individually. For example, Bob House is not notable for anything except winning on the show, while Kevin Olmstead is notable not only for winning the show, but for the fact for a long period he held the record for the highest winnings on a game show, and is also a founder of National Academic Quiz Tournaments.--Nonpareility 14:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I vote keep for all (as independant articles) with varying levels of conviction. Strong keep for Carpenter, as he was a genuine celebrity for a few months; keep Olmstead, for reasons listed above; keep Cullen due to his success on multiple game shows (he was also part of Jeopardy's Ultimate Tournament of Champions); weak keep for all the rest. Who Wants to be a Millionaire was really popular in its prime, and it has always had a good sense of its own history (compared to shows like Wheel of Fortune, which never talk about their past contestants). I think we can spare some space for every million-dollar winner. Zagalejo 14:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete]Their 15 minutes of fame are over unless the TV exposure led to some notable carrer in movies, TV, or whatever which itself makes them notable. Edison 01:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I have to agree that a mass nomination is not appropriate here. There is no question to me that Carpenter (since he was the first winner) and Olmstead (since he held a game show record for a few years) should have their own pages. While I'm not sure that each and every winner should have their own page, I do think every page should be decided individually.--Jatterb 17:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I also agree mass nomination is inappropriate, and Carpenter and Olmstead should definitely be kept, with the others weakly kept. (Many of the articles include substantial information on the million-dollar question, which, in my view, is borderline encyclopedic.) I did suggest redirection for non-notable people (or, I should have implied, for biographies that don't state much more than what they are notable for) in the talk page for Kim Hunt. Hunt could have been redirected to Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (US game show) if article content was an issue. I recently redirected David Korotkin, the first contestant of the US Millionaire (which I now brought up in WP:RFD), and I also redirected Robert Brydges to the UK version of Millioniare. Tinlinkin 08:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of top winners in Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, if not already complete there. --FlyingPenguins 02:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all. Millionaire isn't like the other game shows, and as long as we don't start expanding to "500k winners," I think this will be fine. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 5. SoLando (Talk) 14:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coryn Woitel

The subject was the 6th participant to be eliminated in season 5 of ANTM,and does not appear to have had any high-profile activity since the show. 119 unique out of about 1,410 Ghits, most of which imdb, antm, blogs etc. Ohconfucius 07:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom--Jusjih 07:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Reality TV cruft. MER-C 08:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to ANTM as we usually do with tv show contestants who do not deserve their own article. - Mgm|(talk) 08:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to ANTM There is no here, here. Fans of the show who would come to wikipedia to find out more information would be sorely disappointed. I have argued strongly in other AfD debates for keeping separate articles on particpants in certain kinds of Reality Shows. But that support is qualified by the requirement that someone take the time to actually produce an informative article. That minimum requirement has not been met here. Jdclevenger 00:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rami_Okasha

Appear to be an entirely non-notable person. Certainly not encyclodedia material. Most of what is written is unverified as well Jefffire 07:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 08:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete come back if he wins the election. It is tempting to keep articles like this on a 'what's the harm' reasoning. However, we have too many lesser known biographies, they are badly partolled and often a target of libels and other damaging crap. --Doc 09:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not at present notable. Banff and Buchan is solid Scot Nat and was not even remotely winnable for Labour in 2005. Aberdeen South is Lib Dem and doesn't look much more hopeful. As for the rest of the article, so what? BTLizard 10:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable in the Wiki sense. Springnuts 14:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. alphaChimp(talk) 01:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purefect Desktop

does not meet req of wp:soft. not notable. 350 google hits Sleepyhead 08:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as spam. MER-C 08:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Yet another web-based desktop indistinguishable form any other web based desktop. Artw 18:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete spammy. Danny Lilithborne 18:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.UberCryxic 22:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete they have an IDE which other WebOSes don't have. Greenminz 15:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The above undelete "vote" is from the creator of the article. Danny Lilithborne 21:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mangojuicetalk 04:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of films with similar plots

Seems to be original research. Also, it doesn't define how similar the plots have to be in order to be included in the list. Do similar plots only need similar characters? Similar themes? Similar inspirations? Similar locations? Or do they need all four?--TBCTaLk?!? 08:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete (Neutral; see below). This is more something that should be in the film entries themselves. This list is not even restricted to a specific plot. Any plot similar to another will do. More focussed lists like List of animated films about animals (to include Madagascar, The Wild, Shark Tale, AntZ, A Bug's Life and Finding Nemo) for example would work much better. The lack of focus means it's a indiscriminate collection of facts, which WP is not. - Mgm|(talk) 08:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It needs work but doesn`t deserve deletion.Andycjp 15th Sept 2006
  • Delete It's a pretty interesting collection of trivia, but it is WP:OR and I think it also qualifies as an "unmaintainable list." The criteria is so vague, we could probably put nearly every movie ever made on it, if we sat down and thought about it. It lists two films about Wyatt Earp as having similar plots, but you could say that about any two biographical movies about the same person. Given the loose criteria, why not include the various film versions of Romeo and Juliet -- and others based on them (ie. West side Story)? As well as the hundreds of other films based on Shakespeare, mythology, the Bible? They would certainly qualify as "having a similar plot." And that way lies madness...or a fun party game. But not an encyclopedia article. Dina 12:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If the list can be restricted to the phenomenon Uncle G is talking about I have no problems with it, but it should be renamed at the very least. Either to Copycat movie (and describe the whole thing instead of just giving examples) or list of copycat movies. - Mgm|(talk) 17:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewrite and move to List of copycat movies per Mgm. Danny Lilithborne 18:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewrite and move to List of copycat movies per Mgm. Seems more clear-cut. --Dynamite Eleven 19:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unmaintainable, unencyclopedic. If such a information is important it belongs to the article. Pavel Vozenilek 22:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but add citations in the form of links to reviews. --Ellissound 23:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, add cites. Calwatch 07:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's a fascinating subject. Squallypukkerdum 10:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (in some form -- is there a Wiki site for just lists?) I came here this morning specifically looking to see if someone had made such a list. I found it by lookin up Antz. I view it as interesting trivia, and I don't care how accurate or consistent it is, because I can look at the short descriptions and decide for myself. danwWiki 18:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • neutral completely unmaintainable and completely OR. Yet I can't resort to the idea of deleting this fun trivia. I wish we could move all this out of the encyclopedia and into WikiTrivia or something. Pascal.Tesson 20:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, and move per above. -- Wikipedical 04:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep; many of the films listed here are very subjective (Finding Nemo and Shark Tale are almost completely different, bar both being about fish). Would only support keeping with cites from reputable reviewers. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 18:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Agree that it may be original research, but in most cases the films are obviously related. "Released within a close period of time" basically says it all here. I was googling for this list (for the Pixar copycats in particular) and finally found it here. --71.231.203.169 03:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • But how close is a "close period of time"? A few months? A year? Two years?--TBCTaLk?!? 04:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. The information is quite fascinating. And some of the films cannot be called original research. Every critic drew harsh comparison from the Wild to Madagascar, the same can be said for Antz and A Bug's Life. Calicore 04:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article should be renamed "List of Copycat Films" and citations should be given. Naufana 19:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, delete, a million times delete. Original research and subjective in every way. —  MusicMaker 03:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Although it is an interesting list, it is definitely original research. -tcwd 01:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nice information that belongs on Wikipedia. The "no original research" nonsense gets another couple rounds to the brainpain. Scumbag 07:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This info is trivia, but many critics and articles bring up the topic when similar movies appear close together. Plus I like having it in one place to see how common it really is. I don't like the "List of films with similar plots" title because that can be applied to thousands of films, particularly remakes or variations. "List of Copycat Films" is much better and more accurate to the list being created. --Mtjaws 15:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Technically it's original research, but the information arguably holds some value for the interested reader.
  • Keep. This is not the most factual and encyclopedic page on Wikipedia, but it is much more interesting than, say, Brewster, Nebraska, and interesting should count for something. It is also probably the only such list on the entire internet, and to lose it would be a shame.

Amber388 14:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is a real "phenomenon" and noted by various sources both on the internet and in print/broadcast media. This is not OR, it's just not sourced very well. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This shiz is fo real - tru dat tru dat--Dante Alighieri
    • I'm sorry, what? Naufana : talk
    • I'm confused as well. The comment seems to have been added by an anon ip [21].--TBCTaLk?!? 07:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename - though perhaps List of "copycat" films with a comment that films that seem to be related. -- Beardo 08:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - the phenomenon of Hollywood, coincidentally or not, simultaneously producing two films with similar plots has been noted in the trade papers and elsewhere (there was an article in The Economist about it in 1999) and the article about this is both noteworthy and interesting.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 20:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of words

I asked about this on the Village Pump, and one person said it should be AFD'd, and the other thought this structure was helpful for navigation as described at Wikipedia:List guideline. I thought this article would be a good test case to see if these should be transwikied to Wiktionary. Others in Category:Lists of words may also be good candidates for transwiking. Beland 08:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • -ism, where the list of -isms link redirects to has a suffixes navigation template as do all the other articles in the series. This list provides no additional information not already included in the related articles and is in fact less complete than the template. The categories mentioned are not entirely relevant to the lists in question. Delete - Mgm|(talk) 08:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • In case this is kept at least rename to "list of lists of ..." Pavel Vozenilek 22:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Personally don't think the sub-lists are encyclopedic either, at least not by any definition of encyclopedia I have ever read. --Darkfred Talk to me 01:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete but deny test-case The presense of the 'sufix' template means a poorly linked to article listing sufixes is not needed. However this is a terrible test case for the catagory and the lists within. As already stated on the village pump, these are access/navigation articles. If you navigate through Lists of words to -logy, for example, you will then be presented with such things as Codicology, Palynology, Sociology and Philology - all good articles in their own right. In many respects it is as if the articles within were judged on name alone, and not on their actual contents and WP:LIST.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mangojuicetalk 16:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beyond Chron

Non-notable blog. Gets 123,000 Google hits -- only 120 of which are unique, which looks a might suspicuous. Calton | Talk 08:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 08:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)`
  • Wrong -- it has contributed greatly to the San Francisco political discourse, at least among insiders. It has broken various political stories. Randy Shaw is a very controversial figure in local SF politics, and his opinion is widely read and respected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulhogarth (talk • contribs) 19:22, 15 September 2006, Creator and (essentially) sole editor of the article.
  • Whether Randy Shaw is respected or reviled is completely irrelevant, as this is about the website "Beyond Chron", not him. And I fail to see the slightest sign that "it has contributed greatly to the San Francisco political discourse". Any proof? --Calton | Talk 23:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Beyond Chron first reported the story that Mayor Newsom's press secretary had bought an apartment where a tenant had been evicted -- which even the SF Chronicle had to later <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/04/10/BAG86I6JRP1.DTL">admit that this was newsworthy</a>. Also, when Joe O'Donoghue wrote his anti-Newsom poem at Beyond Chron that speculated that the Mayor was gay, the Board of Supervisors responded by <a href="http://www.sfweekly.com/Issues/2005-06-29/news/smith.html">censuring Joe O'Donoghue.</a>
  • It should also be noted that Beyond Chron has already been mentioned on Wikipedia's entry of the San Francisco Chronicle, which shows that it is a notable blog.

Delete and salt the earth with the ashes. Fails WP:WEB very badly. Not verifiable via search sites (google, yahoo, ask, msn, webcrawler). No media attention given (articals about the blog itself and not just the stories it has 'broken'. Full-length featured article. Just a sentance or mention in passing is not acceptable).

Web-specific content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

         * This criterion excludes
               o Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.
               o Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.
         * This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.

Nothing shows this is the case for this blog site.

2. The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.

Nothing that I could find.

3. 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.

Nope, can't say this is true either.

The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section. 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.

Well, it fails WP:WEB... --Brian (How am I doing?) 20:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Note that the BBC article used the term, it wasn't about the term (see WP:NEO). Mangojuicetalk 16:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censuswhack

Neologism taken from a message board. Very very few Google hits. Woohookitty(meow) 08:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Were it not for the BBC article, I'd agree with nom. Press coverage tends to establish notability --Roninbk 12:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism. Every data source or web site with search functionality can become the subject of a whack, but this is not worth an extra article. --DrTorstenHenning 16:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the press writes about neologisms sometimes, that doesn't make them not neologisms. Recury 19:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not as notable as Googlewhacking, but still worth noting.

Category:Greek magazines —The preceding unsigned comment was added by YechielMan (talk • contribs) .

  • Delete - simply not widely used enough to merit an article. BlueValour 23:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. alphaChimp(talk) 01:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pokelives

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 09:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. -- TexMurphy 09:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. BTLizard 10:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 11:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 18:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 03:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Shinhan 17:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete there is not even an assertion of notability. Shinhan 17:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Wow, this is surely something, but whatever it is, it's certainly not an encyclopedia article. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per WP:SNOWBALL -- Ned Scott 00:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GFDLvio

This seems like a hoax. There are only around 73 Google hits, and most of them seemed to have originated from Wikipedia. --Ixfd64 09:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Self-referential and author failed to include a verb in the last two sentences. - Mgm|(talk) 10:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not a hoax. It's original research. An editor made up a word on Wikiquote, and another editor decided to document it on Wikipedia, mis-using Wikipedia as a publisher of first instance. Wikipedia is not for things made up at Wikiquote one day. Delete. Uncle G 10:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep or Merge to Copyright infringement--Xiaon 11:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Can you tell us why you believe this is a speedy keep candidate, and/or why it should be kept or merged? In my opinion, this should be deleted per Uncle G. Srose (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NFT. PJM 12:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Uncle G. Danny Lilithborne 18:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Hołek ҉ 12:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Cedars 14:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Yamaguchi先生 22:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Amy Rose. Mangojuicetalk 16:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jennifer Douillard

Redirect to Amy Rose - Only voiced Amy Rose for a few years, no information is known of this person beyond that and that she was replaced by Lisa Ortiz FlareNUKE 05:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep but expand. --Prof.Thamm 07:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep and expand. Actress has voiced Amy, a notable video game character from a notable video game series (Sonic the Hedgehog), for around eight video games [22].--TBCTaLk?!? 08:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment Yes, but while Amy Rose is a well-known character. There is almost nothing known about Douillard. I wouldn't even count her as a voice actress since she only had a single role and doesn't seem like she ever attempted anything else.
  • Redirect, not notable enough for her own article. Doubtful there are any non-trivial sources about her. Recury 19:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect, There really isn't anything notable I could find outside of her vocing this one character. With just that one credit, I don't see anything notable that wouldn't be found on the main Amy Rose page. -- The Bethling(Talk) 07:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect - I agree, there doesn't appear to be enough known about this VA for a standalone article. A mention of her as the voice in the Amy Rose article would work. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] IBRAINS Technologies Corp

The result was speedy delete since author has blanked it. Guy 10:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Spammy contested prod. MER-C 09:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete - pure bloody spam. BTLizard 09:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Author blanked the article. [23] Tagged for speedy deletion (CSD G7). MER-C 09:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mangojuicetalk 16:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CD-adapco

Contested prod which does not assert the notability of the subject (a company). MER-C 09:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete - spam and vanity from single-purpose user account. BTLizard 09:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I was in the process of adding the article, I'll try and correct the mistakes, but I don't accept that this is any different to the entry for any other commercial company such as ANSYS or Oracle Corporation. CD-adapco is one of the few companys mentioned on Computational Fluid Dynamics that does not have an entry of its own. StephenFerguson 10:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The difference, Mr Ferguson, is that the articles on ANSYS and Oracle are not written by anybody connected with the companies in question. While admittedly, you might not be related with CD-adapco, the fact that this is your first edit of the Wikipedia strongly suggests this opinion. Wikipedia is not an advertising medium. If you are here legitimately, then I'd advise you to start with other less controversial topics to edit, and build up a healthy list of contribs before starting to branch out into areas that may seem like self-promotion. --Roninbk 11:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails to contain any sourcing that shows compliance with WP:CORP. BlueValour 23:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mangojuicetalk 17:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unlock Reality

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Simply put, I don't know what to make of this. That the manuscript exists is largely backed up via the references provided (I'll take BookCrossing as a source independent of the subject of the article). That it's notable is somewhat more debatable, given that it "is not in bookshops yet" and therefore appears to be a 100-page manuscript floating around the place. To give credit where credit is due, this began life as what looked like a Dan Brown-inspired viral-marketing page and now makes a lot more sense. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 09:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Forgive me please if this is the wrong method to comment. Unlock Reality has reported readers in Canada, California, The Netherlands, Sweden, Spain, The Isle of Man, Guadaloupe, Switzerland, and probably a few more. It is a Bookcrossing Success of major magnitude, if nothing else.

    It has spawned over 20,000 websites which makes it a phenomenon of our times. I mean what else do you know which is unpublished which is getting that kind of attention. These are points I ask you to consider.

    If I might also please add what I feel makes it notable and worthy of a space here is that it is totally unique, a one of a kind unusual occurance which many people across the world are enjoying. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tmonome (talk • contribs) 2006-09-15 11:26:19 (UTC)

  • Delete, we don't have enough information based on Bold textreliable sources and not Original research to produce an article about this manuscript. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Realizing this was lacking, I have added a link to reports from England, Sweden, Spain, the Netherlands, the Isle of Man, the Caribbean. Canada, Budapest in Hungary, Pennsylvania USA, and Switzerland which constitutes original research from reliable sources from around the world. These are infact first hand reports and impressions of the actual text from readers. These could also be transferred here under a heading Readers Reports, if that would be better?

    signed Tmonome Sept 15th

  • This article appears to be part of a campaign of stealth advertising to publicize a forthcoming book. The claim about 20,000 web sites made above is wholly unsubstantiated. (At best, it is the substitution of counting Google hits for actual research.) The only mentions of this manuscript (which is improbably both an "old manuscript" and yet "copyrighted") are on the book's own vanity web site, on self-submission web sites, and on press-release web sites such as PressBox (where the contact information for the press releases refers back to the self-submission web sites). I've yet to find anything at all that isn't part of this self-publicity drive. The only evidence that this manuscript is getting any attention at all is published on those web sites, and thus could be completely manufactured astroturfing for all that anyone can tell. Even the news story that hit the headlines on 2006-07-10 appears to have been carefully orchestrated. (The "trust" that purportedly owns this book has publicly berated its "members" for leaking the book.) This isn't an encyclopaedia article. Delete. Uncle G 12:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - think I'll go with Uncle G here Nigel (Talk) 12:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Response, the link I added to the page represents a considerable number of readers from around the world, each with a link to their profile on Care2 and contactable through their messaging service. The 20,000 or so recorded hits on Google is a fact in itself and reflects an interest in the topic. The link to websites and discussion groups which is on the page, if followed lead to many individual’s contributions, all of whom showed an interest. To suggest this is all manufactured is frankly ridiculous. These are all very real people who have enjoyed this work, and are worthy to be respected as researchers in their own right. Especially those who took the time to make actual reports.

    signed Tmonome Sept 15th

    • The "20,000 or so recorded hits on Google" are not research, and are merely occasions where the two words "unlock" and "reality" occur in succession on a web page. Counting Google hits is not research. Uncle G 16:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Citations are: bookcrossing forum, unlockreality.org, yahoo groups, geocities, and care2 forum. No Reliable Sources. -- Fan-1967 14:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Reliable Sources. Here you are presented with reports from the general public who have first hand experience of reading this text. That would be a reliable enough source in a court of law, so why not here? Here we have not one or two witnesses, so to speak, but a considerable number, and as I said, on the Care2 site, these are linked with people’s profiles, allowing each to be contacted through the messaging service. These are eyewitness accounts of people's experience with the text. It is difficult to judge these unreliable, while not being insulting to them.

    Apart from that, the link unlockreality.org was produced to show participation by the public, and if followed leads to many website blogs stories and discussions. The Care2 group alone has over 3,000 members yet we have Uncle G telling us "The only evidence that this manuscript is getting any attention at all is published on those web sites." With respect, surely these 3,000 or so members on one of these sites is evidence that this manuscript is getting real attention.

    I don't think anyone is daring to say the text does not exist.

    Through the method provided by Bookcrossing, this text has made its way round the world. That is noteworthy. People from all round the globe are confirming that fact, and that evidence has been presented here. Can we dismiss that?

    We go to medical experts to get a medical opinion and you would accept that as reliable here, No? Well Unlock Reality is a book, and it has gone to book readers for its opinions. These people are witness to its existence, its travels, and its value in their opinion. That is the evidence they bring to this table.

    I love what you are doing here by the way. This is an excellent project.

    signed Tmonome Sept 15th

    • Which is why we need to be very careful about what gets included. Forum and group entries can be created by anyone, anonymously, with no way to determine number or identity of actual posters. Who are "ISDT" or "AnonymousFinder" or "dscape-2"? No way to know. This is why we require verification from independent Reliable Sources, as we define them. That requirement is absolutely written in stone here. Fan-1967 16:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Here you are presented with reports from the general public who have first hand experience of reading this text. — No. What we are presented with are a number of postings on a web site, whose authorships we have no way of determining.

      The Care2 group alone has over 3,000 members — Given that the very first message from one of those "members" on the group's main page is "my name is barbara Smith i like to play bowls out side and go to bingo and go over sease for holidays by the way i ane not veary good at spelling i wuld like to meet inturesting pople so i cane get to know them reley well", the membership count of the group is clearly not a relevant metric. Counting the number of purported people on the page that you actually linked to gives a number that is a couple of orders of magnitude smaller: 22. But as with all such discussion fora, we have no way to know that these are in fact real people at all. Even if they were, there's the fact that those are the very same people that have submitted press releases about this book to PressBox and other web sites, to take into account.

      People from all round the globe are confirming that fact — No, they actually aren't. There's nothing outside of the vanity and self-submission web sites, and even they tell us that there's no book yet. There's nothing to indicate that this isn't a campaign of stealth advertising to publicize a forthcoming book. Uncle G 16:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


As I see it what is happening here is a search for independent conformation of the fact that there is genuinely a movement of interest behind the text Unlock Reality (UR) and that it is a genuine publication. I argue that the below links to the records of a court case in the UK’s High Court and several resulting articles from different independent news outlets are such conformation.

The case involved someone attempting to infringe the copy write of Unlock Reality (UR) held by Iindividual Self-Discovery Trust and place it without their permission on the Internet in order to make a profit. Such an attempt in of it self is proof of a wide spread interest. The subsequent case, proof of the existense of the Iindividual Self-Discovery Trust and a broad interest in UR the numerous articles about the court case further proof.

http://www.casetrack.com/ct4plc.nsf/items/0-203-2283


http://www.theregister.com/2006/07/10/google_ad_disclose_case/

http://www.out-law.com/page-7082

http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-20060710GoogleTellsWomanWhichArmToTwist.html


(there are more articles on this case if you wish).


Tony H - 15/09/06— Tony Hartly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The casetrack.com link is strange. As best as I can determine, casetrack is a subscription-only service. Why does the link work? JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


Uncle G, your decision to quote a random profile disappoints me. Here it is again:

The Care2 group alone has over 3,000 members — Given that the very first message from one of those "members" on the group's main page is "my name is barbara Smith i like to play bowls out side and go to bingo and go over sease for holidays by the way i ane not veary good at spelling i wuld like to meet inturesting pople so i cane get to know them reley well"

Not sure where you found this, but I suggest your point would have carried more weight if you had selected one of the people reporting on reading the text in question. Say I discovered that Barbara Smith whom you quote is actually a member here too, what would that say about this group? Nothing I should think.

The court papers, now that is a different story.

signed Tmonome Sept 15th


Been studying your definitions and have a couple of questions, which might help me to make the article better. This one for instance:

Your reference says: “An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion is a fact (that is, it is true that the person expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion.”

Now it appears to me that people’s opinion of Unlock Reality is a vital fact to be proven here. Uncle G tells us there are 22 people in the group I linked to, who express an opinion after claiming to have read the text, but he also points out these might not be real people.

I respond by pointing out that this particular group have links to their profiles, and can be contacted through the Care2 messaging service. When you ask for proof, what exactly would satisfy this situation? Who would it take to make contact with enough of these 22 people to establish the fact?

And when we see 3,000 members of a group dedicated to the text in question, while it is possible for memberships to be duplicated, is it fair to assume that none of these people are real?

And when a search turns up over 22,000 hits when you Google the texts name, and at least 80% of the entries in the top 100 are directly related to the text, can we really assume all of these are fabricated? Even in a court of law, which employs the strictest sense of justice, we hear about reasonable doubt.

We have evidence from British High Court papers that The Individuals Self-Discovery Trust exists as an entity recognised by the court. Those papers also prove the court accepted their connection with the text enough to make a ruling in their favour. The fact that someone felt it was worth the effort and expense in breaching this copyright, indicates there must be a demand making it worth that risk.

Given the verifications provided by the courts, is it reasonable to conclude that all the interest which we see in Unlock Reality is fabricated?

Here is a test for you. Just look at the Care2 site, go to the archives, and see how long it takes you to count the postings in each thread, and while you are there, see the variety and ask yourself what manner of person could fabricate all this?

We are being asked to discredit comments from this site because it may have all been fabricated. I say looking at the actual evidence, the site itself, this is not a reasonable conclusion any reasonable person could possibly come to. And if I am right on this, the article should stay to be improved upon. No Deletion.

Signed Tmonome 15th Sept

Just a note to say I have added the high court references, as I conquer these are vital to the article.

I note you have an article in progress about the Course in Miracles. This was also a book distributed in manuscript form for a time, which had a similar enthusiastic following. At which point did it become worthy of consideration here? Any book or music or work of art might benefit from a mention here, but does that fact exclude admission? I think not, as I find many things listed here which can be bought. So are we saying Unlock Reality has to be in the best sellers list to warrant inclusion? That would be like saying, far from being against supporting organised promotions, you actually award the ones who are successful.

I’m sure admin will have noted I personally have done my best to take advice and bring this article up to the standard required. I see something unusual happening here, something real, which I feel deserves a mention. I look to the discretion you have to not exclude this.


The measure that the book satisfies is that it is real, and it is of interest. There is sufficient evidence presented in the article to prove that in any court, and indeed one High Court has already ruled on it.

signed Tmonome Sept16th

Regarding the article on A Course in Miracles, I'd suggest the notability would stem from such things as the commercial success of the book (including foreign language translations), the fact that it has been controversial (and not just as a result of litigation) and possibly even the way in which it has integrated itself into pop culture. "Unlock Reality" may well end up achieving all these and more, but until it has then I'm not sure it's a fair comparison. Additionally, the fact that one specific article on a similar topic exists doesn't necessarily mean that any given article on the same topic need to exist. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 08:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


Reasons given for Course in Miracles inclusion:

commercial success

has been controversial

has integrated itself into pop culture

Boiled down, what makes something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia is:

It exists

It is of interest

If one is actually looking at this from a neutral point of view, we are not allowed to judge the level of interest, but merely need to establish it is there to satisfy the criteria. IMHO

signed Tmonome Sept 16th

  • Delete astroturfing, per Uncle G. I guess my research was less detailed but I found nothing to contradict this analysis. Guy 11:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Uncle G. Ergative rlt 17:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to object to the repeated use of the word astroturfing in describing activity surrounding Unlock Reality. Having read the article on astroturfing I must point out that there has been no evidence put forward to indicate in any way that such a practice is taking place. No evidence to indicate that any of the people showing support are other than genuine individuals.

Genuine Grassroots movements tend to follow the path of least expense, it would appear, and that makes sense, if you think about it. Just because astroturfing efforts attempt to mimic these movements by following similar paths, that does not give you or anyone the right to brand something phoney or dishonest, with no evidence to back you up. That is not assuming good faith in any way.

When I say: “People from all round the globe are confirming that fact” referring to the books travels — Uncle G replies “No, they actually aren't.”

It is fully wrong for him to say that. He has no proof to deny this is happening. Just because he does not accept the sources does not mean it is not happening or that he can declare it is not happening. Actually they are, Uncle G.

Also Uncle G tells us:

“What we are presented with are a number of postings on a web site, whose authorships we have no way of determining.”

That is not strictly true either. It has been mentioned several times that each of the names which would confirm the books far travels have links to profiles. Each person could be contacted and asked to send a postcard whose postmark would confirm their location. Like I have heard said here, we have lots of time, and the cost of messaging these people is free. I’m surprised that none of you who are assuming good faith and seeing this from a neutral angle are making any suggestions to help me here.

I see a lot of Deletes, but we are thin on the ground for positive suggestions. No one with some imagination here who can put what is happening in a way that reflects what is known and satisfies your criteria? There is a lot there to just dismiss out of hand. I would be grateful for your help.

signed Tmonome Sept 16th

The fact that not one single established Wikipedia editor has bought your arguments should be a sign to you. The fact that there is that much forum activity without any notice at all from Reliable Sources is in itself suspicious, and is a pattern we have seen before. We do not have to prove that the book is not notable. You have to prove that it is notable, and forum postings are not sufficient or acceptable evidence. Fan-1967 22:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


“Dear Mister Galileo the fact that not one single established scientist has bought your arguments should be a sign to you. The fact that you have done so much scientific activity without any notice at all from Reliable Sources is in itself suspicious, and is a pattern we have seen before. We do not have to prove that the sun orbits the earth. You have to prove that it is the other way around……….”

The validity of reasoning and the collaborating evidence presented constitute the salient pieces of this discussion, surly not who is presenting them. How does one become an ‘established Wikipedia editor’ – I presume by putting forward sound arguments, thus the un-established become the established. Why not have just a few editors in a closed room? Because doing it in the open and letting anyone who wants to particapate allows the ‘un-established’ to be heard also. I find the overt snobbery being displayed here quite something.

It is written above that the burden lies with those who wish to establish that Unlock Reality is notable.

Well it would appear that it is. The Dalai Lama has a copy as does the Arch Bishop of Canterbury. These two men represent the religious and spiritual concerns of countless millions of people. Millions of people who take notice – or find notable – what these men do and read.

The Internet is awash with sites, members and postings, each one representing someone taking note of UR, i.e. finding it notable. The idea that this vast number of entries is the work of one person or group is just absurd. We are not talking about 5 or 10, there are literally tens of thousands.

There are several (at lest eight I have counted) newspaper stories about Unlock Reality's High Court case – when was the last time you saw 1 newspaper article on an un-notable story – let alone 8?

Un-notable hey?

Tony H - 16/09/06



What I feel makes this text notable now is that is has gone as far as it has in manuscript form. There is nothing which even comes close to this.

We could take a few steps and confirm the books travels round the world, or rather than dismiss this altogether, take a neutral view of the internet activity for a moment, by seeing it as a fact that there is a huge amount about this which appears on the internet, which by its nature cannot be fully confirmed but also cannot be ignored, then we still have pictures with exact times and place of very notable people, the Dalai Lama and The Arch Bishop of Canterbury, considering the work, and a High Court Judge ruling with several offical news stories filed as my friend Tony mentions.

We live in a world where, internet phenomena exists as a fact. More and more, not less and less things will be affected by the many free avenues the internet provides, and respectfully, you should have a way to deal with that which is actually neutral to reflect your stated philosophy.

People using the public forums which the internet provides are expressing their right to free speech, and just because some might abuse this, that does not make it right to dismiss the majority of genuine people expressing their views. If you don't feel these voices are worth considering you might want to ask yourself why Rupert Murdoch recently spent $580 million to buy Myspace?

And indeed, why is Myspace included in Wikipedia as it is soley comprised of "a number of postings on a web site, whose authorships we have no way of determining." as Uncle G puts it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myspace

You might argue that the sheer number of entries on Myspace makes it unlikely that they are all fabricated, which is exactly the same arguement we are making for UR. And when you consider the resources available to someone at Mr Murdoch level, we might well ask which is the stronger arguement of these two.

This is a reality you have to deal with if you really do intend to look at things in a neutral way, not something you can just brush away because it is not perfect. These thousands of internet entries may not carry full weight, but they must be allowed to carry some weight in the light of what supports them.

There is a lot being said here, and I trust it will all be considered.

signed Tmonome Sept 16th

The argument regarding MySpace is, with respect, utterly fallacious. The article on the site is (or at least should be) about the site itself, rather than anything which is on it. Say what you want about lonely teenagers writing about their existential angst and how such-and-such a band is the coolest thing on the planet, but the site has become notable for a variety of reasons. Not the least of these is the fact that it is, to put it mildly, massive in terms of numbers of users.
What we're not in the business of, though, is treating someone or something's MySpace page as proof of anything much beyond their existence. Keep an eye on the AfD listings for a few days and you'll see a series of unsigned bands and wannabe actors having their pages nominated for deletion. Those arguing that the article should be kept will frequently cite a MySpace page.
In other words, the site itself is notable but everyone who has a page on it is almost certainly not so. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me)


I contend that ‘Notable’ means, ‘worthy of note: significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded’.

There is an inherent problem here, part of what it is to be ‘notable’ is to be unusual. Unusual entails ‘out of the ordinary’, ‘different to the norm’ or even unique (as may be the case with UR).

The point is that UR’s notability is inextricable linked to it’s unusual nature, which in tuАrn means that ‘similar examples’ or parallels with pervious decisions taken on this site and examples are irrelevant and will be hard to find and if found would serve to show it to be less notable.

Therefore I contend that those who say UR is not notable should have to produce similar examples of unpublished books with a list of attributes comparable to an international following, thousands of websites, getting attention from world spiritual leaders and at the centre of a high court action, in order to establish that UR is mundane/ordinary and not ‘notable’.

Tony H – 16/09/06

The alternative would be for those saying that it is notable to demonstrate how it lines up with the proposed criteria at WP:BK. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 09:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


I note that the Wikipedia test for notability for people is also recommended for use with books.

From previous comments I read here it appears I wrongly assumed that Unlock Reality’s relatively high Google hit count was not to be considered in determining its notability. I see now that it is an alternative factor recmmended which can be used, which you have dedicated a page to explaining, entitled the Wikipedia Search Engine Test, also referred to as the Google Test -- Does the subject get lots of distinguishable hits on Google or another well known search mechanism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Search_engine_test

Accordingly I present the following recent search result to be added for consideration:

Google Search conducted Sept 17th 2006, 16:07 GMT Results 1 - 10 of about 24,100 for "Unlock Reality". (0.31 seconds)

Signed Tmonome Sept 17th


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BK#Threshold_standards

While Unlock Reality is still a manuscript, (not published yet), and as such would not be expected to satisfy any of the book threshold standards, it none the less satisfies one of the threshold standards for books set by Wikipedia, as a copy of the manuscript is officially catalogued by its country of origin's official library. British Library c2004. Shelfmarks YK.2005.b.3116

http://catalogue.bl.uk/F/JH1LCBVKX7EE83U1T2XK4SCAVUGS7KRTTBDCGB7J781QFMURGU-06263?func=find-b&request=unlock+reality&find_code=WTI&adjacent=Y&image.x=29&image.y=4

This may be useful in further verifying its existence, if nothing else.


Signed Tmonone Sept 17th

  • Nice cherry-picking on the standards. The full sentence there is: "Books should have at a minimum an ISBN number (for books published after 1966), be available at a dozen or more libraries and be catalogued by its country of origin's official or de facto national library." I think you need eleven more libraries. Fan-1967 16:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)



The intention of bringing the manuscript's British Library catalogued status to our panel's attention was stated as clearly as possible.

signed Tmonome Sept 17th

  • Comment Someone close this AfD already, please. Danny Lilithborne 21:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You don't want to see Tmonone repeat the same arguments ten more times? Fan-1967 22:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE DELETE...agree with Danny Lilithborne...Wikipedia is not a soapbox, but Tmonone has thought AfD is his for arguing "keep" until he's blue in the face. By the time he's done, I'll be that clichéd skeleton in the corner replete with cobwebs. —ExplorerCDT 21:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with defending an article, but not to this extent. Guy 22:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


Excuse me Guy.

Your site provides a means for me to tell you why I feel this topic is suitable under your terms to be included in your publication, and now you are criticising me for making use of it. Aren’t you meant to be presuming good faith, or did I just imagine reading that here somehwere?

--Tmonome 06:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: to Tmonome Make the argument once, and concisely. Personally, you're either trying to win by either fatiguing us into not reading through the AfD or by spewing an Argumentum verbosium and that just makes me and other editors sick. You don't need to defend something over and over again and then harass people who vote against what you think with lengthy speeches for the lost cause of trying to change their minds. Most people won't read what you have to say anyway if you can't say it in less than a usual paragraph. And most people don't change their minds, much less give an AfD a second thought. Vote, give a brief discussion of why you voted the way you voted, and move on. Oh...learn how to format your contributions to a discussion too. Because you screw up the aesthetics and flow of a page with an unwieldy, unformatted post like you've spewed (repeatedly) above. —ExplorerCDT 07:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


My discovery of this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Search_engine_test

made all I said on considering Search Engine results redundant. I apologise.

(there is no option to indent on my (Firefox) browser. Help Please)

--Tmonome 07:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Putting a colon in front of the line (like in this one) indents it. More colons indents further.
See how easy it is? Fan-1967 13:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Just to let everyone know, I've put the article through an extensive clean up just now. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 21:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I don't see that helping. The issue is the notability of the subject, not the quality of the article. Frankly, this AFD is overdue for closing and I suspect your effort will go for nought. Fan-1967 21:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Thank you for your help RoyalGuard. I'm grateful.
It should be noted that there have been some major changes in actual content of the article too, since this discussion began, as comments were all considered and acted upon as much as possible.

--Tmonome 11:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. With the exception of the recent cleanup (which I'll admit makes things a lot easier to follow), the only change in content since this was originally listed was this edit and the following one correcting spelling. While this is an addition of matter, it hardly moves the work any closer to notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 11:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Respectfully changes in content were:
The question of how this could be an old manuscript yet hold a copyright, was answered by adding it was “recently updated”.
The list of countries the manuscript has travelled to, was added with link to reports from readers.
And the entire litigation section was added with link to verify.

--Tmonome 15:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  • You know, there's a very simple way to get your book in Wikipedia. Publish it. If the buzz is real, it will sell a lot of copies, show up with a good sales ranking on Amazon and similar sites, and get reviewed in major publications. Then it will qualify for an article. Fan-1967 15:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Comment Respectfully, it is not my book. The remainder of what you say may be true, but many feel this manuscript has done more than anything in manuscript form before it, and deserves a place here now. Notability is about being unusual not just being famous. It is unusual now. I invite you to provide an example of something comparable to prove me wrong.

--Tmonome 15:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  • No, notability is about being famous. Many things are unusual. Fan-1967 15:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Comment
Notable 1. worthy of being noted: remarkable
2. person of distinction
Collins Essential English Dictionary 2004


says nothing about requiring fame.
herein is the rub of this entire discussion
  • Well, the dictionary has their definition, we have ours. Ours is that, if you need Wikipedia to let people know about you, you don't belong here. Wikipedia is not for helping little-known enterprises gain exposure (or help them find a publisher, for that matter). Fan-1967 16:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Actually, there is no official Wikipedia policy on notability.

--Tmonome 17:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  • True. It's a guideline. Doesn't stop us from using it. Fan-1967 17:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] D'Andre Devon Lampkin

Disputed prod and suggestion to userfy declined. Non-notable autobiography. -- RHaworth 10:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologise, man - just do what I asked for - provide a link to a Google search. "Non-trivial" means something more than an article that contains your name - we are not questioning your existence! "Userfy" means move the article to user:Zodiac01 - I have agreed to stop userfying otherwise I would have userfied this one on sight. -- RHaworth 12:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] House Arrest/Lover Boy (Haunted Graffiti 5-6)

This is an article on a reissue of 2 albums which is almost identical to the articles on those two albums (House Arrest (Haunted Graffiti 5; Reissue) and Lover Boy (Haunted Graffiti 6; Reissue)). Ordinarily I would simply redirect, as I've done with Worn Copy (Haunted Graffiti 8; Reissue), but in this case there's no obvious target because the article covers two albums not one. I propose deletion. kingboyk 11:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 09:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There are loads of (new) articles about obscure records (not available on the mass market). I believe policies need to be more clear where to draw a line of notability. I am searching argumention ideas for a village pump discussion by the way. User:Yy-bo 15:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 10:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • A rare delete from me. I arguably make more album articles than anyone else here, and I know better than to think this is even remotely useful. Note that they were reissued as a double disc/album/whatever in each individual article and be done with it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; redundant and without an obvious redirect target. (Liberatore, 2006). 11:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shawn Tempesta

Article for non-notable local radio disc jockey and webmaster. Does not meet requirements of WP:BIO. No reliable, reputable sources per WP:V. Was {PROD} but removed by anon editor with no comment or changes so come here for deletion. --Satori Son 12:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

  • He actually is a known disc-jockey in Las Vegas. I think we might be getting a little picky here. Mix941.fm shows his position with the station, Radio-Info.com mentions him in New Bedford, MA, plus his own bio on ShawnTempesta.com and MySpace at ShawnOnTheRadio.com shows he is not unknown. This isn't a Colbert Report situation...I don't think it should be treated as one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.20.96.116 (talk • contribs). 12:53, 8 September 2006
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 10:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — Do any local (non-nationally syndicated) radio disk jockeys merit notability? Perhaps a few who have made it into the news. But I suspect most do not. — RJH (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no most do not because most don't have enough good sources about them. This guy doesn't appear to either. Some are popular enough to have been written about substantially though. Recury 19:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete pretty much impossible to build a reliable biography except to say his name and his job. I don't think he makes WP:BIO.Pascal.Tesson 02:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mangojuicetalk 17:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tropical nations at the Winter Olympics

While I've contributed information about tropical nations competing at the Winter Olympics, I feel this is a bad idea for an article - the focus is arbitrary. It lacks citations, and is a magnet for original research, inaccuracies and points of view. Andjam 10:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. The odd focus can probably be rectified with a title change (to what? Not sure, but it would need to either be stricter on what is defined as "tropical" to disclude Australia, Iran and others or be more inclusive so's to get them in). Citations shouldn't be too hard to find, since there are (I presume) already articles on the various countries named. As for the fact that it's a magnet for nasty things, so is at least 25% of the entire 'pedia. This one hasn't yet attracted anything untoward that I can see. That all being said, the fact remains that there's already articles on "[Country] at the [Year] Winter Olympics", so perhaps this is superfluous. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 11:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. As per above. It is a dull topic, and there is unlikely to be many widely available sources for this topic to be written to an encylopedic standard. It has already attracted misleading information about Australia, Iran, Algeria, and Cyprus, which do not have mostly tropical climates. Rintrah 11:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ONLY per failure of WP:V - vandal/misinformation target is not a criterion for deletion, after all, we have George W Bush as an article. Nor is poorly written a criterion for deletion. WilyD 13:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - a curiosity article. Not dull at all, although the Tropical criteria is questionable, the focus is on warmer countries, who have sent people to the Winter Olympics. --MacRusgail 15:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above. Needs to be copyeditted and closely watched for OR, but it's fine. —Nightstallion (?) 15:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Could become a great article if retitled and expanded. violet/riga (t) 16:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per T. Anthony's recomendation to limit the "tropical distinction". This could be a very worthwhile and encyclopedic article. Agne 19:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Winter Olympic Games. Punkmorten 19:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. One of my biggest pet peeves on Wikipedia are articles with what the nom calls an arbitrary focus, but I'm not sure this qualifies. The idea is that countries that basically don't have a winter still have athletes that compete in the Winter Games is an interesting one that should be covered somewhere, but since its such a minor topic anything more than a sentence would mess up the balance of Winter Olympic Games. The fact that no one (including me) can come up with a better title is perhaps a clue that there isn't one, though I'm open to suggestions. Recury 19:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No real info inside. Pavel Vozenilek 22:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom and Pavel Vozenilek. Silly, misleading unencyclopedic trivia "gee whiz" article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is no obvious reason why a country without marked winter seasons or in generally warmer climates can't have people expert in winter sports (you don't even have to have mountains). Skiing is huge in Iran (which is not "tropical" anyway). It rarely snows in London, does this mean that its odd to have skiers in London etc etc. Bwithh 00:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - "There is no obvious reason why a country without marked winter seasons or in generally warmer climates can't have people expert in winter sports (you don't even have to have mountains)." - yes there is. Because there's nowhere to practice outside, and creating indoor facilities is very expensive. It's like Outer Mongolia entering a team in ocean yachting. Geography and climate works against it. --MacRusgail 18:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep but limit to nations that are mostly or entirely within the tropics(23.5 degrees of lattitude North or South) and give information on how they ranked or what their highest ranking was in any event.--T. Anthony 03:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This could be an interesting encyclopedia topic, though it is disappointing as it stands.--Cúchullain t/c 04:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Better off in some other larger article. The limited focus is not deserving for Wikipedia. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 08:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see nothing inherently wrong with "gee whiz" articles, and as for verifiability there are already four external citations given in as many paragraphs. Bryan 08:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
In fairness I added those and they were not there before the deletion vote.--T. Anthony 08:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per BigHaz. Ergative rlt 17:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It serves as a portal, linking to other articles of interest, and it deals with an interesting topic. YechielMan 23:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As long as the article uses a consistent definition of "tropical", it can be turned into a good piece. Surely classifying a country as "tropical" or not is easier than classifying a band by music genre. Kla'quot Sound 04:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 100% delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 88 percent

Appears to be original research and almost certainly non-notable - I've certainly never heard of 88% having some specific significance over other percentages. A single mention in popular culture (probably only incidental rather than a specific "hey, let's make an 88% joke" by the writers) does not indicate evidence of a widespread awareness of this idea. ~Matticus TC 18:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, WP:NOR (or rather WP:NOT for things made up one day) Fram 20:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 97% of all statistics are made up, and this is no exception. A once-off joke on a comedy television show is not enough to hang an encyclopaedia article from, and there are no other sources at all to back up the idea propounded in this article. Delete. Uncle G 11:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. Pan Dan 11:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - good at maths not so good at spelling (still mine usually lets me down!) Nigel (Talk) 12:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --DrTorstenHenning 17:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete a one-shot joke does not an article make. Danny Lilithborne 18:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 14:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per all above. Cool3 16:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. If I have counted correctly, discounting assumed puppets and single-purpose accounts, the raw totals are 6-2 Delete. That does not include the nominator, who changed his position to Keep. So on to the arguments. While I might not count the "votes" of single-purpose editors, I will give account to their arguments, if cogent. In favor of deletion, the point is made that , basically, he fails WP:BIO. In reply these points are made: (1) He was, at least for a while, a regular columnist for the daily newspaper in a small-to-medium-sized American city. (2) He has a website, which apparently attracts enough attention to get him interviewed on NPR. (3) He's had a book published by Brigham Young University, which has to be considered a publisher of some note. (4) He's got some comedy records, which while apparently self-published have gotten airplay on Doctor Demento which is a nationally syndicated show. (5) His site was noted in PC Magazine as one of the best 99 undiscovered websited6

Taken together, those are reasonably strong arguments. It's true that the only one of these that might meet WP:BIO is "well known and independent award" -- one could make that case that getting on PC Magazine's "best 99 undiscovered websites" is an independent award of a sort by a notable magazine. On the hand, there were 98 other "winners", so that's questionable. Basically, I can't see that he meets WP:BIO. But WP:BIO "is not intended to be an exclusionary list".

Back to the commentors, we see a couple of editors basing their comments on verification. The article may have been partly rewritten when they made their votes, but anyway the NPR interview and the PC magazine bit seem to verify much of his story. His book is on Amazon (albeit out of print). So the no-verification arguments may be discounted, somewhat.

Still, in spite of the fact that the Keep position does make a good argument, I don't see it as enough stronger for me to discount that after all, of eight real commentors, six think the article should be deleted. Herostratus 19:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eric D. Snider

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Who is this guy? reading the article, I can't find anything making him worth of an article.. unless you want an article for every person that has ever insulted anyone on the radio... --Lacrymology 19:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Who is this guy? Perhaps a perusal of his brief but thoroughly enlightening official biography, posted on his website in handy color-coded timeline form will answer your question. (bio) As you can see, he's done a lot more than insult somebody on the radio. That's not even what he does. His founding of Brigham Young University's first comedy troupe, the now-defunct Garrens (1993-2001) and his weekly humor column, "Snide Remarks," (still published weekly on his website, and read by hundreds, if not thousands, of subscribers) easily made him the most well-known--and controversial--figure on that campus in the late 1990s. He is still very well-known in certain circles. If his brother hadn't created his Wikipedia entry, I was thinking about doing it--maybe eventually, if I ever got around to it.

    Vote to Keep. Ryan Reeder 04:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Perhaps not everyone needs a Wikipedia article, but someone who's a published author, performer, movie critic (with over 1700 reviews online) and singer probably deserves one.

    Vote to keep. --Jeff Bowers 05:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

    — Jeff Bowers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - Eric may not be the most celebrated celebrity on the big screen but he sure does know how to make fun of them. I feel that someone who has published as much as him and in as many mediums as him deserves an entry. His writings have appeared in publications throughout the state of Utah, California, and (I think) Oregon. His movie reviews have been published on credible websites and he has been featured fairly regularly on the radio. His columns are fantastic, his movie reviews are entertaining and informative and his music is hilarious.

    Vote to Keep. --Jason Wright 05:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

    — Jasonlesliewright (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unsourced, unverifiable, unencyclopeadic, un cetera ... WilyD 13:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The subject's name sounds somewhat familiar, but this article does not emphasize strongly enough the activities which would have placed Snider before a national audience. I recommend that the supporters of the article rewrite it to discuss Snider's most prominent activities only and not minor details of his biography. --Metropolitan90 14:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Mr. Snider is an established performer and writer with a recognizable influence. As an up-and-coming artist with an ever-growing following, the matter of his being a public figure is unquestionable. The biographic details of the article are relevant to illustrate the genesis of the artist's perspective. I find the article unbiased and encyclopedic in nature and in no violation of Wikipedia policy. Recommend to keep. A. Amini 14:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    — Aminiamy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete Oh, for Chrissakes. Look, I'm sure he's a cool guy, but would he show up in Encarta? Encyclopedia Britannica? Heck, would he even show up in Who's Who in America? Where are the news articles talking about him? Where are the books in which his "recognizable influence" is discussed? Where, oh where, could the reliable sources be? I strongly recommend that the closing admin ignore the Single-Purpose Accounts and rid the encyclopedia of this... er... well, I guess you could call it an article, but "hagiography" would also work. Captainktainer * Talk 17:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If Encyclopedia Britannica and Who's Who are your standards, you've got a lot more deleting to do. I agree the article could be better written and should link to the original sources rather than Eric's blog.--Jeff Bowers 18:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'll second this - "If Encyclopedia Britannica and Who's Who are your standards, you've got a lot more deleting to do." What makes Wikipedia great is its inclusion of various miscellany including TV shows, bands and much more obscure stuff than Eric Snider. He is a prolific writer, film reviewer, parodist and humorist. Absolutely no reason he shouldn't have a page here, as long as the information provided is accurate. Wiki Nazis, F Off! dennycrane1414 18:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: dennycrane1414 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Note to closing admin: The SPA (and probable sockpuppet 71.115.224.209 edited the above comment to remove the phrase "Wiki Nazis, F Off!". I did an rv to retain the comment as originally posted. --Aaron 01:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Captainktainer. --Aaron 19:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, ignoring the WP:SPAs' comments which hardly seem to cite inclusion policy; fails WP:BIO, no WP:RS indicating notability. --Kinu t/c 19:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, "he continues to work as a freelance writer and part-time Film Studies student." = non-notable. And yes, we do have a lot more deleting to do. Recury 19:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment From WP:BIO: "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" is one factor that allows for an entry. Eric's recent article I Was a Junket Whore resulted in national attention, e.g. an NPR interview. Vote to keep.--Lady Celtic-- — Possible single purpose account: Lady Celtic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep - Many have read his work without knowing it was his. -PelaoFeliz —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.91.214.25 (talk • contribs) 23:00, September 15, 2006. — Possible single purpose account: 158.91.214.25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Comment - I don't see how people can say that he isn't a notable person yet the publications that he writes for are He currently writes movie reviews for HollywoodBitchslap.com as well as RottenTomatoes.com. Both sites are credible sources for movie reviews, both sites have entries here on the Wikipedia and Hollywood Bitchslap's entry even lists him on their page as one of their author's. He may not have attained the fame of hollywood movie stars but he does have a fairly large fan following. The great thing about the Wikipedia as was mentioned before is that you can learn about anything. I understand removing entries for people that haven't accomplished much and create their own entry but removing an entry for a writer who has accomplished so much. He has recorded CD's and yes people bought them. He has published his humor columns in books as well ane believe it or not, they sold too. Eric is a notable writer, possibly the only one that I read on a regular basis.--Jasonlesliewright 05:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Striking vote; user has already voted above. --Aaron 01:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Un-striking vote; while noting that user previously submitted his recommendation, he has the right to offer additional comments. However, the closing admin should make sure not to count him twice. --Metropolitan90 04:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment: Better fix: I've relabeled it a comment. But please note the entire point of striking is to allow the commentary to be read without the vote being accidentally counted twice. --Aaron 05:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Reconsider - For those who marked this as delete, I have updated the page with more information than just a boring old biography. I hope that other's will continue to contribute and make this page show Eric's full list of accomplishments. Please reconsider deleting this entry.--Jasonlesliewright 18:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I haven't contributed a lot to Wikipedia, but I wanted to weigh in here anyway. For what it's worth, he's had several appearances on Dr. Demento, was interviewed on "On the Media" on NPR and his Web site was recommended in PC Magazine as one of the Top 98 undiscovered. If that doesn't qualify him for inclusion, so be it. Nonetheless, I vote for the site to remain. Yorenny 22:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Yorenny (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep - Subject is a published author and musician, has received national attention from three different media outlets (USA Today, NPR, and PC Magazine), has a following that extends beyond friends and family, and caused enough of a stir with the "Junket Whore" article to be banned from all future press screenings by Paramount Studios. From WP:NOT, "one measure of publicity is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line)." I think Snider passes the notability test, although as little as six months ago the case would have been harder to make. However, the article does need to be improved so the more notable aspects of Snider's career are given more prominence, and it especially needs more links to external sources other than Snider's websites. Disclaimer: I am an occasional contributor to the message board at Snider's site, but my edit history will show that this is not a SPA (although I have been on wikibreak for the past few months). Alanyst 23:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note - User's first edit in six months. --Aaron 01:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - The article won't be featured anytime soon, but it's sufficiently well organized and formatted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by YechielMan (talk • contribs) 19:18, September 20, 2006.
  • Delete as WP:VSCA to sell his records. --72.75.117.73 18:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note - No where in the entry is there a link to where the records can be purchased. Every artist listed on wikipedia lists their albums and track listings and this is no different. --Jasonlesliewright 20:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite I presented this for deletion. I see that he's bigger than the article makes him look... make it show. I expect wikipedia to be better than Encyclopaedia Britannica, and think he should be kept.. but really, the article doesn't (or didn't) show anything that makes him worthy. The new article is better, but has too many pictures, but that is another subject. And not having written for 6 months doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to give his opinion. --Lacrymology 19:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. I won't object to recreation if evidence is brough towards meeting WP:BIO and avoding WP:AUTO. Yanksox 03:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jago (Illustrator) and Jago Silver

This is a vanity page written by the subject Klacquement 19:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I object to the deletion notice because I don't see what criteria my article meets that would warrant it being deleted. I am an illustrator with several published books, awards and reviews. This is in common with most of the other illustrators on the List_of_illustrators page. Are they all going to be deleted?

    I understand that it would be better if someone else had written the article, but all the information on it is simple fact, I'm not making any claims I can't back up, so the information would be the same if someone else typed it.

    My article will only be found by people browsing the List of illustrators page, who would, presumably be looking for examples of illustrators, unless that page too is to be deleted?. I myself found several interesting illustrator pages with information I hadn't seen before. Is it impossible to believe other might do the same and find my page interesting and informative.

    This was my first foray into Wikipedia and I had thought I would continue to help it expand, sadly I'm not so sure now.

    Jagosilver 19:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you for replying, I have removed the Biography and Methods sections from the article as I can see they are not encyclopedic enough, or appropriate for Wikipedia.

    However, the information that is left in the article is almost identical in terms of content to Bob Staake's page for example. If my article is still deleted it would seem that the only reason for this would be the name of the user who creates the page. This seems like a very weak basis for a decision to be based on. Presumably the user who created the Bob Staake page could well be Bob himself, or his aunty, as the user in question has not used their real name for a username.

    Therefore is seems that possibly my biggest mistake was creating an honest username that identified me, had I been called "Frodo92" or something, would the article still have been flagged as a vanity project? If this is the case, surely it encourages people to set up anonymous accounts in order to post information about themselves or others which may not be true.

    I look forward to reading your reply, especially on why Bob_Staake's page is viewed differently to mine. Jagosilver 06:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Bob's article has links to pages that aren't written by himself. Klacquement 12:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Although to be fair, out of the six links on his page, three link to other Wikipedia articles, two to his own sites and only one is a secondary source. Jagosilver 19:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, how can you be sure that Bob's article wasn't written by Bob? Jagosilver 10:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • In fairness, then, should the AfD process be extended by a day to account for the delay in discussion? I thought I did all 3 steps, which one did I miss? Klacquement 12:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not one but two vanity / spam pages on the same day. BTLizard 11:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

BT Lizard, please clarify what pages you're referring to? Jagosilver 11:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

My guess would be the two in the header - Jago (Illustrator) and Jago Silver Klacquement 12:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. BTLizard 10:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
My apologies BTLizard I hadn't noticed that the header had changed when I asked the question. I have agreed that the Jago Silver page should be deleted. Jagosilver 10:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Klacquement, I've requested that the Jago_Silver page be deleted. I've added sources and references for all parts of the article that I can. By the way, should this discussion be here, or on the talk page of the article in question? (or both??)

  • Strong Delete per WP:AUTO. Danny Lilithborne 18:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both - per above. If an artist has to link to his stuff on Flickr, he's not notable yet. And once he becomes notable, he won't have to write his own article, because someone will do it for him. Just saying. -IceCreamAntisocial 04:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Where's the link to Flickr? Jagosilver 06:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. He appears to qualify under "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". The article lists several awards and reviews. In children's books, the illustrations can be as important as the text. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - All the information in this article is verifiable fact and backed up by sources and references, I don't see what's wrong with this? Teapotgeorge 09:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • When will a decision be made regarding whether this page will be deleted? Jagosilver 20:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It's been 10 days now since this page was marked for deletion, I was under the impression that someone was supposed to have made a decision after 5 days? When can I remove the deletion notice if this page is not being deleted? Jagosilver 11:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King Cobra Special Forces

Unverifiable article (so fails WP:V): title gives no Google hits at all (and so does the "new name"). Even if verified somehow, it would still be a non notable organisation (not one important event cited in the article). I have not checked their website (my virusscanner isn't that good, and I don't want to take the risk) Fram 19:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete make-believe. Their website http://www.kingcobraspecialforces.piczo.com is, surprisingly, slightly elaborate. Click on "Can you help us?" in the menu and the following message appears: "If you have knowledge of a crime or a crime that has been committed email us kingcobaspecialforces@hotmail.co.uk If you think you have what it takes to be a operative email us using the addresses above." I wish the young feller the best of luck in finding recruits. Pan Dan 11:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The article cites no sources. Like Fram I can find no sources. I don't know what web page Pan Dan is referring to. The web site given in the article yields a simple message from the hosting service, Piczo, that no such page exists, for me. The posturing about signing the Official Secrets Act is a bad sign, also. Too secret for Wikipedia. Delete. Uncle G 11:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • (have added website above) Pan Dan 11:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you. I just copied and pasted the domain name in the article, which is slightly different. (Apparently, Pizco hasn't heard of RFC 2396.) Uncle G 12:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per nom, WP:RS, WP:NOT, WP:ADVERT, WP:OR and, of course WP:STUPID. NeoFreak 07:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete complete nonsense from start to finish. Official secrets act - yeah right! --Charlesknight 09:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • SPEEDY DELETE at first I thought this had something to do with G.I.Joe or something, but after looking at it...it smacks of either patent nonsense or something someone invented in school one day. Either way, it must really be boring in North Kent. —ExplorerCDT 22:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Yanksox 03:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enemies and former friends of Opie and Anthony

Enemies and former friends of Opie and Anthony was nominated for deletion on 2006-08-04. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enemies and former friends of Opie and Anthony.

Re-listing article for deletion. Other articles related to the Opie & Anthony show such as Friends of Opie and Anthony (AfD discussion) have gone through Afd with a concensus of delete. While again I do feel the show is notable, a list of "on-air enemies" for a radio is unneccesary list/fancruft. Wildthing61476 11:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. If anything, it should be a section in Opie and Anthony. PJM 11:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Once again, no one source is cited as Fancruft, nor has there been any effort made to make it better by those who will undoubtedly call it as such. Please keep in mind this has already survived one deletion attempt. Payneos 15:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and per WP:HOLE. ergot 19:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for the same reason that Friends of O&A got deleted.--XMBRIAN 21:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Burn down and salt the earth. This is not and cannot be an encyclopedic article. It's just a list of anecdotes. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a fan community website. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom and Pablo-flores Bwithh 02:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per nom and Pablo-flores, WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information (which this is) --JStalk 05:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Joining Pablo-flores in going all Carthage on this article...delete this shit. —ExplorerCDT 22:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep It may seem trivial to some, but O&A take their relationships with rivals and former friends very seriously, and they often require so much explanation and detail that would take too much space on O&A's wiki page. O&A themselves have stated that their show is like a soap opera with relationships budding, growing, souring, falling apart, and so on. This page helps explain and inform these relationships to new listeners unfamiliar with O&A's show, old listeners who have lost track of these relationships (many still don't know why Dice is no longer a friend of the show because his falling-out is a very recent event), and other inquisitive minds. Considering O&A's recent return to terrestrial radio and the fact that their show is being syndicated to new cities just about every month now, there are more and more people just discovering their show who will want to know the background of the show, including these relationships. —GLENN THE TOOL 22:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete This is an encylopedia, not a diary of who people aren't friends with today. 161.185.1.100 02:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Move anything encyclopedic to Opie and Anthony and then delete. BlankVerse 02:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Legit fork of already-lengthy article. Punching out. --Aaron 21:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. An encyclopedia is defined as a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering ALL branches of knowledge or, less commonly, ALL aspects of one subject. These aspects of the Opie and Anthony show which you are dismissing as indiscriminate, trivial, etc., are an important branch of the show as it helps define the very essence of what Opie and Anthony are. --Pure Waves 01:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Aren't these discussions supposed to be closed after 5 days?--XMBRIAN 03:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per Pablo flores. There is no encyclopedic merit to an article like this. 205.157.110.11 09:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No sources, a list of various people of various ties to the show isn't an article. Arbusto 21:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is an embarrassment to 2 professional radio personalities. Articles of this nature confuse fans. It blurs entertainment into reality. Remember the Whoopi Goldberg "conflict". Contrived conflict = press = exposure = ratings. This article has no place in Wikipedia.Bodaman 04:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Remember, should it be deleted, it will re-bloat an already overstuffed Opie & Anthony main page, which is why this offshoot came to fruition in the first place. It has citation and sources, and describes various important aspects of the show itself. Payneos 18:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. That's why nobody's voting to merge. You can't delete an article and merge its contents; history has to be preserved for GFDL reasons, so merged articles get turned into redirects rather than deleted. ergot 14:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nominator. —Encephalon 15:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's been 10 days already. Twice the normal time.--XMBRIAN 21:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 22:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boil over

Not notable. Protologism or neologism at the very best. Storkk 11:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. The term "boil over" is used in cooking (i.e. when a pot of water boils over the rim, etc), so google results are deceiving. However, from what I can discern, this term is rarely used in this context. At best, this could be merged into the WRIF article. Srose (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename and Keep. Something like 'Boil over (sexual connotation)' would make it clear that the article was NOT about when water at 212°F over-flows a pot. The term is well known in the Detroit area. It should be mentioned that there are other such terms like rim-job, handjob, and blow job that are in the encyclopedia. MJCdetroit 12:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, what is in the encyclopaedia is not dictionary articles on "terms", but encyclopaedia articles on the subjects of anal-oral contact and oral sex. Apart from the etymology of a slang phrase, contrary to our Wikipedia is not a dictionary (of slang or otherwise) policy, there is nothing in this article that cannot be said at the proper title of ejaculation. At best, assuming that you cite sources to prove that this is indeed an alternative name that is in use, this would be a redirect. Uncle G 13:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. With no reliable sources attesting to the notability of this...icky thing... there's no grounds to keep. Seriously, I like to think of myself as an inclusionist (but realy I am uptight and stuffy)... but this article tests my patience because I am so above this sort of thing. Captainktainer * Talk 17:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"Keep article" Not only is the term widely known in the Metro-Detroit area, but if you google it you will find many references to the term Boil Over

Keep the article, after reading the article most should be able to decern that this has nothing to do with boiling water or cooking. It is a slang term that may only be regional but like it or not it is used.

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 22:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timshel

Non-notable album / musician. A Google search for "Mike Rennee" and "Timshel" returned exactly two hits. Dsreyn 12:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Hmm... I seem to recall we had a page for "Mike Rennee" that was deleted several years ago, but I can't find anything about it. At any rate, if he's not notable, his albums aren't either. Delete.--Cúchullain t/c 04:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 22:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guilt Is for Free

Non-notable album / musician. A Google search for "Mike Rennee" and "Guilt Is for Free" returned only five hits. Dsreyn 12:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. As I said over at the Timshel AfD, I think the article for "Mike Rennee" was deleted several years ago. If he's not notable, neither are his albums.--Cúchullain t/c 04:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mangojuicetalk 13:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blackrunners

Slang which according to the article is believed to have been first used in 2005. Delete as a neologism and because Wikipeida is not a dictionary.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I have been skiing for 10 years and was called a "blackrunner" by my ski coach back in 1999. At that time is was a term given by the instructors to pupils who thought they were better than they actually were. …Ben

  • Transwiki - Let wiktionary decide whether it's worth keeping. The cultural notability is not established let alone referenced. JASpencer 08:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 22:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Investalist

Non-notable company, no claim per WP:CORP. Deprodded. Weregerbil 13:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Taco. Whispering(talk/c) 00:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TACOS

This article is an article defining a community neologism without any reliable secondary sources. It is also non-notable, as it has little to no use outside of Ars Technica. Per WP:NEO:

  • "An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy)."

That's entirely what the article is based upon. - Debuskjt 13:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • REDIRECT to Taco --Poeds 15:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Taco per Poeds. Danny Lilithborne 18:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Taco per Poeds. RFerreira 19:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect. --MaNeMeBasat 08:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, repeatedly recreated hoax. NawlinWiki 13:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Nguyen

Autobio for 15-year-old, repeatedly created and speedied, but there are claims to notability. Despite repeated warnings, and after a 24-hour ban, he chose to recreate it with this stuff. According to him, he had a hit single, he was best new artist in 2005 at the Australian Video Music Awards (actually Missy Higgins won), he's making a record with Hilary Duff, and he costarred on the Australian soap, Neighbours. Of course, none of this information is Verifiable. Let's delete this and make the ban permanent. -- Fan-1967 13:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was deleted by User:UtherSRG due to being prodded for 5 days. --ais523 08:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Podma Pettit

This is not an encylopedia article -- it might count as a contribution towards Talk:Foot fetishism Aleph-4 13:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I believe it is normal procedure to not list an article for AfD when it is already prodded. Anyway, this is clearly Original research, like the author states, and is thus a violation of WP:NOR and a clear candidate for deletion, no matter if it is viaprod or AfD. Fram 14:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Concerning procedure: you are right. But I had writted this afd2 page before I noticed the prod on the article, so I thought I should complete the nomination anyway.Aleph-4 14:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. - Bobet 12:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Samuel Green (rapper)

Fails notability test as musician or as University radio programme presenter. Fails google test. Springnuts 13:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 18:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira 19:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • DO NOT DELETE This article clearly demonstrates that Samuel Green has been and will continue to be an influential personality both in the field of rap music and in the domain of Zionist activism. Green's popularity is wide and expanding: his web presence is substantial, his radio show is widely popular, and he has received the assistance and endorsement of many very notable musicians and Jewish leaders. Clearly, the Wikipedia-reading public deserves to know about Samuel Green, his music, and his politics as presented in this article. --66.65.185.70 13:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • DON'T DELETE In addition to Samuel Green's many high-profile radio guests, note Samuel Green's significant coverage in the popular press: (list from his website)

'Hebe hop's where it's at' - The Metro, 14.03.06

'The Rapper From Cambridge' - Ma'ariv, 10.04.05

'Hip-Hop's Jew Crew Takes Centre Stage' - Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, 10.12.04

'Antithesis - His Story From the Beginning' - Frenzy, February 2004

'Rapping For Israel' - London Jewish News, 27.02.04

'Seven Days in Arts' - Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, 23.01.04

'Israel Rapper Sets the Record Straight' - Jewish Chronicle, 23.01.04

'Sam Raps Out Israel Questions' - Jewish Telegraph, 09.01.04

'Rapping For Our Rights' - London Jewish News, 18.01.02

'Hip Hop Home' - Ha'aretz, 04.01.02

Also, Samuel Green passes the notability test for musicians in multiple ways: First, he has a weekly two hour radio program (thus, he receives more than the required media exposure time.) In this vein, his radio program's podcast is quite popular as per Apple subscription rankings. Furthermore, he has been the subject of a BBC biography program. Additionally, Green has created something of a new genre with his politically charged rap music; "The Zionist Rapper" is a novel phenomenon.

Green's poor performance in the "Google test" is simply the result of the commonality of his name (as any "John Smith" would fail this test as well).

Keep it: The article is generally interesting and thought-provoking, well-written in an encyclopedic style, and of potential relevance to a fairly large number of Wikipedia readers. --Andrew Goldsweig 16:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep per Goldsweig. Coverage by newspapers on three continents adds up to a fair bit of notability. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per failing WP:MUSIC and clearly failing the Google test. Prolog 15:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • In multiple ways, article subject clearly PASSES WP:MUSIC: sufficient exposure in radio/podcast, profiled in BBC special, and new genre of "political rap." Google problem due to name commonality; better results with name "antithesis rapper." --216.165.126.107 18:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I don't think the press mentions of him are sufficient to pass WP:BIO. Mangojuicetalk 13:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, the amount of google hits by itself isn't that relevant about a person from Bangladesh, but in its current state the article is unverifiable. Since it's likely autobiographical too (started by Tanvirkamal there wouldn't be any way to keep it NPOV either. - Bobet 22:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tanvir Ibne Kamal

Fails the tests of WP:BIO. --Marwatt 14:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete — Has 19 whole hits on google. I would have thought that someone more notable (in the modern era) would have more hits on google. Plus 12 hits on Yahoo. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 00:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO unless someone can find credible, third-party sources to verify sufficient notability. --Satori Son 17:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 18:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interpromotional Organization Wrestling Federation (IOWF)

Contested prod. This entirely non-notable local wrestling club fails WP:ORG, WP:V, and WP:NOR. It's long and well written, but simply does not merit inclusion here. alphaChimp(talk) 14:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. No notability whatsoever. Dsreyn 15:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable wrestling organization. TJ Spyke 20:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kostas Pi

Aparently fails the Tests of WP:BIO. --Marwatt 14:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable. Dsreyn 15:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — Fails WP:BIO. I got 4 ghits and 0 hits on Yahoo. I think that this demonstrates that this singer does not belong in wikipedia. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 00:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. As the original creator of this article, I believe (after re-reading Wikipedia's associated guidelines) that although the individual has slight import on a local level with a small, localised cult following, the article by no means harbours any merit on a wider, global stage and until such time as this changes I concede that it would be in Wikipedia's best interests that the article and associated picture be removed. My sincerest apologies to those I have troubled and to the individual himself. 11:20, 16 September 2006
  • Speedy Delete per the original author, Ld317's request. Yomanganitalk 02:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was that I hereby acknowledge in spite of the sock-ridden votes, Dave and Aaron's opinons are duly noted, but there is a consensus to delete the article. (2/6/0) - Mailer Diablo 16:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Donal Blaney

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Former Chairpersons of a politcal party's youth organisation and local councillors are not inherently notable in themselves. Timrollpickering 10:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. He can come back when he's an MP. BTLizard 10:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as he's not merely a former chairman of the YCs and a former local council, he currently heads an influential youth training foundation and is a regular media commentator. People don't have to be MPs to be important. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.86.203.89 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep Won't someone PLEASE think of the children he has helped train. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.45.113.212 (talk • contribs) .
    • Note: Above comment added by anonymous user. Timrollpickering 17:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: Timrollpickering is a big girls blouse who needs to get a life. Just because someone posts anonymously does not mean their point is invalid, it isn't everybody who wants to share their views with the world to show what a learned and intelligent person they are. Address the point not your vanity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.86.203.89 (talk • contribs) .
      • The anonymous user should look at other AfDs to see that both this is standard practice and contributers are strongly encouraged to log in to prevent sock puppetry, especially from ISPs that have made only three contributions, all on AfDs. As for vanity, I note that these objections were posted on the same day that I received an email from the subject themselves. Timrollpickering 09:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Note: This exposure of a private email, if true and not a figment of your imagination, is a gross invasion of privacy and you ought to be ashamed of yourself. User:Hannibal_s
      • Correct. Anonymity doesn't make the rationale invalid. What makes it invalid is that "please think of the children!" has no connection whatsoever with our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Uncle G 16:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - these days the extra-Parliamentary coalition of conservative groups is becoming more important in preparing the Tory Party for government, much as happened in the 1970s. The YBF is a part of this and as such the people behind it are of note, not least when they are former national youth leaders and elected officials with links to figures such as Anthony Seldon. SarkisZeronian
    • Note: User is a new login whose only contributions so far are on this page. Timrollpickering 09:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Note: I don't understand why that means you can't answer his point? It's a fair one after all. User:Hannibal_s
        • It is standard when watching an Article for Deletion page to note when votes are made either by anonymous ISPs or by logins that have either just been created or have made fewer than 50 non-minor contributions. This should be kept separate from the actual issues involved. Timrollpickering 11:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Note: Does BTLizard not count as anonymous too? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SarkisZeronian (talk • contribs) .
      • No because they have a registered login that they post from and have made a significant number of contributions. I take it from your questions that you are not familiar with the policies and processes of Wikipedia. Try WP:VFD for more info. Timrollpickering 09:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Note: So in Timrollpickering Land how many contributions must an individual make before you decide they are valid?User:Hannibal_s
          • It is not "Timrollpickering Land" and I find it telling you feel a need to resort to personal abuse. It has always been standard practice in Wikipedia when seeking a consensus to note when votes one way or the other come from users with little history, given the problems there have been with sockpuppets. Timrollpickering 11:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The failure of the delete lobby to address the valid and strong points made by the keep lobby and instead to indulge in attempts to silence it suggest a personal vendetta. Anyone might think Timrollpickering and Blaney had a history, or that Timmy's thwarted ambition colours his contributions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hannibal s (talk • contribs) .
    • Note: Again comment is unsigned.
    • Comment Again a resort to personal abuse. To my knowledge I have never spoken to Blaney in person and probably never been in the same room as him, unless we were both at a gathering. I am merely following standard Wikipedia practice that has been followed on numerous pages seeking consensus in the past. Timrollpickering 11:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment trying to separate the debate on the AfD itself from all the personal abuse and lack of understanding of Wikipedia practices. For a page to exist in Wikipedia it must prove inherent notability in itself. Claims about being "a media commentator" on an AfD page are not enough - if this is relevant information and makes the subject notable, be bold and add the information to the page. In regards the role of YBF you need to prove not that the organisation is notable (that's a case for any AfD on it, for the record I would support keeping that article) but that being the executive of it confers notability on the individual. As I note above other executives have had pages created on Wikipedia and AfDed (with considerably less fuss). Timrollpickering 11:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I am interested who is behind activist and policy groups that feed the Conservative Party, the more full disclosure of these things the better. The repeated failure of those who want to keep these things secret and delete this entry are an affront to democracy. Their insistence on playing the man and not the ball exposes the deficiency of their arguments. User:Hannibal_s
  • Note This is second vote by the same login. Mea culpa - the confusion arose from an edit conflict making it difficult to check the full page. Timrollpickering 11:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Correction The confusion arose because Hannibal_s did not sign his first vote. Vote 1 and Vote 2. Timrollpickering 11:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment First off you are repeatedly attacking me for following the Wikipedia conventions. If you want to "play the ball and not the man" then redirect your criticism of those conventions to the discussion pages on deletion policy. Secondly this is not about keeping "activist and policy groups" secret - this discussion is in no way about whether or not to delete the Young Britons' Foundation page. I have addressed the arguments for keeping aboce. Timrollpickering 11:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Donal Blaney has gotten virtually no press coverage, as one would expect if he were an activist worth covering in Wikipedia. WP:BIO has fairly clear guidelines on the inclusion of political bios and this one doesn't pass. Mangojuicetalk 14:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mangojuicetalk 14:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for a lack of both notability and reliable sources. All I could find was a Guardian article mentioning an accusation of racism. That's not WP:BIO for me. --Huon 16:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per comments already made above. -- Roleplayer 17:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (and from a non sockpuppet too!). Being head of Conservative Future is notable enough for me. Dave 17:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Blaney is not the first chairperson of Conservative Future to be listed for deletion. Paul Bristow was deleted last year, whilst Nick Vaughan did not generate consensus. Nor do there appear to be pages on chairs of Labour Students (except those who've subsequently become notable) or for that matter leaders of the Young Republicans or the Young Democrats of America. Timrollpickering 10:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Donal was a chairMAN not a chairperson, and he's not listed here because he happened to be a former head of CF, that's just a part of his CV, he's listed here because he is Chief Executive of the Young Britons' Foundation. You seem to be missing this fundamental point, Timmy-boy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.86.203.89 (talk • contribs) .
        • Comment First off chairperson, chair, chairman all mean the same thing colloqually. Secondly the comment was made in direct response to the suggestion that heads of political parties' youth wings are inherently notable and that is the point to address there. As for being chief executive of YBF, I repeat that there is nothing to show why being chief executive of the organisation is inherently notable. See the deletions of other executives at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Pickering and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Smith (politician) Timrollpickering 16:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Seems to pass WP:BIO, though just barely. --Aaron 19:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. --Charlesknight 11:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per no. --MaNeMeBasat 14:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - as far as I can tell arguments to keep are based on three factors.
Young Britons Foundation. I'd say that's notable as an organisation but not notable enough for its officers to merit separate articles.
Conservative Future. Certainly notable, and serving officers may derive notability from it. Not former ones, however.
London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Former opposition councillors in London boroughs do not on those grounds merit articles in Wikipedia.
I therefore see no reason to change my original position, which was Delete. BTLizard 11:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per comments already made above. Refer to guidelines: this is a vanity article. Keep if it includes allegations of racism levelled at Blaney. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.66.226.95 (talk • contribs) .
    • Note: Above comment added by anonymous user. Timrollpickering 16:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 22:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nexus: A Neo Novel

Book that hasn't been published yet; no indication that it is hugely anticipated. No objection to this being recreated should the book attain notability following publication. Nothing links here other than a dab page. ergot 15:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, as nom. ergot 15:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to Ergot's comments, the book has been published and is available for pre-order from Amazon, Barnes & Noble and Chapters-Indigo. Please consult book's blog for more info. It is published by Manor House Publishing Inc. My apologies that my orginal article was unclear on its publication status. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Al192 (talk • contribs).

  • Comment. I did search Amazon prior to AfDing; I just searched again and got the same result--"No results match your search for "Nexus: A Neo Novel" in Books.". [24] Even if this has been published (which I can't confirm), I'm not seeing any indication of notability per reliable sources. ergot 18:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please go to http://nexusnovel.wordpress.com/purchase-books/ you will find hyperlinks there to purchase "Nexus" from major book chains previously mentioned. The subtitle has not been entered on the sites except for chapters.indigo.ca, which is probably why you had difficulty locating it in your search. If you do a search of books by KW "Nexus Deborah Morrison," it will also come up. The book can be pre-ordered from any of these sites until its distribution date in October.

In terms of notability this term is of course subjective but note that Deborah Morrison has previously published "Mytical Poetry." "Nexus" will also be distributed throughout Canada, US, UK, Australia and in other English speaking countries. The novel is notable due to its themes and connection with other novels in mind-body-spirit genre stated in my article. I hope this info helps you and please post if I can help with anything else.

Thank you for your comments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Al192 (talk • contribs).

  • And thank you for the information and the link. However, Amazon's page seems to be describing the book as unreleased, and it has no sales rank. While notabilty may seem subjective, we do have established standards for it here; notability and notability (fiction) seem the most relevant. And this book does not appear to meet them yet. Like I said above, I have no objection to this article being recreated should the book become notable in the future. ergot 22:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Note that there is also a proposed guideline for books WP:BK which this book would probably fail since there is a specific note on books yet to be published. I invite anyone interested in participating in the discussion about this proposal by the way. Pascal.Tesson 20:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning. If you wish to delete the article, I will recreate it once the book is out and some sales figures are available. Until then, instead of a separate article is it okay to reference the novel under Nexus under == In literature == section?{{unsigned|Al192}

  • Delete per crystalballism and spam. If the best references one can come up with include a promotional blog, we can safely assume that this is not respecting the WP:NOT principles. Pascal.Tesson 20:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said if you wish to delete this article, go ahead. When I wrote the article, I did it out of enthusiasm after having read a pre-publication copy of the book. I wouldn't expect individuals unfamiliar with the book to share in that enthusiasm. The novel will do well on its own merits and once it is successful, then I will resubmit a more extensive article with better references. Thank you for your comments. They have hepled me to better understand the requirements of Wikipedia, which I will incorporate into future submissions.

  • Delete per nom. The novel may well meet the expectations of the article's creator, but as the book hasn't yet been published, including the article is crystal ball. Victoriagirl 16:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mangojuicetalk 13:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pablar

Original research about the semantical subtleties associated to the Spanish verb pablar. Strikes me as not encyclopedic but I'd rather not prod this as I'm sure others might think otherwise. Pascal.Tesson 15:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - WP:OR,WP:NEO at best. Although it is not listed at WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an etymological dictionary of Spanish regional dialect. Yomanganitalk 15:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Huon 16:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Yomangani and WP:OR. --Satori Son 16:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Danny Lilithborne 18:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment but this seems like an awful lot of content for a dictionary. I don't think Wiktionarians would be too happy with us dumping this on their pages. Pascal.Tesson 18:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Oh... well, what are their policies regarding slang? 'Cuz this is Spanish slang. :) Danny Lilithborne 18:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Wiktionary is no different to other dictionaries when it comes to slang. It takes slang words as long as they are attested. Uncle G 19:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
What I guess I meant to say is that if we transwiki it, we have to transwiki a much shortened version of it and drop all the OR. Pascal.Tesson 20:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Yanksox 04:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bvt robotics

A school team building robots for FIRST Robotics Competition. No victories on a national level to date. No reliable sources given; the best I could find was this article in a local newspaper. Google results are extremely scarce, including no hits for "Bvt robotics". Seems non-notable, probably vanity. Delete Huon 15:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable high school club; violates WP:V; fails WP:ORG. --Kinu t/c 19:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as insufficiently notable and completely lacking in proper sources. --Satori Son 16:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Yanksox 03:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard's Play By Email Server

Looks like advertising, the article doesn't satisfy WP:WEB. J Ditalk 15:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, spamvertising. --DrTorstenHenning 17:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Doesn't look like advertising to me. (It's not a very good article at present though...) --Zundark 20:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB by not having any claim to notability, let alone reliable sources for such a claim. Sandstein 05:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Who cares???? YechielMan 23:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. -- Steel 18:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeice (dragon ball)

No article. Just an infobox. -Nv8200p talk 15:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete as empty. Tagged Dave 17:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted as copyvio by Lucky 6.9 - Yomanganitalk 16:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diamond Packaging

No assertion of notability, badly written (spelling, grammar, etc.) Djcartwright 15:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete Page appears to be a copyvio of www.diamondpackaging.com. Wildthing61476 15:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • 'Tis true. Speedy deleting. - Lucky 6.9 15:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Punkmorten 18:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two Step (Dave Matthews Band song)

Article makes no attempt to describe why this song is notable. Unlikely to ever be more than a stub. —Wrathchild (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic Apostolic National Church in Great Britain

This article changes names every couple months, is completely unverifiable, and talks about a non-notable church. In addition, it's a vandalmagnet (not exactly sure why), and the previous AfD keep consensus was keep but leave up for about a week to collect references. Wooty 16:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I wholeheartedly agree. I'm tired of sweeping gibbon references from an article that makes no valid claims to notability and has no sources. What is to distinguish this church from about a billion other Catholic splinter groups? Hmm... maybe it would be a good idea to go through this whole related cluster of minor Catholic splinter movement articles and nom them for deletion. I think I'm going to get on that now. Captainktainer * Talk 16:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Denominations are generally notable. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:NN. NeoFreak 06:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment AFD etiquette calls for including lings to prior AfD discussions. Here is the old one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic apostolic national church, where the result was "move to" the current title. (Ie, not exactly as described by the nominator.) GRBerry 01:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd just like to point out that when I was considering nominating for AfD, I also was unaware of the previous AfD, despite making a good-faith effort to find previous AfDs. Captainktainer * Talk 17:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You aren't the nominator... GRBerry 15:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm aware; Wooty beat me to it while I was still working on it. Captainktainer * Talk 13:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and NeoFreak. Prolog 12:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep It is really hard to tell on the evidence available, so I am unsure if this is a true denomination. It looks like it is. This page suggests at least 10-12 local congregations in Great Britain, which would be a denomination, but I'm really not certain and would prefer better sources. GRBerry 21:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schedulizer

Advert for a web service. Unencyclopedic. Taking this to AfD since prod was removed without explanation. --DrTorstenHenning 16:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Response: I do not see how this is an advertisement for a website. It is an explination of the service that a schedulizer provides college students. If you want to edit the article to make it more general (which I already did once) then you are free to. Also, there are no other articles about this type of service, which is growing rather quickly. If you deem it necessary, feel free to remove the external links from the bottom of the page; if that was done it could not be an advertisment.

Strong delete. Even if you remove the links, it's still an advertisement. It just has no independent purpose. YechielMan 23:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy delete. -- Steel 18:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dale Andreas

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:V -Nv8200p talk 16:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete'. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ron J. Bigalke Jr.

Graduate of a diploma mill, pastor at a church, teacher at Tyndale Theological Seminary-- which got sued by the state of Texas to stop issuing degrees. Person fails WP:BIO. The amazon.com sales for Progressive Dispensationalism is at 1,014,051, doesn't even crack the top million. Arbusto 16:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and WP:BIO. Crystallina 04:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO. There are only a few hundred G-hits for this guy, as well. --Nishkid64 18:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Subject is well known in Christian circles and respected for his opinion on end times theology. So much so that National Geographic Channelconsulted him for their show about end times. He was invited to speak at the 2006 Conference on Faith and History at Oklahoma Baptist University. He's a bit out there on his theology and I don't at all agree with him but that is no reason to delete an article about someone, just because you disagree with their religious beliefs.Bagginator 06:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The issues and policy here is WP:BIO. How does he fit the criteria? Arbusto 17:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and WP:BIO. There is nothing notable about him or his work. One may as well include an article on every self-proclaimed pastor out there who has written a book and had it bound for himself. Jim Ellis 11:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 14:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The assertion made by Arbusto that this man is a graduate of a diploma mill is incorrect. To put it properly Arbustoo should have written that it is his opinion that Tyndal is a diploma mill. However, a reading of the Wikipedia article (Specially the parts not written by Arbustoo, which is rather convenient) will show that Tyndale is a highly respected school in Christian Theology. Further, Tyndale paid its fine and is still a school in Texas which is "issuing" degrees. If it were a diploma mill, Texas would shut the school down. Next, Arbustoo writes doesn't even crack the top million and in another of his AfD's he wrotes doesn't even crack the top two million. One supposes if it was ranked 101,000 he'd write, doesn't even crack the top 100k. Finally, he asks, How does he fit the criteria of WP:BIO after I wrote how he fit the criteria of WP:BIO. A quick reading of that section is all one needs to see that he easily fits WP:BIO. He is a published author, well respected in Christian circles and asked to speak at Christian colleges/universities, and even outside Christian circles (As noted above with the link to National Georgraphic) is considered notable. How one can read my first comment and then ask seriously, How does he fit the criteria? is beyond my ability to comprehend. I urge those who do not have a knee jerk negative reaction to Christians or Christianity to look into this further and reconsider their positions.Bagginator 14:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Where on the nom. did I call Tyndale Theological Seminary a diploma mill (Your misreading and false claims are linked to your other votes in AfDs relating to me)? Also cite the outcome of the Tyndale court case, please. Secondly, you must establish notability with sources. Your list of video credits which list Ron Bigalke under "special thanks" does not meet any of the requirements(note: how some people in that list have a PhD by their name, well Bigalke claims to have one, but it is absent from that list). Speaking at a conference does not make one notable. Once again I refer you to read WP:BIO. Arbusto 15:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Also I take offense, as the other voters probably do, here to Bagginator's statement "I urge those who do not have a knee jerk negative reaction to Christians or Christianity to look into this further and reconsider their positions". This claim violates WP:AGF. Arbusto 15:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
You're right, I misread the above to read that you were accusing him of graduating from Tyndale and that in connection Tyndale was a diploma mill. As a matter of fact, you don't bother to mention where he graduated from or what evidence you have that it is a diploma mill. So until you provide evidence that he graduated from a diploma mill we are left with assuming it is merely your opinion.
Also, I find this statement offensive, "Your misreading and false claims" and to be a violation of WP:AGF. Bagginator 23:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Was your claim (calling Tyndale Theological Seminary a diploma mill) false or not? Arbusto 00:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment It was an error. It goes to intention don't you think? Do you have any evidence that the school he graduated from is a diploma mill? Perhaps you should correct your error as I did mine. He earned his BS from Moody Bible Institute. Is Moody Bible institue a degree mill?Bagginator 04:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
He got degree from Faraston. Arbusto 23:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
He obtained his BS from Moody Bible Institute. Your assertion that he is a graduate of a diploma mill is misleading.Bagginator 05:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Nope not all. Perhaps you should look into before making claims that I am wrong. Arbusto 15:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hidden Lake Academy

Article violates most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, most especially by using weasel words to make NPOV attacks against people and institutions. Possibly legally-actionable. Please note that I've never seen this page before today, have never heard of any person or institution mentioned, and have no axe whatsoever to grind in this discussion. Writtenonsand 16:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Needs cleaning, but seems sourced enough that a cleaning won't obliterate the article. WilyD 17:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Or not, I dunno - I tried to excise most of the worst of it, anyhow. WilyD 17:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the newly edited version by WilyD, meets standards for inclusion. RFerreira 19:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep edit as necessary...I've tried to be neutral (my bad about the weasel words) and nobody's really put much input into this article. --Yodamace1 17:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above comments. Yamaguchi先生 23:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks like people are beating this into keepable condition - Thanks, guys -- Writtenonsand 15:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, this article seems to be shaping up nicely. --Myles Long 22:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Wold Newton Universe characters

Firstly, the article information is unverifiable. It cites a few unreliable sources (most unofficial, speculative fan sites) to somehow claim that Napoléon Bonaparte, Pippi Longstocking, James Bond, Scooby Doo, Jack the Ripper, Veronica Mars, and thousands of other characters who have appeared in disparate fiction, as well as a lot of real historical figures, are all somehow related. To that end, it confuses the fiction of Phillip Jose Farmer, the fiction of countless other authors, and the unsourced speculations of many Farmer fans, and as a result is useless as a source of factual information (second reason to delete). I have checked some of the websites used as "sources" and found that they base their character associations on speculations that have no basis in any of the original published fiction these characters appear in. For example, is stating that Sam Malone is descended from an 18th century meteorite survivor something that is supported by anything in an episode of Cheers? I've seen every episode of The Sopranos more than once and there's no indication that Tony Soprano is a cousin to the Corleone family, which is nonsense because the Godfather films are fictional within The Sopranos. Some of the statements made on the page are patently ridiculous (Frank Black from Millennium is the nephew of Edith Keeler from Star Trek?). I see some books are mentioned as sources, but are they anything more than speculation either? Thirdly, though being fancruft isn't an official deletion guideline, this article is pretty much 300 kb of fancruft.

I know that users Bookworm857158367 and Piecraft have put a lot of work into this and might even vote to keep it. I suggest that another non-Wikipedia website might be best to host it, as it fails to meet both WP:V and WP:NOT. Andrew Levine 16:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC). Andrew Levine 16:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Regretfully delete - as much as I am an enthusiast of the Wold Newton universe, this has no real place on Wikipedia for the simple reason that the entire foundation of Wold Newton is speculative geneaology, emphasis on the speculative. At best, the list should be limited to what Farmer has published in Doc Savage: His Apocalyptic Life and Tarzan Alive, although that's also just Farmer's own speculation, so I hesitate at even that. Keywords are original research, non-notability (especially the fan-produced stuff) and verifiability. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Additional comment: Has anyone considered doing a Wold Newton wiki on Wikicities? That may be the best place and/or depository for profiles of this kind. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
      • A wiki would be an excellent venue for this sort of information. It could import Wikipedia's GFDL-licensed pages on all of these characters, and maybe add to each one the speculation that links them to the WNU. I would even be willing to host this page in my userspace for a short time after it is deleted so it could be copied to the appropriate Wikicity. Andrew Levine 17:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Though I guess there's a certain innate ballsiness of trying to connect Hercules, Tony Soprano, Star Trek, The Little Mermaid, and Lord Peter Wimsey into one big story, this is neither encyclopedic nor verifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete All apologies to fans, but this is seriously dumb. Danny Lilithborne 18:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • DeleteYes, it should be deleted. Only the geneology from Farmer's two books should be included here.

Go ahead and delete it if the majority opinion is that it's not suited to an encyclopedia. I can certainly move it to my own web site at Wetpaint if that's considered appropriate. I don't think it's any more "dumb" than any other type of pastiche fiction or more frivolous than many of the other articles already on Wikipedia, but it's not worth fighting over. My web page is at woldnewton.wetpaint.com --Bookworm857158367 23:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. I'm not sure that you could do that, since your website seems to be licensed under Creative Commons. I could be wrong here, but I think that you need to have GFDL to be able to have content from Wikipedia. I agree with several editors above in that I think that creating a Wold Newton wiki on Wikicities would probably be the best solution, in which case you could just transwiki this article to it. ergot 15:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Bookworm can legally re-use the information. All he has to do, if he wants to copy Wikipedia's content onto his site, is follow the instructions laid out in Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusers' rights and obligations. But he has to make it clear that the CC-BY-NC license does not apply to any sections on his site that re-use Wikipedia's content, GFDL applies to them instead. This is similar to the practice of other lawful Wikipedia mirrors. For example, Answers.com claims "All rights reserved" on their content, but specifically points out in their terms of use that the Wikipedia content they use is GFDL, and this notice also occurs on every page on their site which includes Wikipedia content. Andrew Levine 17:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks! In that case, I vote userfy until Bookworm gets around to doing that or moving it to a fan wiki. ergot 18:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I really think there's a place for this somewhere, but its really not encyclopedic, so Wikipedia isn't a good home for it. A fan wiki would be great for this type of content! Closing admin, please make sure that major contributors to the article have the opertunity to download a copy of the article's content and history for use elsewhere. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 18:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Camp Encore-Coda

Advertisement -Nv8200p talk 16:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Neither an assertion of notability nor links to independent reliable sources to back it up. I think WP:CORP is the right standard for this one, but if also fails WP:ORG if that is instead. GRBerry 02:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:ADVERT for insufficiently notable business per WP:CORP. --Satori Son 04:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Punkmorten 18:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wet floor effect

Neologism. For a popular graphics effects technique there are far to few hits. --Pjacobi 17:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep Seems to be the standard term, even though most of us (me included) wouldn't know what to call it, we would certainly know of its existance - I've certainly learnt something from that article. Dave 17:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability seems established within the article. --Aaron 19:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks notable to me. YechielMan 23:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gable Carr

Does not meet WP:BIO. Minor role in two films. No significant press coverage -Nv8200p talk 17:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. --RMHED 18:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not yet meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO. No sources of any kind in the article, much less credible, third-party ones as required by WP:V. I found around 40 unique G-Hits, most of them just credit listings for Dorm Daze 2, in which she had a bit part. One might actually expect many more GHits on an actress in a movie that has a tag line of "College Sophmores. Salty Sea Men." Ugh. --Satori Son 00:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 18:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Isisvoice

This is a recreation of "ISIS VOICE" an article deleted under the {{prod}} process (thus can't be speedied). This article was tagged with a prod by another editor with the reason, "Vanity page, author mentions herself eleven times, no ghits at all". Given that this is a recreation of a vanity page, I am bringing it to the AfD process. This author who created this article has only created or edited articles about herself or her projects. Agent 86 17:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete nnbio, also fails WP:VAIN and WP:AUTO. Danny Lilithborne 18:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a very bad article and not worth fighting for. There seem to be claims of notability, though. I'll keep this on my watchlist and I'm prepared to reconsider my vote if some decent sources are added, and the article gets a passable rewrite before it closes. AndyJones 15:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete for reasons already given. YechielMan 23:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted, fails WP:NOT "plot summaries" rule. I decided against merging since the same information is worded better on other pages and this is also unlikely to be a useful redirect. GarrettTalk 23:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Theft Auto Plot

This article is, in a nutshell, intended for plot summaries only, something WP:NOT advices against. Storyline summaries in main Grand Theft Auto articles are too short for a split, but those in the series' character pages (i.e. List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas) are the exact opposite. There is also another similar article (previously assuming several different names) currently up for deletion, with a few editors noting the same WP:NOT justification. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 17:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC) ╫

  • Turn into detailed plots Anyone who's played San Andreas for a while knows that there's a heck of a story to it that is probably best split off from the main article, simply because it would be too long. I haven't played anything apart from San Andreas and the orginal, so can't comment on that. However I agree that plot summaries do not deserve a page of their own. Dave 17:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Its very badly put together, it has lots of false information. Its genuinely a bad article, it sounds like the creator hasn't even played GTA.--Greene01
    • Note that the current state of the article is not really an issue; it is the notability of the article's intended content. The question raised in this discussion is whether or not it is worthy to retain an article intended to provide plotlines in the series. The article's content can in fact be rewritten to a more desirable quality if inclined. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 20:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC) ╫
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Mitaphane talk 23:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, violates WP:NOT 1.8.7: "articles ... should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger article." Simple. GarrettTalk 01:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - If you can't fit the plot of a video game on its main page, you're doing something wrong... Wickethewok 23:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Grand theft Auto articles. guitarhero777777 04:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fit a minor summary on the main page and port the rest to GameFAQs no need for it on Wikipedia. Whispering(talk/c) 22:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • [Delete] Timeline much more complete and acurate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ganfon (talk • contribs).
  • There is no point in a merge, all of the info is wrong, GTA Timeline is much better--Greene01
  • Merge into the appropriate GTA article. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Plots are outlined in the appropriate articles for the games. --SoWhy Talk 17:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John David Albert

This person does not seem to warrant an encyclopedia article; I don't see his importance. Triviaa 17:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Speedy Keep - A bit of American history, notable for being one of two to survive the Taos Revolt. Could be expanded and worked up a little more, but if the subject is not encyclopedic, I don't know what is. Crockspot 17:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I made improvements to the article, and I believe the nominator is now satisfied. Revised vote to Speedy Keep. Crockspot 21:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep The Taos Revolt was a notable event in American history. Being only one of two people to escape Turley's Mill alive during this event, he deserves mention. However, the reason why I chose weak keep is this; A Google search only shows about 10 unique hits. But this website shows a few books with reference to this subject. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
That's a good reference list. I went ahead and looked up the ID's, and put them in the references section of the article. I'll work on the old newspaper cites later. Crockspot 02:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I located where the newspaper articles can be found on microfilm, and organized them by colletcion. Reference section looks pretty good, if I say so myself. Crockspot 05:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above comments. RFerreira 19:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Crockspot. Murcielago 03:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WCW Grand Slam Championship

Original research, and also, the article WCW Grand Slam Champion was previously deleted, which should create a precedent. Renosecond 17:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete All original research since WCW never mentioned any kind of grand slam, and is the same reason the article Reno mentioned got deleted. TJ Spyke 19:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; such a title never existed. - Chadbryant 01:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Actually, back in the day it was mentioned.

If you remember the Dangerous Alliance, You had Rick Rude as U.S. Champion, Steve Austin was TV Champ, and Arn Anderson/Bobby Eaton had the Tag Titles.

Paul E. Dangerously (Heyman) would often talk of the only missing piece to the "Championship Grand Slam" was the World Championship (held by Sting).

The whole point of the D. A. was Paul E wanting revenge on WCW for firing him as a commentator, He still had his manager's license though, so he felt by having all the titles in his stable, this would have been the ultimate "Screw You" to WCW and he could hold their toes to the fire to meet his demands or threaten to walk and take his boys with him.

Back to the point, while it hadn't been brought up during "Hulkamania 2.0" era or the nWo era or the Vince Russo era, The Grand Slam was brought up in the past.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.117.65 (talk • contribs).

  • Keep the Article

If anything, the NWA stuff either needs to go or have it's own page.

NWA and WCW were seperate and their titles should not be mixed and matched.

However, the WCW Grand Slam article should stay because it was brought up in the past before Bischoff came in and brought Hogan and the rest aboard and things became more storyline/angle driven.

In the 80's to the early nineties, NWA/WCW announcers like Jim Ross and Gordon Solie would talk about Triple Crowns and Grand Slams and the like.

And I do remember the Dangerous Alliance and Paul Heyman talking about winning the Grand Slam and screwing over WCW like the last guy said.

Vlh—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vlh (talk • contribs).

Can you provide any sources for that? TJ Spyke 01:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I think those votes should be heavily discounted or just striked out. They must be done by the same user, and the reasoning is completely retarded, and there is a precedent already set in place. Renosecond 02:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article is totally unsourced, which is unacceptable. McPhail 14:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The other article got deleted, so this should be default. And I don't think that the "2" keep votes are valid. Giant onehead 16:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Yanksox 02:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anihilated (band)

Non-notable band. Most, if not all, information is unverifiable/original research. No claims to notability, reliable sources, etc... Delete as such. Wickethewok 17:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, per WP:NMG. The article does make some claims of notability, but is not properly sourced. PJM 17:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Largely copyvio of [25]. Kappa 18:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a failure to meet the criteria of WP:BAND and no sources are provided.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of BitTorrent sites

Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. It claims to be a comparison, but really there isn't much of a comparison, it's just a collection of links. Borb 18:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOT. --Aaron 19:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Dont ever dare to delete this article Why should you? weather it points to copyrighted files or not;this is Encyclopedia supposed to include every knowledge the human race might know! this is ,i think your idea ;no body supports you except the MPAA and RIAA! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Didimos (talk • contribs).
  • Being neither of the above, Delete as a repository of links, and thus against WP:NOT. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I replaced the AfD tag removed by the above editor, too, by the by. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It's little more than a collection of links. TJ Spyke 20:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT. This "list" is only being used as a link directory. --TheFarix (Talk) 22:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per pretty much everyone here. If this were more of a comparison and less of a link directory, we'd talk. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 23:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete it looks like a pretty useful comparison, but is unencyclopedic. Musaabdulrashid 23:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete web directory. Gazpacho 01:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment New columns have been proposed, which will make it more encyclopedic. But it looks like it's goung to be deleted anyways. Ultra Loser 04:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Neither of the proposed columns will make the article encyclopedic, nor are they particularly useful. Comparison charts works when you are comparing features, but there are no features here to compared. --TheFarix (Talk) 11:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment No. don't delete it. i've come back to this page a few times, and its proved useful.
  • Comment Yes, it might be useful, but that doesn't make it encyclopaedic. Also, replaced the AfD tag again... --Borb 16:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe it should be deleted because it's unencyclopedic, but it's worth saying that to me Wikipedia proves more and more to be a good (or maybe the best) starting point for my searches, whether I'm looking for knowledge or just for some good links related to a topic. From this point of view this article is pretty useful. I think that one of the strenghts of Wikipedia is that it's much more than just an encyclopedia.
  • Keep and allow this page to be developed further. It is much more than a "collection of links" and we maintain several other encyclopedic comparison-type lists here. Yamaguchi先生 23:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the article is completely rewritten. At the moment it is unencyclopedic. bbx 03:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It does little to enrich knowledge - as a collection of samples, it barely holds water. --Tree 04:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to Keep the article. --Konstable 06:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dabasu Durovys

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 18:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - Prominent representative of notable style and local area, as detailed in criteria of WP:MUSIC. PT (s-s-s-s) 18:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • keep, they appear to be have been at #2 on this record chart ("Latgolys radejis TOP 20" (04.09. - 10.09)) [26]. I've asked at the Baltic States noticeboard for comments. Kappa 04:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by Tom Harrison as repost of deleted material. Yomanganitalk 19:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gorgon's Head Lodge

uncited, non-notable club; possible hoax Tom Harrison Talk 19:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Definately not a hoax. It is a rival society with Order of the Gimghoul and deserves the same respect. Dates back to early 1900s.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uncalum (talk • contribs).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sleeping Beauty problem

Original Research Crypts0141 19:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep: It seems to be a notable probability problem/koan/thought experiment. I've added two literature references to the page here. As far as I can tell, the page describes the problem accurately, so I don't see the OR problem. Thanks, TheronJ 19:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Forged References Deleted: You forged those references so I deleted them. crypts0141 4:37, 15 September 2006 (EST)
  • Nothing to do with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martingale paradox, definitely not. No way this is a bad faith nom by a sockpuppet. Oh, wait, it's assume good faith, not Wikipedia:Be gullible. Keep of course. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unlike Martingale paradox, the Sleeping Beauty article is coherent and mathematically sound. -- Four Dog Night 23:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:POINT vendetta for nomination of Martingale paradox. Septentrionalis 02:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Septentrionalis. Michael Kinyon 06:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - interesting and verifiable concept. Serpent-A 06:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — This is a well known problem/paradox among philosophers. Where are the arguments for deletion? INic 01:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Runcorn 21:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Freeman: Edgar-Nominated Mystery Author

unsourced autobiograhy/advert of probably NN writer. Was deprodded with recomendation to userfy, but creator has no other edits. -Steve Sanbeg 19:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete The text is lifted fro the author's website. The article should be deleted for copyright violation, if nothing else. No question that Freeman is deserving of an article, but this ain't it. Victoriagirl 20:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment We already have a page for a Brian Freeman. Are they the same guy? If so merge content and delete as a redirect; if not, just delete (or move and totally rewrite).--Cúchullain t/c 19:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment I noticed that myself. It would seem that they are two different writers. How inconvenient for the both of them! Victoriagirl 20:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks notable enough to me, but copyvio is certainly a problem. Keepable if cleaned up for copyvio by the time this AFD closes, but delete if that hasn't been done. If kept, the title also has to be changed. Bearcat 02:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment I think Bearcat is spot on. Victoriagirl 02:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - the guy has only published one book so far; the rest are unsourced claims. TerriersFan 01:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - if any of this were sourced I'd be less hostile, but it seems like self promotion and looks unreliable. JASpencer 06:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moggeism

A religion made up by a teenager. Speedied once already, then put on prod, but an anonymous user most likely to be the author left a message on the page that appeared to contest the prod, so I'm taking it here. My vote is Delete as religioncruft, of course. Danny Lilithborne 19:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I would have speedied it on sight as well. Dina 19:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It is neither verifiable nor notable. Cardamon 22:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I've left the creator a message - his reply should give a clue whether he's serious or not. Dave 22:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per everything said Hello32020 22:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • No speedy deletion criterion applies. The article says "can't a child express his beliefs in a religion today or what!". The answer is, in some countries, "yes". But that doesn't affect one iota what one may write at Wikipedia, which is not a bulletin board, not an advertising billboard, and not a general free wiki hosting service. It's an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox. If you want to make up a religion and then write about it, your own web site is the place to do so, not Wikipedia. Self-professed original research. Delete. Uncle G 22:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Question Can you clarify? (I don't think we're in disagreement here, but I am truly curious to expand my understanding of speedy criteria) If I saw this article I would have speedied it under A7 (db-bio) as a "group of people" that doesn't assert the importance of the subject. My thinking would be that a religion neccessarily implies a group of followers, historical or current, and that without that assertion of notability, a religion such as this would qualify as a speedy. (Just so you know Uncle G, I've got your "on notability" on speed dial (ie. on my user page)) Cheers Dina 17:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete like Uncle G said, Wikipedia isn't the only place to place things. A personal website will do quite nicely. ColourBurst 22:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. This does lead to an interesting question though: No religious doctrines are verifiable. It's possible to verify their existence, but the mere fact of their posting is enough for that. So we have to consider the notability of a religion. This is where it gets most interesting imo: I don't think it's at all possible to come up with objective criteria to do that that would not lead to afd miscarriges of justice. Can someone point me to where to continue a discussion about this issue (pref. on my talk page)? Dave 22:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
      • That is conflating determining whether a religious doctrine is true with determining whether the article on that doctrine is verifiable by readers. Our Wikipedia:No original research policy is aimed squarely at religions, theories, and other ideas that have not been acknowledged by people other than their inventors and not entered the corpus of human knowledge. Uncle G 01:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per nom and UncleG. NeoFreak 06:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - nonsense. And wikipedia is not a soapbox. BTLizard 11:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note This discussion was vandalized by the article's creator diff and reverted by me. Dina 17:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator, the vandalism does not help the case. Yamaguchi先生 23:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fails WP:MUSIC, no evidence of notability as an internet phenomenon (no reliable other-party sources given). Kusma (討論) 16:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DJ Rankin

Fails every single part of the Musician WP:MUSIC guidelines. I apparently also forgot to mention as a professional DJ in the happy hardcore genre... I have never heard of the guy before today?  ALKIVAR™ 17:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Michael 17:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I have swapped the 'Scottish Musicians' label with 'Scottish People', seeing as the article outlines the fact that DJ Rankin is in fact not a musician. This reduces (or rather removes) the need for the article to conform to WP:MUSIC. 61.106.77.157 10:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Are you the same Alkivar that contributed to the comments section on youtube regarding 'rankin - the truth'? Then you're an american who hasnt heard of a UK 'artist'. Well im in the UK and while Im sure your quite popular and talented I cant say ive heard of you either :P . If you check the links on this article you will see for yourself that Rankin is popular and well-known - maybe not amongst your social peer group - but popular nonetheless. Yes he does fail on WP:MUSIC so the removal of his status as a musician is a sensible one the whole section of 'controversy' covers the fact that he isn't a musician which precisely the reason why he is infamous. Besides, a lot of notable DJs do not conform to WP:Music as they play record not make them. He is more of an internet phenomenon really. Considering his considerable influence on so many kids of a given age both in ROI and the UK I think his article should stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.177.65.182 (talk • contribs).
    • Unfortunately anonymous contributions do not count on AFD.  ALKIVAR™ 02:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • And just for the record... my friend Barrett (Sunrize) is on Next Generation Records... I know Paul (DJ Brisk) the owner of the label personally as well. Chris (Luna-C) just married my friend Becky (Bexxie). If your implying I dont know squat about the UK hardcore scene your seriously mistaken kid. Rankin is a nobody to anyone who matters in the UK Hardcore scene.  ALKIVAR™ 02:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Alter yes, delete completely no. 172.142.46.116 19:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Put your willy away and stop waving it about. I wasnt questioning your musical credentials, just the fact that they arent relevant here. I repeat that you seem to be basing your decision on the fact that YOU havent heard of him rather than actual research. Maybe you should ask the likes of Brisk, Hixxy and Scott Brown (especially Scott Brown) about the songs of his that Rankin ripped off...sure he's a nobody to the hardcore scene, in fact Rankin doesnt even play hardcore as such anymore, but he's still a big draw to the kids and getting more famous and indeed infamous by the day. All you got to do is look on google or any fileshare prog and see how many reference to Rankin there are. He might be a nobody to you and your contemporaries, but he's a somebody to hundreds, if not thousands of kids in the UK AND the US 80.177.65.182 12:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The fact is that in a sense he is a nobody. But because of his antics, all these kids think he isn't and have badgered promoters and event organisers to book him on the basis they thought he was ALREADY a big name DJ. One club/bar booked him on the basis he was the single most requested DJ. Look at the pics on his website playing to 1000's of kids...he don't look like nobody to them. Its a curious situation but one I feel should be documented considering loads of kids are emulating Rankin and think what he does is 'what DJs do' - I have heard so many kids say this in defence of Rankin it's depressing... Also if folks will give me a bit of time, I will add a few more sources over the coming days, as the likes of 'cant sleep clown will eat me' seem intend on wiping anything unsourced 80.177.65.182 12:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article appears to have been edited suitably. Also, the statement 'anonymous contributions do not count on AFD' is untrue. The rules state 'Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith'. At least two of the above discounted contributions are valid and made good points. You say 'Rankin is a nobody to anyone who matters in the UK Hardcore scene', but that fact appears to be the whole point in the article! (especially before the recent edits). As a final note, I personally have heard of DJ Rankin, and am well aware of the scale of his fanbase - it is huge. And he tends to play euro trance, not happy hardcore. To summarise, users have made changes to the article that correct the issues raised initially, and thus the article should stay. Eltyrub 10:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    No one appears to have made any further comments. I continue to believe the article should remain in place. Eltyrub 15:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 6 Newsbank hits total, none about DJ Rankin, and I suspect at least four are about another DJ with the same name. ~ trialsanderrors 19:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    What the hell is newsbank? Try a google or a yahoo search, youll see a few more results there - Take a look at this laughing boy - http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=dj+rankin 82.42.98.242 10:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article reads like an attack page, and DJ Rankin fails to meet both our WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO guidelines. None of the sources within the article meet our standards according to WP:BLP policy, and that goes double for the MySpace-ish Bebo profile. RFerreira 19:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The artists own profile on a site doesnt conform to policy? How the hell does that work? The article reads like an attack page because if YOU ACTUALLY READ IT PROPERLY (which I suspect none of you people are actually doing AND its properly on a subject you know nothing of) it's very difficult to put a positive spin on his activities - how do you say positive things about a thief?. He is notable due to his thousands of fans (more fans than a lot of other artists) and the article (while covering some negative activities) is all verifable fact. You think this guy is a figment of somenoe's imagination or something? What kind of sources would *you* like then? Ill find them for you. 82.42.98.242 10:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

: Relisting to seek clearer consensus. - RFerreira 19:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep Quick search for DJ Rankin of emule comes up with ed2k://|file|Dj%20Rankin%20-%20Maximes%20-%20Oceans%20Apart.mp3|5663521|125A39F17D2D6AA15366ABC5B380B970|/ (requires ed2k handler) amongst another 189 similar songs, which was hosted by 12 people at the time I found it. There are plenty of notable artists where that number would be lower. Tenuous, but I think it just about counts. Dave 21:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    Indeed, you will see larger results on other fileshare progs 82.42.98.242 10:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    Uh, since when are fileshare programs reliable sources? ~ trialsanderrors 18:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Instead of looking for problems, how about finding solutions. Look at google, look at youtube, look at yahoo, look at mp3.com, look at the fact that the guy was an independent fansite ffs. 82.42.98.242 21:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. In response to 82.42.98.242, Google is a search engine which can be utilized to find reliable sources, but is not a reliable source itself. MP3.com returned 1 hit for an unrelated "Ricky Rankin", but nothing for "DJ Rankin" or "Gordon Rankin". What I see here is an article about someone who has a small following of fans and foes as a result of his plagiarizing notable trance musicians. In search of reliable sources, DJ Rankin scored zero hits in the LexisNexis database, nor was I able to find any kind of mainstream or alternative media coverage of this person using Google or Yahoo. What we're left with at the end of the day is a few low quality Youtube videos and a vanity page from a blogging site. That is why this fails WP:BIO and other relevant inclusionary guidelines. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete immediately. Just do. Spaingy 20:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep If you don't think it is a proper 'biography', remove the tags like 'Scottish People' from the bottom! There is absolutely no reason to remove the article; it is an accurate description of the activities of Gordon Rankin, (not of his life story) and simply looking at the sites brought up by Google will tell you of the extent of his fanbase. Eltyrub 08:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    Also, watch the youtube video that is linked to - it may be a video, but it cites many examples of songs DJ Rankin has reused and passed off as his own, and gives the viewer the full names of both the DJ Rankin title and the original artist and title. In my opinion the article should stay to stop more kids being sucked into the illusion that DJ Rankin is a legitimate artist. Eltyrub 08:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    The above comment was made by 87.242.150.185 (talk • contribs), not Eltyrub. It should also be noted that this IP address tampered with the comment by Spaingy directly above. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry, I forgot to sign in - no need for that extreme action. And I wasn't tampering - surely 'Delete immediately, just do' isn't a valid debating point?? Eltyrub 08:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    kindly refrain from voting more than once. Ohconfucius 09:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    Voting? I was under the impression that 'this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus'. Eltyrub 14:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    Whos voting? It says at the top 'this is not a vote' doesnt it? 80.177.65.182 12:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    Technically speaking it is "course of action" according to WP:AFD. They are not votes per se, but they help the administrator to determine a rough consensus. Etiquette is to only put up one per person. If you change your mind, strike through the original recommendation and put it there. Of course everyone calls it a vote. If you want something more to say after your "vote" use the Comment label. Jdclevenger 22:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    Agreed. Is an artist who semi-regularly plays to thousands of people not notable? 80.177.65.182 12:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. As a DJ, he should more easily pass WP:MUSIC, but 61.106.77.157 appears to admit he doesn't. I can't see how he passes on any other WP:BIO criteria either. Ohconfucius 09:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    How does it not pass WP:BIO? If you going to say things like that, back it up with something that just a flat 'no' 80.177.65.182 12:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Ted87 23:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello? Is anyone going to give a sensible reason for deleting this article? Why is it only the people saying to keep it can come up with reasons. Look at all the references to him on other people's site (myspace etc), look at the gallery on his website, look at the fact that he has a independent fansite (not many artists can boast that), look at the fact that he played to 1000s of people and then sit there and say the guy isnt notable. So he's not had mainstream coverage in the media, thats because hes gained popularity outisde of the mainstream media. Theres plenty of source material linked on the page itself and to dismiss the sheer quantity of results on google and more important their actual content as irrelevant is frankly laughable. 80.177.65.182 12:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per failing WP:MUSIC. Prolog 15:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I think the intention in the article is to correct the myth amongst teens that DJ Rankin is a notable musician - so if he doesn't meet notability criterior set in WP:MUSIC it makes sense. This doesn't mean the article should be deleted, just that it should be considered less of an entry about a musician and more an article about popular culture and youth culture on the internet. Eltyrub 17:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly recommend some of you androids look at www.mixstreet.net. THIS is the effect DJ Rankin has had. 100s and 100s, if not 1000s of kids doing the same thing as what made rankin famous - messing with other peoples music (mainly pop-trance and happy hardcore) and calling it their own 'mixes'. 82.42.98.242 20:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was move to Wikipedia namespace. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 23:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/Requests

not an encyclopedia article; probably a mistake or typo by the creator Gavia immer (u|t|c) 19:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - I've asked the creator to if they want to move it and then we can close this. This didn't need to come to AFD unless the creator wanted it kept. Yomanganitalk 20:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 00:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marie St. Fleur

Non-notable person; no evidence of satisfying WP:BIO. Valrith 20:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Withdrawn. As noted by Dina, article now shows notability, so I withdraw my nomination. Valrith 22:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - An unencyclopedic article on a nn. Victoriagirl 20:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep - As a state representative, she carries a certain degree of notability... even without the scandal. Good catch Dina. Victoriagirl 22:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This article needs tons of work, but honestly, she's been really big news here in Massachusetts. She's the first Haitian immigrant elected to public office in the state, she got asked to run for Lt. gov and then it all fell apart due to scandal. The person is notable, the article does not assert it. Let me work on it a bit. Dina 20:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment I worked on the article, at least to the extent that I believe it now asserts a respectable amount of notability. I will continue to work on it, as I was researching her I realized there's more to write. Dina 22:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Hello32020 22:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment I just wanted to note here that the nom is not actually correct (that is the original article's fault, as it was one sentence long.) The article does satisfy WP:BIO, specifically "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature." Marie St. Fleur is a Massachusetts State Representative. Now that the claim to notability is asserted by the article itself, I think we should rethink this Afd Dina 22:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The result was keep. Grandmasterka 00:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Newman (inventor)

Non-notable inventor of not working perpetual motion machines. --Pjacobi 20:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: "What's new" is News, but this here isn't WikiNews. Is it knowledge? --Pjacobi 00:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree the "What's New" columns may not be the best of references, but they were the best I could do on short notice. It was the facts in them that I wanted: several nationwide (US) television appearances, a massive demo in the Superdome, an important court case, and a patent actually granted. He has stirred up a lot of publicity over the decades. Here are 4 short notes in Science about Joe Newman's battles with the patent ofice: "Newman's "energy output" machine put to the test", by Marjorie Sun, Science July 11, 1986 v233 p154(1). Newman's motor: does it work or doesn't it?", by Marjorie Sun, Science, March 29, 1985 v227 p1558(1). "The endless siege of implausible inventions" by R. Jeffrey Smith, Science, Nov 16, 1984 v226 p817(1), and "Newman's impossible motor; the patent office does not believe that Joseph Newman has built a generator that is more than 100 percent efficient, but New Orleans does", by Eliot Marshall, Science, Feb 10, 1984 v223 p571(2) They have some of the same facts as the "What's New" articles. .Cardamon 02:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I was thinking about nominating the article for deletion myself, on the grounds that it's written as a borderline-attack article. Wikipedia's pretty sensitive about critical bio articles, and this article hasn't been properly sourced (a few external links dropped in do not a proper-cite make). No prejudice against recreation if properly sourced, and with a more neutral POV. --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Why delete it when you can simply change it to make it better? It's not hard to change a POV to NPOV (and I have attempted to do so just now, see my edit), and sources can always be added. I actually have Newman's book somewhere, which would provide good sources for his claims if I could just find it.... -Amatulic 06:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Newman's machine was the subject of much debate and controversy in the 1980s and 1990s, garnered much media attention, and even got the National Bureau of Standards involved, as well as university physics departments. It's still a subject of curiosity; I for one was glad to find this article on Wikipedia, and I would have tried to create one if it didn't exist. The fact that he was actually awarded a patent makes him notable. Yes, the article can use some NPOV editing (I notice this is being done) and citations, but many articles start out lacking in those respects and eventually evolve into something better. -Amatulic 06:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable crackpot. Ergative rlt 17:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Why the hell wasn't this speedied? -- Steel 22:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hamland

Non-verified and non-verifiable supposed micronation Pseudomonas 20:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Leave it alone let lewis have his fun x —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.189.1.215 (talk • contribs).
  • Speedy Delete. Absolute hoax. Isn't there a speedie for that sort of thing? ju66l3r 20:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I tried to speedy, but it was replaced by prod, which the original author deleted. Sorry to waste everyone's time with this. Pseudomonas 20:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Someone has declared xyr bedroom to be a micronation, and not informed anyone apart from Wikipedia. There is no evidence that this micronation exists anywhere outside of this Wikipedia article. It is unverifiable. The author writes on Talk:Hamland that "we want to let the world know about" the micronation and that xe has "a problem with the ones who would like to take the information on this counrty away from the members of the english speaking public of the world". Wikipedia is not a soapbox for letting the world know about something, and if merely deleting this article from a tertiary source "takes the information away" from the world, then the knowledge didn't exist outside of Wikipedia in the first place and this is original research. Delete. Uncle G 22:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Pavel Vozenilek 22:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, absolutely fails WP:V. It's a shame there's no speedy category for blatant hoaxes, but WP:DUH! and WP:SNOW seem to apply. --Kinu t/c 22:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Most readers of Wikipedia are American and therefore don't speak English (or at least don't spell it correctly... I mean, seriously, 'color'?!??!!?!?!). Therefore by his logic Wikipedia is the wrong place to put this. Dave 22:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. Grandmasterka 00:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Jerry

nn indy wrestling promotion owner, gets less than 100 unique google hits [27], should be deleted or at worst merged to NWA Wisconsin Renosecond 22:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect to NWA Wisconsin. No need to merge since there is no info onhis page other than he is the owner. TJ Spyke 23:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. alphaChimp(talk) 06:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Suck Countdown

Tagged as speeddy A7, but contested and doesn't really meet A7 anyway. No credible evidence of importance I can see. Appears to be "broadcast" online (i.e. not actually broadcast). Guy 22:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge. I don't think its a speedy A7 to begin with. Going by the Wikipedia article, the site is clearly very notable and popular and gets a large number of visitors: the article here certainly warrants a mention in the main article, if not an article on its own. I'd go with Merge though. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 22:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - already covered in main article; nothing more worthwhile to merge. TerriersFan 01:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Alreadly covered enough in heavy.com's article. Yanksox 02:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per TerriersFan and Yanksox. Bigtop 04:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Steel 18:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DomainMart

Advertorial tagged speedy A7 but not formally an A7 speedy. Spam. And uses the word "monetization" which should be a speedy criterion on its own. Guy 22:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Nothing but spam. Valrith 22:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - seems to be advertisment rather than article on notable subject Pseudomonas 22:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per WP:NOT Hello32020 00:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. What about deleting the creator's, Alex Tajirian, article? Arbusto 20:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per nom. I've prod-tagged Alex Tajirian as well. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Grandmasterka 00:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darky the Dark Elf

  • Delete - Darky the Dark Elf was a fad on a single Games Board on Gamefaqs and is thus not deserving of its own page. Even if was it would be more suited to GameFAQs_message_boards than its own article which does not meet wikipedia standards for inclusion IlDuce89 22:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - unnessesary fork Musaabdulrashid 23:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 00:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Grandmasterka 00:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics Discussion Lists

Per WP:WWIN, Wikipedia is not a directory. AED 22:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - seems like spam. Also, shouldn't this be titled "List of Statistics Discussion Lists"? Musaabdulrashid 23:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT Hello32020 00:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT GRBerry 02:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Grandmasterka 00:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mehalled

Delete. Neologism, no Google hits. Prod-tagged by User:VoiceOfReason for the reason of WP:NFT; tag removed by article author. ... discospinster talk 23:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per Disco Hello32020 00:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism, and possibly OR. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 00:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per everyone. Danny Lilithborne 06:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Speedily deleted; not as a re-post, but rather for being a completely empty advertising article, WP:CSD criteria A1, A3. - Mike Rosoft 10:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dropps

This article was nominated for deletion before. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dropps

- Blatent advertising K95 23:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dragons (Book), The Dragons Series

Unverifiable, possibly imaginary novel. Requests for citations or references deleted without comment. Request for same from article's author ignored. Article has been speedied once. Prod removed without comment. Article's author has a short history of content issues. Kuru talk 23:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Also nominating The Dragons Series for the reasons outlined above. Kuru talk 23:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all No ciatation on a unvarified book = no article Hello32020 00:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Both. No assertion of notability. No credible, third party sources to verify. --Satori Son 04:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both per everyone. Danny Lilithborne 06:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Something's definitely wrong if I go to Google, search for author ("anthony siller"), and get 9 (7 non-repeated) hits. Ungooglable title, the articles have no information about publisher, ISBNs, etc, so this is just plain too hard to verify. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both, as above. --Piet Delport 16:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both, as above. Not even clear they exist and are beyond obscure if they do. On that note, let me mention the proposed WP:BK guideline for notability of books. (Although we wouldn't need a guideline if all cases were as uncontroversial as this one.) Pascal.Tesson 20:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Log_2006_September_15_2d14.html"