Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
< September 16 September 18 >
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. -- Steel 23:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Enoch

This page was originally nominated for Speedy Deletion. I believe that it is not a Speedy Deletion candidate so I moved it to Afd. I believe that David Enoch fails WP:V. I couldn't find any information about David Enoch on the most well-known chess sites: [1] [2] [3] [4]

  • Delete as nom --Ineffable3000 16:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Completely non-notable. A chessmaster??? Not even a grandmaster??? Sorry this deserves speedy delete. Wikipedia can't have articles on all the hundreds of thousands of obscure chess masters in history.UberCryxic 16:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom- definately NN -- Ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 16:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Less than 1,000 G-hits, as well. --Nishkid64 17:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom - Springnuts 18:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not-notable, probably not even during those Olympics. Oldcritter 20:03, 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. -- Steel 23:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duke Burger

Single joke on single level of Duke Nukem 3D. Stands absolutely no chance of being kept, consider speedying if possible. - Hahnchen 01:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I don't even think it's really necessary to even merge this. --Nishkid64 01:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Nishkid took the words right of my mouth. It's not an in-joke, it's a sign on a wall in a particular level. - Richfife 01:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete although I see no real way of speedy. However this might be worth a "no thank you" note on the creator's talk page. Probably should have been proded. Pascal.Tesson 01:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - It can be speedied by an admin with common sense, who isn't overly pedantic about "A7 for bios only". - Hahnchen 01:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--K-UNIT 01:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very minor, non-notable joke seen in only one level.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per above.UberCryxic 02:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete... please. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 02:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Encyclodedic, just not needed -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 03:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If it was encyclopedic, it would deserve to be kept. This, however, is not. Resolute 04:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. VegaDark 04:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Single level from Duke Nukem 3D that really doesn't have much notability aside from it's pop culture references (which are pretty much in all Duke 3D levels anyway). NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 06:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I just dont think this could ever be classed as encyclopedic, hardly a one liner. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete completely unremarkable. per nom Localzuk (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Deleteper above --Charlesknight 13:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - Many games have these kinds of jokes. They do not merit any recognition on Wikipedia. --Ineffable3000 16:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Of no value whatsoever doktorb wordsdeeds 17:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete A1. No notability asserted. Danny Lilithborne 22:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Laughed my ass off when reading Richfife's comments because a.) I agreed with him and b.) remembered exactly where that sign was in the game...which I haven't played in at least 8-10 years. Thanks for that amusing trip down memory lane. —ExplorerCDT 22:41, 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 flagged as copyvio. MER-C 08:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Living Hope Church

Contested prod. Prod concern was "A church; no assertion or evidence of notability". Deprodder gave no edit summary or comment. Article contains no references to independent reliable sources that could evidence meeting WP:ORG. GRBerry 01:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:RS and Alexa Web Traffic ranking of 760,781. --Nishkid64 01:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for heaven's sake. Also contrary to the spirit of WP:SPAM and not a soapbox. Pascal.Tesson 01:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom and also POV.--K-UNIT 01:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for obvious reasons. —dustmite 01:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, spam, soapbox, POV, RS, take your pick. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 02:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Just bad on so many levels. It's almost an ad. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 03:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No citations; fails WP:ADS, WP:ORG and Soapbox criterias; as well as POV.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for all the reasons stated above. NawlinWiki 03:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as copyvio of [5] eaolson 04:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Note that it can't be speedily deleted as a copyvio anymore, since it's existed for more than 48 hours.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Copyvio and POV. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Copyvio, nn, spam etc... Localzuk (talk) 11:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable, advert, and in agreement with the points above doktorb wordsdeeds 17:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, nn, soapbox. --Shirahadasha 17:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Sounds like an ad more than anything else. --physicq210 19:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Clearly an advert, no assertion of notability --JaimeLesMaths 01:04, 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. -- Steel 23:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soapy the Chicken

In addition to this nn-webcomic, the webcomic author Steven Stwalley is nominated. Soapy the Chicken, seen here is a webcomic with no Alexa rank. It manages to get 60 unique Google links. This fails WP:WEB, WP:V. - Hahnchen 01:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Nishkid64 01:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not significant enoughMarminnetje 01:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both per WP:WEB and WP:BIO. —dustmite 01:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable webcomic created by a non-notable person. Fails WP:WEB and WP:BIO criteria.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.UberCryxic 02:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and TBC. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 03:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable webcomic. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 03:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not notable now, and doesn't really meet WP:WEB or WP:NOTE criteria. --LiverpoolCommander 09:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable Localzuk (talk) 11:31, 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 redirect. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Human World

This article was created by the people who invented the term, as the history shows, so it is Original Research and Vanity; it is only used by the people at the radio show, so it is too limited in scope to be encyclopedic; it is POVed in the way it describes "a profound connection;" the information it presents is both obvious and already covered in other articles, mainly Anthropocene, so it is also unecessary. K-UNIT 01:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I have shortened the Human World entry and attempted to make it more neutral. It is true that, after many discussions with its Science Advisors (one of whom is Paul Crutzen), Earth & Sky invented the term Human World, and it is true that Earth & Sky posted this entry. But I would not call this Original Research or Vanity. In fact, popularizing science - creating simple concepts from more scientific ones, so that people can understand - is our job in the world as a science radio series. I would add that the words Human World are heard frequently on our radio series, which is broadcast to 6 million daily around the world (9 times daily on Voice of America, for example). Many people do hear the words Human World. They might wonder what they mean. If they searched on Wikipedia, it would be grand for them to find some explanation. Thank you. Earthsky 12:51, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wizzy

Another webcomic on Wikipedia's infamous billboard. You can see this comic, here hosted on a domain that fails to obtain an Alexa rank. Also try Googling the name of the creator Robert Mauritson. - Hahnchen 01:48, 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. Punkmorten 22:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Sonic Center

The article fails to establish notability per WP:WEB. I prodded it on the 12th but an anonymous user removed the prod. It hasn't seen any marked improvement since the prod, particularly in the field of outside references. Axem Titanium 01:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:WEB criteria. Alexa ranking of 119,888 [6]--TBCTaLk?!? 02:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable website. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 03:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)]
  • Delete - reads like an advertisement for this non-notable website Oldcritter 20:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 22:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. StuffOfInterest 23:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom & remind anon that removal of prods should be accompanied by a note on the talk page Storkk 14:07, 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, despite efforts of anons. Punkmorten 22:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UFC 66

This event, while likely to occur in the future, does not pass Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Only generic information is available for this event, and the promoters themselves, so far, have only applied for a license for this show with the Nevada State Athletic Commission[7] and that is no guarantee that the event will happen. In general, articles for UFC events are created only when the UFC themselves announce them. Prod was removed by an anonymous editor without explanation. hateless 01:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. UFC 63 is the next event, so this is a little more than a little too early. JPG-GR 03:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Its still a bit early to write on UFC 66, especially since UFC 65 and UFC 64 haven't started yet.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • keep it. It may be early, but may as well keep it here, there are already some good points (one of which is mine) as to why to keep it in the discussion section of the article. 20:22, 18 September 2006 (GMT) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.122.121.226 (talk • contribs) .
    • "Any WP moderator considering this for deletion is crazy" does not constitute a good point. Strong Delete for crystalballism. Danny Lilithborne 22:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I fail to see why these events, which are apparently held every month or so, are notable in the first place. Be that as it may, as noted above, two others in the series have yet to take place that are scheduled prior to this one. Oldcritter 20:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Wikipedia policies. However, feel free to create an account and familiarize yourself with our policies. That way, your edits don't end up back here in AfD --Roninbk 20:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • added comment. I've already got a comment down, but just wanted to add, why are people even bothered about this article when they are not UFC aficionado's?????, true UFC enthusiasts will appreciate this article being here. 00:39, 19 September 2006 (GMT) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.122.121.226 (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment That's nice to know. Try again when you have an actual argument. Danny Lilithborne 00:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I follow the UFC, as do plenty other editors on WP. The problem is that information pertaining to this event is almost all speculation, and speculation is not allowed on WP, nevermind its existance already breaks WP:NOT. The article will get created, when there is verifiable information available. Also, just because that template says speculatory information may be in the article, it does not permit speculation, it only means less experienced editors may edit material in that is prohibited by WP policies. hateless 00:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Falls under WP:NOT, "individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, preassigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item." Certainly the case here. --- Trench 20:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No content. StuffOfInterest 23:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Danny Lilithborne Why are you trying to provoke or initiate a quarrel/dispute with subtle incivility? 81.131.96.188 01:10, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zaheer Mohamed

Vanity article created by User:Zam123. Claims to have acted in Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna . But IMDB shows no entry of this actor in the credits. [8] Ageo020 02:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.UberCryxic 02:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 03:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverified and possibly a hoax. As nom mentioned, no evidence of him being in Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable person. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 03:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable, hoax, and/or vanity. --Ineffable3000 08:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Possible vanity here. Nonetheless, he's non-notable. --Nishkid64 17:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Firstly, a google search shows no unique hits. Thus, it is impossible to verify this article. Secondly, in the article itself, it is stated that the subject has acted in Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna. But a detailed search on imdb website does not even have a name on this person. This clearly shows that this article is a hoax. This piece of misinformation on this project should be deleted as soon as possible. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Autobiography Oldcritter 20:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 22:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Subject clearly not notable, and lacks assertion of notability.Ohconfucius 06:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Yamaguchi先生 23:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete auto-bio hoax. StuffOfInterest 23:33, 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. Tyrenius 15:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses

The information in the first half of the article is included in the Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses article. The information in the second half of the article is included in more detail and with better quality on the Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses page.

The debate of the previous nomination can be seen here. The result was no consensus, however the article has changed since its nomination about this time last year. BenC7 02:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. The second part of the article is written in an irritating "Some claim...others claim" style. Allon Fambrizzi 02:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
  • Weak delete. Redundant due to Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses and Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses articles.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete The information is important, but its already in those other two pages so its redundant. Clamster5 04:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - merge any relevant info into 2 aforementioned articles. Redirect. -- Ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 17:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge content per nom. -- issue appears to be redundancy, not the content itself. --Shirahadasha 17:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete; redundant to existing articles. FWIW, most of those things with "citation needed" tags are documented, often by the Witnesses' own literature; it's just a matter of someone sitting down and looking them up. I would do that myself, but I've been burned in the past spending an hour or two on articles that just end up getting deleted. And, like I said, we already have this information elsewhere. ergot 23:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete redundant StuffOfInterest 23:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that makes a consensus... BenC7 07:19, 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 18:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Goldfarb

Prod contested by Dan goldfarb (talk • contribs) who insists he had nothing to do with the creation of the article. If the article has any hope of conforming to WP:BIO one would need some presence on the web. However, IMDb knows only his work on Game Shop which, incidentally, is a 3 minute silent short. 33 unique hits for "Dan Goldfarb" + film, and 4 for "Dan Goldfarb" +cinematography, (2 wiki, 1 irrelevant + the IMDb one). It is also claimed that Goldfarb is a news photographer and although I am certain he does a fine job of it, there are only 19 Ghits for "Dan Goldfarb"+ photographer, none of which constitute independent coverage. Pascal.Tesson 03:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. No verification of Goldfarb ever winning any of the awards listed in his article.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, unless someone can find sources for those awards. If so, weak keep. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 03:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment Even if we did find references for those, I'm not sure I'm convinced that "Second Place, Alabama Cable Television Association Award for Excellence in Programming and System" is remotely meaningful to anyone outside the Alabama cable-television community. That's just a couple of notches above employee of the month. Pascal.Tesson 03:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Point taken! Delete, then. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 04:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete probably vanity, certantly not close to notable. Resolute 04:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Pure vanity - flush. --Charlesknight 13:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:VAIN and WP:BIO. --Nishkid64 17:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. But he was Employee of the Month. Oldcritter 20:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Yamaguchi先生 23:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. StuffOfInterest 23:35, 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 18:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Troup (Lost)

Non-notable non-character-- fictitious author who does not appear as an actual character on the TV series, but only "existed" as a marketing ploy for the semi-tie-in book Bad Twin. The deletion also includes the redirects Valenzetti and Laird Granger. --LeflymanTalk 03:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect to the Lost Experience article.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. This article meets notability guidelines... And the nominator is right- it is a notable marketing ploy, and there is valid information in this article that explains this. In fact, the ABC team made two websites that tie-in with Gary Troup, www.garytroup.net and www.valenzettiequation.com, and a publication, Bad Twin. Article cites multiple articles discussing Gary Troup, including coverage by the New York Times, USA Today, the Boston Herald, Variety... It's quite notable for Wikipedia. -- Wikipedical 05:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep well sourced and adequately written article. Discuss merging into another Lost related article as I'm unsure whether Troup is notable enough for his own article.--Opark 77 07:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • That would be the point of the AfD: an article about an inactive fictitious (not merely fictional) person "Gary Troup" is not notable. The "Lost Experience" and the marketing efforts associated with it are; a non-existent author created just to generate interest in a semi-tie-in is not. The core of this article's info is already mentioned at Lost Experience, where content from here can be merged, if needed-- as there will never be more to say about Gary Troupe, the character. The real author, Lawrence Shames, apparently doesn't merit his own article; nor does the book itself. We likewise don't have entries for Peter Thompson, Hugh McIntyre and, apart from Rachel Blake, none of the other fictitious characters in the marketing campaign. --LeflymanTalk 16:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per above. SergeantBolt (t,c) 08:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. Well sourced. -- Ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 17:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per soapbox. A discussion in the article on Lost Experience is adequate. THere is a difference between discussing marketing strategies and furthering them. Redirect to Lost Experience. If must be kept, redirect to e.g. Marketing of Lost Experience. --Shirahadasha 17:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. It's a well-written article on a notable subject. --Nishkid64 18:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: could those (as above) claiming "notable subject" please provide a rationale of what makes "Gary Troup" a notable character/fictitious person requiring a separate article (from "Lost Experience")?--LeflymanTalk 19:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a well-written article on a subject that is clearly internationally notable. However, I will say that sometimes I think a distinction needs to be made between subjects that are notable today, versus subjects that are historically notable and worth being documented, encyclopedia-style, for future generations. Though I definitely agree that the Troup article is worth keeping for now, my answer would probably change if asked 20 years in the future, by which time this article may have been merged into some other Lost article as little more than a footnote. But for now, as an article about what is effectively an in-process current event, where we have to maintain large amounts of information because we don't yet have the lens of hindsight to determine which parts are most important, I say yes, keep. --Elonka 19:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or Redirect into Lost Experience. Same with Rachel Blake. --theDemonHog 04:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very informative, very well written. Also important to note that it is not a foregone conclusion that Troup or Bad Twin exist solely as a "marketing ploy," especially given the recent revelation of the significance of the Valenzetti Equation via the Lost Experience. Even if that were the case, however, it wouldn’t necessarily disqualify the article, as it still contains pertinent information. Do not delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BeingClever (talk • contribs) 23:21, 17 September 2006.
  • Keep. Interesting article that seems to have enough separate content to justify its existence separate from the Lost Experience. Elonka makes an excellent point that the article is notable today, though probably not in 20 (or possibly even 10) years. Kubigula 22:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Article has enough content about the element to make it too large to merge in effectively. StuffOfInterest 23:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia has other articles on fictional (or fictitious, despite the fact that one delete voter doesn't seem to know these are synonyms "per" Websters, OED, etc.) characters, and this is a character that we can assume to be canon until otherwise stated, despite the fact that they're never seen on screen. Thus neither the fictional/fictitious metric, nor the notability metric apply (consider the fact that "Gary Troup" has, all in all, probably more visibility on amazon, barnes and noble, etc., than the Hanso Foundation, which does have its own article) had in the show, and you will understand why this is also a bunk idea. All in all, the deletionists seem to have no real reason for this at all. Professor Ninja 20:16, 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 Redirect. As has been pointed out, this case didn't need AfD. Keeping it as a redirect is harmless, does the job, and helps prevent a similar inadvertent recreation under the wrong title. No merging necessary. Tyrenius 16:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GlobalSecurity.Org

See this diff [9], which contains the original complaint. In short, there is an article called GlobalSecurity.Org (capital "O") and another called Globalsecurity.org (lower case "o"). The latter contains all of the information of the former and more. The latter also adheres to Wiki's guidelines of WP:CITE and WP:NOR, while the former doesn't. Plus, "GlobalSecurity.Org" is a violation of Wikipedia's naming conventions. Thus, GlobalSecurity.Org should be deleted. WGee 03:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. No need to redirect, due to naming conventions violation.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete redundant. Opabinia regalis 05:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Localzuk (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • We redirect alternative spellings and mis-spellings such as this, on the grounds that if one person has grown a full article at an alternative spelling or a mis-spelling once, it is probable that others will do the same in the future. Deleting the articles leads to a continual cycle of re-creations and deletions. Redirects prevent that. When you see duplicate articles like this, AFD should not be your first port of call. Redirect. Uncle G 11:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Note that when you type something in the search bar, it automatically directs you to an article even if the capitalization may be incorrect. For example, typing in wiKIPedia or wikiPEDIA in the search bar will automatically bring you to the Wikipedia page, regardless if no redirect page already exists. --TBCTaLk?!? 23:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect per Uncle G. Guinness 12:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect we redirect common mispellings, the naming convention is irrelevant to that.--Jersey Devil 17:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. As I noted above, there is no need to redirect capitalization-related mispellings due to a special feature in the search bar.--TBCTaLk?!? 23:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have boldly redirected the .Org article to the .org article, and incidentally added some history to the .org article about the origin of some of the content at the old FAS website. This can be closed at this time per WP:SNOW and WP:BOLD. Georgewilliamherbert 01:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Why did you redirect it? As I've already said, there's no need to redirect capitlization-related mispellings due to a special feature in the search bar.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - This whole AFD is a misuse of AFD. There is no support for the article as it stands. This is a clear WP:SNOW. Speedy redirect, followed later by a prod or speedy on the redirect if it offends you, would be fine. Why one earth de-redirect it as you did? This makes no sense... Georgewilliamherbert 02:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment. It does make sense, if you've read my comment: "Note that when you type something in the search bar, it automatically directs you to an article even if the capitalization may be incorrect. For example, typing in wiKIPedia or wikiPEDIA in the search bar will automatically bring you to the Wikipedia page, regardless if no redirect page already exists". Also, I'm not advocating for article to be kept, I'm advocating for it to be deleted.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Why do you think I didn't read it? I know how the code works, I've been using WP for over a year and run a couple of MediaWiki websites. You're making an orthogonal argument. My point is that this is not a subject which should have been an AFD fix. AFD is for controverisial fixes, where someone may object to it. Nobody is objecting to fixing this one. I tried to boldly take the quickest fix (redirect) and allow for a perfectly proper cleanup Speedy or Prod later of the redirect. It would actually be within existing policy to speedy the darn thing, except that it's under AFD right now, and I'm not an admin (yet? to date?). A bold redirect followed by later speedy redirect delete is perfectly acceptable as a suitable action here. Don't waste people's time on AFD with non-controversial cleanup tasks which are clearly compliant with community consensus and WP policy... just do them. Georgewilliamherbert 02:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
            • I'm not accustomed to nominating anything for deletion, so I may have made a mistake in using AfD. Your complaints are noted, but what's done is done. Why don't you just wait for the conclusion of this AfD? Or if you are really eager for a quick fix, do what TBC said below. -- WGee 03:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
              • Instead of redirecting then speedying that redirect, why not simply vote to speedy delete it right now and letting an admin handle it?--TBCTaLk?!? 03:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect and keep the redirect, not because it helps searching, but to preserve the history. To TBC: Deleting a redirect takes up more database space than not deleting it, so unless you're worried about Special:Randomredirect use there probably isn't a need to delete it. In my opinion, capitalization redirects shouldn't be created, but once they exist they shouldn't be deleted either. AfD isn't even needed for this change, but now it's here we may as well let the debate go on. --ais523 13:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete redundant StuffOfInterest 23:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Sandy 14:23, 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. Punkmorten 22:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs featuring cowbells

I'm sorry, but we cannot have an article in an encyclopedia which is a) unsourced, and b) claims that Bob Dylan, David Bowie, the Beatles, Jay-Z, The Byrds, George Harrison, Black Sabbath, Dizzy Gillespie (Dizzy fricking Gillespie!) and countless others had songs featuring cowbells.

There are two references in the entire article that verifies two songs. The rest is taken from "The Cowbell Project" (I'm assuming, since that's the only external link, which itself is just some crazy fanatics home page, and cites no sources).

I know people are fond of their internet memes, and that's fine. You can have your articles on Star Wars kids and Numa Numas and whatever. That's ok, I don't have any problem with them at all. But honestly, can you call yourself a good wikipedian if you want an article in an encylopedia that claims that Jimi Hendrix used cowbells.

Kill it, kill it fast! Oskar 03:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Crufty, unverified list, most likely created due to a related internet meme.--TBCTaLk?!? 04:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, or significantly pare down to what is sourced. - I could see how this list could possibly be useful if it were properly sourced, as any list of songs featuring any particular instument could in theory be useful. However, "The cowbell project" doesn't look like it can be considered a reliable source. They have a place to submit songs to add to their list that looks like anybody could add, verified or not. I can see that being an external link but not a source. As of right now there are 2 songs that have a source which I haven't checked to see if they are reliable or not. Assuming they are, that would leave this entire article with 2 songs reliably sourced, which would make this article useless. If someone wants to find a reliable source for each song on here though I would welcome it and would reconsider my vote. VegaDark 04:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or significantly pare down to what is sourced IOW I concur with VegaDark. Although by the looks of it only two or three songs are sourced.--T. Anthony 04:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Just Delete it as listcruft Bwithh 04:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete lame offshoot of a beaten-into-the-ground internet meme. Opabinia regalis 05:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete You're really going to want less cowbell (someone had to say it) - Richfife 06:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I was actually kinda dreading that someone would Oskar 07:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. As per nomination. Just on a side note however, Jimi Hendrix did in fact use cowbells. the song "Stone Free" has a very noticeable amount of cowbell. It would be very hard to miss it. Nauticashades 10:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT a set of lists, or an indiscriminate collection of links. Complete cruft Localzuk (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.UberCryxic 16:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Listcruft doktorb wordsdeeds 17:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT. --Nishkid64 17:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as listcruft.--Jersey Devil 17:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete violates Wikipedia: No Original Research if you need a reason beyond simply looking at the article. Oldcritter 20:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete why is this the 3rd nomination? Danny Lilithborne 22:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • A very good question Oskar 23:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • As a percussionist I can tell you the cowbell is a very fine instrument. As a Wikipedian, I can tell you this is a very pointless list. Delete.-- danntm T C 23:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Ponderable: How many of these songs actually feature jamblocks instead of cowbells? Or some other similar sounding instrument? - Richfife 02:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Maintain I don't know the proper format for this... so I'm just following the lead here. I have been a long-time wikipedia reader (and active promoter!) and have to say that I have referenced this article twice. Unfortunately, this time it looks like it's marked for deletion. The reason I referenced it was because I was listening to Bon Jovi's "You Give Love a Bad Name" and you can definitely hear the cowbell between times 0:10-0:20 of the song (and possibly more later) and I wanted to see if it REALLY is cowbell! Sure there may be ONE reference, but honestly... how many idiots do you need 'to change a lightbulb?'--metaphorically speaking. I like how everyone is saying that certain songs definitely DON'T have cowbell... but how many people actually loaded up their playlist and listened for it? And BTW WP:NOT doesn't exclude lists... it doesn't even mention lists. Why? Because that would exclude lists of former presidents, nobel prize winners, etc. etc. Point made. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.250.246.160 (talk • contribs) .
I am not against lists at all, in fact I've made several lists. I started List of draughts players, List of Mennonites, and List of music prodigies. That said the things in a list have to have the topic as part of their notability. See Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). Even the confirmed examples here would not be less known if they lacked cowbell or at least it's debatable they would as no one cared that they did until years later due to a comedy sketch. Still on searching I find that there is a List of songs featuring hand claps and List of songs featuring vibraslap, but those are the only other instruments I find. It does make me ponder though so I'll under the cross out I did above.--T. Anthony 03:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I see there's also List of songs featuring finger snaps and Songs that start with telephone sounds--T. Anthony 03:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Those aren't the worst of our problems. I'm much more concerned with the fact we have a List of songs about robots. VegaDark 05:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I think I disagree a bit there. That a song is about a robot could be a central element and even be important to its notability. I'm not sure any song is notable for having handclapping, a vibraslap, or a telephone sound.--T. Anthony 07:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Bananaphone. VegaDark 18:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as not remotely suitable for an encyclopedia. Committ anyone who thought writing it added to the stock of the world's knowledge. Legis 15:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Maintain -- sure, it needs pruning, but what doesn't? --207.99.73.226 17:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the previous nomination and resolve any sourcing issues. Yamaguchi先生 23:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no encyclopaedic topic "songs featuring cowbells"; the definition of "featuring" is arbitrary (how many cowbell beats in the drum tabs before it counts as featuring?); no reliable sources for this information have been identified after two previous AfDs, making "keep and source" a null vote on the basis that previous attempts to keep and source have resulted in keeping and not sourcing; the likelihood of verifiable sources existing for most of these are slim anyway since the listener can't tell the difference betwen a sampole and a real cowbell, and full scores are rarely published these days, so any song in the last couple of decades is goign to amount to original research pretty much by definition. I'm sure there are other problems as well, but those are the major ones that I see here. Guy 14:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per pervious nominations but take out anyting that isn't sourced in this or a pointed to article. StuffOfInterest 23:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the reasons advanced in the previous nominations. The list establishes a notable connection between songs. You can certainly argue that the article needs cleanup and sourcing, but that is a content issue. -Kubigula (ave) 19:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Still Delete Content sourcing issues normally don't apply in AFD, except in this case there is no physical way that the article could ever hope to be properly sourced. Is that a cowbell I hear or a jamblock? Is it a sample? Is it someone banging on a roadie's head? If you look at the written logs that come out of a recording session, about all you ever see are: "Track 1: Guitar 1 Track 2: Guitar Fills Track 3: Percussion Track 4: Bass... etc.". They don't keep records of whether or not a cowbell was used. Also, if you really get right down to it, this article isn't so much a real scholarly work as it is an attempt to keep a meme alive. - Richfife 21:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The article is definitely not scholarly; it's part of what I think of as the more playful side of WP. It is, however, a list that establishes a notable connection between the referenced items. It would be notable in a very small way, but for the SNL sketch generating a little more interest in the previously overlooked cowbell. Sure, it's a little crufty, but you only have to read the talk page and the comments in the various deletion discussions to see that it generates interest and discussion. Your point about the difficulty of sourcing the article is well taken. However, I could see Rolling Stone asking Mick Jagger if that was really a cowbell in Brown Sugar. Alternately, the article could disclaim that the songs contain cowbell or a cowbell-like instrument and use the songs as the source - as we might use a book as a source for a quoted phrase.-Kubigula (ave) 22:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as listcruft --Storkk 14:14, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duke Tumatoe

Non notable - though article gives (bare) assertion of notability hence not trying speedy Springnuts 03:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete I honestly have no idea who this guy is and why he is the least bit important. Clamster5 04:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, passes WP:MUSIC criteria. He has released eight albums, including one on the major label Warner Bros. [10] He was also once a member of REO Speedwagon, a notable rock band. [11] [12]--TBCTaLk?!? 05:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep since passes WP:MUSIC. JoshuaZ 06:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I added a link to his AllMusic page. He's been around. Apparently he was also a member of an antediluvian (sp?) version of REO Speedwagon. - Richfife 06:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Neier 07:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As the article stands it doesn't show any reason for it to be kept. It doesn't assert the significance of the subject matter and has 1 non-working reference. Delete for now, but wouldn't oppose in future if it was re-created with more information. Localzuk (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per all of the above. He passes WP:MUSIC. --Nishkid64 17:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:MUSIC --rogerd 01:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - long standing, significant musician in Indiana. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable enough. StuffOfInterest 23:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. --Storkk 14:15, 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. Punkmorten 22:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freddyjrjr

Non-notable Web site. Possible vanity / advertising site Fairsing 04:05, 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 merge into Tornadoes of 2006. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 01:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] September Upper Midwest Tornado Outbreak

This is not Wikinews. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge into Tornadoes of 2006 where tornado outbreaks with similar amounts of information seem to be located. Crystallina 04:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The information already seems to be included in Tornadoes of 2006. eaolson 04:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. The tornado doesn't seem notable enough to merit it's own article. Also, as of now, there hasn't been any major damages or injuries caused by the tornado yet.--TBCTaLk?!? 06:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The outbreak included at least 6 unconfirmed tornado's and caused 1 death and is being referred to as one of the strangest storm outbreaks due to the time of the season in Minnesota. It includes very destructive damage similar to the Tornado Outbreak of a few weeks ago. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dane2007 (talk • contribs).
  • Merge with Tornadoes of 2006. Name does not adequately describe its content. Tornado outbreaks occur in this area regularly. If we give this name to a tornado outbreak occurring in the Upper Midwest in 2006, what in the world would we call the inevitable articles on the previous or the next tornado outbreak in that area? Need to have a naming convention that permits a user to find needed articles. A series of clearly-named articles on each year's tornado outbreaks does this. A hodgepodge of oddly-named individual articles on randomly-selected outbreaks doesn't. --Shirahadasha 17:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Tornadoes of 2006 as per above. This tornado outbreak doesn't merit an article by itself. Just merge. --Nishkid64 19:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. Doesn't have enough to stand on its own. StuffOfInterest 23:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Merge per above. --Storkk 14:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Tornadoes of 2006#September 15-16 per above. Tornado counts in single digits with one fatality do not make articles, especially when none were stronger than F2. CrazyC83 23:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP. This outbreak is still ongoing. More of this weather is expected. Martial Law 02:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: what's the difference between this one and Late-September 2006 Tornado Outbreak? None, right? This is excessive coverage, I think. blameless 02:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Different events. This was Sept. 15-16. That outbreak is Sept. 21-23. CrazyC83 02:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • In that case, Martial Law's comment is invalid. Thus, I'd say Merge to Tornadoes of 2006. blameless 04:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Why? They are different events. CrazyC83 02:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
They don't each need their own article. Anchoress 03:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Tornadoes of 2006. As far as I can tell, there were only a few tornadoes, which doesn't qualify as an outbreak or an outbreak sequence. --Coredesat talk! 05:01, 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. Love the name, though. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frankz Finest Hot Dog Palace

This article about a restaurant fails WP:CORP, which would require that Frankz be "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself". The Torontoist source is a weblog, which is not an acceptable verifiable source per WP:V. The only Google hit is the student newspaper article that isn't about the restaurant as much as it is about the competition for hot dog sales. Erechtheus 04:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom; fails WP:ADS and WP:CORP criteria.--TBCTaLk?!? 04:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Peta 05:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails to assert notability. MER-C 07:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Tasty but non notable amongst other offenses. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per MER-C and nom. --Nishkid64 17:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 22:49, 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. Tyrenius 16:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Developmental Action Inquiry

del yet another promotion by Zhumaf (talk • contribs) of theories of a Torbert, W.. Another similar article was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Developing Leadership Capacities Through Action Inquiry. Both look like original research, in the meaning of the exposition of a theory of some author. Mukadderat 04:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. As with the previously deleted article, this one seems to be original research and unverified.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. My buzzword meter just overheated and melted. eaolson 05:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • G4 as reposted content to the Wikipedia. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 05:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It appears that key articles (e.g. the Torbert article) are self-published and hence fail to meet WP:RS, hence article fails to meet WP:OR, Article appears to contain enthusiastic claims and fails to soberly assess notability or validity of theory or to provide any critical views, hence seems to fail soapbox. Also agree with eaolson: This article is contains so many buzzwords that it isn't clear to me that it meets the requirement that English Wikipedia articles be written in English. Not clear it conveys to an English-speaking reader what its subject is really about. --Shirahadasha 17:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - whether or not you agree with this approach it is an entirely respectable theory. For example, see here for an independent review of the theory with a range of references. If someone wants to find out about the theory then they may turn to Wikipedia for an objective review and would be rightly disappointed not to find it. If it is considered that this article is too POV then the answer is to put in balancing views not to delete - an AfD is not a cleanup crew. TerriersFan 23:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Please allow me to respectfully opbject: the "entirely respectable theory" is Action research (reviewed in your link), which is branched in wikipedia into Action Science, Participatory action research, Cooperative inquiry by the same user:Zhumaf, who is no longer present to defend his essays. All of them look like "brand names" of particular authors, who, for obvious reasons, do not agree on the term (each wants glory for him, naturally). I have serious doubts in some other articles of the above list, but this one was the most evident candidate for deletion. Mukadderat 16:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • By the way, user:Zhumaf got 3 or four essays already deleted independently , if you inspect red links in some of his abandoned contributions. Mukadderat 16:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • As a corroporation of my POV above, a minute ago, while browsing web, I noticed the comment by a David Tripp about action research: "makes the field appear chaotic, ill conceived, undisciplined and very suspect to many outsiders" ... and ... "It is interesting that the difficulties mentioned above do not seem to prevent everyone else from inventing their own, or supporting particular definitions of others. " [14]. The essays of Zhumaf hardly bring order into this chaos. Clearly, the overall topic is improtant, but it seems the research is novel (or, rather, re-emerging from old roots), and encyclopedia article must start with reputable, published overviews, rather than from individual books of proponents, each of which pushes his own right. There are thousands of books on theory of management, planning, job hunthing and other advise. Which are notable can decide only independent peer review, but not authors of these books (and surely not wikipedians who retell these books in their words). Mukadderat 16:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Last but not the least, I see some comments to the point that "action inquiry" is a new buzzword for the process of planning: "The idea of deliberately seeking and analysing information is essential to all action inquiry, which is exactly data acquisition component of planning. Mukadderat 16:59, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chaoscopy

Seems very much like a hoax to me per WP:HOAX. Google test supports this; if this was a real mathematical or otherwise subject, I supect it'd get more than 63 hits. (I realize the limitations of the Google test, but for this I feel it is valid evidence. Crystallina 04:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Creator notified --WikiSlasher 08:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. As the nom mentioned, this article seems to be a hoax. Even if it was real, the article in its current state is a dicdef, thus a violation of the WP:WINAD criteria.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not sure if this is a hoax. The article says that this is a method, but never explains what it's a method for. eaolson 05:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete nonsense. Opabinia regalis 05:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Please remember that a hoax and patent nonsense are entirely two different things.--TBCTaLk?!? 07:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per eaolson --WikiSlasher 06:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - looks like a hoax, but even if it isn't, the article is nonsense. -- Ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 17:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above. --Nishkid64 17:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per likely WP:HOAX. While there are google hits on the term, these hits do not describe a mathematical technique. A genuine mathematical technique would include information about its purpose and use or the type of problem it attempts to solve. One doesn't just manipulate numbers for the fun of it. I also find it highly suspicious that the technique is described in terms of the types of language and activities used by a high school student. A mathematician would talk about e.g. vectors or matrices, not "columns of numbers", for example, and use more precise language than simply saying plot points and see what the result looks like. --Shirahadasha 18:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this bollocks, please. I doubt it's a hoax, though: it strikes me that the author actually uses this "method", and certainly some people do actually "manipulate numbers for the fun of it", so it could just be a favourite number game of the person who wrote the article...but I cannot imagine what serious application the idea could have. Chaos-copy indeed. A method for seeking the inner patterns produced by the infra-harmonic structures held by the pristine Platonic relations between a column of numbers and a copy of itself with the top whacked off. What puzzles me is that the sequence of numbers is "the time between drops"...what drops? LSD? Byrgenwulf 07:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Utter hoax. StuffOfInterest 00:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as patent nonsense. No assertion of connection with reality. Unfortunately, it's too old to speedy, methinks.--Storkk 14:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)... isn't this a brain-damaged (jargon file sense) way to create a random walk? Not really a hoax per se.Storkk 14:21, 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 Move to user space. Tyrenius 16:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek/temp

redundant but exception to general merge procedure

This is a duplicate article, and so merging would be the standard course. This particular page seems to be an exception to the rule. It has become rather large and a merge would be a nontrivial endeavor. My main concern is that a merge will never take place.

The content of this page would not seem to be so different from the original as to add significant/salient info. Meanwhile, both pages exist in competition. I suggest that the article be deleted in order to remove the redundancy from Wikipedia, and dedicated editors save off this page's contents to their hard drives and trickle the info into the main article. --Ling.Nut 04:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I suggest moving the article to User:AllyUnion/Star Trek. The article seems to be AllyUnion's test page for Star Trek, thus it shouldn't be in the Wikipedia mainspace.--TBCTaLk?!? 04:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As TBC says, it should simply be moved to the User space... Localzuk (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to User:AllyUnion/Star Trek per TBC. --Nishkid64 17:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree; instead of deleting this should be moved... I have emailed AllyUnion --Ling.Nut 20:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to User:AllyUnion/Star Trek if the user wants it. This has been somewhat of a long-term revision project and a number of changes have been incorporated into the main article, but I feel the creator of the Temp page should determine if there's any further use in keeping it around. 23skidoo 00:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Move. Been away for a long while. --AllyUnion (talk) 07:35, 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. Punkmorten 22:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stunner (game)

Nomination for deletion Spammy article about non-notable obscure freeware game. This is the current message from the game author on the game's website as linked from the article: stunner.st.funpic.org/ "Shut down: Stunner has been unupdated and unplayed for a while now. Due to the fact that I am done with Stunner. Developing it has become boring to me, maybe one day I'll bring it back.". Recommend deletion as advertising/self-promotion abuse of Wikipedia & non-encyclopedic content. Bwithh 04:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:ADS and WP:SOFT; non-notable, defunct freeware game.--TBCTaLk?!? 04:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Mitaphane talk 08:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If you go to the game website, it says it hasn't been updated in a while, and the game is now closed. It says that only 70-80 people played the game. So, it's definitely non-notable, and probably WP:ADS as stated above. --Nishkid64 19:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 22:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Ouch, article about a nn and now non-existant online game. Please put it out of its misery and delete. Note: I even had to edit the link to the website because it was blacklisted as spam! Altair 20:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - for many reasons listed above. Wickethewok 23:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There is absolutely no arguement in its favor. guitarhero777777 04:25, 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. 1ne 20:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bodhitharta

Almost completely incoherent. Appears to be a non-notable religion. Only a few Google hits, and most are troll posts on Christian forums. eaolson 05:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • It is a real religion. It has it's own holy book-- How is what I wrote incoherent? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Witnessthereal (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment. If this is a significant religion, someone, somewhere, must have written about it online, even if just in a critical fashion. Can you provide such a reliable source? Remember verifiability is required for Wikipedia articles. As for incoherent, you say "Like wise there are no "gods" only God." Is that a roundabout way of saying that this is a monotheistic religion? As for it's holy book, is it this Witness the Real in the article? I can't find that book anywhere. My university's library is one of the largest in the US, and doesn't have this book in the stacks. eaolson 13:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The article seems to be either a vanity or attack article. Either way, the person still isn't notable, thus delete.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "incoherent" is a nice way to put it. Opabinia regalis 06:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete due to lack of reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 06:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 07:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV, sources, non-encyclopaedic. ColinFine 12:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Charlesknight 13:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Asana is the sanskrit word for seat and used most commonly to mean "yoga posture." It doesn't mean "a group of people called the Asana". And there's no Asana (the real kind) that I can find called "Bodhitharta." One neologism, one misused word, one non-notable, unverifiable religion. Dina 17:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 17:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia should have well-noted as well as obscure information. Asana Bodhitharta is also a songwriter and composer. Also, Asanas is not a mispelling nor a misnomer of any kind. The word posture or seat come form the root word of Grace. Do not delete article.--Witnessthereal 18:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I got my signature from the book and part of the first page of the book is on my page, I think that is reliable enough.

Well, reliable isn't the point, verifiable is. This issue of where you got your signature isn't really relevant (I got mine by being named after a great aunt.) And if the book is copyrighted, you probably shouldn't have the first page on your userpage. What is the publishing information on the book? That might help, a bit. Cheers Dina 21:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
There simply is no reason to delete something that is true and not harmful perhaps you should do some research and merge it or something but to delete my article would be unfair to me as a contributor. There are tons of things I have never heard of here but that doesn't mean they don't have a place here. This information is both reliable and verifiable there is access to the free e-book on the IslamMessge.com website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.17.230.238 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 17 September 2006.
  • Please don't vote more than once in an AfD. thanks. bikeable (talk) 16:29, 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. Punkmorten 22:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Throne Of Mortality

This band seems to just barely make a claim of notability, so that the article is not A7, but I think they are far from meeting the standards of WP:MUSIC Deville (Talk) 05:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for adding this later, but I think we should also bundle Virkelix to this nom. For what it is worth, I have already A7'ed Project Mina, the other contribution of this editor. --- Deville (Talk) 05:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't seem to meet the WP:MUSIC criterias. Doesn't have an allmusic profile and only 5 Google results [15]. In fact, it isn't even a band since there 's currently only one member.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable per WP:MUSIC and does not meet WP:V. -Nv8200p talk 21:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not even on Metal Archives. As a reply to TBC, being a one-man band, playing all the instruments and doing the vocals, is very common in black metal. Prolog 12:58, 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. Punkmorten 22:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monte Carlo or Bust (Fundraising)

This is not an article, it's never going to be an article, it's not about a notable subject, and it's not been updated. TheMadBaron 05:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nice thing to do, but not notable, and out of date. Opabinia regalis 06:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable charity bike ride that doesn't seem to have been mentioned in any non-trivial, notable media sources. Also, few relevant Google results [16].--TBCTaLk?!? 06:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's just advertising a charity event. --Nishkid64 19:09, 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. --- Deville (Talk) 02:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FLG(Family Guy)

This article concerns an acutely non-notable subject and contains no credible references. John254 05:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. A very minor joke spoken only once in a Family Guy flashback.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Give a larticle, delete this article - see previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larbage. SM247My Talk 06:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. --Metropolitan90 06:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't even think the writers knew they were writing "FLG." Fishal 07:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Petergeist. Obviously not important enough for its own article. VegaDark 07:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's too obscure of a term to merit a redirect. --Wafulz 17:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very minor joke in Family Guy. --Nishkid64 18:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It's just like that time where we Deleted a non-notable article... in Victorian Europe! Danny Lilithborne 22:53, 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 smerge (slight merge) with Cliff Bleszinski. Only a slight merge is appropriate, given the size of the target article. Mangojuicetalk 15:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Palace Of Deceit: Dragon's Plight

This is a non-notable game that the creator of the article argues should be included because it was the first game for its designer, who has gone on to fortune in the industry. The game already has coverage in the designer's article. In fact, that coverage provides 3 of the 4 Google hits[17] for the title of the game. This article fails the proposed WP:SOFTWARE. Erechtheus 05:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Mitaphane talk 08:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Cliff Bleszinski after clearing out excessive plotstuff. I remember finding a demo on a compilation disc back in t'day, along with a thousand other non-notable games and demos.--Nydas 17:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


Just because Google has forgotten the game doesn't mean Wikipedia should forget it, too. Search Dare to Dream while you're at it; you won't get too many hits related to that game either. A Wikipedia article can keep an obscure piece of history from being forgotten. Somebody looking for information about the game will be thankful for a wikipedia article about it.

There was already a wikilink to Dragon's Plight in Bleszinski's article, which told me someone else wanted more information about the game, too. There is no "coverage" in that article; there is an empty link to it and passive mention of it. I just filled it in. It's part of Cliff Bleszinski's history. It was the first game he designed, which makes it as notable as Dare to Dream (his second) and Jazz Jackrabbit (his third).

I suppose the article could be merged with Dare to Dream's entry (the gameplay sections do overlap), but it doesn't seem necessary as they discuss two different games. Odds are someone else will come along and recommend the article be split. And it doesn't belong in Bleszinski's article because it's not about the man himself, it's about the game.

If someone else recommends Dragon's Plight be included in Bleszinski's article, or merged with Dare to Dream, I don't mind doing that. The information doesn't need to be deleted!--Tagenar 18:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge with Cliff Bleszinski. --Nishkid64 19:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tagenar. You know, he has a point. Remember, Wikipedia:Notability isn't an official policy, no matter how many people here in AfD consider it gospel. In this case, I think the historical significance of the article is worth at least equal coverage to the other two games. --Roninbk 20:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't mind Merging, but all three articles are currently unsourced. Just because it's hard to source doesn't mean that people should ignore WP:V, which is policy (I've heard the line "WP:N is not policy" many times, and let's just say there would be massive problems, starting with WP:NOT, if notability was totally ignored. However this is less relevant to this article, mostly because of the harder sourcing, which WP:N actually does take into account.) ColourBurst 23:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I'n not advocating totally ignoring WP:N, but I have a hard time with nominations that use WP:N as their sole justification. Of course you're right about WP:V though. And after I think about it a bit more, I think merging the information from the three articles into the main, (including verifiable sources of course,) might result in a better article overall. Remember, just because it's harder doesn't mean it's impossible. --Roninbk 23:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Merge which three articles into which main article? There is no main article. Unless you mean merging Dare to Dream, Dragon's Plight and Bleszinski's entry into one? Why? These are separate topics; why merge them into one article when two articles are about games and one is about Cliff Bleszinski? Dare to Dream is part of Epic Games's release history and deserves its own page. Dragon's Plight I can understand the proposed merge because it's not Epic, but it's still a game Cliff Bleszinski designed. Doesn't that make it notable in some way? And if anyone wants sources to the articles, just play the games. All the information I wrote is taken directly from the games. In fact, all the info on all the pages I've read about Epic's early games is sourced from the games themselves. What else do you need?--Tagenar 00:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, I'm proposing merging into the Bleszinski article. WP:V requires that articles be supported with credible third party (outside of Wikipedia) sources, preferably by other websites that you can link to, however books, newspapers and such can be used as well. The "just play the game" arguement doesn't stand because that would be considered Original Research which is also against policy. Trust me, while I can appreciate your love for the games, and I can sympathize with your desire for them not to fade into obscurity, Wikipedia is probably not the best place to champion that cause. When you can show some kind of independent coverage, then you can reintroduce the separate articles. --Roninbk 04:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand the reasons for merging Dragon's Plight into Bleszinski's entry. The game was probably only important to his history, not gaming as a whole. Since I'm outnumbered, go ahead and merge it.

I'm not sure how it can fit. Maybe someone can think of a way to make it relevant to the designer and not to the game itself? I just wouldn't want the information deleted entirely. It still deserves a place, and if that place is not in its own article that's okay.--Tagenar 23:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Minimal merge - Most of the information here isn't worth merging, as its either a direct copy or not overly important. Just a couple mentions of the game in its creator's bio is enough. Wickethewok 23:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Stupid edit conflict... Wanted to add these questions: I understand the need for WP:OR. All encyclopedias follow it, all of them need it, but isn't there a limit? Would someone who has watched, say, a newly released movie need to cite extra sources when writing a new article about it? Where would you go for an external source for a movie's content? Is using "watch the movie" as a source for its plot and characters considered original research, too? Where can you go for external sources on that? If that's origial research, then what's left to write about the movie? Same for games, especially old ones. I'm not trying to start a hair-splitting debate, nor do I disagree with WP:OR, but don't some things have to come from the article's subject itself?--Tagenar 00:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • For a movie, especially nowadays, there is LOTS of information one can cite. IMDb, critic reviews, often the studio itself will have a website. Critics can do original research. We can't. All of our information has to come from outside Wikipedia. --Roninbk 12:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Understood. Beginning to see the problem and a better idea of how wikipedia works. Though I do have the game, I searched again and found this site. And also for DtD. You can't get any more third party than these :-) Is this credible enough? Both are very obscure games... I understand the logic behind the policy, it just seems wrong that the game itself can't be a source when it seems logical that this is the best source to use for information about the game (or movie, or anything).--Tagenar 00:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Good start, might be enough to save the page. --Roninbk 03:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
        • The movie or game itself absolutely can be used as a primary source, as long as the information is verifiable by a reasonable adult without specialist knowledge. Plot summaries are an excellent example. See WP:NOR. — brighterorange (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


With reviews to back up the info on both games and reinforce their place in Bleszinski's history, does Dragon's Plight deserve its own article now? DtD and Dragon's Plight may not be notable to the history of gaming but they are notable to the author, and if these sources can be used to justify the information, they justify a Dragon's Plight article in Wikipedia. I recognize the difficulty of verifying information like this. I'd like to find something in the New York Times to use as a source, too, but at least this is something. I hope the sites I gave above can also be used to help Cliff's entry, too.

I believe it's all notable. Anyone looking for information on these games and/or on Bleszinski's early career will be glad for some details about the games themselves. (Now with a source to back the details up.) If the concensus is still to merge, at least there's a source to tie the game to the creator's history. Maybe it'll allow more than a one-sentence passing mention in his bio. But please reconsider merging in light of these potential sources.--Tagenar 02:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. I don't see anything new in the way of WP:RS. I'm not against merging, which does seem to be the consensus. Erechtheus 02:34, 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. Punkmorten 22:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tinyxp

Appears to be non-verifiable, only information available is forumcruft. Despite large google hit count, most information appears to be torrents and additional forum cruft, suggesting it is also nonnotable Canadian-Bacon t c e 05:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable, pirated version of Windows XP.--TBCTaLk?!? 06:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 07:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Nishkid64 18:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I'm using this myself on an old computer, but unless there's any reliable sources, it doesn't belong.--Drat (Talk) 23:00, 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. Tyrenius 16:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unite UST

This organization is not notable enough to warrant a separate article. Its mention at UST already includes all important information. This page is merely that information plus an external link dump plus the text from the organization's main page. No significant work on the article has been done since the addition of a cleanup tag, except the further addition of an NPOV tag. My apologies in advance if I make any mistakes in this process; this is my first AfD. BCSWowbagger 06:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, fails the criterias of WP:ORG. Of the sources cited by the article, hardly any of them are consisted non-trivial as most of them are from local newspapers. Also, only 791 google results [18].--TBCTaLk?!? 07:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:ORG. The sources provided are not really notable in their own respect either. It's just mostly local news media. --Nishkid64 19:12, 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 election loss (delete). Punkmorten 22:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nadia Bello

Candidate in municipal school board election, no other notable contribution. Page seems primarily geared towards advertising candidate Canadian-Bacon t c e 06:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

True. But the state of public education in general is an issue and the budget cuts slated in Toronto a HUGE issue - for all involved. The Liberals just lost yet ANOTHER by-election in Parkdale/High Park based on this issue and a provincial election is coming up in about a year. Funnily enough, the Toronto Municipal Election page lists the Mayoral and City Councilor candidates but completely ignores the the Trustees. Why is it that people think they are unimportant? Sorry about the impassioned plea - but I'd vote for the article to stay - it's not advertising when you're looking to keep kids in school and feed them while they're there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maverick9901 (talk • contribs). — Possible single purpose account: Maverick9901 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
Comment, note that having good intentions does not merit having an article on Wikipedia. Also, please remember that AfD is only a discussion and not a vote.--TBCTaLk?!? 07:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO and WP:ADS. Candidates for elections are usually not considered notable until they've won (unless of course it was an election for a very high political position, such as president, or if the candidate has done something else notable in his/her life). Also, only 183 Google results [19]. --TBCTaLk?!? 07:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a very notable person per WP:BIO as TBC only 183 GHits, maybe some day just not today. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO and most of her G-hits are just from her election website. --Nishkid64 18:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom and above Bwithh 21:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's probably useful, just not here. ColourBurst 23:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn candidate. WP:NOT soapbox or political platform. Ohconfucius 07:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Her name in Google pulls up three pages - only one link on the first page is her campign website. Maybe more articles (or one good one) need to be up on wiki - maybe matthew is right - one day when she wins, just not now. We'll see... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jester32 (talk • contribs) ., the creator of the article
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 22:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pitera

Appears to be non-verifiable, page seems primarily geared towards advertising the product and self-explanatory. A sign of Viral_marketing spread to Wikipedia Xinghuei 07:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Advertising. Fishal 07:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the criterias of WP:ADS. Also, it seems that viral marketing has been on Wikipedia ever since early on in its creation due to anonymous editing... --TBCTaLk?!? 07:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam. MER-C 07:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - spam. ColinFine 12:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Nishkid64 18:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam. Much pseudoscientific wordiness. Yeast seeds? MidgleyDJ 08:04, 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. --- Deville (Talk) 02:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constantian Society

Substub on utterly non-notable fringe political group. Statement "It cannot be determined whether the society has been active since 1997" gives you an idea of its influence. Fishal 07:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep American Monarchists are probably always going to be a fringe political group, but the movement does exist, and fringe doesn't automatically equal non-notable. The fact that the group hasn't been active since 1997 doesn't really do it for me either -- historical politics can be encyclopedic. I see 2790 Ghits for the group, (admittedly a lot from what appear to be "monarchist" websites.) They apparently publish a journal, which means both their existence and the substance of their views are verifiable. Monarchism, as a movement, is rather outdated, but hardly non-notable (as many monarchies still exist worldwide.) Wikipedia has an article on Monarchism that lists modern pro-monarchy groups including this one. Dina 17:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's not a substub; it's clearly a stub. It's not terribly notable, but it is worthy of an article.--Prosfilaes 01:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Dina, so long as there is enough interest to expand. Metaspheres 11:59, 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 No consensus defaulting to keep. Tyrenius 16:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Max On The Rox

This article appears to fail WP:MUSIC by not making a claim that would confer notability per that notability guideline. 55 unique Google hits.[20] Erechtheus 07:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • It is a rather big band in Finland and has musicians from bigger bands, for example Kai Hahto who plays also in Wintersun and has played in Rotten Sound. Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.- Diamon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diamon (talk • contribs).
  • Delete - no real assertion of notability and on low ghit count. MER-C 09:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article lists three releases; WP:MUSIC requires only one. -- Mikeblas 15:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Where do you get that? It requires two releases on a major or an important independent label to the best of my reading. I see no indication that these albums were released on such labels. Erechtheus 15:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. While not my best editing ever, I have "fixed" the article to assert notability and make a claim for meeting WP:MUSIC, the reason as listed about by Diamon. PT (s-s-s-s) 18:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like to also point out, that I will continue to improve the article, if decided to be kept. Diamon 21:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If the band is big in Finland, perhaps it's better suited for the finnish wikipedia? --EndlessVince 00:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The Finnish wikipedia would be fine, except that it's not in English. See WP:BIAS. Kappa 03:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or keep, has notable member, looks like should be a keep from other comments about. Kappa 03:38, 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 as hoax by Herostratus - Yomanganitalk 17:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ponsenby club

Little Yahoo! search results. Maybe I should use Google. This is Tosh. --Dangherous 09:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 09:37, 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 redirect to Schwan Food Company . Whispering(talk/c) 20:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago town

This article is about a product line, and should be Merged with the parent company's article at Schwan Food Company and then deleted. The edit log shows that the creator even thinks this article is trivial (article creation. (somehow) trivial article, link to parody advert website (no direct purchase possible).) Fiddle Faddle 08:41, 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 CSD G6, duplicate material -- Samir धर्म 10:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spinosaurus Vs Rex

This article appears to replicate information that's available at Tyrannosaurus and Spinosaurus, with little reason for it to be done. It also seems to have no sources, it's got a copyright statement in it, a disclaimer that suggests it's based partly on speculation, and a bunch of pictures at the bottom. I don't see any point of this article. PROD tag was removed by an anon, so bringing it here. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 06:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom --Jamoche 06:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant due to the Tyrannosaurus and Spinosaurus articles.--TBCTaLk?!? 06:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, if you don't want text reproduced, don't put it in Wikipedia. --WikiSlasher 07:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

99% DO NOT DELLETE. I QUIT DOING TAT ALLRDY!!!!!GC 09:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC) I Wiil do anything 4 the"wikipedia Team"GC 09:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC) Reason 4 NO SOURCES

  1. . Yahoo.com lets ppl take their info w/o there consent.
  2. . Its a DAMN Non Burocraitic world[u know wat I mean],It a 'Free World'.[No Restrictions}
  • Strong delete as per nom. --Charlesknight 09:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONG NO DELETE*Lets Duisscus this on the nxt page.GC 09:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)*
    • User has already voted.--TBCTaLk?!? 09:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
      • 100% WEAK DELETE-by poll on NRC @ [21]]. GC 09:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
        • User has already voted.--TBCTaLk?!? 09:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: AFD removed from log by 130.13.237.13 Yomanganitalk 09:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Also the copyright notice is for 2007. Note that our "STRONG NO DELETE" debator just happens to be the creator of the article. MER-C 09:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sry,can ya edit it GC 09:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

      1. NOTICE!!! An anon changed my copyright from 2000 to '07-GC[NRC ADMIN]GC 09:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 2 blocked statements near PROD.-GC 10:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • [leaves,then comes back w/ a 45.Magnum in holster on belt][Sits down,talks]-GC 10:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)(don't reply 2 this message.)
  • Do I have to change this ARTICLE'?[Yes=1,No=2]|ARTICLE has been REDONE[No Ation Required]-GC 10:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per those advocating deletion. The article duplicates those already written and shows no real prospect for avoiding that. It would need to be "redone" to within an inch of its life to be kept, methinks. Additionally, the views of users of another site shouldn't have any place in determining whether this site keeps or deletes something. They're welcome to present their case, which they appear to have done, but ultimately even if 100% of them want it, it needs to pass muster here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 10:51, 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, already transwikied --- Deville (Talk) 02:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pest control of slugs

This is a how-to article, has been copied to wikibooks (b:Transwiki:Pest control of slugs). It's unlikely that it could be rewritten in an encyclopedic style due to the subject matter. Links-to will be replaced with interwiki links. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 09:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment; you expect to find this stuff in an encyclopedia? I usually go to gardening books and websites for this sort of thing. Personally, I would not expect to find this sort of information in an encyclopedia at all. ergot 00:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • If you don't that encylopedia users should be able to find out that things like Diatomaceous earth and salt are used against slugs then I don't you should be editing one. Kappa 00:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Whatever. That's only an argument to have the subject mentioned in the slugs article, anyway; WP:NOT a how-to guide. ergot 01:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Besides, the information is still there, just on a different project that's linked from the same pages. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 09:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Encylopedia users should not have to visit a "how-to" website for encylopedic information. Kappa 09:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - but some parts may be usefully merged into Organic_gardening. MidgleyDJ 08:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a how-to guide in violation of WP:NOT and not an encyclopedia article. Indrian 16:23, 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. --- Deville (Talk) 02:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Valtira

This AFD was originally started by an IP: 24.7.25.122, but was incomplete. No reason was given, and it was the only contibution from that IP. Yomanganitalk 09:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep. Lack of nomination reason implies that there is no reason. Valtira appears notable. Since this was "completed" procedurally, can we close it procedurally? Fiddle Faddle 09:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. You did not state your own reason for keeping the article. Citing that the article should be kept based on the "lack of nomination reason" isn't a very acceptable reason, either. --Nishkid64 18:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I said above Valtira appears notable. It does. Fiddle Faddle 18:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable, per WP:CORP. ColinFine 12:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It - spin off of JWT, has a number of important clients, and has had local media coverage Xinconnu 13:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Do you have any links to some of the media coverage? My searching only turned up a couple of mentions about executive hiring and reprints of press releases.
  • Comment; it doesn't say that it's a spinoff of JWT, it says that it was founded by guys who had previously worked there. Church rummage sales get local media coverage but aren't notable. ergot 00:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - googling seems to suggest it's a non-notable company. MidgleyDJ 08:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - This appears to be a flagrant violation of WP:N. Sound and Fury 00:26, 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 speedy keep as a faulty nomination. There is no such thing as "delete and merge". The two are mutually exclusive. If you want duplicate articles merged, merge them yourself! Articles For Deletion is for article deletions, which only administrators can perform. Article merger can be done by any editor, even ones without accounts. Uncle G 11:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Western Martial Arts

Delete and merge content to existing article Charlesknight 10:25, 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. Punkmorten 22:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lolifox

Non-notable Firefox 2.0b build, linked from only one article (that being List of web browsers). - Sikon 10:39, 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. Punkmorten 22:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Su madre

Firstly, "su madre" doesn't translate as "your mother". I must but assume that it translates idiomatically as "yo mama" then. Otherwise, tosh. --Dangherous 09:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a how to argue in other languages guide. Might merge to a more general article on translation of slang, if there was one. (It does translate as "your mother" by the way, "tu mama" would be closer to "yo' mama") Yomanganitalk 11:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • delete - per Yomangani. ColinFine 12:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 14:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not worth even thinking over. Useless doktorb wordsdeeds 17:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Nishkid64 18:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "Su madre" is appropriate if you're using the proper "Usted" form, which negates the whole idea of insulting someone. This is dumb. Danny Lilithborne 23:03, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of level editors

The article is pointless to be blunt. There are millions of computer games, and therefore millions of level editors. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or lists. Localzuk (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Game/list cruft. MER-C 12:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I disagree with the nom on a number of points. There haven't been millions of computer games, or even anything remotely close. Mobygames, arguably the most complete list of electronic games anywhere, is only up to 29,529, and that includes console and handheld games too. Of those, very few (maybe 1% of them) have any level-editing capability at all. However, though I disagree on the reasoning, I too think this should be deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, if you believe this is indiscriminate information feel free to remove the non-notable items. Kappa 03:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per Kappa. Some editors are notable and the list is useful. The non-notable itens can be removed from the list. --Carioca 04:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. For the same reason there are no lists of Computer games, because that would be an indisciminate collection of information, there should not be a list of level editors. Ohconfucius 08:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This has to be the archetypal pointless list. Legis 15:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I created the list specifically because people kept cluttering the article, level editor, with their favorite editors. The list allows them to put it somewhere where it won't interfere with the prose. Wikipedia has many lists, and they are useful for many reasons. Per Carioca, the non-notable ones can be removed from the list. Also, if you look at the policy, under bullet #2, it says list are discouraged except "for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles" which is exactly what this list is. @Ohconfucius, actually there are dozens of lists of Computer games on the 'pedia. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Rename to List of level editors for computer and video games. - jc37 23:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • While I, of couse, support the keep, I disagree with the renaming since there is currently no conflict. Since there is no conflict, and there is probably never going to be, I favor keeping the name as it is. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Amatuer game design is a significant community, and this information should be retained. Also, Wikipedia:Incomplete_lists states that Wikipedia is an Almanac, and WP:NOT does not say that Wiki is not an Almanac. This allows for lists on the Wiki. This list in particular only needs to be cleaned up, as per Kappa's suggestion, and observed to prevent "millions" of level editors to be added. Inmatarian 18:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Remove the non-notable items, but on the whole, this is just as valid a list as others on Wikipedia. EVula 18:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (though Rename to List of level editors for computer and video games; jc37 has the right idea, there). In addition to Inmatarian's argument, I should remind you all that we're in a point in game development history where companies are seriously looking at "player-created content"—in that light, removing a list like this out-of-hand is patently absurd. Information like this should be retained, especially in the case of dedicated construction sets such as Maze Craze, The Bard's Tale Construction Set, Garry Kitchen's GameMaker and ZZT (which rely or relied far more on their community contributions than their own, "default" levels). Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater! --E. Megas 19:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I have yet to hear a lucid argument for why it needs to be renamed to "List of level editors for computer and video games." That name is unnecessarily unweildly. Normally we only add extra modifiers to names when they clash with another article. What else is in the world has level editors but computer and video games? Level editors for word processors? However, I am perfectly happy to defer this issue until we resolve whether or not to delete this list. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is exactly the kind of info that is a ) useful and b) impossible to find on gamecruft sites. IMHO, instead of providing yet one more picture of Mario Wikipedia should be helping game afficionados and game software develpers push the envelope further. This list is a good start Renmiri 22:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep this does seem like gamecruft to me, but with a little bit of cleanup, this could actually be a resourceful tool. guitarhero777777 04:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and please do not rename. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep on the condition that we make a serious effort to add some actual content. At least a sentence or two on each, minimum, methinks. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 10:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • keep useful and maintainable list. Non-notable entries in the list should be purged through the normal channels. — brighterorange (talk) 15:15, 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 redirect to Microphone. Whispering(talk/c) 21:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shotgun_mic

Because the subject of the article is already covered in Microphone, there is no reason to clean the article up or keep it. The doctor23 11:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • delete. As the article stands, it is useless (it doesn't even link to microphone!). Interestingly, Microphone has a link to a non-existent page shotgun microphone - but this isn't it. ColinFine 12:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • comment We should probably just unlink that. Guinness 13:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Done --Satori Son 06:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect Somebody created this page because it wasn't there (don't laugh), if we simply delete it, it may well get recreated; a redirect to Microphone is a sufficient remedy. Guinness 12:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. MER-C 12:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. ColinFine 14:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Microphone. --Satori Son 06:03, 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. Tyrenius 16:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HiWF

None notable e-fed (people who pretend to be wrestlers by writing roleplays), thus none notable. Strong Delete Englishrose 12:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - not notable. MER-C 12:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Not notable to you, but notable to others... Notable to the people who write and those who read it... Obviously Vince McMahon owns a large stake in this website so other wrestling federations are forced to be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.1.135.63 (talk • contribs).

  • Comment As far as I know, neither WWE nor any other professional wrestling company holds any stake in the Wikimedia Foundation. If what you say is true, then there would not be any articles on Total Nonstop Action Wrestling. Wikipedia precedent has stated that as a rule, E-Federations are non-notable. In fact, one of the larger interfed websites, RoughKut is currently going through an AfD nomination, which they will probably lose. I know it sounds cliche, but if we allow your E-Fed, we have to allow all the E-Feds out there, even the ones that suck. I feel your pain, I'm an E-Fedder too, but Wikipedia is not the place to advertise for your site. --Roninbk 21:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 'cuz it's a big conspiracy. o_O Danny Lilithborne 23:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Because if the phrase E-Fed, or E-Wrestling is notable, than a large E-Fed should be notable if only to add to the E-Wrestling entry. Enjinc2000 08:25, 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 WP:SNOW speedy keep as bad-faith nomination. – Chacor 13:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

WP:HOAX, Merge to BJAODN--Gonjkl 12:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep It seems like a valid article to me. The Fading Light 13:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems just as valid and well written as The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. skeeJay 13:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Strange and unusual, but I don't see a hoax, though I'm willing to be educated. –RHolton≡– 13:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very interesting and valid topic. Chris1219 13:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Try reading the article. .* 13:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid article - has good information. --82.153.135.69 13:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Doesn't seem like a hoax to me U.U. 13:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Pretty obviously a valid article. I can even imagine such a thing becoming featured sometime in the future. Jellypuzzle | Talk 13:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. MER-C 13:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see a problem with this. vanis 13:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not a hoax. The claim that Pinker mentions it in The Language Instinct is correct (p. 208 of the paperback edition on Amazon). You could argue notability, or suggest a merge to a more general article, but it definitely is a linguistically interesting construction that has been discussed in multiple places. FreplySpang 13:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

You know, someone could have easily Googled it to see where it pops up, like at linguist.com http://www.linguistlist.org/issues/3/3-175.html Bignole 13:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone just close this, it's even in DYK. .* 13:15, 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. Tyrenius 17:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kwan gar

A google search for "Kwan gar" turns up 3 links to non-related subject matter. Delete as either hoax or a personally coined phrase for their own style of martial art. 13:13, 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 nomination withdrawn. MER-C 08:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fencibles

  • Keep I withdraw my earlier claim. This article is suitable for Wikipedia. Senordingdong 16:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per nom. MER-C 13:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perfectly valid subject for an encyclopaedia article. Needs expanding, but no reason whatsoever to delete. Not sure why this was ever nominated, particularly not within a minute of creation. -- Necrothesp 16:01, 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 Deleted by Prodego as CSD A3: No content whatsoever. - Yomanganitalk 17:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fourth dimension (lottery)

4D as in the lottery in Malaysia and Singapore doesn't stand for fourth dimension, it stands for 4-digit Glueball 11:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment:Why did you create this article just to keep it empty and AfD it? --Storkk 11:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, as {{db-empty}}. --Storkk 11:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - CSD A3. Tagged as such. MER-C 13:25, 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 Merge with Hopes and Fears. —Centrx→talk • 00:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hopes_and_Fears_DVD

article is just a list of features on a dvd. Should be deleted or merged into the main keane article Richyard 17:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or whatever. Kappa 03:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Stong keep . You're just like a parasite who lives from destroying Keane. after all the misery you made, is it any wonder that I feel betrayed?--Fluence 23:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • ERASE. ERASE. ERASE. Who really cares about Keane anyway? If I wanted to be told about a Keane DVD I would go into a shop, or look on Amazon, and READ THE INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT IS ON THE DVD. Shut up about Keane. GOD!
  • MergeUtterly tedious. Merge into Fluence's page as he's the only person interested in this.
Keep This isn't even a serious AfD discussion. you've wandered so far from the person you are, let go brother let go, cause now we all know... --Fluence 23:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Second !vote from Fluence. -- Tyrenius 17:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • That's quite sad. I may weep now.
  • Merge into Hopes and Fears, it's not independently notable as a DVD, but would be useful at the article about the album itself. - Bobet 08:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Erase Utterly pointless non-information. Mr. Scare 12:10, 28 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. Tyrenius 17:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LEGO Rocket Racer

  • delete On the grounds that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and the article appears to be Fancruft. Senordingdong 11:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not encyclopedic, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. MER-C 13:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Completely pointless, unencyclopaedic and poorly written. -- Necrothesp 16:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Smerge with LEGO Racers. A line would do. --Dhartung | Talk 09:35, 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 title will be hard redirected to Loose Change (video) for GFDL purposes. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Louder than Words

First deletion reason: Non-notable conspiracy cruft video producer. Fails to assert notability by reference to any reliable sources. Cites only to Alex Jones' websites and a podcast. Fails WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, and WP:VAIN. Morton devonshire 18:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. This article basically contains information about Loose Change. As such, the information belongs there and we don't need a separate article for the nn production company. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 18:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Vandal-magnet, and while it presently serves as a decent clearing house for merged material from Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe and Jason Bermas I'm sure any relevant non-cruft can be merged easily. I've already done some partial-merging to harvest the revision info from this article and move it over. Given that Loose Change (video) is their only production, I can agree with nom.--Rosicrucian 18:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, Aude and Rosicrucian. This article was only created to make the Loose Change (video) article seem more important than it is. --Aaron 19:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. JoshuaZ 19:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom, Aude and Rosicrucian. Notability not established. Sandy 19:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete three guys in their twenties with nothing to their credit except for one video. GabrielF 19:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Peephole 19:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Rosicrucian. CWC(talk) 20:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Crockspot 13:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn.--MONGO 08:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Rosicrucian --Geneb1955Talk/CVU 14:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as noted above, no need for a separate article on a company that has no importance independent of the film. Pascal.Tesson 18:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Snowball Not Notable. Delete the cruft. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 20:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Snowball per nom Tbeatty 22:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Raydd 16:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: All the relevant information has been merged into the Loose Change (video) article.--Peephole 19:11, 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. Punkmorten 22:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Momma (song)

  • delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Senordingdong 11:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 13:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Nishkid64 18:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redriect to The Black Parade, no notability except for Liza being on the song. If it becomes a hit single, then we can recreate it. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:39, 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. Punkmorten 22:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New rave

  • delete. At the moment, this article has limited Notability and would appear to cite Primary research. Senordingdong 11:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - original research, not notable. MER-C 13:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:OR Hello32020 13:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. This genre of music will take off over the next 12 months and already has a strong following across the UK press (including broadsheet papers). A New Rave tour is embarking across the country in October. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.158.233.13 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete per WP:OR Danny Lilithborne 23:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or possibly redirect to Dance-punk. Stu ’Bout ye! 15:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If you delete it now it'll have to be recreated again anyway in about 2 months when New Rave really takes off.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.135.124.157 (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment. The NME coins a new genre fairly regularly, most of which are never heard of again. Stu ’Bout ye! 15:37, 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 Redirect/merge to List of Garfield characters. —Centrx→talk • 23:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pooky the Teddy Bear

There is already a section under List of Garfield characters we don't need an article Samuel 22:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Data exists else on wikipedia. Subject does not merit our inclusion guidelines for a separate article.--Anthony.bradbury 22:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If Pooky ever actually did anything, maybe keep it. But Pooky is a stuffed bear; not a lot of character development possible there. Badbilltucker 15:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Samuel. Danny Lilithborne 23:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • merge or keep fictional thing. Kappa 03:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but improve. It needs a little improvement and wikification but I think this should be kept. --Alex 12:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I agree w/Alex on this one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yes, it can be improved, but washing garbage just gets you clean garbage. This is a cartoon prop that that was used for awhile and since discarded -- a fictional item of no real importance. --Calton | Talk 04:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Props can warrant entries. Consider it a prop with character or otherwise important value. For example, if one were to propose the deletion of the tricorder entry on the basis that it is simply a prop, an army of Trek fans would start burning houses down. That's Just It 05:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Covered in sufficient detail elsewhere, don't we think? Powers T 14:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unnecessary, per above. Adamkik 08:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rewrite. The subject matter at hand plays a fairly encompassing role in the overarching topic, and also contains interaction history with other characters, inanimate or not. However, the article needs to be rewritten in order to conform to basic Wikipedia entry policy. That's Just It 05:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge and redirect per WP:FICT, the subject warrants a mention someplace I suppose. RFerreira 22:53, 28 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. Tyrenius 17:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rose Setten

  • delete. Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. Senordingdong 11:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable except for her award. Not a speedy. MER-C 13:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. She seems to me to qualify under WP:BIO in that she has a significant award (such things are not given to all and sundry) and that the limited results for google link to specialised sites and press, many to do with hwer status as award winner, with articles which are themsleves notable. That she is young and nothing much else can be said about her yet does not mean that she is not notable enough for us here. We have sufficient space for such people, surely? Fiddle Faddle 13:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not really notable. One award doesn't make her notable in my book. Maybe if she does something else... 14:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Not that I feel strongly one way or the other about the individual (never heard of her and not interested in her), but I do about the principle. Even if none of us have heard of her, if the article passes WP:BIO the article should stay. I see it passing it. Fiddle Faddle 15:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Winner of a major national competition, so probably worthy of an article. -- Necrothesp 16:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Fiddle Faddle makes a good point. It's a national award, and she won it. That's good enough for me. --Nishkid64 18:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. In addition to the prestige of winning a national competition, this is worthy of an article because it involves a sector of music that is limited and underrepresented on the web. Considering the amount of internet coverage received by pop music competitions (such as X-Factor), it seems only fair that a choral contest of this standard should be treated with the respect it deserves.--Teawithauntie 19:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Appears to satisfy WP:BIO. The award is an important and coveted one. Bit sexist, but what the heck. Ohconfucius 08:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete That no-one has yet created an article about the award itself, winning it shouldn't really be notable for us either. If the article had substance, then OK... but it is rather cruftish. Well done to her, and all, tho'. The JPStalk to me 20:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • That reasoning (above) is fallacious. We do not need an article about an award to know that the award is notable. All we need to know is that the winner won the award. If we did not (yet) have an article about baseball we would still be able to tell that Babe Ruth was somehow notable for being reasonably good at it (I even know that as an Englishman with no interest in the sport). I do like your thoughts (below) about creation of an article about the award, and then creating a list of winners. Are you up for it? Fiddle Faddle 21:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Suggestion: Create the BBC Choirgirl... article, and merge into that. Perhaps a list of winners? The JPStalk to me 20:30, 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 but needs to be improved. Tyrenius 17:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swahili Culture

Seems to be copied from another site, unencyclopedic and the information can probably be found elsewhere on Wikipedia. Archibald99 17:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, but rewrite so it doesn't sound so much like a term paper. The current article on Swahili people doesn't say much in the way of culture. Could be a valuable addition. ... discospinster talk 19:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per discospinster. Swahili people and Swahili Culture might need to be merged eventually, but this article just needs a bit of a rewrite, some wikilinks and a good lead to make deletion unnecessary. AEuSoes1 22:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite; if necessary merge into Swahili, per discospinster. Also, move to Swahili culture.--Cúchullain t/c 22:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Cuchullain. - CheNuevara 01:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve --Guinnog 02:48, 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 keep. --- Deville (Talk) 02:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Torstar Syndication Services

Contested prod. Non-notable subsidary - does not assert why it is notable. MER-C 13:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, less than 10000 Ghits, nn.--Jusjih 14:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's the largest print syndicate in Canada. ... discospinster talk 17:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge into Torstar. Kirjtc2 18:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per disco spinster --YUL89YYZ 18:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per disco spinster -- Skeezix1000 02:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per disco spinster (500-newspaper syndicate is not trivial) Dl2000 23:34, 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. Tyrenius 17:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Westgate Resorts

Non-notable article; subject of article is also the subject of several spam links in articles about Central Florida SwissCelt 12:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'm pretty neutral about this one but I find the above links rather unconvincing. Pascal.Tesson 23:31, 12 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, Sam Blanning(talk) 13:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable company using WP as a advertising space 14:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It's difficult to see how a company which is creating a $750 million building can be "non-notable". [24]. Kappa 15:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. 7,000 employees and you say it's not-notable? It's a worldwide company. It definitely passes WP:CORP. The company's website has an Alexa web traffic ranking of 158,306, which does seem like a respectable ranking for a company website. --Nishkid64 18:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Technically, I said the article is non-notable, not the subject. It's a fine distinction, and generally winds up meaning the same thing, but in this case I simply based my judgment of notability on the article itself. In other words, the article does not indicate the notability of the subject in verifiable, NPOV tones. -- SwissCelt 11:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, they're major. I have to steal and hide their brochures from my dad now. --Dhartung | Talk 09:33, 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. AfD is a debate; the earlier deletes seem not only less informed than the later keeps, but have not responded to the convincing points put forward, and this reduces the weight of their opinions, which would otherwise have resulted in no consensus. Tyrenius 17:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mr Miyagi (blogger)

Doesn't appear to meet notability criteria Neier 13:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as vanity. Page creator has also made vanity links from other pages. Leibniz 18:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Leibniz. How do you get the name "Mr Miyagi" from rugby? --Nishkid64 18:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn blogger. Danny Lilithborne 23:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete A7 No assertion of notability asserted. "Prominent" and "popular" are not assertions of notability. ColourBurst 23:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes they are. Kappa 04:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment "Prominent" and "popular" do not say anything. What did they do that was prominent? What made them popular? Nevertheless, it's contested here on AfD and so the speedy delete criteria can't apply anymore. ColourBurst 15:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
        • "Doesn't explain why" may be a good reason to delete, but it's not a good reason to speedy delete without any further examination. Kappa 22:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep he was a columnist in a mass media newspaper. He resigned recently amid political pressure, in a controversy. He was already well-known in Singapore before that and, besides his columns, he is often interviewed and cited in newspaper. --Vsion 04:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, ex-legitimade journalist, and the claim of being cited in newspapers seems to be correct [25] [26]. More notable than Cyrus Farivar. Kappa 05:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, famous blogger as well, often appears in Mrbrown's blog and podcast. They both had columns in Today, and has lots of media attention. --Terence Ong (T | C) 15:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Very famous Singapore blogger. even has collumn in the Singaporean newspaper --Leidiot 12:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kappa. - Mailer Diablo 13:10, 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 delete. Punkmorten 22:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shop Rite (Australia)

some discount shop. listing now Melaen 14:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable club. Doesn't actually provide any information to show its worth either. 14:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't seem to be too notable in Australia. If it's worth anything, the store's website has an Alexa web traffic ranking of 2,377,313. --Nishkid64 18:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ebbsco's Australia New Zealand database contains no references to this company. Fails WP:V and WP:CORP. Capitalistroadster 03:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable in Australia (or internationally). MidgleyDJ 08:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- no evidence of notability. - Longhair 09:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Capitalistroadster. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NN/WP:V Jpe|ob 00:31, 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 Keep. Tyrenius 17:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poverty in India

There have been no significant edits to the article in months. The article has few sourced statements, and it cites information out of context. Statistical data from questionable sources are deliberately slanted to make India look like the poorest country in the world (a patently false claim). There is no precedent on wikipedia to single out the poverty situation of any country as an article, while statistics show that poverty situation in some other countries are far worse than in India. Why is India being singled out? Plus, the pictures are placed out of context and have no text in the articles to support their placement. As it stands (and has stood for months), it is offensive. There is a better article Standard of living in India where the matter of poverty in India can be put in at length so this article is also redundant with a POV title. Hkelkar 14:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I have made a significant re-organization and expansion of the article. Please re-visit the article and consider changing your vote as you see fit. --Richard 18:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


Comment:A merge with Standard of living in India is not necessary (IMHO) as most of the NPOV information (incl images) is already there in this other article (put there by the same user too). The issue (I think) is the redundancy, 100% POV (loading the title itself to a certain POV) and misrepresented information placed with no context (for months!).Hkelkar 14:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Rewrite At present, the article is only an unsourced stub, but the article title is appropriate. There is also a Poverty in the United States article.--RF 15:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I have added some text from the Standards of Living article. I think the article has a lot of potential, see the Poverty in the United States article. --RF 15:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment:The mere fact that you could copy a large chunk of text from one article and put it in another is proof positive that the article is redundant and a waste of space.It is sufficient to keep just one article only.Hkelkar 20:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Merely a forum for India-bashing. Bakaman Bakatalk 16:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Change to Keep - I created Poverty in Pakistan for fairness, so I dont feel the need to delete anymore.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: That's not particularly good reasoning to vote for delete in the first place (or for keep after creating the article). Wikipedia is not a battleground between Pakistani and Indian editors. BhaiSaab talk 22:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: - its not battleground. Are you disputing the fact of poverty in Pakistan (a more widespread problem than in India)? You put it up for db only to make it a battleground.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I'm not disputing anything. I put it up for speedy deletion because the article was 8 words long, but now that you've added content, I've removed the template. BhaiSaab talk 23:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Note The above exchange is deeply, deeply depressing and yet somehow funny. Hornplease 09:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Bakaman Bakatalk 16:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per RF. BhaiSaab talk 21:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment:Like I said, my main issue is redundancy. There is no need to have two articles Poverty in India and Standard of living in India both of which discuss the same things, so much so that RF copied text from one and put it in the other. What good does that redundancy do? There is no content in poverty article that isn;t already there in Standard of livin article so merging is unnecessary. Only fair solution is to delete the poverty article or merge the Standard of living article into the poverty article.Hkelkar 23:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I agree that the article could be redirected as long as it only duplicates the section of the Standards of living article, which it does now, and as long as nobody expands the article. --RF 11:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Then put up the Standard of Living article for deletion or redirect it to this one. This article title is much more meaningful to the average reader and therefore more likely to get searched on. --Richard 07:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into the Standard of Living article as a section until that section gets too big for it. People Powered 00:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete There is NO NEED to merge. The article is already copied from the other Article. If some one can come up with a good write up (not duplication) from a neutral point of view, we can review that and then decide. As of now, this should be deleted. Doctor BrunoTalk 14:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge any non-duplicate content to Standard of living in India, with redirect. The information currently seems largely duplicate and gives potential for a PoV fork. Espresso Addict 15:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep and expand. Type "Poverty in" into the Wikipedia search box and you will find a bunch of "Poverty in Country X" articles. Poverty exists in many countries including the United States. Poverty is a major problem in the Less Developed Countries (LDCs). It's a key focus of the United Nations. The topic is not POV per se although it is possible for an article on poverty to be written in a POV way. --Richard 07:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep on principle--not necessarily an endorsement of the current article. Poverty is within the scope of standard of living in many ways... but, it also is an important social issue and for that reason as much as any other it deserves its own article. How is poverty and vagrancy (related) treated under law? I know the issues comes up in the U.S. and it has to in most countries. Also countries have interesting ways of dealing with poverty... favellas in Brazil, etc. gren グレン 07:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Poverty in India exists and is a well-documented issue. It is possible to write a NPOV, verifiable and informative article about it. That is the only thing that matters. Not the intentions of the person creating it, not whether there is a similar topic on India's enemies, not whether the article is NPOV in its current state. — Ravikiran
  • Keep -- needs cleanup and expansion. - Longhair 09:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- wheter or not articles appear about provery in other countries is irrelevant. Deleting this article will not delete poverty. As far as statistics are concerned even the Govt. of India changes it statistics on a day-to-day basis depending on what it wants to potray. To expect a civillian to have appropriate statistics is not possible.

Let not make an India-Pakistan mud-slinging match on the empty stomach of crores of hungry people in the sub-continent. That they have to go to bed hungry should be a matter of concern for everyone, not a patriotic issue. Deepak D'Souza, Hyderabad, India —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.162.197.22 (talk • contribs).

An irrelevant argument. Please argue on the merits of the content, not on the motivations of the editors.Hkelkar 12:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Please Clarify whether you want to keep an article about Poverty in India or you want to keep THIS article. Both are different (I Suppose) Doctor BrunoTalk 16:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
"Response':I have no rigid opinion on this matter. While I lean towards deleting the article on the grounds that it has nothing but a copy-paste deal from another article, some (not all) editors have provided valid reasons for keeping it. What I think should be done as the most reasonable compromise is that the article should be merged with Standard of living in India and the title Poverty in India redirected to it, as has been done (similarly) in Poverty in Indonesia, for instance.Hkelkar 00:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: The above anon chose to keep. You can't simply strike out their input, no matter what motivates them. Plenty of editors at AfD simply give a Keep or Delete with no reason whatsoever. You're not going to strike them all are you? Please unstrike. The closing admin will decide whether or not to consider their edit as part of the discussion. See WP:BITE also. -- Longhair 12:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep --- This article needs a lot of cleanup and expansion but I see no reason for deleting it. I agree with Hkelkar that argument needs to be on merit and facts. If government of India does not provide correct facts, what are the IMF and UN for? If the editors are commited they can find correct reports. The article is already growing. It should not be deleted. Poverty in India is a truth and there are many other articles with the same name format (Poverty_in_x). And please don't strike other's comments! --Vikas Kumar Ojha 12:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment:While I fully agree that the subject matter is relevant, the article has not grown one iota since I put it up for AfD. All of the stuff there is a copy-paste from Standard of living in India. I suggest a merge of both articles at least.Hkelkar 12:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, obviously. There are a million academic studies of poverty in India. Four-fifths of the people who live under the poverty line as defined by the UN are Indians. The current article is appropriate, not terribly unsourced, and NPOV. The Standard of Living in India article contains several other details, as well as a summary of this article. This is exactly how things should be. The standard of living could be measured by several different indicators, including for example life expectancy, female literacy, degree of political freedom etc., and not just income-related indicators. See Human Development Index. POverty is strictly defined as income below a certain level, that level being defined as the minimum required for the purchase of a diet with enough calories to maintain average bodyweight. The two things are not the same. Frankly, this argument is ridiculous and this should never even have been brought to AfD. Hornplease 08:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
comment:This article is about the article on wikipedia, not about poverty in India as a subject.I don;t dispute the obvious truth about poverty in India. I DO dispute the articel as it stands today, which is nothing but a copy-paste of the standard of living article. Keep one and get rid of the other by merging.Hkelkar 16:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
comment: From one perspective, you're right. The debate is whether to delete this particular article about Poverty in India. However, deletion inhibits writing and editing. If we believe the topic is worthwhile, it is better (IMO) to take the current article and expand it than to delete it and hope that someone will write a better article from scratch.
Merging is certainly one solution. Another is to trim the "Poverty" section in Standard of Living in India down so that it is a summary of this one and then expand this one. This article certainly needs expansion. There are many, many ways in which it could be expanded. One would be to describe the government programmes in greater detail. If we delete every article because it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards now, then we will tend to limit Wikipedia. If we work to improve articles, then we will grow Wikipedia in both quantity and quality.
I recognize that the opinions expressed here are just my opinions and represent an "inclusionist" philosophy rather than a "deletionist" philosophy. Nonetheless, those are my thoughts and you may adopt them or reject them as you will.
--Richard 17:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
In this case, I adopt the principle but reject it's application here.The article is still mostly copied from the standard of living article. However, your suggestion that poverty section in the standard of living article be trimmed down and expanded in the poverty article is not so bad and worth thinking about.Hkelkar 18:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment:As of this moment I am doubtful as to whether the article should be deleted or not. It would seem that the better solution is to shorten the poverty section in the standard of living article and expand the poverty article and cross-reference when needed. To all those who have been following this AfD (and any other interested parties) I would be very happy if you would peruse the poverty article, as well as the standard of living article, and fix any redundancies by cross-referencing.Thanks.Hkelkar 22:14, 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: Speedily deleted - spam, no context, blanked by creator. - Mike Rosoft 16:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Franscartoons

Short article providing little or no context; Speedy delete tag removed by author. Springnuts 14:28, 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 deleted by Winhunter on author's request. - Yomanganitalk 17:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Francis Pape

non-notable. Springnuts 14:35, 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 Deleted, the boundary of notability on schools has to be drawn somewhere. The claim that "all schools are notable" is simply absurd, and anyone basing their reasoning on a falsehood like that is likely to be discounted. What we're dealing with here is a small, small school that is part of a church that itself isn't notable enough to have an article. Remember, AFD is not a vote; judgement can and must be exercised. --Cyde Weys 02:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finger Lakes Christian School

Non-notable school, no links to it, very little content. ColinFine 14:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Very small school. -- Necrothesp 16:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A very small school indeed. --Nishkid64 18:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Mackensen (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. All high schools (or schools that include the high school grades) are notable. The article includes sources, including an article from the Finger Lakes Times. I wonder if the school is fully accredited, though. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Normally I'd agree with you, but this school appears to be too small to be notable. Secondary schools are usually much larger than this. This is smaller than many junior schools. -- Necrothesp 22:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Truthbringer and for reasons explained at User:Silensor/Schools. This school is accredited by the Association of Christian Schools International for those who were wondering. ;-) Silensor 22:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I again refer to User:JoshuaZ/Schools which rebutts Silensor's essay. JoshuaZ 04:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Attempts to rebutt but fails miserably at it may not be replaced by rebutts in normal grammatical usage. WilyD 18:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Do you intend to explain what you mean? JoshuaZ 18:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Since your essay fails miserably in its attempts to rebutt Silensor, saying it rebutts it is very poor english. A reader might get confused, and think your essay has any merit whatsoever (when it obviously does not). WilyD 18:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
            • a) That is a matter of opinion of whether or not it rebuts his essay well (and I note that at least one school inclusionist seems to have had somewhat positive remarks about my essay so). b) You seem to confuse the meanings of many words related to logic. In this case you are confused about the difference between logic and grammar. To use the canonical example "Green dreams sleep furiously" is a grammatically valid nonsensical sentence. It might make sense not to make grammatical critiques when you don't understand what grammar is. JoshuaZ 18:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
              • And furthermore, I have already asked you to explain what issues you have with my essay. So far you have not mentioned a single one. If you have any substantive issues please explain them. I'm far more interested in an actual dialogue on this matter than simple claims that the essay fails in some way. JoshuaZ 18:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete does not assert any importance. --W.marsh 01:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I can see how this is at the margins of existing school notability precedent, but I don't want to start deleting things randomly unless there's a significant persuasive argument that uniform inclusionism for high schools is bad. This is clearly a small school, with 75 students in 12 grades, but it's more than a few people home schooling together or some such. I'm sure there are equally small schools in government run school districts around. Keep it. Georgewilliamherbert 01:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable school and well-sourced article --Carioca 02:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
There are no sources cited (and no notability asserted). --W.marsh 03:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The sources were listed under External links. I have moved them to References. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, small but verifiable and established school. Kappa 04:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep article provides verifiable sources. No known standard specifies that "bigger is better (or more notable)" nor is there any standard that specifies a minimum size for inclusion as an article. Alansohn 04:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This school seems almost designed to illustrate the absurdity of inclusionism in regard to schools. If we had an article about the church that the school was a part of and included all the info in the article the article would be deleted as a non-notable church. Somehow we have an article about the school (which contains less information and is about only the school) and yet that should be kept? JoshuaZ 04:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Small but notable school well worth having as an article in Wikipedia. Bagginator 05:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please per georgewilliamherbet this is worth having on wikipedia and meets verifiability standard Yuckfoo 05:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete very crufty indeed. Size and verifiability are not at issue. Notability os. This is a micro-school with no real claim to fame. Ohconfucius 08:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Tiny indeed but still a secondary school. Herostratus 08:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Silensor. --Myles Long 16:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. I'm not sure there's any other relevent criterion - certainly none has been presented. WilyD 18:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment As already observed, notability has already been brought up as a criterion. Please stop ingoring actual issues and actually discuss the matters at hand. JoshuaZ 18:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Notability has already been established. Arguments based upon false premises are no arguments at all. WilyD 18:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Maybe I took too many logic courses when I was younger but an argument is an argument regardless of whether it has valid premises. As to your claim that notability has been established, how has it been established, what facts in the article or in this talk page establish notability? JoshuaZ 18:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Maybe you did - encyclopaedias adopt an epistemology based upon empiricism, not logic. WilyD 18:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
          • And that might be relevant if this were an article page. But it isn't this is Wikispace so using words as they are generally used is a good thing. And I note that you ignored my second question: how has notability been established and what facts in the article or in this talk page establish notability? JoshuaZ 18:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
            • Alright, then no relevent argument has been presented - I wouldn't have expected that needed to be made clear given the context. WilyD 18:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
              • I'm confused then. Are you saying there has or has not been anything that establishes notability? JoshuaZ 19:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 00:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a small, non-notable school. Prolog 16:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per schoolwatch flood above --ForbiddenWord 19:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • 'Comment This essentially says keep per lots of people shouting for keep already. This is not an argument. JoshuaZ 19:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment it demonstrates that there is consensus within the community that schools are notable. --ForbiddenWord 19:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment. I wouldn't call twelve keeps against nine deletes any sort of consensus! Secondary schools are usually notable, yes. I'd be the first to agree. But even I don't think one this small is notable. -- Necrothesp 23:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. For all of the reasons given in the past year. Vegaswikian 06:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, NN. Ignore the "keep all schools" trolls. — Dunc|☺ 08:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Hey, here's an idea, since "all schools are notable", then let's expand our thinking to "all teachers are notable" (after all what's a school without its teachers), and of course, "all teacher's aides are notable" (hey someone's gotta help out), oh and principals and other administrative personnel too -- just think: tens, if not hundreds of thousands of new useless articles to write. BTW, do nursery schools count? •Jim62sch• 09:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Teeny tiny nn school. Second Jim's sarcastic epistle above; how ridiculous must this get before we stop rubber-stamping all secondary schools? KillerChihuahua?!? 10:40, 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 Keep contingent on rewrite. —Centrx→talk • 23:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Business Professionals of America

This entry fails WP:ORG. It is also written in an ad-like tone. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 14:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Yes, it is not written very well at the moment, but "Business Professionals of America" does get about 90,000 google hits. They have chapters in many high schools across the USA and have local/state/national competitions, much like DECA (who have an article). And WP:ORG is a proposal as well. Renosecond 15:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As much as I hate BPA, I'll have to agree with Renosecond; it is an organization not much less notable than DECA. DECA notability is just harder to guage because it is referred to by nothing but its acronym, which is quite ambiguous (See DeCA). Zarel 20:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Generally the "X is as notable as Y, which has an article" is not a very strong argument for a keep. I have looked at the DECA article and it has issues of its own, firstly, copyright violation and second, it also fails the requirement of WP:ORG which states, "information can be verified by a third party source" and "A significant amount of media coverage that is not trivial in nature and that deals specifically with the organization as the primary subject".--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 21:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm trying to find sources for this article of the non-trivial nature from a third party source and I can't seem to find any from a larger type news organization. Most of it seems to be about local chapters of BPA, but not the entire organization. I wonder if any coverage does exist. The same problem seems to exist for DECA, FBLA, and the like. I'm withholding judgement of the article for now. Metros232 22:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Definately. It's notable and needs an article.. --DjSamwise 04:17, 28 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. —Centrx→talk • 00:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hydranode

prod was removed by User:83.84.19.140 [27]. This software is non-notable; very few hits on Google, no discernable press coverage. Has never released (version 0.3) and hasn't updated in about six months. The article reads like an advert. Mikeblas 15:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - advert. ColinFine 17:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

In open source software (or any software for that matter) version 0.3 doesn't have to mean never realeased. eMule for example is still at 0.42. Does read like an advert though, but I still found the article helpful. 82.131.12.193 18:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Brandon says : I discovered this project when looking for a console based p2p program that supports ed2k network. I want to run a file server on my low profile, quiet firewall, so I don't have to have my computer on all the time. I was specifically looking for a program like hydranode, and wikipedia helped me find it. Not sure I could have done this without wikipedia's article. As there are no other programs that do what hydranode can do, I recommend that this article not be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.189.37.41 (talk • contribs).

Wikipedia is not a directory. You're more likely to get that sort of answer from Google than WP anyway. ColinFine 11:02, 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. Punkmorten 22:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WWE Double Champion

nn, or listcruft, gets almost no google hits other than retreads of this article, and a few prod tags were added but removed (see history) Renosecond 15:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Statistic of a popular sports league. -- Mikeblas 16:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I forgot to put the google results [28] Renosecond 17:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable fancruft. --Oakster (Talk) 21:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fancruft. Sorta interesting but not needed. TJ Spyke 22:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - having simultaneously held two titles is not notable (one can easily be a singles champion and a tag champ at the same time after all). Having simultaneously held three is only notable only in rare circumstances (Lance Storm is an example), as it would be rare to put, say, a top and second-tier title on the same person. kelvSYC 04:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's mildly interesting, but clearly violates WP:NOR Tromboneguy0186 11:59, 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. Punkmorten 22:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Domeshot

This is a non-notable neologism if not a hoax. The article cites only urbandictionary.com as a source. This is not a proper source because the entire point of that site is that anyone can submit a definition. In addition, the only Google hits for the term and "oral sex" come from that site [29]. Deprodded. Erechtheus 15:35, 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. Punkmorten 22:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MSTRMND

Non-notable. Appears to be an advertisement for a new magazine with very little market presence. Wikipedia should not be used for promoting new projects. Donald Albury 16:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Probably is advertising. WP:NOT. --Nishkid64 18:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 23:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Magazine with only two issues out. Oh but wait, it's 'unique', in that case...no, still delete. DJ Clayworth 14:55, 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. Punkmorten 22:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Squink

Vanity page of non-notable blogger. Leibniz 16:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I have no clue what those "notable points" are about, but I still believe the page is vanity. --Nishkid64 18:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn blogger. Danny Lilithborne 23:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per huh?—Nat Krause(Talk!) 18:39, 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 Speedy delete per CSD A7 - Tangotango 12:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emmanuel Espín

Delete. Notability is not established for this person, which is surprising seeing as how he is "revolutionary". [Check Google hits] only gives 87 results, none of which are very helpful. Prod tag (by me) removed by anon. ... discospinster talk 17:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete but allow later creation if he is ever famous. This search reveals every Espin but our man. Fiddle Faddle 17:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Leibniz 17:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Calling oneself "like the son of Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera" does not establish sufficient notability for an artist. (Can I be like the daughter of Andy Warhol and Kathy Acker.?) Dina 18:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:VAIN and WP:BIO. --Nishkid64 18:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete nnbio. Danny Lilithborne 23:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 12:41, 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 merge into Miriam. —Mets501 (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snow-white Miriam

Google search showed only 36 actual ghits, many seeming to refer to the article. Topic is controverial, article is unsourced. (Note: The event in the narrative of Miriam is sourced, but not use of the name "Snow-white Miriam" or statements about contemporary significance or views). Notability appears not to have been established after months of requests for sources. Given that the article involves a narrative in the life of Miriam, suggest merging any reliably sourced content with Miriam. --Shirahadasha 17:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete The article on Miriam could/should certainly refer to the (apparently just one) reference to her as being turned "white as snow." But the rest of this article just seems like Torah or Bible commentary to me, and as such probably violates WP:OR. Unless the commentary itself is based on a legitimate scholar, and even then, we don't have individual articles for everything Maimonides wrote about. (for example.) Also, the title itself seems to imply that the most important part of the story of Miriam is that she got struck with a disease. I think that's inherently POV and I agree, controversial. Dina 18:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The article in its current form appears to interpret the narrative on Miriam in exclusively racial terms without accounting for any other possible interpretation. It is completely unsourced. Suggest deleting if sources not provided. zandweb 18:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

* Delete as an unsourced + WP:OR description and interpretation of the Miriam story. JoshuaZ 19:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC) changing to weak keep since it has some sourcing, barring that merge sourced content into Miriam, There still seems to be OR issues. JoshuaZ 23:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment This article takes the position that Zipporah and the "Cushite woman" Miriam complained about were two different people. Merging into the Zipporah article would imply the opposite position, that they were the same person. Not clear that Wikipedia should take a position on the subject either way. --Shirahadasha 01:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment I've also never seen the claim that Miriam was talking about anyone else before. This seems all very ORish. JoshuaZ 02:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Miriam. --Eliyak T·C 03:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Do you see anything salvageable? JoshuaZ 03:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • The incident is important, if only because it is one of the few things known about Miriam. The summary certainly gets included at Miriam. The debate about Moses' wife should probably go to Moses. --Eliyak T·C 04:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or Keep --Codec 06:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The article was originally based on the interpretation by Richard Elliot Friedman in his books about the old testament. Specifically "Who wrote the Bible?". That can be cited as a source, but I'm not sure of any papers in this area, though I imagine there are some. The later text added and opionions I don't know about.Codec 07:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Friedman is a reputable source, and generally represents the mainstream in the academic community (indeed some of his books are officially required reading - or at the top of official book lists - for theology courses at several well respected universities). You can also find similar views in well respected commentaries (e.g. Peake's) and encyclopedia's (e.g Jewish). Shirahadasha seems to be on a campaign to delete all historical-critical information. It seems to me that Shirahadasha is more interested in pushing a literalist POV than in encyclopedic content - i.e. that this nomination is in bad faith. The title - Snow White Miriam - is the normal title under which literature discussing this section of the Torah (i.e. the one involving Miriam turning snow white as a result of her comment) is found. Google is hardly an appropriate arbiter of what is or isn't the case - if Shirahadasha would care to look in theology libraries in works where this section of the bible is discussed, you will find the title quite frequently. In addition, I should add that the topic is not viewed as controversial in academic circles; in much the same way as the theory of evolution is not controversial in academic circles (and describing it as such would be utterly inaccurate), but some people (e.g. Shirahadasha) may have an issue with it. --User talk:FDuffy 17:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Richard Elliot Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?, at page 76, does indeed mention, under the heading "Snow-white Miriam," this narrative as reflecting "the depths of the antagonism between the priests who identified with Moses {either as their founder or ancestor) and those who identified with Aaron." It also notes that the story "is usually left out of the sunday-school curriculum." Much else said in the current Wikipedia article remains unsourced and should be deleted unless verification can be provided. Given these circumstances, would recommend merging the sourced material with Miriam, making "Snow-White Miriam" a subset of that article, and presenting Friedman's view (as such) in a subsection on Biblical criticism perspectives on the story. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment A request for verifiable sources had been made and repeated on the article's talk page for some time. If content is presented without sources, other editors have to attempt to verify it as best they can. Wikipedia makes it the editor's responsibility to supply sources verifying their statements, and in checkable form, with names of books and journal citations. Editors who attempt to check on unsourced statements are providing a service. If the editor's own responsibility to supply sources were complied with, and content kept consistent with the sources supplied, there would be no need for theories about what other editors' motives for fact-checking might be. A review of Wikipedia's WP:No personal attacks policy might be in order. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment A number of citations have now been added. The original addition of the fact tag seemed rather gratuitous, so I've removed some. There are a couple still left. Codec 15:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Failing that, merge. Jayjg (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - It really needs to be sourced better but this is a biblical episode that has been commented on by a number of people is worth keeping. I'd dispute that there are only 36 entries, a slightly different search got 219,000 entries (admittedly a number of them bible verses - but many of them commentary). JASpencer 07:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment To give an example using a known non-event, a search on brown+jersey+reagan", gets nearly 3 million Google hits, but "brown jersey reagan" gets no hits. The quotes make all the difference, and leaving them out makes the search irrelevant. No-one denies the biblical verse with "white as snow" exists, the question is whether a merge of this episode of Miriam's life into Miriam, and perhaps a redirect, would be adequate. --Shirahadasha 03:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • merge and redirect with miriam seems best here Yuckfoo 20:56, 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 Speedy delete, duplicate page with improper page title. NawlinWiki 03:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qanun (disputed page)

Unfortunately this page is created by a vandalist User:ILike2BeAnonymous by chauvunist claims instead Qanun. zandweb 17:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete I'm confused. Anyway it's duplicate material, and I guess some kind of POV fork? Though they're both small articles about a type of persian zither with not much content at all, much less POV. Dina 17:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Appears to be a partial copy of Qanun. I don't understand what's going on, but this can't be right. ColinFine 17:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
According to User:ILike2BeAnonymous, User:Zandweb is trying to "claim" the kanun (or qanun or however you transliterate it) as an Iranian instrument, when in fact practically identical instruments are found in many cultures, such as Turkish. —Keenan Pepper 20:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Ahhhh. Well at least now I understand. So it's an edit controversy and this is a POV fork. So this article needs to go and the origins of the instrument need to be hammered out somehow in the article itself. Dina 21:30, 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 done by nominator, no need for discussion (Liberatore, 2006). 16:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of organ composers

It appears that a major editor, MusikFabrik was, in fact, a group including Paul Wehage, Jean-Thierry Boisseau, and selling music for some of the other composers listed in this article. Here's where the information came out, It is confirmed by Jean-Thierry Boisseau here. As such, I believe that all the 20th century sections of the list should be deleted, until they can be remade from independent sources. Adam Cuerden talk 18:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Be bold, no need for AFD to give you permission for that, if it's disputed try a Request for comment. Recommend speedy close. 04:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Sections removed. Needs major NPOVing anyway. Adam Cuerden talk 16:23, 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 the page has been speedy deleted under A1. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 22:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belfast, Mpumalanga/Comments

Subpage of an article that already exists. Can't just redirect to Belfast, Mpumalanga, because it wouldn't be a valid redirect. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 18:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete It is effectively empty. Unlikely to get dissenting voices here, could this be a speedy candidate, or are we too late for that? Fiddle Faddle 18:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per A1. It's a short article with no real context. It's one sentence long. --Nishkid64 18:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - CSD A1. Tagged as such. MER-C 12:40, 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 keep, not even the nominator wants to delete it. Merge if you want, but don't bring it to afd for that. - Bobet 08:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mobile Phone Signal Booster Sticker

This page is not WP:NOTABLE. Merge into Mobile phone. Hello32020 18:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Make Stub Make a stub becuase it needs expansion not deletion. Srw985 09:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. (But why bring this to AfD instead of using the merge tag?) Pan Dan 20:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Make Stub and KEEP These were, IIRC, at the center of a ton of lawsuits for being ineffective, deffective, scammy, etc. Create a stub, it needs expansion. Deletion is not proper here. Shortfuse 02:40, 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 No consensus defaulting to keep. Please note I cannot see the validity of the POV fork argument, as there is no particular view in the mention of this incident in Operation Days of Penitence to fork from, nor does this article advance a POV. It expands on the smaller mention, as is not uncommon. I also note that there is a sizable list of media mentions worldwide. The delete reason "Practically every Palestinian civilian killed by the IDF qualifies as 'notable'" is an affirmation of keeping the article. It would also seem to be qualitatively different from the other two "similar" articles cited in the nom, which have reached a clear delete decision. Tyrenius 18:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iman Darweesh Al Hams

(Note: This is the latest installment in my "Articles-Created-by-Alberuni-Each-Devoted-Solely-to-a-Victim-of-the-Israeli-Palestinian-Conflict for Deletion" series. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rania Siam and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghadeer Jaber Mkheemar. I did not bundle this article for deletion with the others, because this article is much more extensive, as there was an IDF investigation into this clearly tragic death. However I still believe this article should be deleted for the reasons below.)

While Iman's death is obviously tragic, I believe this article should be deleted due to the following concerns:

(1) Fails WP:BIO. I don't think Iman satisfies any of the criteria at WP:BIO, including being "the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works...(Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage)." The article's coverage, and the references, are really about the incident of Iman's death and the subsequent investigation, not about Iman herself. The article includes almost no biographical details about Iman, and such details would indeed seem out of place. (Compare with the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Allen Smith.)

(2) Violates POV fork. The incident of Iman's tragic death and the subsequent investigation are already covered in Operation_Days_of_Penitence, an NPOV and extraordinarily thorough day-by-day coverage of that operation. The nominated article is a POV fork of the other article, as it "highlight[s] negative or positive viewpoints or facts." Specifically, it highlights the negative fact of the accidental shooting of a Palestinian child by the IDF. Widening the context even further than Operation Days of Penitence, hundreds of children on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been killed, by suicide bombers and by the IDF, just since the second intifada began in 2000, and this unfortunate, broader topic is also already well-covered in Children and minors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The nominated article devoted entirely to Iman's death takes it out of the context of both Operation Days of Penitence and the larger Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Pan Dan 19:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per well-argued nom Bwithh 20:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Let's take part (2) of the nom first. An article on a particular notable effect of a war or police action does not constitute a POV-fork, even if it is centred facts which could be viewed as negative. I do not see anyone arguing, for example, that My Lai massacre is a POV-fork of Vietnam War. An article entitled Unnecessary Civilian Casualties of Israel's attack on Gaza, now, would perhaps be a POV-fork. For this to be true, the particular icident has to be notable.
About part (1) of the nom: I think that's a little disingenous on the part of the nominator. At the very least, if the investigation was notable, and that is not denied in the nom, the article could have been moved to Investigation of the death of Iman al-Hams. I would not support that, however, as there have been several occasions where it has been decided that a person becomes notable through the manner of their death. Consider Amadou Diallo. The example chosen by the nom is, I suspect in somewhat bad faith, as the death of that individual was non-notable even by the standards of the media circuses such deaths involve. The JonBenet Ramsey murder and that girl who disappeared in Aruba are still on here. As are Diallo and another article that just survived AfD of someone who was similarly gunned down by the NYPD. WP:BIO itself says "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" meet the criteria for notability.
Thus, the investigation itself would have to be nn for this argument to go through. The article demonstrates it wasnt. In fact, I have read this elsewhere already, so I think it's very far from nn, especially given the degree of media interest in Israel itself. Hornplease 01:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Reply. Re: WP:BIO. First, as to renown and notoriety. I don't think Iman achieved either renown or notoriety. Certainly not notoriety; and as for renown, at [30], "renown" is defined as "widespread and high repute; fame," "the state or quality of being widely honored and acclaimed." Neither of these characterizes Iman. "Renown" connotes that the person did something, herself, whereas Iman, tragically, did nothing to get shot.
"Renown or notoriety" in this context means "will people search for her name?"+"will they continue to do so for some time in the future?". You have conveniently avoided the fact that that section of WP:BIO is cited frequently as indicating that people who have died in notable fashion have achieved notability. Iman may have done nothing to get shot, but that is irrelevant; because she got shot, she had renown thrust upon her. Hornplease 19:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
With respect, I disagree that "she had renown thrust upon her." See again the dictionary definition. If it's true that "that section of WP:BIO is cited frequently as indicating that people who have died in notable fashion have achieved notability," then I would disagree with that use of WP:BIO. Pan Dan 20:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
'Renown', in the definition you yourself have given, includes 'fame', which sometimes people do nothing to achieve. This is obvious. Hornplease 20:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
"Fame" in the context of "widespread and high repute"--see again the definition--is not an accurate description of what Iman has. Pan Dan 07:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
When a semicolon exists in a definition, the word or phrase following that semicolon serves to extend the meaning the phrase before the semocolon attaches to the word being defined. It does not serve to place it 'in context'. Hornplease 09:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Then why does the other dictionary's definition ("the state or quality of being widely honored and acclaimed") not include the word "fame," or the weaker concept of fame than "high repute" that you are trying to apply here? Pan Dan 23:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Second, as to precedent. You cite Amadou Diallo, JonBenet Ramsey, and Natalie Holloway. Let's take Natalie Holloway first. I do think it would be appropriate to consider deleting that article, but as her disappearance/death was an isolated incident, it simply doesn't fall into the same category as Iman's death. Next, Amadou Diallo. His death also was an isolated incident, not part of a larger story, and alone engendered widespread criticism and discussion of NYPD practices, so an article devoted to his death and community reaction is appropriate. Next, JonBenet Ramsey. Her death was unique as it engendered a widespread discussion on the propriety of kiddie beauty pageants, and as Bwithh noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Allen Smith, pertained to wider cultural trends. Iman's death was like none of these, as it was part of an Israeli operation.
Surely you realise you havent got a good enough argument in this case. Iman's death was part of an military operation. The investigation was notable in that it revealed details about what is considered appropriate during military operations. This caused widespread discussion in the English and Israeli press, and thus is notable. What part of this is difficult to follow? If her death was not unique, as you seem to - in the absence of all precedent of logic - believe is necessary for inclusion, at least the level of scrutiny and the facts that emerged in the investigation were uniquely discussed. Is it untrue that it engendered widespread criticism, defence and discussion of IDF practices? Then how is it different from the Diallo case? You have described these cases, and in none of them have you even begun to explain how they are inappropriate comparisons.Hornplease 19:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Like Stalin (may his name be expunged) said, one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic. Sadly perhaps, he was right. Uniqueness does confer extra notability, and Iman's death is one of hundreds. But uniqueness also has to do with the POV fork issue. The investigation into Iman's death, as I said, is already covered in Operation Days of Penitence. The others' deaths are covered nowhere else. Pan Dan 20:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
See my discussion below. That the investigation is covered briefly in that article is irrelevant, as the investigation extends to methods used elsewhere, and the investigation itself is hardly part exclusively of the details of the operation, which is the primary purpose of that article. You have, again, not made your case. Iman's case is one of hundreds, but the one that was discussed and hence notable. Hornplease 20:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
What makes Iman's case notable is the investigation that followed her death in the Israeli operation, which is why it belongs in the main article. And as I said, both the death and the investigation are adequately covered in the main article. Pan Dan 07:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
You havent answered the point that the investigation and discussion is not relevant to the history of the operation, but to general IDF methods, and thus the operation page, while it should mention the death, is not the appropriate place. Hornplease 09:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
See (b) reply below. Pan Dan 23:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
But even if you think a comparison between Iman's and these three deaths is appropriate despite these differences, I would point out that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Allen Smith shows that precedent is not unanimous on whether to keep such articles.
Finally, as to your suggestion that this nom is in bad faith: Given the difference between Iman and the other three, and the divided precedent, that suggestion is quite unfair.
You have not even bothered to respond to (a) me pointing out that the George Allen Smith article was deleted because it was decided that the investigation was nn and (b) that you chose that particular example out of many in the opposite direction - which you now claim merely demonstrates that "precedent is not unanimous" - in something very close to bad faith. I think its clear that you wished to delete several articles. About the others, its possible that they were less notable. I certainly wasnt moved to intervene. This is, however, a notable incident, a notable investigation, a notable discussion, and to delete it as being the bio of a nn person instead of moving it to a more appropriate title, means that you think the discussion is non-notable; and that is untrue, and to attempt to achieve the removal of the discussion inappropriately smacks, as I said, of something approaching bad faith. Hornplease 19:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
What the George Allen Smith case shows is that dying in a sensational manner does not automatically confer sufficient notability for a WP article, which is why I cited it. Note that I put it in parentheses, asking the reader simply to "compare." I didn't think it was dispositive of this case.
As for the investigation into Iman's death, that is certainly notable, which is why is should be covered, as it is, in Operation Days of Penitence.
As for your statement that I "wished to delete several articles," I don't know what that is supposed to prove. I wished to delete several articles each devoted entirely to a victim of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And although they were all created by the same user, Alberuni, I don't assume bad faith on his part. He clearly thought these articles merited existence on WP. Don't assume bad faith on my part just because I disagree. Pan Dan 20:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
(a) Once again, you miss my point. Many people die sensationally; but a death that causes discussion of army methods and considerable study in several countries is notable in a way that George Allen Smith wasnt. (b) The article about the operation deserves to be about the operation. The discussion of IDF methods following the girl's death went beyond a specific operation. (c) My statement was that you "wished to delete several articles". The good-faith interpretation of your actions is that you let the fact that this article was created by a user who also created articles about nn individuals to affect your judgment. Hornplease 20:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
(a) Not to be comical here, but I'm afraid you're missing my point. See 4 paragraphs above. You imply that the Smith case was a major part of my argument for deletion. It was not. (b) You're making way too much of the "discussion of IDF methods following the girl's death." Read the article on Iman, and you will see it has little discussion in the way of general IDF practices. The discussion almost entirely involves specific allegations and rebuttals related to the incident of Iman's shooting. (c) I found these articles created by Alberuni because I find one that I thought NN, then checked to see what other NN articles the same user might have created. Obviously there's no way I can prove my judgment is not impaired. Let my arguments stand or fall on their merits, which I see have been endorsed by several others here. Pan Dan 07:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
(a) Then let's ignore the Smith case altogether, since it's not really relevant. (b) The very first paragraph declares that the crucial line in the judge's decision was that 'confirming a kill is standard procedure', which is precisely what the furore was about in the Israeli and European media. (c) Fair enough, though I think that you would do well to note that all articles created by a user with an agenda need not share that agenda. Hornplease 09:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
(a) Is too. :) Just not central. (b) The item of the judge agreeing with the defense that "confirming the kill is standard procedure" is nowhere near enough to sustain this article as a stand-alone. (c) Agreed! If Alberuni had an agenda, it is not relevant here. Pan Dan 23:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Re: POV fork. You cite the My Lai massacre. I don't think it's right to compare the massacre of hundreds to the shooting of one girl in the middle of an Israeli operation. The proper comparison in terms of notability would be of the My Lai massacre to the Operation Days of Penitence (during which Iman was shot), or of a single casualty of My Lai to Iman. The notability of Iman's death warrants its inclusion in Operation Days of Penitence, certainly (and it is), but not an article. Pan Dan 15:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
That is a pointless paragraph. I do not compare the two incidents in terms of notability, as should be clear. I was comparing the application of the concept of a POV-fork, which you incorrectly accused this article of being. Notability does not feature in the discussion of POV forks, NPOV does. Please re-read what I wrote above and attempt understand its applicability.Hornplease 19:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, let me re-phrase what I wrote. It would be a POV fork to create an article devoted to a single victim of the My Lai massacre whose death is adequately covered in My Lai massacre, just as the nominated article is a POV fork of Operation Days of Penitence, which adequately covers the death of Iman and the subsequent investigation. Pan Dan 20:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This has been discussed above, but to respond specifically: your use of the term is incorrect and it is inapplicable here. It would not be a POV-fork to create an article on a specific victim of th eMy Lai massacre, it would just be not encyclopaedic (Unless it were about the little girl in the photo, perhaps, if there was considerable discussion of her identity). The article about the operation is not the place for an 'adequate' discussion of the investigation. At some point in the future someone might point out that that article is overwhelmed with this discussion and be within their rights in removing it, as the investigation is peripheral to the operation itself. It needs and deserves its own article, and saying so is not a POV-fork, in the manner in which the phrase is used. Hornplease 20:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Well clearly we disagree on that. The investigation is adequately covered in the Operation article; the investigation is not notable outside of the context of that operation; and Iman has little or no discussion on general IDF practices that go beyond the operation. The Iman article does nothing more than highlight a negative fact from the operation. Pan Dan 07:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The investigation cannot be said to be non-notable outside the context of the operation. The operation provided the context for the death. The context for the investigation was army policy, Israeli law, and Israeli media interest. Hornplease 09:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Echoing what I said above--whatever this case's relation to policy or law, there's nowhere near enough to sustain a stand-alone article. And the media interest does not justify a stand-alone article. This case's relation to policy and law, and the media interest, is enough to sustain and justify what there is already in Operation Days of Penitence. Pan Dan 23:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. With regard to the assertion above "the negative fact of the accidental shooting of a Palestinian child by the IDF", there is not a dispute that the shooting of the girl was deliberate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrAtos (talk • contribs) 17:59, 19 Sep 2006 (UTC) — MrAtos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete, POV fork Kuratowski's Ghost 23:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO and has that ever elusive and faint scent of a POV fork/push Avi 00:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If we dedicate a page to one dead person killed in war, we'll be dedicating a lot of pages to dead people. Evolver of Borg 02:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Another pov fork- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEEEEEEEEP extremely strong. I am shocked that anyone is considering to delete this article. Sick, sick, sick. Article should of course be completely neutral. But to DELETE it??? This is a crazy Zionist complot to take over Wikipedia. I bet you guys would be objecting if we would start AfD'ing articles about Israeli victims. This AfD makes me sick. For the Jews involved: what a huge chillul Hashem (desecration of G-d's name), trying to delete this article. What a huge disgrace. This is sick, sick, sick. --Daniel575 | (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
First of all, may I respectfully suggest that you calm down a little. Second of all, as for "articles about Israeli victims," tell me, where are the individual articles on all of the Israeli children murdered by terrorists in the Ma'alot massacre, Sbarro restaurant massacre, Dolphinarium massacre, and all the others over the years? Unless they are well-hidden, the articles do not exist. The individual victims are merely listed in the articles about the particular incidents. This nomination seeks to achieve the same result for this individual. (Adding signature which was omitted by mistake: 6SJ7 20:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC))
Dear anonymous. These pages are not primarily about the person involved, but about the incident. The article is not necessarily about the girl, but about the way in which the girl was murdered. You could rename it "Gaza killing of Palestinian girl on whateverdateitwas" if you want. It seems logical to me that large incidents, in which multiple people were killed, should be named after the location of the incident - for example, "Ma'alot massacre". For incidents in which only one person was killed, we call it after the name of the victim - for example this article, Ayala Abukasis and Shalhevet Pass. If multiple members of one family are involved, it is named after the most notable one - usually the father, or if he is not involved the mother - such as Tali Hatuel. And there should indeed be articles on Wikipedia about each victim of the intifadah, on both sides. Virtual monuments to each of them. Not only innocent children, but even IDF and Hamas combatants. (This comment is also placed below for discussion.) --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - The information regarding this person in my view has deep relevance to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. The statement that this page is a slippery slope to giving a page to every person killed in war, or that we should give a page to every victim of My Lai is a very specious argument. Her death is one of the few in the whole of the Palestinian conflict that has resulted in the prosecution of an Israel soldier; if she died in a huge massacre like Qana, that would be a different story. Moreover, it has been extensively covered in the global media. Furthermore, her death is seen by many as a key evidence for the tactics employed by some members of the IDF. I am not sure how many recall the death of Iman Hijjo; she died somewhat early in the most recent uprising. I could see the argument made that an article about her was a POV fork. However, the case of Iman Darweesh al-Hams is much different given her death led to some sort of conviction, and was more well publicized.
Moreover, clearly anything but the facts should be removed from this article. The vote to keep is by no means an approval of the article's wording. But, the article concerning her definitely has merit. Take the example of Muhammad al-Durrah. He is also a child who died in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; no one would recommend the deletion of this article despite the view by some that the pictures of it are overly graphic and the article covers primarily his death and the aftermath only. Iman Darweesh al-Hams is very in terms of symbolism as Muhammad al-Durrah and may be more well known in the West.
Finally I think the vote to delete is the most POV part about this article. ZaydHammoudeh 17:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and others. 6SJ7 17:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or Delete The information belongs somewhere, I think, but not in its own article. Al Hams is simply not notable enough by herself, despite the awfulness of what happened to her. IronDuke 18:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per notability firmly established by:
  1. United States House of Representatives [31]
  2. BBC *2[32] [33]
  3. CNN *2 [34] [35]
  4. The Guardian *3 [36] [37] [38]
  5. Haaretz[39]
  6. ABC [40]
  7. Al Jazeera *2 [41] [42]
  8. The Christian Science Monitor [43]
  9. Rense [44]
  10. World Socialist Web Site *2 [45] [46]
  11. Jewish Virtual Library [47]
  12. What Really Happened *2 [48] [49]
  13. Scoop [50]
  14. Independent Media Center [51]
  15. CounterPunch [52] (see this for even more references)
  16. New York Times? [53]


And more [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]

--Striver 18:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that these sources do not include Hebrew-language media, or Israeli media outlets more generally, where the discussion and coverage was even more intense and long-standing. Hornplease
  • Comment - Please keep in mind that this incident was very imporant in Israel, and was "all over the news" here for a long time. The media kept a close watch of the investigation, and it was quite a scandal. It's not just another incident of war time death - this one had additional meaning, because of the public controversy. okedem 19:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment for future guidelines: These pages are not primarily about the person involved, but about the incident. The article is not necessarily about the girl, but about the way in which the girl was murdered. You could rename it "Gaza killing of Palestinian girl on whateverdateitwas" if you want. It seems logical to me that large incidents, in which multiple people were killed, should be named after the location of the incident - for example, "Ma'alot massacre". For incidents in which only one person was killed, we call it after the name of the victim - for example this article, Ayala Abukasis and Shalhevet Pass. If multiple members of one family are involved, it is named after the most notable one - usually the father, or if he is not involved the mother - such as Tali Hatuel. And there should indeed be articles on Wikipedia about each victim of the intifadah, on both sides. Virtual monuments to each of them. Not only innocent children, but even IDF and Hamas combatants. I look forward to the thoughts of others on this. --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
WP:NOT a memorial. However certain deaths are notable because of what followed or the discussion/investigation. As has been documented above, this is one of them. There has to be a place for it, and as the first part of your discussion makes clear, the article name is usually that of the person who died. Hornplease 20:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Del. Sources like Rense, World Socialist and What Really Happened are reasons to exclude the content in question, rather than to include it. If there is a notable controversy then NPOvify and merge/rename. But let's not turn WP into a martyrology. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
wow, how did you manage to miss all other sources? --Striver 00:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Not so difficult if you're a Zionist. They like to ignore criticism by pretending it's only minor non-notable groups that criticize them. Criticism? Just pretend it doesn't exist, wish it away, and if necessary, mention the word 'Holocaust' to silence any and all criticism. (FYI, I'm an Orthodox Jew who does not like such things.) --Daniel575 | (talk) 06:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from such attacks. It doesn't do anyone any good to speak ill of other people here, or to berate "zionists". Criticise the arguements, not the editor, whether he's a zionist, an arab, an orthodox jew, or anything else. okedem 14:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Practically every Palestinian civilian killed by the IDF qualifies as "notable" because there's always a "discussion". This is insane. We are not going to have an article about every single death in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 05:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
That statement (that there is always a "discussion") is demonstrably false. In addition, sources have been presented and an Israeli wikipedian has stated above that this discussion in particular was notable. Given that, I strongly suggest you re-read the above points and alter your vote. I would also urge any editors -or the closing admin - to have a look at the discussion page of the article, which has been active for a long time with people arguing about the sources used, the degree of NPOV of the content, whether there should be a link to the IDF Code of Conduct, etc., etc., without once questioning the importance of the subject or the level of notability or the availability of multifarious sources. Hornplease
Speaking as an Israeli, this incident was a major scandal in Israel, and sparked more discussion, controversy and criticism than almost all others (barring A-Dura and a few others). The article should be NPOV, and bring both sides of the matter, but it's an important event (as I said - because of the public interest in it, not because of the girl, who I know nothing about). okedem 14:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete JJ211219 23:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - appears to contain quite a bit of notable and verifiable information that would be inappropriate to merge into Operation Days of Penitence. There is nothing inherently POV about an article on this girl, and if the article in its present article is POV, that's an issue for the editorial process, not RFD. --Hyperbole 23:56, 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 Keep. Near unanimous. Tyrenius 18:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Macaca (slur)

  • Delete as nominator. This is a non-topic. The article is based on an obscure word that only gained prominence when it was used by George Allen a month ago. Most Ghits are to the monkey of the same name, or to articles about Allen's use of the word. The related topic "MacacaGate" is also up for deletion. The sources used in the article are frequently unreliable blogs, which tend to inflate the importance of the subject. Cúchullain t/c 19:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Well, three of the sources listed are the Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune and Fox news. I really don't agree that this is a non-topic - whatever reasons caused the word to gain prominence aren't really as relevant as the fact that it did. And this prominence is verifiable by independent sources. The fact that it's also the name of a monkey is what made it such a questionable comment in the first place and is therefore relevant to the article. I agree that MacacaGate probably should go, but I do think that there can and should be a Wikipedia article on this controversy. Dina 20:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep on the condition that the section on the Allen controversy be reduced to one sentence and merged into the "Usages" section of the article. I disagree with Dina's statement that there should be a WP article on the Allen controversy. Foot-in-mouth disease is prevalent among politicians, and this particular controversy is no more notable than the dozens of other kerfuffles that deserve no more than a paragraph in larger articles (in this case the article on the 2006 Senate election or the article on George Allen himself). On the sources, I agree with Dina. Disregarding the section on the Allen controversy (because I think that that should anyway be reduced to one sentence), more than half of the sources for the first part of the article seem legit, non-blog. Pan Dan 20:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly notable: featured in all national media, had the apparent effect of lowering a candidates poll numbers.Edison 22:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with the Senator. When George Allen used macaca, he did not think that others would equate it with macaque. Here is his own response,

    SEN. ALLEN: Tim, I made a mistake. I said things thoughtlessly. I’ve apologized for it, as well I should. But there was no racial or ethnic intent to slur anyone. If I had any idea that, that that word, and to some people in some parts of the world, world, was an insult, I would never do it, because it’s contrary to what I believe and who I am. MR. RUSSERT: Well, where’d the word come from? It must’ve been in your consciousness. SEN. ALLEN: Oh, it’s just made up. MR. RUSSERT: Made up? SEN. ALLEN: Just made up. Made-up word. MR. RUSSERT: You’d never heard it before? SEN. ALLEN: Never heard it before.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14815993/page/7/

  • Given that the article itself provides sources for the existence of the term, and ... well, Josh Marshall says it better than I could:

But let's review. We know that not only is "macaca" a widely used racial epithet in American crypto-racist and white supremacist circles. Its apparent origin is among the colonial population of francophone North Africa -- where Allen's mother was raised. Now, call me ungenerous, but given those facts, the idea that "macaca" was simply three syllables Allen randomly strung together when digging at a dark-skinned young man who was getting on his nerves just doesn't strike me as credible. I don't expect Allen to admit now that rather than make this name up it was a synonym for the N-word that he was fond of when he was a kid. But he's practically begging for renewed attention to this transparent lie by weaving it, again and again, into his strained apologies. [62]

  • Allen's ass-covering doesn't have a lot of credibility -- not to mention it being irrelevant to the actual issue at hand, namely the stir that he created by opening his big mouth. --Calton | Talk 04:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it's verified.-- danntm T C 03:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It would be absurdly naïve to merge it with Allen's article. Even if we choose to believe his claim, which is unfalsifiable, he didn't invent the word, but rather reinvented it. In any case, it existed before he used it, and has an existence independent of his gaffe. If we merged it with Allen, we would be tacitly supporting the claim that Allen coined the word innocently, and that can be neither proven nor disproven. The only NPOV options are to (A) delete the article as non-notable or (B) retain the article, perhaps abridging the section pertaining to Allen so that it doesn't dominate the rest of the article. (A) would require us to delete articles like nigger, wog, and dago, which can be quite informative, so the only acceptable alternative is to keep. However, I suggest we confine the bulk of the "macaca-gate" information to a subsection of Allen's article, since this article ought first and foremost to concern the word, not a specific incident of its use. Bhumiya (said/done) 03:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This controversy is important for the time being. Perhaps it can be merged later, but now is not the time.
  • Keep as per the reasons listed above. --Hemlock Martinis 04:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I see no good reason to delete other than to limit negative information on Sen. Allen; that isn't Wikipedia's job. CranialNerves 07:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Funny how a non-notable, obscure slur from North Africa becomes notable when uttered by a Senator and bruited Presidential candidate. Funny that. --Dhartung | Talk 09:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Some of the above commenters on the "keep" side are neglecting the fact that the article is supposed to be about the slur "macaca," not the Allen controversy. Yes, the Allen controversy made the slur more notable, and that fact should be noted in the article. But the article is still about the slur, which is why the Allen controversy doesn't merit any more than a sentence or two, as in the "Usages" section. Pan Dan 13:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is staggeringly provincial of the orginator of this discussion to assume that this sourced and historically-evidenced (see the references) term is only notable because it was used in a US context. Then we should also delete every word of foreign origin in english wikipedia if they are not "relevant" to the American experience. Richardjames444 15:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I resent that, I really do. The fact of the matter is this article did not exist until the Allen controversy. Additionally, many of the sources were American, and the section about Allen took up a very significant chunk of space. If anything, I thought the article was too provincial, reflecting American interest in the subject out of proportion with the word's history and use. We do not usually have a separate article for ethnic slurs unless they are very well known in English; in this case it was only after Allen used the term that someone decided it deserved its own article.--Cúchullain t/c 21:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I didn't know what "Macaca" meant. I came to Wikipedia to find out. And now I know. This site is about learning. In a Google search of the term it was the first site that I recognized and was clearly about the word "Macaca." I do think that Mr Allen's excuse for using the word should be on his WP page. However, I was glad to see on the "Macaca" page the regional origin of the word. Perhaps the fact that Mr Allen's mother comes from where this word originates (and Mr Allen's story that he simply made up the word) should be on Mr Allen's page as well, since it seems political.--216.205.234.64 17:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Brian
  • Keep. A supporter of deletion, above, writes: "The article is based on an obscure word that only gained prominence when it was used by George Allen a month ago." Well, if it "gained prominence," then it is, by definition, prominent. Hence, Wikipedia worthy. Wikipedia can't be in the business of obscuring facts because we aren't happy about the way they "gained prominence." Strong keep. Thepinterpause 17:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above comments. Yamaguchi先生 23:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As long as everything is adequately sourced, the undeniable notoriety of this term created by a major candidate opening his big mouth when he shouldn't have means it's got scope for an article. --Calton | Talk 04:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is a lot of linguistic as well as social history here that is important. Many people, myself included, had heard the French name for the monkey 'macaque' but were completely unaware of the use of the term as a slur, especially by the White Supremacist movement. People who are not in the know need to be able to find reliable information, which this article seems to be.
  • Keep per Pan Dan. I agree that the length of the Allen controversy is cruft and should be trimmed but the other noted and referenced uses of the trim establishes it's notability apart from Allen. Agne 20:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Three of the sources listed are the Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune and Fox news. I agree with Pan Dan that politiciancs put there foot in their mouth which is one reason this article should stay. It show that politicians are no better then us and that People be can be rude to the other human beings by degrading them. From what I read in the Tribune, George allen has a nack for for this. This should be attached to his "legacy." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.64.0.252 (talk • contribs).
  • Keep Yes, it was obscure before the George Allen incident but having it in Wikipedia allows people to find out what it means and what the George Allen controversy is all about. Helped me understand the issue better. --Richard 06:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As long as it remains more then just a definition. -- Al™ 14:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment And to remedy that, I've summarized the George Allen section, and put a main article tag to Virginia United States Senate election, 2006, where there is a more up-to-date version of that passage and better context on the incident.--Rosicrucian 21:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Misrepresents the word as a racial slur. Should merge with macaque. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.211.45.50 (talk • contribs). 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Just googled and it led me here, a quick discussion about the word. Sure ditch most of the Allen commentary, but was very useful. Read word in blog, didnt know what it meant, now I have a better idea.--Liaison1 05:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I also came here via google, and I found the explanations useful. I think Allen is relevant, but as an example of recent (real or accidental) abuse. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.49.252.54 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep As Brian wrote (.--216.205.234.64 17:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Brian on 9/18): "I didn't know what 'Macaca'" meant. I came to Wikipedia to find out. And now I know. This site is about learning. In a Google search of the term it was the first site that I recognized and was clearly about the word 'Macaca.'" I would only add that I came to Wikipedia to find out because I trust Wikipedia. Mick H
  • Keep - as a definition and history of a word, even offensive words need to be known, esp when you are unsure of their meaning ie kafir etc.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.130.179.100 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep - If any page that is up for deletion gets this many comments - it shouldn't be deleted.
  • Keep - see above Calwatch 09:53, 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. Punkmorten 22:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism (book)

Book with little notability and of highly questionnable credibility. Published by a vanity press. The title gets a limited number of Google hits [63] mostly on forums, blogs and message boards and because his author gets some coverage as a Republican politician and a radio-show host. A previous debate resulted a year ago in a no consensus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism. I'd like to point out that the book fails to meet the proposed criteria for notability of books:

  • the author is not primarily known as an author,
  • the book has won no awards,
  • the book has not been the subject of multiple indepedent reviews. You do find, for instance a review by Samuel L. Blumenfeld [64] although Blumenfeld is Morse's colleague at the WorldNetDaily [65] and his coauthor on at least one book [66] so his independence is suspect. You can also find blogs mentioning the book or giving basic reviews but again these are not generally considered as reliable sources. Pascal.Tesson 19:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom not Notable. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 20:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Leibniz 20:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Peephole 22:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, fails WP:BK. Morton devonshire 01:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - oddly enough, the book doesn't show up in Worldcat's open search, but an audio version from Readings for the Blind and Dyslexic does. There may be something screwy with the worldcat database, but from what I can tell, both the audiobook and the book are in a total of ten libraries. See [67]. GabrielF 02:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for failing the proposed WP:BK (which I know isn't policy, but it kinda helps in this sort of thing). The fact that it's of questionable accuracy shouldn't come into it, since a notable nutcase or a notable misconception remains notable. Given, however, that we appear to be dealing with a non-notable book to start with, then it's a deletion case. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 11:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Crockspot 23:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn cruft nonsense.--MONGO 04:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete promotional Tom Harrison Talk 00:35, 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. Tyrenius 18:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TUS Project

The subject doesn't seem to be notable. The phrases "TUS Project", "Megaman Battle Network 7", and "Rockman EXE 7" all return less than 150 Google hits. Also, at least two other users have told me that this article includes inappropriate information. --Ixfd64 19:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy DeleteIt's not false information, it's information that shouldn't be there. This article was laready up for AfD, but the entry has been deleted, the history of edits on the article's page was wiped. -Sukecchi 19:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, the vast majority of the information was obtained illegally, and as a result, TUS is threatening to stop the project. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.100.88.213 (talk • contribs).

  • Comment - I'm not too sure about Wikipedia's policies when it comes to leaked confidential information. I'll see what the other administrators have to say about this. --Ixfd64 19:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've made a post on the administrators' noticeboard regarding this issue. --Ixfd64 19:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment-Thank you~ -Sukecchi 19:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Follow Up-See, that's what we would edit it to, but 162.84.180.223 (talk • contribs) would revert it back. -Sukecchi 19:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - This information is violating the integrity of our project. We threatened to close it because if this information continues to be disclosed it could seriously bring down the project.EXE 7 Project Threatens to Cancel Development (UnderSquare Administrator)-ZeRoRaVeN 20:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I removed the information that seemed unverified to me and semi-protected the article to prevent reposting by the anons. For now, I'll leave it to others to further cleanup the article and/or expand it with verifiable content. I'm not convinced though that this topic actually deserves encyclopedia coverage. Dragons flight 21:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless notability is asserted and verified. At the moment I can't see what elevates this above any other bedroom coding project. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete there seem to be a number of duplicate articles floating around. Danny Lilithborne 23:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment TUS project. was the original name of the article until it was moved mid AFD. Ryūlóng 06:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Merging duplicated AfD into this one: [68] --WinHunter (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Not notable, wrong title, apparently about a piece of vaporware The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, utterly fails WP:SOFTWARE. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 00:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not verifiable, no reliable sources indicating notability. Wmahan. 00:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, smells like spam, to me. Ryūlóng 03:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • And it might be an attack page too, which is why I have listed it as such. Ryūlóng 04:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam. MER-C 13:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:SPAM Hello32020 13:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 14:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As a member of this project, I had no say in the creation of this artile other than telling them not to make it for this reason, it will get deleted. Now we need it gone as it, like Ryu has shown, is an attack target. -Sukecchi 17:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Vaporware"? Something's vaporware when it starts missing deadlines. Call EXE7 non-notable all you want, but don't insult it. ~ CZeke 17:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentThe IP Address 162.84.180.223 reverts the page to before the AfD was placed on it, something needs done about this. -Sukecchi 18:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Also delete Megaman exe 7 which is a duplicate page. Danny Lilithborne 23:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Valarauka 16:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Xiange 11:08, 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. Punkmorten 22:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnicity and Provincialism in Pakistan

This reads like an essay, and is hopelessly POV Cordless Larry 19:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete makes no valid encyclopedic fact. non neutral and essay. --202.150.122.137 22:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman Bakatalk 23:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - nonsenseBakaman Bakatalk 23:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per 'IP Address' . Why is this discussion in India related deletions. --Ageo020 03:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per IP and Bakaman. If some one from Pakistan gives their comments, I am ready to change my opinion (to strong delete !!! or keep) Doctor BrunoTalk 14:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleteper IP address. GreatShash 10:17, 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. There is no consensus in the numbers, I have at 4-4. So on the arguments. It is true that galleries are are not proper articles (although we do have some articles that are basically galleries, we're not supposed to). This point is not really strongly refuted. Yes there a captions for some of the photos, but this makes it little more than a captioned gallery. The other main Keep point made is this is a useful and encyclopedic entity. That may be, but still, it's not really an article. The main article does have a number of good images (some of which are in this gallery). With a link to the Commons gallery, this seems to serve to purpose. Bottom line: we have to hold the line somewhere, and I think the point that Wikipedia articles should not be just collections of images is strong enough that the article should go. Also FWIW slashes are not allowed in article names in the way used here. Herostratus 19:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse reports/Gallery

WP:NOT clearly states that Wikipedia is not for "Mere Collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles" and that describes this supposed article. Should just be a link to the commons gallery [69] in the main article on this topic. --W.marsh 21:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose The Photos are a major part of the story. In fact. the story probably would have never come to public attention without the photos. Including the all the photos with the article would be impractical in this case (due to the length of the two pages combined.), None the less, for someone to have as a complete understanding of this story as possible, these photos need to be accessible. I think a reasonable exception to WP:NOT could be made here. Mike McGregor (Can) 23:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Why can't it just be a link to Commons, then? Why does it have to be an article? Articles aren't galleries for a good reason. --W.marsh 01:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - This gallery has descriptive captions for a number of the photos, and the photos are extremely important in context of covering the subject. It is far from merely a gallery. Georgewilliamherbert 02:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Most of the photos are already on the main article for Abu Ghraib Prisoner Abuse Perhaps this could be Merged with that cite under a subheading of photos 71.107.82.58 02:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)ratherhaveaheart
I'm not sure votes from unregistered IPs count in AFD... you may want to log in and cast your vote again... Mike McGregor (Can) 06:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
It's up to the closing admin. They generally count unless sockpuppet or meatpuppet abuse is suspected. --W.marsh 14:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for not having signed in when I commented I am still a bit green Ratherhaveaheart 18:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT Mere Collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Wikipedia:Images with missing articles or Wikipedia:Public domain image resources. Simple solution, add any relevant pictures in the main article with a link to the Wikicommons gallery page.--Jersey Devil 04:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - There is plenty more content than just pictures in that gallery. It's not merely a collection. Georgewilliamherbert 05:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment yes, it is a mere collection of photographs. Anyone who sees the article can see that it has no content in it except a minority of pictures with captions.--Jersey Devil 22:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Undecided yet, maybe someone can help sway my vote I'm kind of wondering here. Most of the pictures are shock pics. Shock pics show mutiliation and male nudity and this really fits it as a shock pic. Wikipedia doesn't show the goatse picture. Anomo 09:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment the fact that the pictures are "shocking" is in and of itself not a reason to delete. Remember that WP:NOT censored. The reason I voted to delete was because WP:NOT a collection of photographs.--Jersey Devil 22:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The photo of the napalmed girl in Vietnam and of the mass graves in the Holocaust are also shocking, but vital for a complete understanding of the events. These photographs are equally vital. --Ben Applegate 09:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Alright, I'm still a little green, too, so let me clarify that I am voting for deletion of the gallery page, not the pictures in the Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse_reports article itself (somebody please correct me if I've got this wrong). Because there are at least ten picures of the torture in that article, already more than enough to illustrate the point, a gallery of every image obtainable certainly is what WP:NOT. Guyanakoolaid 10:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I too think that pictures are a very important part of the history of Abu Ghraib. --Vlad|-> 18:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and it bothers me that you are even considering deleting Igbogirl 17:06, 27 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. Tyrenius 18:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] H.E.R.O. (Higher Education and Research Opportunities in the UK)

nn website--So3 16:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn, fails WP:WEB. Fine as an external link in an article about UK Higher Education but not its own article Bwithh 19:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Retain Page clearly needs working on and linking into article on UK Higher Education. Considerably more notable than a great many other pages on the English Wikipedia! Kahuzi 09:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Retain This ought to remain as it is a key body in the Higher Education sector and is more substantial than a number of less useful sites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sfelton (talk • contribs) ., user's 6th/7th edits
  • Delete per nom.--Peta 05:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Retain No reason for deleting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.36.25.178 (talk • contribs) ., user's 1st edit
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Note that Of the six people participating, only 3 (one "retain" and two delete) have any significant history on Wikipedia. The nominator's first WP action was to create this debate. Mangojuicetalk 20:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No real links to it. Add a link to the site from British universities. ColinFine 20:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As an official website for UK higher education it seems sufficiently notable for a short article. Espresso Addict 15:13, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cedar High School

This article does not assert any notability about its subject. It does not place this school, one of thousands like it, in any historical context. It does not provide any information available elsewhere, nor does it relate it to any broader educational or cultural context. The information it does include is either of such a generic and common nature as to be self-evident (nearly all public high schools have sports programs, for example), or is specific and unverified. There are no sources pertaining to the article; the only link given is to the school's main page.

I came across this article on random page patrol and placed a WP:PROD tag on it, citing these concerns. RJHall (talk) removed it, with the following summary: Disagree, plus H.S. deletes are controversial. It is not clear to me how he thought this article did assert notability, and I would invite such explanations here. As to the controversial nature of school AfDs, that remains a mystery to me. Articles about schools are not in themselves a special type of article, nor do they enjoy special status. They do not enjoy policy-level protection–even articles on Prime Ministers and Presidents don't have such protection in itself. Rather, the nature of the subject guarantees an easy assertion of notability and the ready availability of reliable sources.

I would argue that this article does not enjoy that status; does not possess reliable sources; does not assert and does not enjoy notability. Thanks for your time. Mackensen (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I support delete as there is nothing notable in the article, but there have been arguments for eons about notability of High Schools. Many think just because a high school exists it is notable. I disagree. There may be some re-thinking going on. Someone mentioned a High School wikiproject but I don't know the details. -Nv8200p talk 20:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ColinFine 20:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. All high schools are notable, and this one has about 1000 pupils. This article should not have been prodded, and it should not have been brought to AfD. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Would you care to explain why? Mackensen (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete The school has one notable alumnus. If a few more can be found that might constitute an assertion of notability. However, a google search on the matter was unsuccesful. JoshuaZ 22:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the reasons explained at User:Silensor/Schools. Schools, like train stations and small towns, have their place in Wikipedia. Silensor 22:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Begging your pardon, but your reasons don't address all the issues raised in the nom. Mackensen (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Also see the rebuttal of Silensor's essay- User:JoshuaZ/Schools. JoshuaZ 23:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • We can agree to disagree on that, but I feel that this essay does address your issues. Meanwhile, I'm in the process of finding additional sources for this article. Thank you, Silensor 23:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, adequately defines an enclopedic topic, and has plenty of potential for expansion. A small but useful step towards comprehensive coverage of high schools in the United States. Kappa 00:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep worthwhile article on a signficant topic. Also, there is a clear precedent on keeping all verifiable real schools, particularly high schools. Nominator starts with the false presumption the school has to rise above others, and ignores the possiblity that schools, are normally worthy of conclusion like various other topics (such as municipalities, members of state legislators, licensed full power radio stations, etc...) where we keep all items of a class, provided basic policy, particularly, verifiability, is satisfied. Lets use our time and resources on improving articles, and not dead-end debates. Incidently, I applaud JoshuaZ writing his essay. His comments about being ok with the the deletion (or merging) of many smaller towns and villages shows he has thought through things, and has expressed a greater level of consistancy in arguements than most who want deletion of the typical school. Its pretty much impossible to argue that keeping a high school with 900 kids should be deleted, but supporting the retention of a typical township of a dozen people. Of course, we won't being undoing precedent for either places or schools. --Rob 01:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
School articles do get deleted from time to time, if no importance can be asserted. There's a group of people who always vote to keep, but that doesn't mean school articles are automatically kept. --W.marsh 01:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep - There is a difference between "this is a stub" and "this is not notable". Existing precedent is that high schools are by nature notable. If this is a stub then it should be fixed and tagged as such in the meantime, but that's no grounds for deletion. Georgewilliamherbert 02:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • delete some schools are notable; this one is not. — Dunc|☺ 08:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • weak delete I do not favour a default keep on secondary schools, and this one is not an exception. Does having one notable alumnus make it pass WP:SCHOOL or WP:ORG? The guidelines do in fact say "alumni" (ie plural). Ohconfucius 08:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep obviously. — This school meets my personal criteria for notability. High school deletions are almost inevitably controversial when they come up for AfD votes and so are outside the scope of PROD in my opinion. No that does not mean they should be immune from deletion; it is just a statement that a PROD is for non-controversial deletions. Yes this article could be better, but it has a stub tag and is a decent enough start. — RJH (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Silensor. --Myles Long 16:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep sourced, encyclopaedic, meets common law standards for inclusion. Only argument preseted for deletion is it's a stub which is an awful criterion for deletion. WilyD 18:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Did you actually read the nomination? You might then notice that the nom argues that the article "does not assert and does not enjoy notability" JoshuaZ 18:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I did read the nom - but I also read the article - which allowed me to discount verifiably false statements. Again, claims that are false upon their face aren't arguments - arguments are a position built upon facts - facts necessarily being true - which both of the statements you point to are not. Thus it remains that the only argument presented is It's a stub which remains an awful criterion for deletion when making an encyclopaedia in this format. WilyD 18:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Apparently multiple users think the argument has some validity. It is therefore hard to see how you could reasonably dismiss this as not even a real argument. Why don't you please explain how the article so totally demolishes the notability matter? JoshuaZ 18:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is a verifiable article for a high school and meets all standards for retention of a school article. Notable alumni don't make a school notable and are an unrealistic standard for determining notability. Is the school's measure of success how many of its graduates have made it into Wikipedia or that it has been entrusted with the education of a community's high school students for over 65 years? Alansohn 20:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per schoolwatch flood above --ForbiddenWord 18:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Again Forbidden, all you are saying here is "Keep because lots of other people have already shouted keep" JoshuaZ 00:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Large secondary school, therefore notable. -- Necrothesp 00:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As far as I'm concerned, there is no reason to delete a high school stub, unless it is an attack page (and Prod is completely inappropriate). That is not the case here. Instead, this is sourced with a notable alum. I call that a good start and applaud the editors for their contribution. --JJay 01:11, 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 keep. --- Deville (Talk) 02:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sirikitiya

Does not meet notability per WP:BIO -Nv8200p talk 20:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep She is a direct descendant from King Rama IV of Thailand; though by law, she doesn't carry any formal title. Her impact to Thai society can be recognize by a socially mandate rule (not a law) when addressing her as "Khun". This article is a stub but can be expanded (and Yes, current image need to be changed). Thai Goverment consider her as part of royal family. underexpose 05:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep She is a member of the Royal Family of Thailand. As previously stated, this stub can - and likely will - be expanded. Phoenix7718 17:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep!: I don't usually encounter such obvious decisions in an AfD discussion. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, this article should be kept and expanded! With the coup in Thailand & Thaksin on his way out today, Mai (and all the rest of the Royal Family) is an even more prominent figure than when this was AfD tagged. I'm sure we'll see news reports saying that the people are looking to the Royals for reassurance that the coup will end peacefully, if not silently. Deebki 04:59, 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 No consensus defaulting to keep. Tyrenius 18:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Manon

A resume/autobiography. GregorB 20:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete pretty clear vanity. Leibniz 20:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Resume abuse of Wikipedia Bwithh 20:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - He's for real. Seems notable enough for an entry here, just needs a re-write. PT (s-s-s-s) 20:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment I'm not sure that cuts it. "Notability can be determined by:
*Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers
*A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following
*An independent biography
*Name recognition
*Commercial endorsements" Leibniz 21:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep for being in large-scale, large-audience productions, but the article needs a massive rewrite and wikification. Crystallina 21:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • He is listed among the main cast in less than 50 % of the IMDB credits. Punkmorten 22:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Extremely weak keep as per Crystallina. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Crystallina. --Metropolitan90 23:06, 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. Tyrenius 18:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LIst of digivice

WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Deville (Talk) 20:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

In any case, I think the extra cap in the title is unintentional. (?) --- Deville (Talk) 20:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as particularly senseless list (even though this sort of cruft gets added faster than AfD could ever remove it). Leibniz 20:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unnecessary duplication of digivice. Punkmorten 21:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with digivice. Kappa 04:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Xiange 11:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • SPEEDY delete per typo in the name. Item should be redirected per duplicated content, but this is not a viable page name. No merge necessary. --Kunzite 01:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It's an unnecessary direct copy of digivice! Nuff said.  T.K.  TALK  12:40, 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. Punkmorten 23:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sloppy Jo's Lunchroom

Restaurant with zero ghits and no assertion of notability. Prod removed with no comment. Jamoche 21:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete unverifiable. Kappa 04:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - we need some reviews to show that there is something special about this place. Bridgeplayer 22:47, 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, though a credibly constructed article for a new user. Tyrenius 18:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Reed

Massive self-promotion, I don't really see much prove of notability, he's fairly unknown on serieus professional music sources on internet too... User:Cybersonik [70] discovered the contributions of User:Qabbalah, the author of this article; and, as it seems, writing an article about himself. Even worse: he's inserting his name in many different articles, spamming wikipedia as self-promotion; see Special:Contributions/Qabbalah LimoWreck 21:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • He's also created article about some "albums", which actually seem to be mp3.com downloads, not official releases ?
    • Love (Tony Reed album)
    • Lost (Tony Reed album)
    • Liquid (Tony Reed album)
    • Liquid (album)
    • Fall of the American Empire (album)
    • Cafe Graffiti
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC with aplomb. Leibniz 21:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all and consider block of creator's account as oer bin There's way too much self-promotion abuse on Wikipedia... this is an especially bad example. ("Cafepress.com" record label indeed...) Bwithh 22:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete poor NN Tony, if only he were a Pokémon character. --RMHED 23:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There are those of us in the christian community who are familar with this musicians work. The fact that he sells his music without a label is part of his appeal and is clearly addressed in the article. However, I agree that "Qabbalah" ought to have his account suspended.User:HisNameIsAlive 21:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I am the artist that this article addresses. I created this account solely for this entry. I don't care whether I have an article on this page or not, but apparently at least one fanatic does. I don't challenge deleting the article so much as I suggest blocking the account of the user. BTW The Pokemon comment was funny.User:TonySReed 22:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Update After actually reading the article, I propose that it be changed. There are some things that Qabbalah wrote about me that are not completely true and some notable things that were left out. Also, there's some personal information posted there that I prefer not to be accessable to the public. How did he get my wedding photo? I certainly agree that the pages dedicated to my albums ought to be removed or merged. The same with Cafe Graffiti which was not notable except, perhaps, as a side note. I will be happy to change it myself, but I don't know how. RE: WP:MUSIC, There are two "notable" credits - 1. I toured South America and Mexico with Elegant Machinery - 2. I have been played on "Alternative" stations owned by Clearchannel (Something I regret, but it qualifies) Also-It is important to note that I have sold enough copies of my first two albums to earn a gold record, but I refuse to join the pathetic agencies that masquerade as unions, so I don't qualify.User:TonySReed
  • Delete all as the subject fails WP:MUSIC. Prolog 16:18, 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. It is possible that an article about this topic might at some point (possibly) be made that would be worth keeping. However, the current article is two sentences, one of which is patent nonsense and the other is a restatement of the title. Policy-wise I'm not sure we can apply different speedy criteria to separate parts of the article but it seems like a reasonable thing to do in this case. JoshuaZ 02:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stuffed Animal Hippo

Non-notable -Nv8200p talk 21:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete Speedy this. This is nonsense abuse of Wikipedia. Bwithh 21:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would have thought this was nonsense too. MidgleyDJ 22:38, 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. —Centrx→talk • 23:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forgotten Hope 2

  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]}}

This article violates Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, WP:SOFTWARE, and WP:RS Whispering(talk/c) 21:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. I am against deletion! Many mods are on this site and have benn fought over for and have stayed.Mathieu121 21:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It seems to fail notability requirements. GassyGuy 00:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment Yeah a guy who by the looks of it only edits music articles, and probabley hasn't even played BF2 comments on the notability of a mod, lol King nothing 18:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Probably 90-95% of my edits are to music articles, and were this, say, an RfA, that would be applicable, but here it's just an ad hominem argument. More effective than attempting to discredit me by introducing tangent issues would be to demonstrate how this meets WP:SOFTWARE, thereby showing that my judgment was in error. GassyGuy 19:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep*Strong Keep. Exactly how has it failed the requirements for reliable sources? These updates come straight from the website itsself. This news also comes from the official Forgotten Hope forums, where many developers of the the mod post regularly. -foodmaniac2003 User:foodmaniac2003 9:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: foodmaniac2003 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic..
  • Delete as insufficiently notable and completely lacking in "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as specifically required by WP:Verifiability. --Satori Son 04:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and per Satori Son. Michael Kinyon 11:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep as all information is from the creators themselves. Also, making minor changes to the plans does not make "reputation for fact cheking and accuracy" invalid.Cody Cromarty 21:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's the "third-party" part of WP:V that is at issue. We need some sources other than "the creators themselves" to properly verify both notability and article contents. --Satori Son 01:51, 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. —Centrx→talk • 23:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hiromi Hayakawa

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO -Nv8200p talk 21:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge with La Academia. Kappa 04:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, If deleted, then biographical articles on American Idol etc. contestants should be deleted as well. --- Lancini87 17:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 05:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete misses WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO per nom. The article is mostly inane babbling about the meaning of her name and her sister's name. No refs, no assertion of notability in the article other than an appearance on a reality show... Is everyone who's ever appeared on a reality show notable? No. --Kunzite 01:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article is sparse on info. Has she gone on tour or released an album? She's been featured on a major TV show as a contestant, which is one point in her favor. I'd like to see some evidence that she's really pursuing music as a career and isn't going to let this be her 15 minutes of fame. Xuanwu 05:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Peta 04:06, 27 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 22:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RedBrick Studios

A "secret" studio that nobody even in their home town knows about, that is "rumoured" to have been the site of "one off" recordings, but nobody knows for sure. The only Redbrick Studios which comes up in Google is one in the UK, but then, since this one is "secret", I'm not surprised. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Things that are secret tend not to be verifiable. --Metropolitan90 22:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Secret Delete Danny Lilithborne 23:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, unless something about this can be verified by proper sources. Friday (talk) 18:06, 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. --- Deville (Talk) 02:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holy Redeemer High School - Southwest Detroit

  • delete I fail to understand why this topic is sufficiently significant to feature in wikipedia. Senordingdong 21:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article deals with a closed high school, but a school's encyclopedic notability does not vanish when it closes. The decision to close the school is best understood in the context of demographic change, declining church attendance, and the financial pressures on Roman Catholic dioceses related to lawsuits over sexual abuse. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

*Delete While I agree with Truthbringer that notability does not vanish when an institution closes this school did not have any notability in the first place. The only argument that can be made for notability is the age of the school but even then it barely goes back to the 1880s. I was unable to find any record of notable almuni or any other particulary notable event or matter associated with the school. JoshuaZ 01:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC) Now changing to Weak keep the age of the school might confer notability. JoshuaZ 01:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep The article needs to be reworked, but the text and desciption that is already there demonstrate notability. I fail to see how the lack of notable graduates makes the school any less notable; as if schools have an obligation to turn out notables to justify their existence. Nor is it clear that a school that survived for 120 years should be any less notable because it could "only" date itself back to the early 1880s. Alansohn 02:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, no excuse to deprive interested readers of this much encylopedic information. Kappa 03:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for posterity for the reasons described at User:Silensor/Schools. John R. Mulroy attended this school, and based on this story we may want to incorporate that fact into the article. Silensor 03:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • comment As earlier I will note my rebuttal essay of User:JoshuaZ/Schools As to Mulroy, it is not obvious that meets WP:BIO so how is that article relevant? JoshuaZ 03:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep School is clearly notable and been around for over 100 years.Bagginator 05:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, mainly on grounds of age Pseudomonas 12:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Silensor. --Myles Long 15:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep sourced, encyclopaedic, meets common law standards. No rational whatsoever has been presented for deletion. WilyD 18:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Again, the presented argument is a lack of notability. It might help if you actually responded to the issues actually brought up rather than just assert that they didn't exist. JoshuaZ 18:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Arguments that are false upon their face don't really count as arguments in any viable way. Saying This claims to be an encyclopaedia article, but is actually a cheese sandwich would also be difficult to count as an argument for deletion, even though it has the form thereof. WilyD 18:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Actually that would still be an argument and you said "no rational" given that multiple other people think this is a rational including the nom who is a respected user it might behoove you to explain how this argument is so bad that it doesn't even merity being addressed. If you could explain it would be appreciated. JoshuaZ 18:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Not really. While yelling Is too - Is not might be also termed an argument, I would hope it's clear from context I mean a line of reasoning based upon facts - none of those have been offered to support deletion. WilyD 18:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
            • Excuse me? Notability is not a magic default state. Are you going to explain what is notable about the article or not? You asserted that it was based on data in the article. If so, please point to it. JoshuaZ 18:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
              • You're excused. I haven't said anything about notability being default, rather than it's been establish (please read the article to discover this). Notability isn't subjective - I don't like this sourced, encyclopaedic article, so I'm going to accuse it of being non-notable is not a criterion for deletion. WilyD 18:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
                • Notability not being subjective is irrelevant since there is no claim that anything here is notable. Don't confuse a lack of subjectivity with magically making everything notable. In any event, most of the people who say this isn't notable have objective notabillity criteria). Given this it might be nice for you to explain what is objectively notable about this article? JoshuaZ 18:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
                  • If you'll check the article, you'll find that it has mutliple, indepedant reliable sources - thus it is objectively notable. The standards of notability are notability are not personal standards, they're standards we apply evenly across wikipedia. Multiple sources of third party coverage from reliable, independant sources is notable - and this is not my standards, but Wikipedia's standards. Nobody can objectively claim this school isn't notable - only subjective claims can be made to that effect (and subjective claims are useless in this context) WilyD 11:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
                    • Comment The use of the multiple independent sources standard is something used in certain guidelines. However, there are serious issues using it with schools. As I have already pointed out, newspapers love to puff-pieces on schools. Thus, it isn't a real assertion of notability. JoshuaZ 01:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
                      • The multiple independent sources standard applies just about everywhere - although other litmus-style tests are occasionally used, it's clearly the most important test, and is used ubiquitiously. Where specific guidelines exist, there can be higher standards - though that's essentially to prevent spamming. Whether newspapers print "puff-pieces" on schools is something I really don't know (nor do I really care). Personal standards of notability go against everything this encyclopaedia stands for. If some publisher has found something worth publishing (better:multiple publishers) then that's a far more WP:NPOV acceptable criterion for retention, the converse for deletion. WilyD 18:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — It appears to satisfy the proposed WP:SCHOOLS guidelines and more than meets my personal criteria for high school notability. Just because it's now closed doesn't make it non-notable. — RJH (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Schools over 120+ years old are most definitely notable. Yamaguchi先生 22:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As usual for schools of any size. -- Necrothesp 00:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment So now its any school of any size? JoshuaZ 00:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
      • High schools are usually kept (or as my physicist training wants me to say, High Schools are always kept within measurement errors) WilyD 12:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. I meant "any size" in the sense of "any reasonable size". The phrase has two meanings. -- Necrothesp 17:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep schools of any size or smaller. That includes this encyclopedic treatment of a Detroit schoool that existed for over 100 years. --JJay 01:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Defunct schools of this age hold historical interest. Bahn Mi 01:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, in consideration of the age.--Aldux 11:25, 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. —Centrx→talk • 23:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carol Kornmehl

Unsure to whether the subject is suitably significant for inclusion in wikipedia. The article appears little more than a bio. Senordingdong 22:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Notable author on a poorly-understood subject. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, unsourced, poorly written, no indication that the subject meets WP:BIO. Robertissimo 03:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep appears to satisfy WP:BIO for authors. The book, though out of print, and is ranked some 625 thousandsth by Amazon.com, and has received a couple of reviews, including one from Christine Clifford, President of The Cancer Club. Ohconfucius 08:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Robertissimo.--Peta 04:06, 27 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 BT Group. —Centrx→talk • 23:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BT Consulting and Systems Integration

Nomination of above page AND related page Syntegra This subsidiary is only notable for its historical association with Control Data Corporation and for being a wholly owned subsidiary of BT Group plc[71]. It's not even called BT Consulting and Systems Integration anymore, its now called BT Global Services (Check out the redirects here). Recommend Delete & Redirect/Merge - (not that there's much to merge - hardly anything). The Global Services division is already mentioned on the main BT Group plc page. The relationship between Syntegra and CDC and BT is already mentioned on the Control Data Corporation page, and also to some extent on the Syntegra page. I am also nominating Syntegra for deletion/merge/redirect for similar reasons as its basically an older name for the same subsidiary. There's no reason to create all these separate pages for the same subsidiary. Bwithh 22:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Did you know that 'delete and merge' is copyright violation? I think you mean 'merge and redirect'. --ais523 14:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • um... huh? I don't even say 'delete and merge' Bwithh 21:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • To me it looks like you wrote 'Delete & Redirect/Merge'; however, if you're aware of the situation there's no need to continue this minithread any further. --ais523 13:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Syntegra did not have the deletion template added. Now fixed. Yomanganitalk 09:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to BT Group. No assertion of notability for this subsidiary, much less one that would satisfy any of the three criteria listed in WP:CORP. As such, there is no coverage by credible, third-party sources as required by WP:V to support a stand alone article. --Satori Son 02:43, 28 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. —Centrx→talk • 23:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bitweaver

This article has had two AFD nominations recently. The first resulted in a delete. It was recreated, and deleted as a repost. It was then the subject of a deletion review and subsequently relisted at AFD where it was again decided it should be deleted. The content has now been moved from TikiPro and is a stub. There was considerable work done on it during the last AFD listing and it was still eventually decided that it failed to meet WP:CORP. I don't see that this has changed in the last few weeks, so rather than have somebody spend time rewriting the article I suggest it is deleted. Yomanganitalk 22:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, as mentioned previously, it's notable enough for a security warning [72]and for Bob Young's company to be "stressing" it. [73] Kappa 03:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for the fourth time and salt the earth. There are still no assertions of notability whatsoever in this article, much less any that would satisfy one of the three criteria listed in WP:CORP. Even the limited information that is there is not sourced by any references whatsoever, so fails WP:V. The two refs that Kappa supplies above are fairly trivial mentions that I do not believe substantiate notability. --Satori Son 20:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough--Aldux 11:18, 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 keep. Whispering(talk/c) 21:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Brunswick High School

This article does not appear significant enough for inclusion in wikipedia Senordingdong 22:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Long-established high school, non-stub article. No reason to delete. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. We're done debating schools for now. We keep 'em all. Deet 01:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks significant enough to me. Silensor 01:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Not per any precedent of keeping schools but per the age of the school and presence of notable alumni. JoshuaZ 01:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep A thorough article for a public high school that is worthy of retention. Considering that it was created today, I'd say that it already more than meets any minimum standards for a Wikipedia school article. Let's close this one quickly. Alansohn 02:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, appears significant enough to be an indisputable part of the "sum of all human knowledge" we are sharing and to merit an encylopedic treatment. Kappa 03:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please this is a 90 yr old school and a nice article too Yuckfoo 05:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Looks like a reasonable article for an encyclopaedia. Pseudomonas 12:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This is the creator of the NBHS article. (I'm also a member of the class of 2002 and a lifelong NB resident.) I would like to thank everyone who is supporting this article. I would also like to note that I'm planning on expanding this article further to include information on the school's curriculum, electives, extracurricular activities, notable alumni, and more on the school's athletic programs. I will be making additions in the next few days, and of course any help is appreciated. Mikibacsi1124 17:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — It looks like this article more than satisfies the proposed WP:SCHOOLS criteria. — RJH (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Secondary level educational institutions and above are inherently notable. Yamaguchi先生 23:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per schoolwatch flood above --ForbiddenWord 18:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I hope that that's a joke because that essentially comes down pretty close to "keep" per lots of people screaming it already. (I'm even a keep vote in this one and I find this to be a ridiculous comment). JoshuaZ 19:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment it demonstrates that there is consensus within the community that schools are notable. --ForbiddenWord 19:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment No it doesn't. It demonstrates that lots of people are chiming in because they saw the same issue. (This is precisely why I don't think the Schoolwatch or the general deletion categorization is a good idea). Fanaticism of a few is not the same thing as a consensus to keep. JoshuaZ 00:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment I'd say the fact that we have unanimous support to Keep this article is a demonstration of true consensus, not "fanaticism." And isn't the definition of a "fanatic" someone who consistently disagrees with what you think is right. I hope that all participants in these AfD's would read through the articles and try to improve them (if possible) or make constructive suggestions for improvement, before voting, rather than making a knee-jerk vote to Delete OR Keep. But, even with the weasel words, when a "fanatic" like JoshuaZ voted to Keep, this AfD should he have been closed immediately. Alansohn 01:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
            • Comment My criticism was not directed at this article by itself where I agree the consensus is to keep it was to the claim that "there is consensus within the community that schools are notable." In any event, I'm certainly not a deletionist fanatic, I vote keep on about a 1/3 or so of school AfDs. And in this case, I use fanatic to mean people who don't do anything other than vote keep per the exact same arguments and who seem to spend most of their time only editing schools articles. Fanatic might not be the best phrasing. It might be better to call these repeated keeps "not obviously representative samples of the community as a whole." JoshuaZ 01:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Decent article about a large secondary school. Blatantly notable. -- Necrothesp 00:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment What does "blatantly notable" mean? Assertions are not arguments. JoshuaZ 00:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. My argument was in the previous sentence (it's a large school, enough said), not the one you kindly just quoted, which was merely a conclusion drawn from that. May I respectfully suggest you read the whole thing before being generous enough to enlighten me on the difference between an assertion and an argument. -- Necrothesp 17:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment I'm sorry. I didn't realize the two sentences were connected. I interpreted the first as general argument for keeping on grounds of size (not necessarily connected to notability per se) and then that it was "blatantly notable". JoshuaZ 20:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per WP:SNOW, this article meets even the most narrow interpretation of the guidelines proposed at WP:SCHOOLS. Bahn Mi 01:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although it does not have notability in terms of what would be expected for a private enterprise, it is a public institution connected to several hundred students and thousands of tax payers. Notability was not asserted, but is not an issue as private enterprises would require who don't have thousands of tax payer's interests involved. Arbusto 06:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Arbusto, Necrothesp, etc. --Myles Long 21:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable enough--Aldux 11:16, 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 speedy delete. CSD A7. -- Steel 14:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taegyun kim

Note: I believe I neglected to add this to the log on the appropriate day. ... discospinster talk 12:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete. No sources provided for his alleged popularity or even his thesis. Probably some kid messing around, but I couldn't verify it one way or the other so I dropped a prod tag. Author Anon removed it. And here we are. ... discospinster talk 22:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete - "An international student popularized by the thesis written on the human psyche." isn't an assertion of notability. Tagged as such. MER-C 13:31, 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. —Centrx→talk • 00:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo Genesis

The article Photo_Genesis is an advertisment for a free online gallery of photos. It is not an encyclopedic article and is not written in a NPOV. = MidgleyDJ 21:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I read the article and thought it might be rescuable. I searched for Photo Genesis and found it to be many things, none of which except an RSS feed directory led to the gallery in question. I therefore conclude it is a vanity artcile - well how hard was that? They signed it! However I fear it if not notable, or, if it is notable, that notability is not asserted. Pity, cos it sounds pleasant. Fiddle Faddle 21:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This nomination was incomplete. Fixed now. Yomanganitalk 22:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. I am the main author of the Photo Genesis article and a non administrative ordinary member of Photo Genesis. On seeing the first nomination from the text provided, I understood that I could log an objection and remove the warning, which I did, sorry if I misunderstood that.
The text concerning why the article was nominated for deletion was not very clear and linked too numerous reasons as to why the nomination may have been made, nothing was specific that I could see.
The article was written as an information page on a small gallery that hosts work from like minded photographic artists, it was not intended as an advertisement or a vanity article; I singed it in my name as I prefer to do things in my name instead of an assumed identity for correctness. I added the owners name as he supplied much if the information that I used.
I am sorry it has been seen as a NPOV/advertisement article, I will therefore try to make the article compliant with Wikipedia policy.
I am new to Wikipedia so I would hope that other users might be a little understanding if I do not do things 100% correctly, everyone has to be new at some point, making mistakes is how we learn.
I do not understand the following statement.
“I searched for Photo Genesis and found it to be many things, none of which except an RSS feed directory led to the gallery in question”.
Is that important?
Google search places it a top listing and Yahoo 2nd place listing, is this what is meant by doing a search? I don’t know how RSS works.
The search term Photo Genesis may well return many things, Photo genesis however is one thing, a gallery and art community.
Thank you for you time and comments.
Photo Genesis 01:07, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Reply I apologise, I should have been clearer with regard to Ghits. The gallery is in top place in this search, but it is the gallery's own website. While this may seem strange to you the very fact that it is the gallery's own website means it is discounted - it is a self fulfilling prophecy of notability, you see. Any good webmaster can get their website to the top of the list in many (but not all) searches.
At position 5 is your own newsfeed in a newsfeed directory. Again, because it is your own it is discounted. Good webmastering, just not "Wikipedic" notability, I have scrolled (albeit reasonably quickly) through the first 100 results. Your own website appears a couple or more times, but I have not found any independent reference to the gallery. The major result is for some form of light based therapy. This tends to prove that it is not (yet) notable
The article is also written as a point of view article, rather than as secondary research. This means that it is not acceptable in its current form. That doesn't mean it is not a great PR piece, it just means it is not a Wikipedia article yet.
The best way of saving the article is an immediate and total rewrite to render it notable and encyclopaedic. Notability requires assertion, so reading WP:Notability and conforming with it is vital. Assertion is done with citation of external sources which are independent of your own article and which have themselves a distinct notability. The thing that will not save it is rhetoric (I appreciate you have not used it).
With regard to the source of the information it is certainly permitted to quote your sources, including the gallery owner. This is best done with references because Wikipedia articles are never signed. I think WP:OWN covers this, but I may be mistaken.
Fiddle Faddle 06:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or major revamp. This article is basically an advertisement. In order to make it a legitimate article you would need to remove all of the POV, all the first and second person usages, and essentially remove the majority of the information. In this case, a deletion may actually be preferable to revamp-involved things. --Niroht 00:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewrite. --Kuroki Mio 2006 20:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm didnt mention this in the nomination - but I dont think this website is notable enough (yet) for inclusion in wikipedia. I cant see how it could be re-written from a NPOV either and still have content. I maintain my original position that this article should be deleted. MidgleyDJ 23:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am the main author of the Photo Genesis article and a non administrative ordinary member of Photo Genesis.

Aside from one very helpful user, there hasn’t exactly been much in the way of useful feedback. I am good with cameras and EV’s which may or may not be “notable” clearly I am not good with writing articles; shame that only one user could find the time to be productive with their comments and explanations. The lack of response would seem to imply that many don’t really have an opinion one way or another, judging by the huge response on some AFd’s

I am a staunch believer in helping to develop people in areas where they are not so strong. I don’t exactly feel inspired to re-write something that is just going to receive one word/phrase answers. “delete” Surly if one feels so strongly about something, then logically they should be able to express that with more than one word/phrase/sentence.

I could probably re write it into one short paragraph that has little educational value and comply with all except “notability” but if the general consensus is that Photo Genesis isn’t notable there isn’t anything I can do about that.

Thank you for the warm welcome!

Photo Genesis 01:35, 24 September 2006 (BST)
  • Delete, spam for nonnotable service.--Peta 04:07, 27 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. Kusma (討論) 19:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars: A Clone Apart

No demonstration of notability. Only one episode and a trailer has been released [74]. Highly probable vanity. "A Clone Apart" gets 87 unique hits on Google. Drat (Talk) 22:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of machinima deletions. Drat (Talk) 22:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable as-is. Perhaps the article could be recreated after a good deal more of the machinima has been completed and its popularity grows. --authraw 03:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it Many things start out small, and as a result have small entries. Wikipedia is complete in this way in that there is something to grow from; people are more likely to add to an entry than create one. I suggest that someone find some upcoming information, and also add a summary of the first episode, if possible. While vanity is indeed a possibility, I say we let someone mess with the page until it's wiki-worthy, rather than delete it. While it is also true that it is not well known, and to be already well known is the prerequisite, it seems unfair to link its apparent popularity to the amount of hits on google it gets. Other articles started out smalll, back when RvB was first coming out, the article was small, and didn't get deleted at all. I may not have been a user then, but I was watching the article for updates.--lycanfury09 08:53, 18 September 2006 (PST)
  • Keep it I agree with LycanFury, which is why I added to the article. I don't know who wrote it first, but I agree there should be a synopsis of the first episode. How do you add a synopsis page? (I'm new here)--DansonDelta40 13:31, 18 September 2006 (PST)
  • Comment. The show needs to be subject of multiple non-trivial works. The Red vs. Blue article was not created until a few months after the show started and already had some considerable popularity, and had been written about in at least a few places. See also the WikiProject Machinima guidelines.--Drat (Talk) 23:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply. Point conceded. --LycanFury09 23:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. MikeWazowski 04:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. — TKD::Talk 08:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Geedubber 02:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm just about to add to this article and make it better. The popularity will grow, eventually. Since there is stuff already written about it, it just doesn't make much sence to delete it when we know it will become wikiworthy eventually. Also, it doesn't seem right to delete it because it isn't popular. That's kind of like making Wikipedia an advertisement of popular things, and that is NOT what Wikipedia is. KdogDS 22:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Drat (Talk) 05:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I know I'm new (I originally added so I could add to this article), but is the only reason to delete if because it "hasn't made enough of a mark" yet? What's the harm in waiting, exactly? People seem to have actually felt the need to work on this article... --DansonDelta40 2:21, 21 September 2006 (PST)
    • Comment. You can only vote once. And if I had 10 cents for every article where an involved party in the subject tried the "but it'll be famous one day!" argument, I'd be rich. Who is to say that your series will make a mark? It could just end up like the loads of other articles on machinima productions and groups deleted from this site--Drat (Talk) 09:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I apologize, I didn't mean to vote twice. And this isn't my series, nor did I even start this article.--DansonDelta40 13:53, 22 September 2006 (PST)
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 22:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Wayland

  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 vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article 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 (or socks).

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.

Silly joke. Leibniz 22:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep...I live in Wayland. This is a coveted town legend. 65.96.235.126 00:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as obvious nonsense. I can't find a speedy deletion criterion that applies here, but this article deserves speedy deletion. --Metropolitan90 03:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Please keep it. I too live in Wayland and this is one of my favorite stories. It is a part of Wayland culture. 65.96.237.151 03:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It's an Uncyclopedia article, not a Wikipedia article. Delete. Uncle G 00:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You do not understand. This is a tale that enriches the very history of Wayland, MA. 24.91.19.55 10:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - badly written, NPOV, questionable notability. Cordless Larry 10:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - nonsense, i live in Wayland, it's bull. Richard Anslow 10:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC) - this account doesn't exist - comment was made by 193.120.137.26 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
  • It is not "bull". The students of Wayland can vouch that it is a true story. Go to the schools, it's real.
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 20:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tristan Jepson

Tragic, but non notable Hu 23:03, 17 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, Deville (Talk) 02:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - it is impossible not to be very sympathetic with this guy's plight but, sadly, the article is simply not encycopaedic. BlueValour 21:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete sadly. Verifiable, sure. Notable? Sadly not. If there were more publicity about this, perhaps, but at the moment it's not material suitable for an encyclopedia. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not encyclopedic StuartDouglas 01:25, 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 Snowball Keep. Tawker 16:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rob Levin

First nomination (2 January 2006)

Fails WP:BIO. Google test inconclusive, varied results. (The majority of the hits are his calls to help Freenode). WP does not have an article on the creator of DALnet, Dalvenjah, nor the original admin of EFnet, Greg Lindahl. Those networks have at times been much more popular (and are much more legendary in the IRC business) than Freenode. There is no reason to consider it as anything else. While Freenode more closely pushes its discussion topics toward GNU ideas and open-source software (including Wikimedia's IRC channels), it is still an IRC network like DALnet and EFnet are. It isn't notable enough to warrant anything other than an article about the network itself (which we have).

Page was a redirect to Peer-Directed Projects Center for a lengthy time, and the only reason for its resurrection into a non-WP:BIO article was his death. It has been resurrected several times in spite of the previous AfD, and the example containing the consensus of most editors for their reasoning is this:

Revision as of 09:42, 17 September 2006 (edit)
Stesch (Talk | contribs)
(Restoring page. There are currently many links pointing to this due to his recent death. Have a little respect, please.)
[75]

In the previous AfD debate, Rob himself told Ta bu shi da yu that an article about him wasn't notable. (The consensus of that Afd was delete.)

Links to the page are minimal and fixable. --JStalk 23:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Notice to participants: It has come to my attention that User:Stevenkaye created a page on Greg after I submitted this AfD. --JStalk 00:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep I came to wikipedia when I heard the news to understand fully the significance. At a later date it may be appropriate to merge with an article about PDPC or Freenode, but at this time it is a useful and relevant page, and should be expanded, rather than deleted. His contribution goes beyond the creation of Freenode, because of the secondary effects of freenodes existence.--CatS 12:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep His death was widely reported, that's enough for. If people search for him, I want them to come here for the information, and not somewhere else. If the creators of the other channels get the same attention that he did, they should get articles too. If the article on PDPC doesn't link to him, it should. A strong moderate keep from me- Oskar 23:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Dying doesn't grant notability; my great-grandmother isn't in Wikipedia. He was only given attention for dying and asking people for donations for Freenode. Name something he contributed to computing other than Freenode. That's what this AfD is about, not "if we're top of the list in Google". --JStalk 23:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Was the death of your great-grandmother reported in the media (geek-media, whatever)? His death was reported on many, many sites. He sure got a lot of attention for someone that wasn't notable at all. That's enough for me. As an aside, (and note: this isn't my real argument at all, just an aside. If this was just anyone, I wouldn't use this argument for his bio being kept, but since he was notable...), do we have to follow policy so damned ridgidly? Come on, the guy just died, lets show him some respect from people who really respected him. We don't have to be cold, calculating policy/process machines all the time. Lets be a little human, for once. Oskar 23:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree with you whole-heartedly on being sensitive. But a previous AfD disagrees. I'm sorry, this was deleted and came back after his death. That's the core of the issue. Yes, my great-grandmother's death was reported on the AP wire in Oregon and on the station I worked at when she died. She would fail WP:BIO too. --JStalk 00:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Yeah, you give some pretty convincing arguments, and I'm not zealous about keeping the article, but I still thing the keep arguments out-weigh the delete arguments. I'm won't be changing my vote. Oskar 00:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
            • Not asking you to, that would be lobbying for votes. Just responding to you. Thank you for being civil. --JStalk 00:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
              • Likewise :) Oskar 00:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - If someone wasn't considered notable before his/her death, then he isn't made notable by dying (unless the death itself is notable, which in this case it's not) --Darksun 23:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • History suggests otherwise - many people have been considered more notable after their deaths than before them. Take Shakespeare. During his life, a small number of people were aware of his work and his existence, after his death, his plays were published by those who knew him, and the resulting effect on the English language is considerable. Not a valid argument for deletion. --CatS 13:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete personally I wish this hadn't come to an AfD, but whatever. I talked to Lilo many times on IRC, but let's be realistic... if this were an article about someone we didn't know, if it was just a "Guy was involved with X and died" story, there's no way we'd be arguing that met WP:BIO. This has nothing to do with liking or disliking Lilo, or not feeling bad about his death... a certain ammount of personal detachment is needed when deciding these things. --W.marsh 23:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh a redirect is fine with me, by the way. --W.marsh 23:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
If this succeeds I'd like to see the redirect put back. But we don't really have AfR, and it is in essence a delete, so here we are. :) --JStalk 00:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep dying is not notable, starting a large irc network is notable. that you don't have ones for the other network originators, means the encyclopedia is lacking, not the accomplishment. if you were to have an encyclopedia of irc networks, would he be in it? --Buridan 00:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
on a related topic, we need a policy to stop people from posting deletes until a month after a death. because, posting and discussing it now, seem to me to be gauche, if not entirely passe. --Buridan 00:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
...unless the page was created because he died. --JStalk 00:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
it can still wait a month without harming wikipedia at all, while allowing emotional attachments to fade. it could be argued, that doing it immediately, will only yield a biased sample of those that loved or disliked, and because of that, it shouldn't be done for a month, once people have gained distance.--Buridan 00:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Owning one of the largest IRC networks is quite noteable. Because of his death, many people would like to know who he was and what he did. At least for now, we shouldn't delete the page so others know who he was. Mapletip 00:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Sure, there are other cases where similar occurrences don't have an entry in Wikipedia. But that's not a valid reason to delete this one; you have to start somewhere. As time goes by, lesser and lesser well known people will be mentioned in Wikipedia. This article has gathered a lot of attention and probably a number of links (I was pointed to it via IRC, for example). Removing it would serve no useful purpose. Groogle 01:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect into the PDPC page. As was stated above, only reason for re-creating ("resurrecting" is a bit of a loaded word in this context) seems to have been Levin's passing, which while unfortunate, does not necessitate some form of memorializing by "letting him have" a Wikipedia article. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 01:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The main reason given for the previous deletion was misinterpreting Rob's self-deprecation as a declaration he was non-notable. Surely even the coldest rule-following deletionist can see that this is a non sequitur - I'm sure you'd vehemently oppose anyone self-claiming notability after all. That Rob's daily successful battle with trolls, spammers and rule-exploiters to keep freenode a place for civilised discourse online should be commemorated by this kind of pettifogging is ironic indeed. Kevin Marks 01:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, death widely reported, and he was the founder of the freenode IRC network, which is quite significant. Possibly fits several WP:BIO categories:
...professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field.
Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events. —Pengo talk · contribs 02:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable. I have known of Rob Levin for a long time, and the arguments that he's not notable are completely nonpersuasive to me. Georgewilliamherbert 02:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - If he's notable to be in WikiNews, he's notable to be in Wikipedia. Not to mention that he started and operated a major IRC network depended on by numerous other notable organizations. njaard 03:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete/Redirect...His death being "widely reported" doesn't make him notable. Deaths of soldiers in Iraq are reported by much more mainstream news sources but they certainly aren't notable enough for a Wikipedia page. Owning an IRC network that a few thousand people use isn't notable enough for Wikipedia, as we correctly determined during the first AfD. His notability hasn't changed since then. VegaDark 04:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The death of each individual soldier is not given an article, Rob Levin's was. njaard 05:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - The fact that someone is self-deprecating enough to vote for their own deletion should not be considered here. The truth is that Rob made a large and lasting contribution to IRC, and deserves to be known for that. DrummondReed 04:53, September 2006 (UTC)
  • El k33p0, circumstances have changed significantly since the last AFD, and I do think it is now a service to our readers to talk about Rob Levin. We don't have a lack of verifiable sources, which is usually what would make me want to say "delete" on these borderline cases. --Cyde Weys 04:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I just searched wiki wanting to know who he was, after seeing simply a mention of condolence to his family on Gentoo Linux's main page. It was useful to me. More generally, I have to agree that the fact the other network creators don't have entries is hardly a logical reason to delete here. Just points out articles that need written. If that line of reasoning is somewhere in policy, I'm glad it hasn't been around since the start... We'd never have had a first article. I can just see it now: "Foo is a thing. Nothing else has an article. Ergo Foo shouldn't have an article." Highly useful line of reasoning there. Hatchetfish 05:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Rob was somewhat famous in IRC circles, and should be noteable by the wikipedia. I'd support an expansion of the page. Gibbie99 06:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect into the PDPC page. PDPC is relatively well-known, but outside of that network, Rob Levin really isn't. His death was tragic for certain, but Wikipedia can't become a list of obituaries for niche tech celebrities. A mention of who Rob Levin was and what he did for PDPC would be appropriate on the PDPC page itself, but the event is not notable or historically significant enough at this time for its own entry on Wiki. If PDPC winds up collapsing in on itself due to the loss of Levin, I would consider re-evaluating my position, but I don't see that happening. Lumbergh 06:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Freenode has been critical to the ability of many open source projects to collaborate; Rob was critical to Freenode. Perle 07:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Owen 07:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Always be wary if the subject asks for deletion, that's my guess. In this case, I guess he was just too modest. =) That said, Levin was probably well-enough known in IRC and open source circles in general to warrant an article of his own. Not a hugely influential person, but one whose name tends to stick in mind. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Recent media attention has made subject notable. Whether that fades or not only time will tell. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 09:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Levin made Freenode, I think that's notable, right?
  • Keep Rob Levin, as well as the rest of past/present Freenode staff, put a lot of blood, sweat and tears into making Freenode what it is today. It has been said that he hasn't done much (if anything) for the Free/Open Source Software communities, which I would like to contest: the birth of OPN (now Freenode) gave many many projects a place where they could comminicate and collaborate in real-time, and of course a place where users and developers alike could converge. If that's not a significant contribution, I don't know what is... - beu 11:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep for ridiculousness. If that's not process-oriented enough, keep per WP:SNOW - David Gerard 10:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore redirect. Subject individually, without any offence meant, isn't notable for dying in a car crash - we don't have articles on every victim of car accidents - and subject himself noted that he probably shouldn't have an article (see first nom). – Chacor 10:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to either Freenode or PDPC. Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Founder of huge IRC network. Notable enough. Zerbey 13:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is accurate information. Useful in context with freenode page. lucychili
  • Keep. Notable IRC network founder. — Pladask 15:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. He was notable for his hard work, and various issues involving freedom, collaboration with FSF, etc.. Ultimately,the only way to judge what is or is not notable is if enough people interested. The very fact that people created this page and are voting for 'keep' points to the need to keep this. If his untimely death did contribute to the interest in this page, so be it. What matters is that enough people are interested.-- [User:deego]]
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, discounting SPA's. Mangojuicetalk 03:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Nellis

Suspected vanity page. Person clearly not encyclopedic Vic sinclair 23:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - I think we should keep this page as Andrew is a notable figure in Canadian labour politics as is also a well-known figure in internet circles. He has appeared many times on local television news as well as his name appearing in all the local newspapers. --69.196.150.118 03:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable Ottawa activist who has appeared on radio and television. See references. --01:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TruthbringerToronto (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete - not encyclopedic, non-notable, definite vanity page Desertsky85451 02:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not encyclopedic, not internationally notable, sadly I cant see how it is worth including. MidgleyDJ 03:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Local activists unknown outside of local media are outside the scope of wikipedia. 132.58.234.102 07:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)the UK and know of him. As far as I'm aware Andrew Nellis has had nothing to do with the creation and editing of this entry, so it's difficult to call
  • Keep - I'm in the UK and know of him. As far as I'm aware Andrew Nellis has had nothing to do with the creation and editing of this entry, so it's difficult to call it a "vanity page". If anything the article should be expanded. Kroppie 16:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm in New Mexico, and I am also aware of him through his media events and his activism. Just because a person falls outside the scope of your myopic field of vision doesn't make their wiki article a vanity article. Drvoke 03:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's not uncommon to have local urban activists on WikiPedia. It doesn't seem any less encyclopedic than stubs about streets, avenues, local politicians, and local urban transportation systems. Even Sam Sloan has a WikiPedia entry, and he's probably best known from Usenet's chess boards. Bolwerk 03:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Information - The users Kroppie, Drvoke and Bolwerk are regulars on the IRC channel mentioned in the article. I witnessed a call to "save" this article in that channel, a violation of Wikipedia's Meatpuppet policy. Furthermore, Kroppie and Drvoke appear to be single-purpose accounts to sway this debate. Vic sinclair 16:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
This "Information" is completely irrelevant to whether the article merits deletion or not and appears to be little more than an unfounded attempt to vilify those in support of keeping the page. Kroppie 18:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Letting knowledgable people know that the article is up for deletion so that we can share our insights and improve the page(examine the edit history)and fully wiki-fy it does not count as "meat puppeting". Oh, and don't forget to mention your personal vendetta against Andrew, Bishop.. err.. I mean "Vic". And again, this is hardly a vanity page since it's about a newsworthy person and the subject of the article has had no hand in proposing or editing or even supporting the existence of the article. Drvoke 18:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- Disclaimer I am a new user; In the short time I have been engaged in Wikipedia I have formed some ideas about what Wikipedia is and WP: NOT. If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia than the purpose is for research and if I was researching the Canadian labor politics, this article would be helpful, also argument for it not being a vanity page. The figure is notable enough where I could find information on him with a simple Google search to an independant site. I don't think international notability is required and as others in countries outside of Canada have heard of him I think that this article meets the qualifications. Personally I also have a "Why Not" feeling towards this article along the lines of the "Wikipedia is not running out of paper" argument. Ratherhaveaheart 17:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Totally non-notable. and unencyclopediac -- keep votes mostly puppets or close friends. The article is already tagged as having few or no links with relationships to the article. I don't even think this can be called "original research" because it's mostly vanity info like IRC usernames and blog links, weight, etc. Definite delete. Kultur 18:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • First I was wondering if you could state the reasons for saying the article is non-notable and unencyclopedia. Second while I appreciate your qualifying "mostly" I feel that your "accusations" of the keep votes being puppets or mere friend loyalty are offensive and irrelevant. The first time I heard of Andrew Nellis was in this context. I am neither a puppet or a close friend or any friend for that matter and I still see value in this article. Third your claim that it is "mostly" vanity info, I think is false, in that the majority of the page refers to Andrew Nellis's work in Canadian politics and the media's references to him. Ratherhaveaheart 20:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      • User:Bolwerk, User:Drvoke and User:Kroppy are all members of a small internet community who have some hand in creating or maintining this page. Wikipedia becomes pointless as a resource when we flood it with vanity pages about ourselves and our friends. This page was mostly created by the subject's close friends, brothers User:Nikolaus_maack and User:Fmaack. It is very obviously vanity and non-notable. At the least, the page should be cleaned up to remove vanity subjects, like the entire "Personal Life" section. Kultur 20:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Perhaps I am being dense on this point, however I do not see how the identity of who created the article is relevant as to whether the article belongs on Wikipedia, I only edit or write articles on subjects that are interesting or important to me, if I knew someone who was notable I would certainly want to be involved in their article, I think this is the foundation of Wikipedia if people could only work on articles they were removed from no one would want to work on an article. I will concede that some material in the personal life section should be cleaned up. I still have not seen your argument for the article being non-notable.

Ratherhaveaheart 21:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Point taken. However, one can surely see, for instance, a biographical article written about someone by themselves is really autobiographical, and therefore NPOV. It is likely to include distortions or irrelevancies. The article's existence is at question, regardless of who it's written by, because it does not have any relevance in an encyclopedia. There are plenty of less important places on the web for people to post about each other. Wikipedia is not one of them. Kultur 05:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Jaggi Singh has a lengthly article on Wikipedia and his article is not being marked for deletion. I don't know how anarchist activists are rated but I don't think Jaggi is any or more important than PP is. Singh has gained attention because of his planned political actions and because of his protests. He has also been mentioned in the news and on television many times. The only difference I can think of is that Jaggi is in Montreal and Andrew is in Ottawa. Ottawa has a smaller activist community whereas Montreal has one of the largest in Canada.--69.196.150.118 23:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Comment. Please remember WP:CIVIL, everyone. Local media are a perfectly valid source of information. The WP:BIO criterion "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." doesn't require that the publication be based in New York. Community activists can be quite influential. Not all politics takes place within a legislative chamber. Some takes place outside. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Bad Faith Delete - I'd just like to point out that I suspect kultur's delete vote has been done in bad faith. He runs one of the businesses in Ottawa that was affected by the Panhandler's Union civil actions. As far as "Personal Info" as Vanity is concerned, maybe kultur has no idea what the point of a biography is, and maybe he'll nominate some other AfD's for biographies that have Personal sections in them(all). Or, he could just help us fully wikify the page and try to be constructive. This is wikipedia, so instead of suggesting that something be done, maybe he ought to help? Drvoke 23:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

kultur lives in the US and not Ottawa, DrVoke. You'd know that if you paid more attention in #as (and #ps, before he was banned).69.194.35.109 02:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I do not live in Ottawa. I have never been to Ottawa. I do not run a business that has been affected by the Panhandler's Union. This is a totally absurd accusation, but par for the course, as this whole vanity page really amounts to nothing more than pollution and trolling on wikipedia. Do you believe that everyone who's voting to delete this unencyclopediac vanity article has some kind of financial stake? Kultur 05:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Anti-Hero strongly supports the endeavors of Andrew Nellis. Thinks he is an outstanding man. A man of high ideals.
Is that a valid reason? Wikipedia doesn't maintain articles as a sign of support of the subject's activities.
  • Comment Keep or delete must be NPOV-based. The subject's beliefs are not important, but the relevance of the article is being questioned, and it appears that there is no relevance.
  • Delete. Given that nothing links here, and half the article is filled with the mundane trivia of Andrew's likes and dislikes, it seems like a pointless page and a poor biography. I'd change my vote if the page became a relevant link from at least two other articles, and was cleaned up. 69.194.35.109 02:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Since this article contains very little information that does not violate WP:V or WP:NOR, 'cleaning up' would entail deleting the article, which is what has been proposed. Antivert 04:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • There is now a link to this article from the article on Jane Scharf. I hope to also link to this article from several others.--Fmaack 03:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
An A for effort, Fred, but you just shoehorned the reference into the article on Jane, by proxy of common affiliation with the IWW. That's not a relevant link. I'm sure a better connection can be made. Haven't they been arrested together or anything like that? "During a protest at the blahblahblah meeting, members of the local blah blah blah group, including Jane and fellow Ottawa activist and suspected ur-fascist Andrew "PoisonPen" Nellis, were hauled off by State-sanctioned stormtroopers for a severe talking-to." That sort of connection I'd consider a relevant link. 69.194.35.109 03:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
They are both members of the same branch of the IWW in the same city. I think that's a worth enough reason to link them. Andrew has never been arrested. Jane however has been arrested dozens of times and spent eight months in jail.--Fmaack 06:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't be so literal Fred, just rewrite the connection in a relevant form. The article on Jane isn't an article on other IWW members in Ottawa. 69.194.35.109 01:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Jane's page now mentions that she was present during the May Day protest which was also organized by Andrew. That's a good enough link between the two if any.--Fmaack 06:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - most of the content simply fails WP:V. BlueValour 21:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The page is not notable and does mainly comprise content that fails WP:V. Obvious vanity page with no encyclopaedic merit. Antivert 06:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Total vanity page with no encyclopediac value whatsoever. Does not belong on a medium as serious as this. Rmfii 01:15, 27 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 22:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Alloggia

Vanity page, not notable. Leibniz 23:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I disagree based on the fact that David Alloggia is a registered Candidate for the Ottawa Ward 10 Councillor and I see no reason why other Candidates should be allowed an article when he is denied one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Deans for instance As well, here is the list of the candidates for the various Wards in Ottawa to prove Mr. Alloggia is in fact a member. http://ottawa.ca/elections/nominated_en.html - Jtab
  • Delete Diane Deans was elected. David Alloggia is only a candidate (so far). Deans is notable on the grounds of her service, not her being a candidate. Plus her accumulation of other notability factors (none of which would be enough by themselves). Also, in an article this short, if you have to include "David played defense for the Leitrim Hawks Pee Wee C and Bantam B hockey teams", there's a serious problem. - Richfife 00:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable - grubber 00:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not meet the notability criteria of WP:BIO. --Satori Son 06:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unelected candidates are not notable just for being candidates. --Storkk 14:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Userfy to User:Jtab? Storkk 14:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I see no particular reason to userfy. Punkmorten 22:03, 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. Mangojuicetalk 03:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revenge is a Dish Best Served Three Times

Just speculation. Literally no concrete facts except the episode name (which gets zero Google hits). --zenohockey 23:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep: It's in the copyright database and [here]. Even if this page DOES get deleted, it will just be remade in a month or so, so it seems pointless. There are a LOT of other pages that you could go after for deletion. Why does it matter if this one exists a little early? -- Scorpion0422 23:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Scorpion0422 - Richfife 00:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom unless an authoritative source (NOT a fan forum thread) can be referenced confirming all the details. If kept, ALL the speculations (unacceptable for an encyclopedia) should be removed and the article should remain in stub form until concrete details can be confirmed Bwithh 00:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable and then salt the earth per Scorpion0422's prediction. - CheNuevara 01:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
It's in the COPYRIGHT DATABASE. Even if this article is deleted, it will just be recreated in a month, so I don't see the point. Don't believe me? Go here: http://www.copyright.gov/records/ and search for this: PAu-3-027-449. Besides, whats the difference between this page and the half dozen other future Simpsons episode pages? Or the dozens of future episode pages from other shows?
I don't doubt that there WILL be a Simpsons episode called "Revenge is a Dish Best Served Three Times," and that in the not-too-distant future, the article under discussion will be WP-worthy. The problem is that right now, this article is not worthy of being on WP, and judging by Google, it will not be for some time. Having a page of nothing but grade-D prognostication reflects badly on the incredibly well-documented pages for other Simpsons episodes. No Homers Club is calling WP a "bad media source", right alongside The Sun (!) and TV.com (!!). We're better than that.
Besides, it's not like it takes four hours to recreate the page once more details are released... --zenohockey 02:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
What about Ice Cream of Margie (With the Light Blue Hair), Kill Gil (Parts 1 and 2), The Haw-Hawed Couple and The Wife Aquatic? It's the COPYRIGHT DATABASE. You can't get more official than that. I hardly see how this is tabloid-esque speculation. It's not like it says anything unlikely or extremely speculative.
  • Delete. Quick Wiki lesson: if no information is available other than the title, anything within it will be original research, which gets deleted. According to WP:NOT, even if an event will happen, we can't have an article based entirely on unverified speculation. Yes, it will in all likelihood be aired, but at this moment there is no information available about it, leading to comments like this on the page:
No plot is available yet, although the episode name suggests it will be about revenge and possibly Sideshow Bob (although Kelsey Grammer has not been announced as a guest star for this season) or Artie Ziff (Jon Lovitz HAS been announced for this season). The title also suggests that it could be an episode with three different stories.
That comment should be removed because it is just unsourced speculation. This will leave the article completely blank, essentially throwing it up for a CSD A1. When verifiable information is available, the article can be recreated. Remember everyone, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. --Wafulz 03:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
So how come The Mook, The Chef, the Wife and Her Homer, Please Homer Don't Hammer 'Em and several more episodes were not up for deletion when we knew squat about them? There are several we still know nothing about and nobody's rushing to put there articles up for deletion.

Listing Wikipedia as a bad sources disclaimer is because anyone can edit it, and it was added following the addition of an obviously fake title (Simpsons Christmas Stories II), and the last time I checked that page was still there. Just because somebody rightfully said that things posted on this website should be taken with a grain of salt, doesn't mean you can delete an article. It's in the copyright database, IT IS AN OFFICIAL TITLE.

What is the point of deleting an article when in a few weeks it will just be recreated?

  • Keep per Scorpion0422, it will be created eventually. - Adamravenscroft 18:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is not speculation. Although in future maybe new episode articles should only be created when there is a description. The episode is listed on the Season 18 page. Scott 17:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There's nothing to be gained by deleting this article, even though I'm in agreement that it should have not been created at this time. -- Boonjava 17:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Iossed 05:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; if someday there'll be an episode, the article can be easily recreated; for now it should be removed, also to not encourage such practices.--Aldux 11:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for now. The fact that it's in a copyright database is meaningless: episodes change names in planning stages. Also bogus is the argument that it'll just be recreated - that's why we have a CSD for previously-deleted material. Salting the earth is also possible. Per Aldux, the article can be recreated when there's actually material. --Storkk 14:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd really love to know why we never get this sort of argument about any other episode we know nothing about!

I would too, because as I pointed out, there are at least four other SImpsons episode pages that are similar. And not to mention the fact that TWO fake episode pages existed for several months wothout being deleted! (Simpson Christmas Stories II and Simpson Witches). I hardly see why this page is worth targetting. -- Scorpion0422 20:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
If this page is deleted, the precedent it would set would prevent future fake-episode pages. And if there are currently any future-episode pages with as little real information as this one, they should be deleted too. --zenohockey 21:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Entirely agreed. The fact that we miss some is not to be taken as condoning others. --Storkk 23:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. the article is acceptable to me
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 Amalgam Comics. --- Deville (Talk) 02:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of metafictional Amalgam imprints

This isn't needed at all. It's fancruft. All the comics mentioned never existed. Fictional comics mentioned in Amalgam comics aren't very useful. RobJ1981 00:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, then write a comic about it. - CheNuevara 01:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Merge, then write a letter about the comic you didn't write about it. I wouldn't mind if the list were merged, sans details, to Amalgam Comics. "They invented a number of fictional past storylines such as... " etc. -HKMarks 22:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 03:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This is not useful information. It's not even an interesting story.Doczilla 07:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Storkk 14:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge to Amalgam Comics. I think the others who have spoken up are mistaken in saying this is not material of interest; it is part of the story being told. Modern comics fans are apt to be interested not just in the stories inside the comics but by the history of comics; this is part of the story the Amalgam producers are telling for those readers. I think it's missing the point to say "these comics never existed" and think that automatically translates to "the fact that these comics have been established as part of the decades-long (fictional) history of Amalgam Comics means nothing." -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Note: it does need a cleanup on one very important issue, though: it keeps using the word "imprints" when the correct word would be either "title" or "issue". -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:17, 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. Punkmorten 23:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lara Kappler

Minor host of local public access cable show. Minimal GHits. Richfife 06:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Does not meet the notability criteria of WP:BIO. --Satori Son 06:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per notability criteria. MidgleyDJ 22:27, 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Log_2006_September_17_d9e0.html"