Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
< September 17 September 19 >
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 redirect. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armageddon Agenda

A one time mention isn't very useful. Appears to be useless and just fancruft. RobJ1981 00:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Maybe merge or redirect into one of the X-men articles. Considering this was mentioned in one book, there's no need for it to have it's own article. --Wafulz 00:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to JLX. It's already mentioned there, and I'm not sure it needs so much coverage that a merge would help. Yomanganitalk 01:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per User:Yomangani. JIP | Talk 06:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect, as above. Markb 12:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge, Redirect as above. - CNichols 15:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with List of fictional laws and rules. --Ineffable3000 21:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to JLX. Remember, this is just a single Amalgam reference. It's not like it matters. It absolutely should NOT be merged into an X-Men or any other non-Amalgam article. I doubt anyone suggesting that could really know what Amalgam was. It has no place in Marvel Comics continuity. Doczilla 07:27, 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 redirect. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Secret Crisis of the Infinity Hour

Yet another Amalgam fancruft. Amalgam was a short lived series, and it doesn't need pages for things only mentioned a few times and never shown/never fully shown.RobJ1981 00:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Amalgam Comics. Tarret 00:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per User:Tarret. JIP | Talk 07:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • redirect, again! Markb 12:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge any relevant information, then Redirect. - CNichols 15:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Amalgam Comics.--Isotope23 19:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Although my kneejerk reaction is to delete altogether, I must admit that I wouldn't have known this much detail about it if it had not gotten organized here. This looks a bit detailed to merge into the Amalgam article. Doczilla 07:23, 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. Dakota 19:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CRM32Pro

A minor software development kit. A Google search says it has 26,000 hits, but only 52 are unique. The website's Alexa rank is somewhere near two million, and there are no independent third party publications about the kit or anything derived from it, making it unverifiable. This software doesn't meet criteria in WP:SOFTWARE and doesn't seem to meet inclusion criteria regarding notability in general. Wafulz 00:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete As per nom, as well as the fact that it sounds more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article "And do not forget that everything is free.". Canadian-Bacon t c e 01:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam and per above. MER-C 08:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. As it is now, it definitely sounds like promotional. Though it's a free software project, also available for no money. So that is not commercial by essence. But, as it is now it really lacks notability. Is this SDK used in famous games, or hase it been used in modeling or something really notable AND external to the project itself ? Whithout some more info that's a weak delete. A purple wikiuser 21:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Reads like promotional material and does not appear to be notable. --dtony 23:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete , no third party sources. —Nate Scheffey 02:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Note, by the way, that the article was created by User:RobertoPP; googling "CRM32Pro Roberto" is revealing. Michael Kinyon 12:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was consensus to keep the article. There are some things AfD can't buy. For everything else, there's deletion review. - Mailer Diablo 04:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Derrick Lonsdale

AfD 2nd Listing. Recommend delete per WP:BIO. The article makes no claim of notability. The 1st AfD had very little participation and probably should have been re-listed rather than closed. The only argument in the article's talk page for keeping this article is that there are thousands of worse stubs. That's too bad, but as per long-standing "there are worse..." arguments, let's continue the cleanup efforts - and we can begin with this one. If this guy is notable, let's see it. Otherwise, let's delete this article. Rklawton 00:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Speedy close - this is an entirely inappropriate nomination. If the nominator is unhappy with the recent AfD close he should use WP:DRV not this unprocedural nomination. TerriersFan 01:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - that's really funny since you were the one suggesting I post it for a 2nd AfD if I felt it deserved such. [1]
Comment - A second nomination is, as I said earlier, suitable if you still wanted to delete this article. Yomanganit has kindly made it for you. However, in your nomination you criticise the closing for which WP:DRV is the correct course. TerriersFan 01:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Reply - I also criticized the article, and those are the grounds for the 2nd AfD. Rklawton 01:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment The problem is that the guy isn't notable, and that's not something that can be fixed. Rklawton 01:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I made this a second nomination and moved the original nom back to its own page, as otherwise it was a right mess. Yomanganitalk 01:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The copyvio text indicated that the subject authored a prolific number of scholarly papers. I am not comfortable with removal unless that is shown to be inaccurate. The article does certainly need to be improved, though. Luckily, we have templates for that. Erechtheus 01:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't know what the policy is, but I believe that AfD's closed with a No Consensus To Delete may be tried again, as opposed to those with an actual Keep which either need to go to deletion review or else to wait a few months before trying again. That said, I don't think its very good form to immediately go right back to AfD. But its "legal" as far as I know. The problem with the guy's article is that it was apparantly copyvio, so I had to cut it back to almost nothing. But I think that it's possible that he may be slightly notable as some kind alternative-medicine guy. I thought he had written a book, but I guess not, as it's not listed in the article. Anyway, I'm not voting. Herostratus 01:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - the book is there now. TerriersFan 01:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Are you kidding me? I don't see how this is even contested - who is this guy, and how is he notable?? --Bri 01:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - please see the references. TerriersFan 01:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - the guy is an expert in his field which can be seen from the article which is still only a stub. TerriersFan 01:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment - The article never once claims that he is an "expert in his field." Such a claim is actually your own POV inference. Rklawton 01:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - the fact that he is an expert can be seen from his papers and that he is notable becuse his peers have reviewed and approved his work. TerriersFan 02:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Reply - you are the one concluding he is an expert, and that's POV. You'll need a source other than yourself that says he's an expert to prove your point. Find it, and I'll happily withdraw my nomination. Incidentally, simply publishing in a peer reviewed journal doesn't make someone notable. Most Ph.D.'s have done so - it's part of what they do and it does not make them notable in their field. Rklawton 02:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Take it to Deletion Review. I've looked at this article, and don't see any authoritative, reliable evidence for encyclopedic notability and would vote Delete. However, I think taking this matter to WP:DRV is the correct course for now, given the recent closure of the first AFD. Bwithh 01:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This does seem more appropriate for DRV, though my vote there would likely be relist, which brings us right back here. Given that, it starts to look like process for the sake of process. Erechtheus 02:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Question - how is deletion review appropriate for an article that wasn't deleted? Rklawton 02:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. WP:DRV reviews the outcome of AfDs. I actually have an AfD resulting in a keep by the closing admin that is being reviewed right now. Erechtheus 02:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

*Comment - The nominator has now removed the references from the article. This is ridiculous behaviour. TerriersFan 02:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Reply - I have removed no references from this article. None. I did remove a POV comment that was not supported by the reference cited. However, I left the reference and made the appropriate notation in the article's talk page. Rklawton 02:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Based on the article and Google hits, no more notable than many/most physicians/medical practitioners (checked it against my own GP, for example, who actually has more G-hits...). Robertissimo 02:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment - if your GP has written over 100 published papers, several books, run medical studies, sat on expert committees etc then he needs an article :-) TerriersFan 03:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Reply - First, the only reference I've seen to 100 papers is something he's published on his own website. Second, the "favorably reviewed" "paper" wasn't published in a peer review journal. So where is this so-called "review"? Third, my insurance doesn't cover "alternative medicine". Lastly, and most significantly, where, aside from your own high praise, has anyone (other than the subject himself) published anything stating he's an "expert" or otherwise notable? Rklawton 03:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Hmm, calm down you two :-) Taking everything together, I am happy enough that he is an expert in his field. The fact that it is 'alternative medicine' shouldn't count against him, in my view. I would also add the point - why would we want to exclude him? Does his inclusion harm Wikipedia bearing in mind that rappers who have released two CDs get in? I have nothing against rappers BTW, I am just making the point that Wikipedia is a broad church. BlueValour 04:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • weak delete I'm not really sold either way on this one but I'd like to point out a few things. First, 100 papers for an 80 year old academic, while certainly worth a mention, is not that exceptional and highly depends on what you call "a paper". Since that claim is taken from a source which is most definitely not independent of the subject, we just have to assume that this is perhaps a bit generous. Secondly, an academics' job is to conduct studies, publish papers and sit on expert committees so it would take more than the current claims that he did those things to convince me. I'm not saying this man is not a renowned expert in his field but simply that the evidence given in the article is pretty flimsy right now. Pascal.Tesson 06:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:CHILL, then Take it to Deletion Review It's too soon for a second nom. Besides, the closing admin did give instructions to cut out the copyvio portions, so unless you're gonna contest the close at DRV, that change should probably happen first before a re-nom is in order.--Roninbk 07:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The man is somewhat controversial in autism circles, and is thus worthy of mention. It would be nice if Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicine could collaborate on this one, but I understand that project is presently inactive. -- SwissCelt 12:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just not sufficiently notable, in a field where it doesn't take much to be notable. Legis 15:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. With such a common surname, it's hard to work out which contributions are his in a Medline search; however Lonsdale's work on nutrition in autism and on thiamine in sudden infant deaths do seem notable. There appear to be significant problems with the current article (eg ref 8 is not about the thiamine study) which should be fixed. Espresso Addict 15:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - thank you, I have fixed that point. Do you have a reference for his SIDS work, please? TerriersFan 16:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually it looks like the particular papers I saw cited were sudden deaths in general, not just SIDS:
Lonsdale D. Thiamine deficiency and sudden deaths. Lancet. 1990 Aug 11;336(8711):376.
Lonsdale D. Erythrocyte transketolase activity and sudden infant death. Am J Clin Nutr. 1981 Oct;34(10):2326-7.
Lonsdale D, Shamberger RJ. Red cell transketolase as an indicator of nutritional deficiency. Am J Clin Nutr. 1980 Feb;33(2):205-11.
Cited eg Thiamine deficiency and its prevention and control in major emergencies, World Health Organization, 1999
  • Thank you again, I have added these references. The article now needs analysis and commentary to link and explain the references with some reasonably flowing text, to move it from being a stub. I shall do this if it survives the AfD. TerriersFan 18:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment this looks like a good time to WP:CHILL and revisit the AfD in another 60-90 days. There are alot of refs and papers, but the case for WP:BIO is exceedingly weak. Still taking some time to be WP:COOL would be helpful before continuing this discussion.--Isotope23 20:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - this is a puzzling AfD. The guy is plainly notable. Fellow of two professional bodies, author of 3 books (1 controversial), held a senior position at the third best hospital in the USA and undoubtedly an expert in his field as sbown by the independent citing of his papers, and he has done controversial work on autism. Why delete him? The article is better sourced than any other I have seen. If someone comes to Wikipedia looking for info on the guy why shouldn't they find it? As I say, puzzling. Bridgeplayer 22:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think that 944 google-hits means he is notable. 11kowrom 22:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • keep: There is plenty of reason to believe digestive disorders and reduction of oxidative triggers contribute to autistic symptoms, so it only makes sense to keep an article about a medical professional who has published several books and scholarly articles on such pressing topics of vital interest. Ombudsman 18:06, 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. DS 18:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King Frank's first son

Son of a minor character, not even directly mentioned in the series. Simply a guess at who the next King of Narnia was after Frank I. Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Guessing and speculation about an irrelevant non-character. Fan-1967 01:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. - CheNuevara 01:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above and WP:FICT. Pascal.Tesson 01:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.UberCryxic 04:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 08:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Minore, cristall ball piece of data. A purple wikiuser 21:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Speculation and original research; C. S. Lewis never alluded to, let alone mention, this character. --physicq210 01:27, 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. Nufy8 03:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kari Sweets

non-notable web "model". speedy tag removed by original author. Onorem 00:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete No claim of notability. --RMHED 01:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • We've had this fight before. Delete. - CheNuevara 01:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A Google search[2] yields 590,000 Google hits. To my mind, that is an assertion of notability. By comparison, Pope Pius IX gets 658,000[3] --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Comparing the internet results for a current skin model with a pope that died 150 years ago really doesn't prove all that much. Argue the ~600k hits if you'd like, but don't bring Pius IX into it. --Onorem 02:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I have to say, that's a real Truthbringer gem (tm) *applause* Bwithh 02:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Truthbringer is being a bit naive when it comes to Googling anything related to sex on the Internet. Every minor obscure porn starlet is bound to have well over 500K hits. Heck, get the pope to pose nude and I'm sure he'll go over the million mark. What sort of encyclopedic content do we really think this article can ever have? How can we possibly hope to ever build an article based on reliable sources for that woman? I'm not even sure we can find a single interview of her, let alone get basic info like her age, her real name, her city of residence. Pascal.Tesson 02:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Please tell me you didn't just use the terms "minor" and "porn starlet" in the same sentence... --Roninbk 07:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment who, what, me? you must have dreamt that. Please don't tell the cops. Pascal.Tesson 20:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom and Pascal Tesson. Urgggh... she's doesn't even do actual porn Bwithh 02:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
which might explain the low Ghits. :-) Pascal.Tesson 02:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
"3. Performer has made unique, noteworthy contributions to his or her field.
Is the performer noted for beginning a trend in pornography?"
Kari pioneered the trend of girls who came from social networking sites (she was huge on Xanga.com as a 15-17yr old) to creating her own successful paysite, without ever showing a glimpse of areola or vagina.
There has been no other internet paysite approaching her level of success without showing 1 or both of the previously mentioned body parts.
7. "Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche."
Kari is the most popular NonNude model online. She was also chosen the #1 favorite internet model out of hundreds of eligible girls (more popular then even the biggest porn girls), as voted for an entire year's
balloting at NNVote 05:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mtdwiki (talk • contribs) 22:30, September 17, 2006.
— Possible single purpose account: Mtdwiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
If these claims were made in the article, then maybe we'd have something. As it stands, the article makes NO claim of notability, and should be Speedied --Roninbk 07:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
"without ever showing a glimpse of areola or vagina." um. yikes. Bwithh 02:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment Just out of curiosity, that NN in NNVote doesn't stand for "not notable", does it? But I kid of course. I hate to break it to her fans but posing in suggestive poses, panties or no panties isn't exactly a new trend in pornography. Pascal.Tesson 03:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn per nom, and as failing WP:V per Pascal.Tesson. --Aaron 02:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep she is over 18 if you want to know more about her youtube has many interviews with her do not delete this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blackjiggs (talk • contribs) 23:10, September 17, 2006.
— Possible single purpose account: Blackjiggs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
Comment well you can't accuse of not doing my research: there are indeed some interviews on YouTube. I suggest this one as particularly informative [4]. Quick, someone update the article, we now know that her favorite food besides garbage is mexican or italian and she always wanted a convertible with a license plate that says "DA BOMB"! Let's get serious here, we are writing an encyclopedia... Pascal.Tesson 03:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. --InShaneee 15:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't even come close to meeting the notability requirements of WP:BIO. --Satori Son 15:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete subject does not meet WP:BIO guidelines.--Isotope23 20:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. She doesn't really meet WP:BIO. Also, just to further elaborate, the reason why models and porn stars bring up a big amount of Google hits is due to Googlebombing, which is what many webmasters due to bump up their websites up the page rank on Google. Also, her website apparently has an Alexa web traffic ranking of 18,167. For most sites, this would be considered high, but for a porn site, I think it's pretty low. Also, her website is apparently on the decline, which can be seen by the graph which shows that only half the number of people now access her website compared to 4 months ago. --Nishkid64 20:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • De-le-te spee-dy. Hahem : this is plain spam, adv. Need to have that long vfd ? Wow : maybe WP changed ? That's indeed a while I did not contribute. A purple wikiuser 21:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment you've just proved how much of a dinosaur you are by calling it VfD. That acronym is sooooo 2005. :-) Pascal.Tesson 21:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Yep :-) A purple wikiuser 22:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per several of the most recent comments. Marcus22 21:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator, this is a non-notable "internet model" who has yet to accomplish anything significant. Yamaguchi先生 09:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP You people must be ignorant of the universe itself not to see how important Kari is. She is the first human being born to the pinnacle of perfection, for the sole purpose of displaying her amazing, gorgeous body. You all need to stop going to those Klingon meetings and RECOGNIZE lol —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.17.228.158 (talk)
    Note to closing sysop: added by IP with 3 edits, all related to this AfD Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:40, 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 keep. It seems like there probably will be no or little opposition to this, so I'm ending this AfD early after a consensus of keep was reached. --Nishkid64 20:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of colleges and universities in the Philippines

Listcruft and just a gallery of images. No article -Nv8200p talk 01:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • keep if you don't like the structure of the article though, just make it better. I'm not a big fan of lists to start with but in principle this is a perfectly encyclopedic subject. Pascal.Tesson 06:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per User:Pascal.Tesson. JIP | Talk 07:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Could be beefed up with more info about each university (location for starters), but it's a perfectly legitimate topic. Kirjtc2 11:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Encyclopedic. I think the pictures can be pulled out. Other countries just have lists/charts with no pictures. zephyr2k 12:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. A standard, encyclopedic, reference list. Not sure about the pictures, and it could use a bit more descriptive text, but none of that's deletion grounds. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. This is definitely an appropriate exception to WP:LC. Having no content is not a sufficient explanation for an AfD, by the way. --Nishkid64 20:51, 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 delete per Criteria for Speedy Deletion A7 "non-notable biography" - Tangotango 12:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Alan Goldberg

This (auto)biographical article does not conform to WP:BIO. This is just some freelance journalist who has written a page about himself in an apparent attempt to increase his exposure (he's also going around plugging himself by inserting mentions, quotations and links to his articles throughout wikipedia - see the linkspam in the user's contrib history) The article does not mention any widely recognized contributions in the person's field, and though he may have had some work published, it still doesn't fall into the WP:BIO requirement of having had "multiple independent reviews or awards." Bri 02:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Comment: Strangely enough, the unsigned line above (Delete it.) was written by the article in question's author. --Bri 05:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Also he has been blanking it.--Konstable 05:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO--Konstable 05:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:VAIN. Pascal.Tesson 06:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:COLOR. Herostratus 07:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Wha--? How do you figure WP:COLOR? --Roninbk 07:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per CSD G7. --Roninbk 07:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - CSD G7. [5] Tagged as such. MER-C 08:46, 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 delete as nonsense by Jeffrey O. Gustafson. --Aaron 02:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Safari Windows

The article links to a seemingly nonexistent product, Safari for Windows, and makes wild claims about the product, i.e. its speed and security. The links provided do not work, and the whole thing looks to be nonsense. perardi 02:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete: Nonsense. --Bri 02:20, 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.DS 18:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Party tray

All this has is (probably copyrighted) definitions for the words party and tray. They want to transwiki this to Wiktionary:party, which has those meanings already. Useless page to exist. --Dangherous 02:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, dicdef; fails WP:WINAD.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • obvious delete This probably should have been proded.Pascal.Tesson 06:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, this article is completely useless. JIP | Talk 07:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 08:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There may well be such a thing as a 'party tray', and maybe someone who knows about them can create an article. As this stands, however, it is a pointless dictionary definition of two words, if left we could set a precident for more such entries. Markb 12:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Head-smackingly obvious delete I proded it for exactly these reasons. Get it gone! -- Scientizzle 16:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or transwiki to Wiktionary. There is probably something encyclopedic that could be said about party trays, but this isn't it. Yamaguchi先生 23:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki, then delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --physicq210 01:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was kept. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Underhanded C Contest

Non-notable; contest appears to be defunct anyway. —Psychonaut 02:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • keep; verifiable, and coverage on slashdot (and other prominent web sources) makes it notable enough for me. — brighterorange (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete or verify within article --Roninbk 08:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Check back at its homepage; it seems to have reactivated itself by posting a set of results. (The International Obfuscated C Code Contest seems to be even more slow-moving, and I wouldn't suggest deleting that.) --ais523 12:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I see no results. The page looks the same as when I made this VfD. —Psychonaut 21:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • It seems that there were previously two sites about it with the same content; one was updated with the results, and the other was linked from Wikipedia. I've changed the reference to the page with more info; you should be able to see the results now. --ais523 13:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I still see no verification in this article. Nice that you found something on another webpage, but unless its in the article, what good is it? --Roninbk t c # 22:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
          • I have to confess that I don't quite understand what "verify within article" means. Can you explain what you mean by this? --Richard 04:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, providing verifiability. - CNichols 15:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep contingent on verifiability per CNichols --Richard 08:32, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prostitot

Supposedly a slang term meaning sluttily-dressed underage girl. But Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Well, maybe up to a certain extent it is...but this to me is not a notable slang term. I'm sure there's a redirect somewhere. This article is just over one year old. --Dangherous 02:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable neoligism. TJ Spyke 02:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 02:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom and Do NOT Redirect or Transwiki This belongs in Urbandictionary.com. Bwithh 02:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Burninate Danny Lilithborne 03:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with prejudice. Its for a dictionary.--Blue Tie 03:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.UberCryxic 04:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. JIP | Talk 07:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Do not transwiki. MER-C 08:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Has anyone actually googled this term - it appears to be increasingly used to describe this phenomenon. Drett 15:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment That doesn't mean anything. Danny Lilithborne 18:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete/Comment. Drett, what are you talking about? Google it and you get like ~900 hits, of which most are just like irrelevant nonsense. Besides, see WP:NEO. This is clearly a neologism. --Nishkid64 21:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki JASpencer 10:25, 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 all. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alike Boggan

Nominating this and 6 other articles as not notable:

  • Lindsay Clubine
  • Stacey Gardner
  • Tameka Jacobs
  • Aubrie Lemon
  • Jill Manas
  • Ursula Mayes

All are models on Deal or No Deal but with no significant role in either acting/modelling/hosting etc outside this show. Fine line as to which should be nominated... other DOND models can be found in this template: Template: DOND USA Models. I have chosen the most obvious articles to nominate (thinking back to the ANTM train wreck) and others may follow.

Notes on the other models and why they were not nominated.

I am fairly inexperienced at nominating things here and may not be interpreting the notability guidelines completely correctly but I thought it was worth a shot! -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 00:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete All as per nom. Ridiculous gameshowbabecruft. Don't forget to delete the Deal or No Deal models template as well Bwithh 02:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment When you say "all" - are you talking about the 6 I nominated or the whole list? Because surely some in the second group are notable? (Claudia Jordan & Kasie Head, for example, are undeniably notable per their participation in significant national pageants and being state titleholders). -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 03:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete on all counts as babecruft. --Aaron 02:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Defreakinglete per above.UberCryxic 04:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and consider adding babecruft to wiktionary. Pascal.Tesson 06:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Haha. --Nishkid64 21:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 08:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete them all per all of the above. --Nishkid64 21:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Save the Models - ALL of them - By the fact they made it through auditions and they form one of the three legs of the stool - Howie, the models and the contestants. They deserve their place. Let go of political correctness and prejudices. This is information, and it deserves its place, and that goes for each of the models. TX IS Dude 01:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete all They do not form a leg of a "stool". They are there to smile and show cleavage. And while that is the only thing that show has going for it, simply looking pretty on a television show does not make one notable. Resolute 03:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Save the Models - ALL of them - These models are well-known. I was Googling 'Ursula' and found her entry here. Useful. I don't think I would be Googling someone who wasn't already a celebrity. metcowboy 11:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
User's first edit -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 23:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Save the Models - but group them into a separate page. Andrewb1 21:01, 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 purged, and then redirected as per Smerdis. DS 18:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Null (Character)

Original research, no citations, a single link which is to the 'creators' geocities page, "Created by two computer science university students"... need I say more? StealthFox 02:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Not noteable. Confusing with computer terms as well.--Blue Tie 03:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per WP:OR and WP:NFT. - Runch 04:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:NFT and WP:NOR, and we have enough symbols for "nothing" already. JIP | Talk 07:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Null Vote. I'm sorry, but it had to be said... --Roninbk 08:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Send to /dev/null per above. MER-C 08:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. I checked the history; null (character) is potentially a worthwhile subject (I know it has a specific meaning in cryptography) but there has never been anything helpful here. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect - Null character. Ace of Risk 15:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.
  • Delete, and possibly redirect to null character. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep StealthFox's signature is really freaking me out. Anomo 09:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Delete but the article is bad, so delete. Anomo 09:28, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Gods' Pack

A webcomic, found here, written by what appears to be the webcomic artist User:Wolfsilvermoon. Pretty much everything on the free web host comic genesis is non-notable, even their top ranked comics are unencyclopedic. This one however, is ranked at 775. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Try Comixpedia or the CGWiki. - Hahnchen 02:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable. --InShaneee 15:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Best wishes with the comic but entirely non-notable. --Charlesknight 16:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can't help thinking this is self promotion. Sarah started the comic because she had always wanted to run a webcomic. A purple wikiuser 21:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Return to Eden - Comic

Another webcomic found on the free web host comicgenesis, this one can be seen here. It's ranked at around 30 on Comic Genesis, so some of you might be fooled into thinking it's somehow notable. It's not. This puts it behind Yosh! and slightly in front of Gorgeous Princess Creamy Beamy. This is no way as popular as sites such as Encyclopedia Dramatica or Pokemon-Safari.com. Indeed, the lackadaisical standards to which we hold webcomics to are laughed at in unrelated discussions. Fails WP:WEB, WP:V. - Hahnchen 02:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable. --InShaneee 15:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable webcomic. --Nishkid64 21:17, 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 redirected. MER-C 08:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temptation: Quizmaster

Delete I have merged the content with Temptation (game show) as the article was short and did not warrant it's own page. AFD Template 1 has been added for the page. The page can now be deleted because it's no longer in use. Lakeyboy 02:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete CSD G6 --Roninbk 08:07, 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 speedily deleted under CSD A7 by MacGyverMagic. MER-C 10:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Heermann

Fails WP:BIO and no assertion of notability. The web site shown only contains Flickr, Blogspot, and DeviantArt links. Google is no help. Crystallina 03:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete This is a Vanity article. Allow me to present the evidence. User Jheermann created this article and his only edits so far has been this article and he moved his talk pagehere as well. A google search shows no helpful hints on the notablility of the subject as well. Finally, this user has only four contributions. Fails all points raised in WP:BIO as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • No claim of notability? Speedy delete. - CheNuevara 05:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 09:09, 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 Delete. Yanksox 01:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charby the Vampirate

Charby the Vampirate was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charby The Vampirate. This is a multiple nomination as it also includes the webcomic character Zeno (Demon). Reasons for the nomination are similar to the original, that this webcomic, seen here is not notable. The entire Drunk Duck community and audience isn't that great, with the free web host getting an Alexa rank of 75,000. This is just one of the many comics on it, and googling it gives you no reliable sources upon which to write an encyclopedia article. Fails WP:WEB, fails WP:V. - Hahnchen 03:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per speedy deletion criterion G4. (Unless they're not really identical. In that case, a normal delete per nom.) Crystallina 03:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as above. --InShaneee 15:32, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Megaman The Megamissions

This megaman fan fiction sprite comic, found on the free web host Drunk Duck, can be seen here. There is no assertion of notabilty, and there are 10 Google links for "Megaman The Megamissions". - Hahnchen 03:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable webcomic(that also spelled it's subject wrong, it's Mega Man not Megaman). TJ Spyke 03:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB and WP:CRUFT. Non-notable. - Runch 05:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Xiange 11:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per WP:WEB, WP:RS and above. Wickethewok 23:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. and discussion. Wryspy 18:59, 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 DE! *clap clap* LETE! *clap clap* DS 18:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs featuring hand claps

List of songs featuring hand claps is overly long, unverified, and possibly endless. Many songs have the musicians clap their hands and I'm not sure a song become known for that. That said if it could be limited to songs where hand clapping is central to the song I might be persuaded to change my mind.--T. Anthony 03:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Not voting, maybe I'm wrong about it. It just seems long, unverified, and possibly endless. I'm amenable to withdrawing this on suitable justification though.--T. Anthony 03:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Defuckinglete And not just this list, but all other similar lists.UberCryxic 04:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Wasn't this list already deleted once? If not, please delete it now. If it was, then it's speedy delete material. - CheNuevara 05:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Clap hands and Delete Useless unmaintainable, possibly soon 1MB long list. Pascal.Tesson 06:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I see no use for this list. JIP | Talk 07:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Clap your hands say delete, too broad to ever be useful or maintainable. We might as well have a list of songs with choirs. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. An impressive list, but sorry. WP:LC. Also see this. It's quite a similar AfD. --Nishkid64 21:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per all of the astonishment above . . . ScottW 23:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as one of the worst list ideas I've seen... Wickethewok 23:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • If you want this deleted and you know it, clap your hands *clap clap* Lists like these should not exist in the first place. --physicq210 01:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The topic is unencyclopaedic. GassyGuy 08:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. And people wonder why Wikipedians have a short fuse when it comes to list articles of any type ... 23skidoo 13:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heart Attack Grill, King Simrin, Secret menu

Set of ads for a Phoenix restaurant. Author (based on name, the owner) has also added links into numerous articles like Fast food advertising ([6]), Hamburger ([7]), and Theme restaurant ([8]). I don't see any indication this restaurant meets WP:CORP, and the series of articles (especially creating an article on their fastest burger eater) strikes me as WP:SPAM. -- Fan-1967 03:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The Heart Attack Grill was the subject of:

  • a front page story with picture in Arizona's second largest circulated newspaper the East Valley Tribune on Dec 2 2005
  • a pictorial cover story in Get Out Magazine, Arizona's largest restaurant and entertainment guide in Dec 2005.
  • a 15 minute television documentary which aired on HDNet on Jan 18, 2006
  • a one page story in the Wrangler News in early Feb 2006
  • a one page story in College Times Magazine on Feb 23, 2006
  • a pictorial feature story entitled 'Cheesburger in Paradise' in the July 12, 2006 eddition of the nationally circulated ADVERTISEMENT AGE MAGAZINE
  • a four page pictorial story in the Ahwatukee Foothills News on August 11, 2006
  • hosts a website (www.HeartAttackGrill.com) with over 10,000 unique visitors per month.

If any further supportive information is needed, please ask.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonbasso (talk • contribs).

Note: Above editor has also felt the need to repeatedly vandalize the nomination. Fan-1967 05:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all as blatant advertising. JIP | Talk 07:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all as spam. MER-C 08:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all with relish and a pickle (a guy who can eat a hamburger really fast? get the f**k out of here!). --Charlesknight 12:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree, seems like they're desperate for publicity. After reading the article Secret menu I immediately thought that it wasn't so "secret", the "rumour" they had a "Quadruple bypass" was probably started by the restaurant's owner, immediately after inventing the dish in question. But all this makes me hungry for hamburgers. If you're ever in Kamppi, make sure to visit Pitaco at the back end of the Tennispalatsi. The "El Presidente burger" is delicious. But I still wouldn't be writing an article about it. JIP | Talk 20:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per above; of purely local interest. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all no demonstrated notability outside of minor local coverage.--Isotope23 20:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all - fail WP:CORP, pass WP:SPAM, fail WP:N and WP:RS. Crum375 21:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Top delete this top commercial material. Good quality adv though. But certainly not encyclopaedic. Now for the irrelevant part of my vote : vandalizing the nomination is a no-no. Can't help dreming of a delete on sight whatever the content. This really IMO is an absolut no-no. I can't stand it.A purple wikiuser 21:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up the Heart Attack Grill article (passes WP:CORP with multiple non-trivial references), and delete the other two per the comments above. Yamaguchi先生 00:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
At this point in time, I don't see a single verifiable reference of any kind. In addition, for WP:CORP you need non-trivial works that cover the business; in the restaurant business, given that local papers typically cover virtually all local eateries, we normally require national non-advertizing review articles to prove notability and justify WP inclusion. I just don't see that here yet. Crum375 00:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because it fails WP:CORP, since it has multiple TRIVIAL references - purely local coverage doesn't count. So, what about other measures? Is this place widely known? Oft-referenced in popular culture? Award-winning? A verified pioneer in some area of business? Historically important? Nope, nope, nope, nope, and nope. --Calton | Talk 04:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for WP:NOT. Wryspy 19:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Slate Roof House

NN house that hasn't existed for 150 years. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • keep If this was indeed a landmark of Philly, this should be kept whether or not it still stands. Pascal.Tesson 07:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly if this house still existed, it would receive an article, as it would almost certainly be a National Historic Landmark and that there is a park there today is strong reason to keep it. A Redirect to the park's name might be more appropriate though, as that would be its greatest importance today. Still, I think there may be issues with copyright violation, since the article seems to borrow heavily from the external links. Mister.Manticore 07:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to Slate Roof House. If I were writing this I think that Welcome Park would be a more immediately useful article, but I don't particularly see a problem with it. In a sense it's a disappeared landmark, and the story about the 1867 historic preservation fight would be an interesting expansion. --Dhartung | Talk 09:07, 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 - I looked at the points made for retention and looked at the article. Nothing asserts any significance to the power station - it simply has - the output statistics the plant, and also some peripheral info about the meterological circumstances of the area, and some eniginerring stats about the actual structure. I actually know of a few high schools in my city which have a token 2-3 wind turbines and I can't see how 56 is a "signficant investment" unless Iowa is in the stone age, which I believe it is not. Also Truthbringer's point about the news info has been countered (to be honest, if one line is enough, then high school kids who win math/science competitions would also be notable (they aren't)). As for the hydrodams, they usually require a lot of deforestration and also are usually 1km wide (or something massive), whereas these are a few sticks in the ground. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 07:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cerro Gordo Wind Farm

  • Comment. I posted this article, because there was not any information on Iowa wind farms. I could be wrong, but I thought Wikipedia was supposed to have vast amounts of information on all topics, not just the ones some people feel are interesting? I propose that instead of deleting this article, it is combined with another article. Obeano 13:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

NN.... uh.... wind farm. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Just another small power facility Bwithh 04:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator and User:Bwithh. JIP | Talk 07:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Blow away (i.e. delete) per above. MER-C 08:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I added some references. Power generating facilities can be notable, and this one has attracted some independent coverage. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I hardly think that a simple one line mention of the wind farm in a USAToday article or even the IBEW Journal could be considered as a real news coverage. --Nishkid64 21:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a tourist attraction and a major business investment in the region/state. To my mind the visibility of wind farms makes it hard for them not to be notable, and certainly in a local context it seems strange to leave it out. --Dhartung | Talk 09:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Tourist attraction?? Aren't they usually considered eyesores which damage the local scenic countryside & wildlife? It's not really on the scale of a major investment either, unless Iowa is in really bad economic shape. Bwithh 01:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I have no opinion on this particular article, but, to be fair, wind farms sometimes do attract tourism in their areas. I doubt this one does, but it would be unfair to lump all wind farms into the eyesore category. GassyGuy 08:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
http://www.clearlakeiowa.com/vi/attractions.htm Kappa 08:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete A power facility is a power facility, no matter how pretty or expensive it is. --InShaneee 15:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This fecility must have something very specific to it or unique. Otherwise it is non notable. A purple wikiuser 21:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. There are many articles about hydro-electric dams and their electricity generating facilities because they are notable works of engineering, because they are notable as business entities and because their construction raises environmental, farming and hunting issues. Generating stations which depend on fossil fuel are also notable because of pollution concerns. Similarly, wind farms are generally significant business entities, a source of noise, and a hazard to birds which can be killed by the blades of the turbines. And the questions of regulation and government-versus-investor ownership of electricity generation and distribution companies can be matters for significant public concern. Electricity generation is more complicated than it might seem. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • You've just given reasons for having an article on wind farms, not for having an article on this particular wind farm. Uncle G 23:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge, locally important facility and tourist attraction/eyesore. Many of the google hits are news sites using the farm to establish the notability of the company which built it. Kappa 07:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails to give any reason why this wind farm is deserving of special attention. Indrian 16:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge into Wind farm. Cerro Gordo ≠ Altamont Pass. ~ trialsanderrors 17:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Wind farm. Michael Kinyon 11:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - too stubby to warrant own existence; no indication of particular notability amongst wind farms in general. (Possibly merge into wind farm article as an exemplar if feeling particularly lenient, although said article seems to be little more than a collection of exemplars already, with no generic information on the topic.) Cain Mosni 10:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets content policies, has substantial local significance. The problems pointed out by delete voters simply aren't solved by deletion; merging is the appropriate action, if action is needed. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:07, 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heartware

Vanity entry of non-notable film. No distributor, no IMDb entry, all redlinks. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete since not on the radar and per WP:VAIN.Pascal.Tesson 07:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 08:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't delete distributor included, redlinks deleted, IMDb status being processed.
  • Don't delete as I have included a distributor, which can be verified. Redlinks have also been removed and approved external links to provide more information included.
  • Delete per above. --InShaneee 15:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Charlesknight 20:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am not sure. This article sounds like a spam link collection. Gives the feeling of adv or exposure enhencer but not encyclopaedic. A purple wikiuser 22:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. TheRealFennShysa 16:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. IMDb status applied for (even if that anonymous poster is correct about that) is not IMDb status. Wryspy 19:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Leidiot 12:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Ten-minute indy film without distribution is not notable, with or without an IMDB page. (IMDB page is necessary, but not sufficient.) Fan-1967 21:58, 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 kept without prejudice against a consensus merge/redirect. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Wal-Mart

The very nature of this article violates WP:NPOV. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 04:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Note that "merge and delete" is not a possible option, since the history of the original page must be preserved for GFDL reasons when merging into another page. --bainer (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Critical commentary does not necessarily equal NPOV, and there is far too much information here to merge with Wal-Mart. In addition, this subject has been the focus of films (Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price) as well as numerous print articles and TV shows (just look at the references!). - Runch 04:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep While I agree that it's a challenge to maintain a neutral point-of-view on such an article, objectively chronicling verifiable and nationally-covered controversy or criticism of an international corporation is perfectly encyclopedic. A better solution would be to watch the article and try to neutralise any ranting or POV that may surface, but the topic itself has merit. — NMChico24 04:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep While I too feel that NPOV is tough to achieve in an article that basically just slams a company, it is needed to keep the overall NPOV, and a deletion and merge would make the wal-mart article far to long. EnsRedShirt 04:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I find that the sheer amount of coverage of the topic is also a form of POV bias. The main points need to be presented in Wal-Mart, and the rest needs to find another home. We aren't the BBB or Consumer Reports and we shouldn't try to be. The fact that this has become nearly as large if not larger than the main article is a problem. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Obviously the POV of this article has to walk a fine line, but the concept itself is well-established, and the potential length warrants seperation from the main Wal-Mart article. It's certainly as notable as Criticism of World of Warcraft, and the decision was to keep that. Or you could pick the GWB article and put the criticism and praise together if you wanted NPOV. Mister.Manticore 05:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm.. maybe the GWB article is next... I think just in the length we are showing bias though. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
There's a lot of criticism of Wal-Mart. It's not bias to include it. But if you're objecting on the grounds that Criticism of X articles themselves are unacceptable, well, I think that would best be taken at the policy level, not on the individual article. Mister.Manticore 06:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All of the Wal-Mart articles are being tendentiously manipulated by the company. Stand up and put a stop to it. Abe Froman 05:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't like their practices either, but this article is one-sided. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
If it cannot be merged because of article length, why does that merit deletion? It makes no sense, to me. Abe Froman 05:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Article length should not be a concern here since the article length issue is only a guideline (not a set-in-stone policy). The Wal-Mart article is only 42Kb, some articles on WP are 200-250Kb.
  • Keep per above. VegaDark 05:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete. —ExplorerCDT 05:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that "merge and delete" is an impossible option, since the history of the original page must be preserved for GFDL reasons when merging into another page. --bainer (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as we all know that criticism of Wal-Mart is non-trivial and would overwhelm the parent article. Either that or make it History of Wal-Mart or something. --Dhartung | Talk 09:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep as many users have said, Criticism of Wal-mart is well documented from a variety of sources. I would say that it is more POV to delete the article then it would be to keep it since by doing so you eliminating an important coverage aspects of Wal-mart. As for merging and article size, there is certainly ideal article sizes and content forks such as this serve a purpose to maintain readability. 205.157.110.11 09:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. The idea that an article critising an entity must therefore violate WP:NPOV is abhorrent. It is clearly beholden on editors to maintain a neutral point of view, but to delete it because it might contain something awkward for Wal-Mart? Nonsense! Markb 12:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Manticore and MarkB. JoshuaZ 13:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Wal-Mart, it makes alot more sense to keep this material together, and it avoids any potential problems of NPOV. There's no problem with the length, since both articles are already very well structured with subheadings, so that individual sections are not too long. Note that if it would "overwhelm" the parent article as suggested, then it is too long and needs editing, or is given too much weight, or (and this is the most likely) the remainder of the article ought to be expanded. --bainer (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I've just noticed that there are several criticism articles which are children of this article (such as this and this). Logically it would make more sense to merge the main criticism article back into Wal-Mart, so that there is only one level of children, rather than two. --bainer (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per others. I note there's concern that Wal-Mart employees/agents/whatever are unfairly manipulating the Wal-Mart related pages. What is the actual evidence on this? - CNichols 20:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment A few months ago there was repeated editing of the article that pushed all the criticism to the criticism page and then managed to somehow get the criticism link taken off the article. JoshuaZ 20:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per others. --Charlesknight 20:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep What about Criticism of Wikipedia? Several topics have articles on criticism. Some P. Erson 20:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. A really notable topic. This article should definitely be kept. However, a simple fix of POV issues should help the article (even though it should negative, since it's titled Criticism of Wal-Mart). --Nishkid64 21:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, yarrr Shouldn't this nomination consider all articles on the criticism of Wal-Mart? Last time I checked, there were four of them counting this one. They are as below: Tuxide 18:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    Criticism of Wal-Mart
    Wal-Mart employee and labor relations
    Wal-Mart workforce diversity
    Wal-Mart product controversy
  • Comment, yarrr Much criticism from Wal-Mart comes from union funded campaigns/organizations such as Wake Up Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart Watch. It is in my opinion that such criticism rationale should go into the articles about the organizations criticising Wal-Mart, not in an article about Wal-Mart itself, with links provided from the main article. Specific lawsuits should go in separate [[whatever v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.]] articles, with links again to the main. Everything directly related to Wal-Mart should go in the main article, while criticism that is common to big-box stores in general should go to big-box store. Avast, Tuxide 19:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I think there is some backwards logic here in regards to moving to the criticisms to the union pages. You want to keep information as centralized and relevant to the topic as possible. When the New York Times Book Review makes a comment about a book, should we include the comment in the Literary criticism section of the book's article or on the New York Times page? When President Bush criticised Trent Lott for his Strom Thurmond comments should those criticisms go on the GWB page or on Lott's? The normal "ideal situation" would be for this information to be in the main Walmart article, however the breadth of criticisms would makes that cumbersome and unfairly tilt the POV in the main article. Hence, the reason for this article's existence and a strong reason to keep it. 205.157.110.11 10:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The difference between the New York Times Book Review and Wake Up Wal-Mart is that the purpose of the latter is to exclusively criticise Wal-Mart; hence such criticism is more directly related to the campaign. The problem with this nomination is what is not realized here: Not only is Wal-Mart's criticism considered a notable subject by a lot of people, but so is the very existence of this article on the English Wikipedia. Despite we still can't decide how the hell to resolve the disputes in this article, it is amazing to see this much energy into keeping an article with so many problems around. Obviously, you work for Office Depot but I don't know if it's unionized or affiliated in any way with Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. It makes me wonder where this energy is coming from, for it is either the Pro-Wal-Mart side or the union-funded Anti-Wal-Mart side. Or maybe just Wal-Mart bashers in general. Regards, Tuxide 23:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
LOL, actually I don't work for Office Depot. I just gladly leech off of their wireless network. :P (Seriously, it's 2:30 in the morning here. Do you think they're open?) As for the example, the purpose of the New york times book review is to criticized books (positive or negative). I agree that the article needs some clean up but AfD never has and never will be a substitute for clean up. Personally, I like Wal-mart. I am actually a small business owner and from a cost perspective, they are valuable. However, I recognize that criticism about this company is notable and commented on by a variety of reliable sources--not just those union organizations. As I noted before the deletion of a notable and encyclopedic topic just because you disagree with it, is more POV then this article will ever be. 205.157.110.11 07:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per all the above keep votes. Prolog 15:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Merge Verified and sourced criticisms should be merged into a critics section of the main article. We do not need an article on every notable company, and then a separate article on the criticism of every notable company. The position that a merge would tilt the POV of the main article is pure nonsense. Facts are facts, and if a company has earned a poor reputation then stating so in Wikipedia when verifiable sources are provided is proper. Wal-Mart has made their bed, they ought to lay in it now. We are here to provide a non-biased presentation of the FACTS. Not to whitewash corporate America or help them look good to their customers. The subject is Wal-Mart. Therefore, an article on that topic would present any favorable and any disfavor able information on the same page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shortfuse (talk • contribs).
Ah yes, not sure why I forgot to sign that, but it is mine. Shortfuse 14:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment we do have articles on Criticism of McDonald's, Criticism of Lockheed-Martin, Criticism of Exxon-Mobil, Criticism of Haliburton, Criticism of CNN, Criticism of CBS, Criticism of Hewlett-Packard, No. But we do have Criticism of Microsoft? Where among these does Wal-Mart fall? Carlossuarez46 02:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    In capitalism, as far as I know there has always been one company considered to be the "evil empire", or the most evil/hated out of all in the general public. That company used to be Microsoft Corporation due to its monopolistic business ethics, now it is Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. due to its business ethics again. Tuxide 02:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    • As fashions changes and the fickle finger of frustration points at a new company, we then will create an article about all those criticisms? And, depending on what your POV is, some would charge that any of the above companies are the evil empire of today... Carlossuarez46 20:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. WarriorScribe 10:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that "merge and delete" is not a possible option, since the history of the original page must be preserved for GFDL reasons when merging into another page. --bainer (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Wal-Mart as outlined in my above comments, and the suggestions on the essay Wikipedia:Criticism. Resulting article should be marked as {{cleanup}}. Also having numerous Wal-Mart articles around is just Wal-Mart cruft. Tuxide 21:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Well sourced articles, which are matters in public discourse are wiki-worthy. Due to its size, this is a content fork, not a POV fork. It does need some POV clean up, but it is no reason to delete. Arbusto 02:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Just because it's a criticism article doesn't mean it volates NPOV.

Crumbsucker 12:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep Informative, Well defined subject and content. Does not violate NPOV.

Wikiace 19:58, 22 September 2006 (CST)

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naruto: Shinobi Retsuden

WP:NOT a crystal ball. There are 81 unique Google hits, most of which are from forums/blogs.[9] None of the results nor the link on the talk page establishes notability of this game. Even the creator's text indicates little is known about the game. Perhaps an article will be appropriate when information is known. Erechtheus 04:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[10] A scan showing screenshots of the game and information. Speedy keep. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
How does that constitute any sort of verifiable source? Erechtheus 05:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Other than the fact that it proves beyond any shadow of a doubt other than simply distrusting that the scan is legitimate that the game exists and is in development and that there is plenty of information available? Such as the fact that it utilizes the touch screen, and that it's a full 3D fighter, and the several characters available? I'm not even taking into account information that cannot be assertained from the screenshots. Can you give me a reason why we should not trust this scan? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
What magazine is it from? --Kunzite 06:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Trusting random scans is not the business of this encyclopedia. That's the whole point of the policy I linked in my response to you. Erechtheus 06:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
How is this random? How is this any less reliable than all of the other scans constantly used to verify information? The way you're going on, you make it sound like the point of Wikipedia is to assume that all sources are either lies or merely incorrect. So, do me a favor and explain to me why all of the sources on Wikipedia, which could be lying or incorrect, get put on Wikipedia without a second thought, but a scan with absolutely no reason to assume is fake cannot be used as a source? Just because you do not like my evidence does not make it bad evidence. Instead of presenting the possibility that it, like literally every other source for every single piece of information in the universe, could be fake, why don't you prove it? - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
This file is hosted on some random free image host. Before behaving in a hostile manner in AfDs, please review the relevent policy that has been pointed out to you. If you have additional questions on that topic, feel free to take it to my user talk. We need to focus on this deletion discussion in this forum.Erechtheus 08:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep. WP:NOT does not apply to announced events. Add the "upcoming" tag, not delete. Furthermore, it seems to me that the first 3D fighter on a particular game system is a claim of notability. --Gau 05:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
You seem to indicate that this has been announced. Can you provide references? Erechtheus 05:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
KeepNeed more info I can't find it on the gmae maker's website, but it may be too new. The title from the magazine (忍列伝) doesn't search well-- perhaps, I've used the wrong kanji. It's a likely keep, though. But some info and a "future event" tag would be nice. Got the info, added the tag. It's notable enough to keep an announcement article.... However, I think the CVG article structure needs to be re-examined. Creating seperate articles for what are essentially the same games as they are adapted to different gaming systems is a bit much. --Kunzite 06:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:V The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I completely believe you when you say this is a real game, I honestly do. Wikipedia is not a place to get the ZOMG latest news, and if it can't be verified then it should be deleted per policy. Verifiability, not truth. Without a source this article will just be a crap-magnet for rumors and false info, which is one of the reasons we have WP:V. -- Ned Scott 07:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Source? Are you saying that screenshots plus details about the game is insufficient evidence to show that the game exists? This is not a matter of Wikinews on Wikipedia, this is a matter of a notable game on a notable system getting an article because it was announced to exist. The argument that it could be a fake scan is a laughable one. One would have to go to insane measures to get it as detailed as it is. Not only that, but saying a magazine scan could be fake (not on the basis that it looks fake, but on the basis that there have been fakes) creates precedent for not only all magazine scans to be labelled as possible fakes and not suitable for Wikipedia, but also news. Just because you hold a certain site to a higher standard than magazine scans doesn't mean it necessarily is a decent source. Remember when Yahoo! said Andy Kaufman was alive? Either a lie or misinformation on their part. There is no indication that this scan is fake. The place that I found the scan on, NeoGAF, is a constant supplier of magazine scans from Dengeki, CoroCoro Comics, Famitsu and others. Not only that, but it is from 2ch. Guess what they announced?
  • It's a Wonderful World for the Nintendo DS
  • Final Fantasy XII: Revenant Wings for the Nintendo DS
  • Final Fantasy III for the Nintendo DS
  • Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII of the PlayStation Portable
  • Kingdom Hearts II: Final Mix for the PlayStation 2
  • Seiken Densetsu Heroes of Mana for the Nintendo DS

And that's not even the entire list. What you're doing is assuming bad faith in the sources that I am providing. 2ch is the source of much news from Japan, especially from the Famitsu magazine. Do you have a reasoning for why 2ch is not trustworthy? Or why this magazine scan, with incredible detail, screenshots from the game and information from the game, is not a good source? Do you see any single sign that the magazine has been altered in any way imagineable? If not, do not denounce it, treat it as if it wasn't fake, like you do with any decent source. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Wikipedia:Verifiability "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." I'm saying POLICY says that you have FAILED TO PROVIDE THE ADEQUATE SOURCES. This is NOT optional, this is NOT something you get to get pissed off at ME for, this is something that YOU have to do if you wish this article to exist. This is not something that I pulled out of my ass, this is something that everyone has to follow. It doesn't matter if you gave me a copy of the damn game in my own hands, because it's "verifiability, not truth".
The burden is on you to cite sources on that article if you wish it to be kept. You can cry and scream "not fair" as much as you want, but if you used that effort to cite some sources, then I would retract my delete. -- Ned Scott 09:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Do we have reasoning for why 2ch is not reliable? Other than the fact that it's a message board founded on the principle of complete anonymity, where posters' identities are completely unverifiable by design and where absolutely anyone can post absolutely any random claim they like? It's the epitome of unreliability. There is probably not a single site on the web where posts are less trustworthy. — Haeleth Talk 21:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Xiange 11:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless more/better sources are found. Recury 13:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all 'this game has been announced, but nothing is known about it' articles. --InShaneee 15:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

How is this not verifiable? Shall I point out how a whopping none of the people voting delete have even given an ioda of reason to assume that the scan is fake or incorrect? There is no reason to assume that it's fake other than the fact that we do not know what scan it is from.

However, I have done research and can confirm that this is Weekly Jump. It uses a similar style to other Jump magazines, and Weekly Jump is usually the magazine to first confirm a new Naruto game (similar to CoroCoro Comics and Pokémon Diamond and Pearl). This is hardly a bad source. If we do not assume that this magazine scan is a fake, it provides plenty of information. It is not some mysterious game that's nothing more than a name, system and genre; we have screenshots, details on what the touch screen will look like, some of the characters that are available, the visuals (full 3D fighter), the release date (TBA 2006) and other information that can't be assertained from the screenshots. And then we've got the fact that it's published by Takara Tomy. If we got somebody who can read Japanese, we'd have even more information. And if you claim that a scan cannot be a source - if it were uploaded to Wikipedia, it would not need a source to show it exists; because the user could look at the scan and know it exists. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are so sure that all that of that is true, and it's already confirmed, then finding other sources shouldn't be a problem. It's not like Naruto is obscure or anything. Recury 19:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The game was only just announced and only by this magazine. The only sources I could get are news articles about the scan. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete crystalballism. Danny Lilithborne 19:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Everything A Link to the Past has said makes sense -- it's pretty silly to discount this source over any other. That said...is there enough info on the game that it needs an article? This was brought up in another recent game that had a screenshot. The arguments were that the game wasn't developed enough to be notible, and I believe it ended up getting deleted because of that. This was a PC game, however. Honestly, my opinion is that, while the info might be verifyable...the game, at this point, might not be notible enough to have its own page. I'm sure a 'Games Based off Naruto' or somesuch page would be quite sufficient, but that's just IMO. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 19:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Publisher is known, screenshots exist from a reliable source. Seems fine to me, as long as it is updated as information becomes available. - CNichols 20:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not enough is known to justify an article at this stage. No reliable sources are cited (linking to scans posted on a random blog does not meet WP:RS). Come back and create the article when you have something more to say than "little is known at the moment". — Haeleth Talk 21:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    Uh? We don't know enough? I've stated more than enough information not currently present in this article to justify its existence. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Stop. Just stop. Read WP:V and WP:RS. After reading those, if you still think you have reliable sources then read WP:CITE for how to add the sources to the article. Yes, that's right, you need to add the sources to the article itself and not just yell about it here. -- Ned Scott 22:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, and? So if I placed that source on the article, you would suddenly vote to keep? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. No cristall ball. A purple wikiuser 22:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. There's a problem here: if the source said 2ch's random scan, that would not be acceptable as a source, but the source is Weekly Jump (obviously someone would need to corroborate this.) If we don't accept Weekly Jump as a source because few people can access Weekly Jump, it seriously gets close to WP:WING territory. The source would have to be added to the article, of course. ColourBurst 22:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Even if that is an acceptable source (which would need to be corroborated), we have one source. I'd suggest that the standard is two acceptable sources because that is a part of a number of the notability guidelines. Erechtheus 23:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • One trustworthy source is better than two untrustworthy source. If Nintendo confirmed a New Super Mario Bros. 2 for DS, would we need a second source? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes. Recury 23:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
          • That seems a bit inane. To not trust that Nintendo isn't lying about a game in development? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
            • The issue is not truth, as has already been mentioned to you in this discussion. The issue is suitability for coverage in this encyclopedia. Erechtheus 00:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, since when is a magazine not a reliable source? — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 14:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

--Dboocock 14:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Keep http://www.play-asia.com/paOS-17-71-2-74-17a-49-en.html

  • Keep looks like we got the source issue cleared up, as well as a second source from Dboocock. -- Ned Scott 15:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -in my view WP is not a forum for announcing forthcoming games, movies, books or anything else because a balanced encyclopaedic article cannot be written until the product is available to review. BlueValour 02:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep We have sources, that being Weekly Jump. I'd say that's a great source, to boot. When it comes to games, this is the best (and only) source we could get, so I don't see point of even considering deletion of this specific article. If a game's existence can't be proven with just what one company says alone, then all articles of games not having been mentioned by two separete companies need to be removed to keep consistent with the rule. Donkey Kong Country has for instance (and this is just an example for the discussion at hand, which is why I won't go out of my way to hunt for sources - it serves its purpose even if it would've been fake) been talked about by both Rare and Nintendo personell, in which case we have two sources proving the existance of said game(s). But does a game really require a second company to comment it for it to be available to read about on WP?KiddDaBeauty
  • Strong Keep per [11], which shows the release date of "Winter 2006" and the platform of "Nintendo DS". The page it's from is linked from the article at [12]. This article is completely verifiable, and due to the immense popularity of the Naruto series, it's very, very unlikely the game won't come out. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:57, 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of maps in Company of Heroes

Gamecruft at best, provides no useful information to the reader and appears to simply duplicate material from the game manual. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a collection of such information. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 05:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 05:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I agree entirely with the nominator. JIP | Talk 07:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete gamecruft. I think it's pretty funny that there is a "please expand" tag on it! he he he. I'm sure people attacking the expand backlog are real happy to get that sort of stuff. Pascal.Tesson 07:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. And aren't the illustrations copyvios? BTLizard 12:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if other games can have it, dont see why it hurts CoH (Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_maps_in_Battlefield_2 8:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.127.136.104 (talk • contribs) .
    • Other notable games. This game has been out for a week - in what way is it notable? Personally, I think the article you linked to should be deleted as well, and will be considering its nomination when I have the time. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 12:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Manualcruft. Recury 13:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Gundato 21:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a game manual, and this article is certainly one. Text is probably a copvio as well. Wickethewok 23:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above commentary found in "delete" votes. --physicq210 01:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Wryspy 19:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No reason to keep this, esp when there is a fan wiki version of it. --Karafias 04:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A list of maps isn't a game manual. WP:NOT says "This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes." This article is none of the above. And Wikipedia is not paper. Pixelface 00:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I think you need to take a look at the useful information that such an article as this can provide. It can either provide information on how the maps should be played (game-guide), or some information about the maps themselves: their history, significance, and so on. An example of notable, important maps that deserve their own article is at Counter-Strike maps: that article provides wider notes on the actual importance of its subject matter, which itself is important. In what way do these maps meet the same standard of notability? What useful information can this article provide to the reader, since it's currently just a replication of apparently copyrighted material? Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 08:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Use some common sense. If they don't want tutorials, walkthroughs, instruction manuals or video game guides, why would they want a list of maps? Recury 13:28, 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Night Bites

Article contains no real content, and a Google search reveals not much information -- links only to YouTube, Wikipedia mirrors, and blogs. Non-notable and unverifiable. - CheNuevara 05:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I think it is part of Sky TV's programming in the UK. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charlesknight (talk • contribs).
  • Delete per nom. Wryspy 19:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - NN show. BlueValour 02:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We Do It All Vegas

Site doesn't come close to WP:WEB, user's edits have all been used to promote the site/company, article is spammy bit of trivia in any case. 2005 05:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Site and company are not notable. Rray 06:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 07:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nomination, also after reading, may had fell under speedy deletion criteria for articles # 7 as it's a vanity page by the company owner --Sirex98 07:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, non-encyclopedic entry. I have bought books from this company before but hardly consider it worthy of a wiki entry. SmartGuy 13:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.UberCryxic 20:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not a soapbox!!!. Also, the website has an Alexa web traffic ranking of 42,091. --Nishkid64 21:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Wryspy 19:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Yamaguchi先生 05:11, 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 19:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Runescape Quests

This is a game guide, per WP:NOT Also is WP:OR. I vote Delete Hemhem20X6 06:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete, already posted before. already deleted. J.J.Sagnella 06:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment I just didn't know if it qualified for speedy. I thought that if I listed it for Proposed deletion, that the creator would object.
  • Speedy delete by criterion G4: Recreation of RuneScape quests and various similarly named articles (log, AfD). --Huon 13:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
As a non-admin, I couldn't tell the difference between this version and the one deleted earlier. If it is indeed different, delete: Wikipedia is not a game guide. --Huon 21:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - after formerly being de-evolved from summary to titles only and then deleted - can't make a worthwhile article that won't be accused of fancruft. Ace of Risk 15:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as re-created content, if I wanted to find out about specific quests in a game, I'd look on game sites, not an encyclopedic site.--Andeh 16:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - repost, and useless fancruft anyway. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The new article has nothing in common with the older, AfD'ed one (admins: please check here). Therefore, the new article does not qulify for speedy deletion under CSD:G4. It may still qualify for deletion for other reasons, but please address the article itself rather than the irrelevant prior AfD. I removed the Speedy notice; let's complete the process properly. Owen× ☎ 17:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete gamecruft. Danny Lilithborne 19:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete For the simple fact that it a terrible version of the previous article of the same topic. Its terrible, and I cannot see how the creator could imagine it would last. Get rid of it before it tarnishes the RS name anymore. I was hoping this article would be revived, but not in this way - • The Giant Puffin • 19:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Great game, but unfortunately, gamecruft. Many other specific RuneScape articles have also been deleted. --Nishkid64 21:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Speedy Delete if applicable--Edtalk c E 22:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. The processes required to complete individual quests are neither notable nor offer a real insight into RS. An outline of all quests is already available on the RS knowledgebase (official page) and quest walkthroughs are already on several fansites. There are more than one hundred quests on RS, trying to list each, some or even a handful (the criteria for inclusion would be another hurdle) is a lost cause, replicating what's out there and boring readers rigid. The RS wiki would benefit from this sort of information, I'd suggest contributors interested in listing this kind of material would do well to pay the place a visit and have a look around. QuagmireDog 23:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Poorly written, no important information HopesFall 02:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It has no information, is written poorly, and there aren't supposed to be game guides, anyway. -Amarkov 15:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Wryspy 19:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this, but recreate a different version of the article on the same subject that doesn't mimic a terrible version of a fansite guide. Quests are certainly notable, but this article isn't how it should be. 24.66.94.140 23:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Having played RuneScape for over two years, I have closely watched the AFD debates of RuneScape-related articles. While some could certainly be de-crufted, such as RuneScape skills, I don't think it is possible to de-cruft an article about RuneScape quests. Unless you find a way to de-cruft this article, I regrettably have to vote delete. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Reads like a fansite guide. Jam01 07:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's not even accurate. 202.67.95.17 02:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Short not complete and not needed --Blaze1200 15:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DS 18:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Carling

This stub about Hon. Sir Thomas Carling, which has had numerous edits since its creation in June 2005, actually states the key biographical facts of prominent Canadian government figure Sir John Carling who already has a full biographical entry in Wikipedia. In that article, there is a link to John's father, "Thomas Carling", which takes us to this duplicative entry about John Carling's life. The real "Thomas Carling" is not considered notable enough to have any biographical entries in any reference sources. Romanspinner 06:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, unless he was actually born in the same year as his son in which case he is notable just for that. Recury 13:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Richard 20:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Nishkid64 21:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 15:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World Series Wrestling

International Assault article has been deleted, therefore this article serves no purpose Normy132 03:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment why does it follow that the article "serves no purpose"? Not a great article perhaps, but why is WSW to be deleted because one promotion was deleted? --Ogdred 03:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Because that is all WSW ever did. If the promotion only promoted one show and that show has been deemed worthy of being non-notable, why should the promotion be any more notbale thatn the show it promoted? Normy132 04:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. RobJ1981 06:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete given that its notability rests solely on something whose notability was insufficient for inclusion. Looks like wrestlecruft to me. Guy 13:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm detecting a bit of sour grapes here. A quick trip through the (hist) shows that the nominator was the primary editor for this page. It sounds to me that Normy was on the losing end of a AfD debate for the International Assault page, and has decided that it logically follows that WSW is non notable too. I don't agree. Might I suggest that you could combine the old information from the International Assault article into this one, and create one good article from two incomplete ones? --Roninbk 14:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Robinbk. The nom has given no reason to delete here, except the precedent set on a now-deleted article. Ogdred 22:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • "Holy typo, Batman..." --Roninbk 08:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
      • No time for apologies, old chum. We must thwart some criminals. --Ogdred 02:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Olsen 06:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I am withdrawing my AfD. Roninbk raises a good point. Normy132 02:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g7 per author blanking; userfied. NawlinWiki 20:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nikki Saco

Non-notable. --Richard 07:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Looks like aspiring voice actor, with links to her booking pages and blogs, but no credits I can see. Despite her arguments on the article's talk page, I see this as no different than any other performer who does not yet have any professional credits. Fan-1967 13:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete She can come back if she gets some credits. --InShaneee 15:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legalsoup

Recommending delete. Article appears to be about a non-notable organisation in the Channel Islands which offers legal advice or quasi legal advice for a fee. Author of an article (who may be a newbie) seems to have an unlikeable propensity for removing comments from talk pages that he doesn't like. Legis 07:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Basically an advert for nn website (not particularly good advert). Nigel (Talk) 12:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --InShaneee 15:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

OK people - lets be a little dynamic - Mircosoft's website is an advert but the entry is useful for other reasons. Similarly this word is actaully being consider for inclusion in the Oxford concise for 2006 entry. There is some interesting academic debate about the origins, I wrote it up in a very simple way which may be suggestive of advertising but I was following exsisting Wiki protocols. Perhaps some of you may be able to encapsulate or re-write it better than me to address the debate over the term its history and correct usage. --Alexwebpro 12:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - I guess removing the AfD notice will not help your cause Nigel (Talk) 12:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No certainly not Nigel and I was not immediately aware that I had done that when I first edited, so point taken. But what is interesting Nigel is how so many new terms are coming into exsistance and how slow the print editions are to capture them. I recently came across the word 'Bigsmall'which is currently the subject of a car advert but also very similar to the Notorious B.I.G's name Biggie Smalls. Now of course if you look up the definition of that word you will no doubt come across Toyota. I think this raises funadamental questions about where one draws the line. To all of you above try typing 'bigsmall' into google and I am confident that you will come across alot that is connected with Toyota. This could be seen as a form of viral marketing. And yet the word still has meaning independent of the now infamous advertising campaign. My arguement is that 'Legalsoup' falls into this same catagory.--Alexwebpro 13:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. Wryspy 19:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Charlesknight 00:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michelle Hamilton

A biography for a nn writer. More of a promo piece for Child of Chaos, which, assertion aside, appears to be the author's only book. Dragonfly Media Publishing, described as the publisher of Hamilton's "books" is actually a provider of editing and layout services for self-published authors. The novel is available through vanity press lulu.com. Victoriagirl 07:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete along with Child of Chaos as vanity/PR. No evidence of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 09:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both NN author and book. --Charlesknight 12:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment An AfD nomination has now been created for Child of Chaos. Victoriagirl 18:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per my nom. Victoriagirl 18:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, even if you clean up all the ridiculous praise. Danny Lilithborne 19:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete She does not meet WP:BIO and her book does not meet the proposed guidelines WP:BK. Pascal.Tesson 20:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO. --Nishkid64 21:44, 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. DS 19:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infinite nesting

Complete bollocks. Fails to meet just about every criterion for an article. Someone's personal musings. Not much else to be said, really. Perhaps the fact that the author of the article has "licensed" his "theory" under the GPL (and says so in the article) should prove beyond doubt that this is original pseudophysics/pseudophilosophy "research". Byrgenwulf 07:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete per nom as original research. The licensing is indeed a tip-off. --Dhartung | Talk 09:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The licensing convinces me that this is original research, too. Yes, fractal theory talks about fractals having "an infinite nesting of self-similar structure at all scales". That's nothing to do with what this article is propounding. The final statement of the theory, that "we live in an H2 molecule", reminds me of Plutonium Atom Totality Theory. Delete. Uncle G 10:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't be stupid... leave it as is. It just a theory, people must know the alternatives. Such people as you burned Giordano Bruno. If you don't agree, add your arguments. Denis tarasov 10:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a discussion forum for editors to have new theories of physics peer reviewed by other editors. The places for doing that are the many physics journals that exist. Uncle G 11:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:OR. When I first saw this article I contacted the contributor and asked for verifiable sources, but none have been forthcoming. The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Accurizer 11:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll add the citation. About the "license" - this is realy widely known theory. But there are no "oficial" publications on this theory, because of some sort of "short thinking" of some people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Denis tarasov (talk • contribs) 2006-09-18 11:03:46 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:OR and WP:V. Sorry must make your pet theories known and notable elsewhere. Only then they can be considered for inclusion into an encyclopedia. --Pjacobi 11:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Nigel (Talk) 12:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.TheRingess 12:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Charlesknight 13:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. Recury 13:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, because Giordano Bruno got what he deserved. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Gandalf61 14:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — with a hearty laugh and thanks to Smerdis. Anville 19:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above. --Nishkid64 21:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete clear violation of WP:OR. If Delete had been a course-of-action option, Giordano Bruno would not have been burned. We have made some progress in 406 years.Jdclevenger 22:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • My original research? You flatter me. If I am the first, who express this theory, write a Wikipedia article about me ;) Denis tarasov 08:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mingebag

I'm all for putting stuff on Wikipedia that die-hard Wikipedians consider unencyclopedic, but do we really need one for "The name people use in Garry's Mod when they haven't changed their name"? I mean, for crissake, it's the old-fashioned "Player" problem. There ain't no need for it on Wikipedia. (BTW, if I'm really screwing this up, I'm sorry. This sort of thing is a but daunting...) Scumbag 08:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as things made up online one day. --Dhartung | Talk 09:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Deletebag as nom. Not even referenced in the article it refers to. D- for effort. Onebravemonkey 09:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, worst idea for an article I've seen in a while. Recury 13:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dhartung. --Nishkid64 21:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT and above. Wryspy 19:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. Not deleting based on nom; deletions of articles should only happen because of a violation of policies, which nomination doesn't address (formatting is fine, but see if you can find a deletion category that this fits into). Captainktainer * Talk 02:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, gamecruft per WP:NOT and WP:V -- The Anome 18:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

DGG - 25 September 2006 Do not delete, it's usefull information, it teaches you something, and you're just a jackass anyways if you want to bother to delete something like this, like "OMG It's a small article that you will only find if you search for it, it must be the deleted or the wikipedia is teh brokenzor and ccannot be teh healed again!

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dream sharing

  • Keep This is a known shamanistic tenet. Reference Taisha Abelar, The Sorcerer's Crossing.

This "unstudied" and "hypothetical" phenomenon fails the policies on verifiability, original research, and reliable sources, and is utter tripe to boot. Byrgenwulf 08:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Quack-cruft. 205.157.110.11 09:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 09:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 12:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - "never been extensively studied" + "anecdotal evidence" = unencyclopaedic. BTLizard 12:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - besides the reasons mentioned above, I suspect the whole purpose of the article is to provide an advert for the links below. --Charlesknight 12:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • DeleteUnless someone can dig up something verifiable and reputable. Canadian-Bacon t c e 18:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete bollocks. Danny Lilithborne 19:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Nishkid64 21:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it - Sorry if this isnt how I should vote, I checked the guide about it but couldn't understand too well. In my view, this article is a good stub about a relevant fact and should be kept. 200.230.213.152 23:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.UberCryxic 00:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Wryspy 19:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The phenomenon is imaginary, but used extensively in the arts, and (incorrect) belief that the phenomenon could be real or has actually occured to one is widespread. Not much of the current article should be salvaged, but an article or section about this will have to be written at some point. It's not real, but we should have an article about it (see God). RandomP 13:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Yamaguchi先生 05:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is tripe, but it asserts its importance. AfD is premature. Should be edited for WP:V and then brought back for an AfD. JASpencer 09:02, 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 Keep per WP:SNOW. --- Glen 09:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stefan Grun

Prod contested by article creator. Football umpire. Herostratus 08:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - Following the lead of many of the major codes (see the A-League, many of the referees there do) and the List of Australian rules football umpires. It's even referenced, so no problems with verifying the facts. WP:BIO states "Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States." There is absolutely no doubt that umpires are "sportspeople", and they are participating in a fully professional league. I think that the intended meaning of "played" should be assumed to be "participated in". Unless you're denying that the AFL is a "fully professional league". Surely an umpire who has performed at the highest level, in a "fully professional league", should have an article if "articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate". Daniel.Bryant 09:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - I'm not sure if you realise that AFL is the top of Australian rules football. An umpire at that level is definitely notable, I'm sure I can quote WP:BIO on that as well. Also note that the article is entirely verifiable as well, as there is plenty of info about this on the net. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Weak Keep (after re-write with comment below) for same reasons as listed on Damien Sully AfD below. There is the saying that a the very best umps are the ones whose names that you'll never known--namely because they don't end up screwing up a bad call and becoming notorious. By the nature of their profession they are really on the periphey of notability in their sport--important, yes but not really notable. If there was something substantial that happened in their career (again, like a bad call or charges of corruption) then we have something that might be in the ballpark. Right now, this guy is pretty non-descript. 205.157.110.11 09:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment After the re-write, an additional notability factor was introduced for Stefan Grun (the role change following his collision/injury). That extra bit of info works for me, however I'm not swayed on Damien Sully. 205.157.110.11 09:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Well sourced, would be a good article with a little work. --CableModem 09:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:BIO. -- I@n 10:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. While it is not completely clear that umpires qualify as automatically as players, we have set a reasonably low bar in saying that being on the team list is enough. In my experience, football umpires usually become fairly well known even without making particularly notorious decisions (this may reflect the fact that the nature of many of their decisions is such that they are always slightly controversial). Verifiability is not a problem, so there's no harm in keeping it. JPD (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, umpire at the elite level in a high profile national sport, which I think is a category of general notability. --bainer (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have many articles on umpires in other sports, and AFL is no different. Rebecca 22:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above comments. Yamaguchi先生 23:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Ansell 08:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was -KEEP clearly no reason to delete, WP:SNOW. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Damien Sully

Prod contested by article creator. Football umpire. Herostratus 08:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep - I'm not sure if you realise that AFL is the top of Australian rules football. An umpire at that level is definitely notable, I'm sure I can quote WP:BIO on that as well. Also note that the article is entirely verifiable as well, as there is plenty of info about this on the net. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Following the lead of many of the major codes (see the A-League, many of the referees there do) and the List of Australian rules football umpires. It's even referenced, so no problems with verifying the facts. WP:BIO states "Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States." There is absolutely no doubt that umpires are "sportspeople", and they are participating in a fully professional league. I think that the intended meaning of "played" should be assumed to be "participated in". Unless you're denying that the AFL is a "fully professional league". Surely an umpire who has performed at the highest level, in a "fully professional league", should have an article if "articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate". Daniel.Bryant 09:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete I'm not really convinced that an umpire is notable by default. Being a Yank, I compare umpires to the ones that we have in the MLB and the referees in NFL, NHL and NBA and we scarce have articles on them (unless they blow a really bad call). I don't think being an umpire in the highest level of a sport should equate to notability. (The vast, vast majority would fail the 100 year test right off the bat) There should be more to what they have done to establish their notability. 205.157.110.11 09:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - Sully was award VFL Umpire of the year and is absolutely notable - without question - Glen 10:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - while he's umpired at a national level in what is almost the national religion of parts of Australia, this has only been for ten games. Most of his umpiring has been at VFL (which in this case means the Victorian competition, not the old name of the AFL, which is an important distinction). The award being cited by another editor is at the state level (sub-national), where most of his experience is drawn from. A achievement, nonetheless, but less of one than is being suggested here. Frankly, I think there would be many more notable umpires than this gentleman, but there may just be enough of a reason to keep him in. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 10:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Daniel. -- I@n 10:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: We have a few baseball umpire articles and I wouldn't vote to delete others if they were added. Major leagues only of course as is the case here. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. While it is not completely clear that umpires qualify as automatically as players, we have set a reasonably low bar in saying that being on the team list is enough. In my experience, football umpires usually become fairly well known even without making particularly notorious decisions (this may reflect the fact that the nature of many of their decisions is such that they are always slightly controversial). Verifiability is not a problem, so there's no harm in keeping it. JPD (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, umpire at the elite level in a high profile national sport, which I think is a category of general notability. 2004 VFL umpire of the year winner, to ice the cake and leave no doubt in this case. --bainer (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Top-level umpires are notable. Rebecca 22:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Has umpired at the top of his sport more than once... Overall seems like a decent article, and well referenced, why bust him out just because? If he gets better its all good but the current article is not violating any policies. Ansell 06:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wolfchild (band)

Author contested speedy but has been significantly improved since then. Still don't think it meets WP:MUSIC. MER-C 09:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

So what should be done to the article, then? The appearance is good now, but I take it that the band is not good enough :) ? Well it's quite true that the band is not Metallica-big-and-famous, but it's done a quite notable career to their first album and recording deal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kimtuomi (talk • contribs).

  • Delete per WP:NMG. PJM 11:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, maybe the band is good but they don't seem popular enough yet for an article. Read WP:MUSIC. Recury 13:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. --Nishkid64 21:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The band looks like it might pass "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...). " If it doesn't, recreate the article when you can prove that it does. Kappa 07:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Wryspy 19:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ambat

This article does not meet the notabiltity criteria. Clt13 09:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete not suitable verifiability to show notability. --InShaneee 15:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not-notable. There have been similar articles that also were nominated for deletion. --Nishkid64 21:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Wryspy 19:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - Needs to give citation for prominence or more defined reasons other than "prominent". Can't simply say "prominent". JASpencer 07:56, 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 19:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mobigo... Mobile Information Services

Advert. Non notable fails WP:CORP.Bad article title. Dweller 09:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Spamgasmic. 205.157.110.11 09:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, total advert. Budgiekiller 09:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam. MER-C 09:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Also, there are only 818 G-hits. --Nishkid64 21:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Wryspy 19:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Spambigone. --Canley 22:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikikob 12:47, 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 flagged as copyvio. MER-C 11:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish Thief Pouter

Notability per WP:N of this pigeon breeders club (if that's what the subject actually is? or is it the breed?). Content from [13], apparently posted by the author of that page. Prod removed, but no attempt to improve, wikify or cleanup since page was created. Clappingsimon talk 10:08, 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, due to lack of sourcing and evidence of use. Petros471 16:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mobile widgets

Article lacks notability and to a lesser extent, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Senordingdong 10:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Transwiki per nom. MER-C 11:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per nom. JASpencer 10:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence provided that this terms is even used. --Peta 04:11, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2009-10 in English football

Previous Afd was closed as "no consensus", however this was also an Afd on 2008-09 in English football. Although I feel that article could also be deleted, this one certainly should be since it clearly falls under WP:NOT and contains no useful information, nor can it for a considerable amount of time. QmunkE 10:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MER-C 11:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. PJM 11:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. I do think history should be written after the event, not before. BTLizard 12:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Charlesknight 12:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - too soon. Bridgeplayer 16:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Oldelpaso 18:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Oldelpaso 18:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - no relevant, concrete information about it can be produced about it yet. Qwghlm 18:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no interesting information. Punkmorten 19:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above. Like others said, it's way too early. --Nishkid64 21:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Premature. 23skidoo 13:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This page it totaly pointless. There is no usefull information whatsoever and is way too early. mattyatty 16:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Wryspy 19:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per all the above. Recreate around May 2009. - fchd 19:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete tells the reader absolutely nothing of value. Cool3 22:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Tells us no actual information. Mattythewhite 19:37, 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 merge and redirect to human echolocation --- Deville (Talk) 15:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Underwood

Originally prodded by Rey Brujo with the following text:

Unluckily, being the first one to get a Wii is not enough to become notable for Wikipedia. Thousands are featured in several TV shows, but that doesn't mean it is necessary to have his article. The notability guidelines give two guides that may be applied: Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events (appearing on a TV program or getting a Wii before launch date aren't a newsworthy event) and The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.) (which is what is happening with him).

I'm personally not quite sure about whether or not this qualifies as a single day's news event, nor am I convinced that TV appearances such as the Ellen Degeneres show are non newsworthy. Thus I am posting this debate for the full AfD review Roninbk 10:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Neutral, (Leaning towards Keep) --Roninbk 10:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to human echolocation, since he is not notable outside this area (the other "notable" events are as a result of this ability). Most of the information is already in that article. Yomanganitalk 10:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Excellent idea, That article is much better than this one anyways. I think I can do this merge myself. --Roninbk 10:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Take a look at human echolocation and let me know if this is a workable solution. If so, can we go ahead and redirect? --Roninbk 11:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
        • It looks OK. I'd personally like to get an opinion from the creator before we close this early as a redirect. I'll leave them a note. Yomanganitalk 11:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and toss all that Wii garbage. --InShaneee 15:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to human echolocation. While interesting, this article lacks sufficient depth to stand alone. Also, the Wii stuff is silly. - CNichols 20:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge You guys are welcome to do what you think best, I have relatively little experience when it comes to making entries. - Darkchun 13:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yarrr

A project which existed for six months and failed to produce anything. Is this actually of any importance? I can't see any. Guy 10:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - "Yarrr appears to have died in August 2005. It's not clear that any useful software was produced". Says it all, really. BTLizard 12:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Just in time for Talk Like a Pirate Day. —Ben FrantzDale 12:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not worth an entry. Bridgeplayer 16:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT and above. Wryspy 19:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I created first version of the article, probably prematurely. Mike Linksvayer 22:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not even near WP:NOT Echalone 00:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Totalformat

Article about a website that does not assert notability. MER-C 11:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Onebravemonkey 11:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - there are many internet discussion forums and nothing special about this one. Bridgeplayer 16:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This does not assert notability. Daniel's page ☎ 02:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Wryspy 19:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was flagged as copyvio. MER-C 11:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Conover

Contested "prod", although the original author User:Peterconover did not remove the "prod". Reason for prod: Vanity page, possible copyright violation. Aleph-4 11:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Super Sentinels

A contested PROD, this comic appears to be published nowhere. A question about where it might be found has languished, unanswered, on the talk page for a week. Joyous! | Talk 11:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable. --InShaneee 15:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this sham. Wryspy 19:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - a profoundly un-notable article about a profoundly un-notable website. BlueValour 01:23, 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 19:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Galvanick lucipher

The topic is a throw-away jokey neologism from a novel for a mad-scientist torch. While funny, the quote may be copyvio. In addition, there is the usual nn blogcruft. Leibniz 11:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - fancruft and as per nom. MER-C 11:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per fancruft. --Nishkid64 21:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.UberCryxic 00:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, for same reasons -Mang 04:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per Criteria for Speedy Deletion G1 ("patent nonsense") - Tangotango 12:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oevachinikosophobia

Please! This is pointless, to say the very least! This is just taking up space on a great website for nothing. Dtxn 00:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - seems like patent nonsense (csd g1). Tagged as such. MER-C 12:07, 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 delete both, original research, author created four articles based solely on his own nonnotable MA thesis. NawlinWiki 14:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rightsproletariat

Appears to be original research -- the article creator's own theory about class organization. This theory does not seem to be recognized or supported by other sources. FreplySpang 11:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I am also nominating Religiousproletariat, a coordinating article created by the same author, based on the same theory. FreplySpang 11:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom abakharev 11:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - original research, confirmed by the article's history. BTLizard 12:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete along with the whole nest of coordinated articles on NN MSc thesis and James Yaraskavitch. Leibniz 13:26, 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. DS 19:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sydney Strip Clubs

This article is extremely poorly written, contains information taken from other articles, and is about nothing other than a website that lists strip clubs. Clearly, this was written to promote a website and not for any informational purpose. The user User:Alan harada spammed multiple articles with external links on the same day this article was created. I hereby nominate it for deletion as it contains little information and is clearly designed to promote a website. Monkeybreath 23:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Article is not very coherent, and only purpose seems to be to promote a website. JPD (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- JPD (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, for the same reasons JPD gave. JPG-GR 01:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete.--Peta 03:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete incoherent version of information that already exists in other articles, with linkspam for extra flavour. Lankiveil 10:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete on the grounds of the article being created as spam. No opinion on whether or not strip clubs are notable, and you can quote me on that! Andjam 11:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Wryspy 19:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per Criteria for Speedy Deletion A7 (unremarkable group) - Tangotango 12:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wofl roflers

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 12:05, 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. DS 18:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archimedes Plutonium

Non-notable. Various other attempts to delete by speedy (and otherwise), but none asking the general Wikipedia community for their opinions. Mike Peel 12:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep I'd say this is one of the few examples in which someone is notable as a crank. He has fame of sorts. Leibniz 12:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This guy is a legendary and inventive crank, who was a notable part of the Usenet culture in the early-mid 1990s. Wasted Time R 12:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, a notable net legend. Kusma (討論) 12:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Definitely notable - well known on Usenet. Gandalf61 14:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, legendary. Might pass the 100-year test if it were a criteria of WP:BIO, for what that's worth.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 20:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep widely known crank and net legend. - CNichols 21:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. He's definitely notable. --Nishkid64 22:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- ~PinkDeoxys~ 23:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above comments. Yamaguchi先生 23:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for no other reason than to inform that a genuine person exists and has the legal name of Archimedes Plutonium. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.16.56.203 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Lee (occultist)

Obscure occultist. Notability not asserted. Leibniz 12:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Not a speedy, "works" section asserts notability. MER-C 13:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO. --Nishkid64 22:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Not much to the stub, but he's an interesting character. Someone could certainly expand this, IMO. Foolio93 22:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - for now. Thus guy might well be notable but the link to his website doesn't work and without sources it is impossible to see compliance with WP:V. I have no objection to him trying to come back with a sourced article. BlueValour 01:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn or, at least, apparently so. As above, needs sources to say otherwise. Marcus22 17:00, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Long

Non-notable collectible card player. Does not meed criteria at WP:BIO. Violates WP:BLP due to not being sourced. Delete -- Malber (talk • contribs) 12:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep. Again, there are plenty of sources out there on him (see [14] for some hits in books, and this is pretty authorative. Very well-known in MTG circles. There is no reason to delete this: WP:BIO is met, and the article DOES follow WP:BLP enough to be kept, since all negative claims are specifically sourced. Mangojuicetalk 13:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, let me point out this precedent. Mangojuicetalk 13:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • You don't see getting banned as unsourced negative material? Also see this precendent for the notability of CCG players: Roy St. Clair. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Please review WP:POINT. That your CCG player gets deleted is no reason to attempt deleting other CCG players. Kusma (討論) 14:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
        • (Edit conflict, addressed at Malber's comment) I see your WP:POINT. You didn't want Roy St. Clair deleted, but it was anyway, so you nominated several top Magic players for deletion. I'm changing my vote to speedy keep now, as it's apparent this is a bad-faith nomination. Mangojuicetalk 14:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep as I see at least two criteria for which this person applies. See number 1 (widely recognized) and number 5(professional league or equivalent). There is a pro-tour level play league, and even a Hall of Fame. Mister.Manticore 13:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep well at least this article is kind of sourced. I'd like to see better sourcing though...--Isotope23 20:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep In my opinion, an article should be added to and improved, not deleted, if it is not well sourced. Unless of course there is no reputable information that can be added. That is clearly not the case here. There's plenty of info on Mike Long, even with a minimal google search, as others have pointed out. 128.36.59.175 21:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If this can be well cited, then the citations belong in the article, not just in the AFD debate. - Jmabel | Talk 22:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is a living person. WP:BLP applies. Uncited accusations of cheating, etc., are a clear violation of WP:BLP. - Jmabel | Talk 22:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • True, but WP:LIVING doesn't say Delete pages where there's any unsourced, negative material it says delete any unsourced, negative material. We don't nominate George W Bush for deletion every time it's changed to say he's a dictator (which is a fuckin' lot). WilyD 13:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for meeting WP:BIO but remove any unsourced allegations per our living persons policy. Yamaguchi先生 22:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Mike Long's suspension is a matter of record with Wizards and there are numerous articles about it, both in print, and on the web. It is certainly verifiable. Mister.Manticore 23:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. --Nlu (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep what Yamaguchi said.  ALKIVAR™ 01:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - sourced, encyclopaedic. Passes letter and spirit of WP:BIO. WilyD 12:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have removed a large amount of unsourced attack material from the article. I've never played M:TG, and from my perspective, the criticisms leveled against this person need to be sourced before we can include them. The three incidents which cite sources are still there. —ptk✰fgs 15:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, possible speedy keep, per all previous keeps. Stifle (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP. Notable and accurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.160.116.28 (talk • contribs).
  • Weak Keep Article seems to pass WP:BIO. If kept, article should be cleaned up to conform to NPOV and WP:BLP. --Storkk 15:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please the article is sourced now and passes or bio guideline Yuckfoo 04:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magic: The Gathering people

This article is merely a collection of information and thus violates WP:NOT. It also lacks sources to justify it's notability outside the realm of Magic:The Gathering. Delete -- Malber (talk • contribs) 12:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Looks like a whole nest of fancruft and vanity. Leibniz 13:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - listcruft, fancruft and vanity. MER-C 13:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's a collection of trivia. If these points are interesting and important enough, they could be discussed in Magic:The Gathering. Mangojuicetalk 13:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment. As I was the one who originally off-loaded the Pro Tour part of the list into this article from the main Magic: The Gathering article, they are nowhere near interesting and important enough to go in the main article, which is already a bit over-long. If this article is deleted, there is no place to merge to (not that that's a bad thing). SnowFire 21:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as the article itself could be merged in the main MTG article, but that article itself has a request not to add new content due to length, so keeping it seperate may be best for now. Content could use some work though. Mister.Manticore 14:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Information useful to noone. --InShaneee 15:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, as clearly there are tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people playing in sanctioned tournaments, which is only a small percentage of the Magic-playing population, of which it is a given there are people who are important enough to be notable and therefore need articles. Organizing this information is also important. Mister.Manticore 16:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this is a bit of a catch-all isnt' it? I don't see the purpose of this article. Creators and Support Staff should be listed in the main MtG article. NetReps don't need to be mentioned (none of them meet WP:BIO anyway)... same with the Fans. Pro Tour memebers would be better displayed in a Category or List of MtG Pro Tournament Players.--Isotope23 20:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the Netreps section can probably be deleted, but if you agree about the rest of the content being keepable, then I ask you consider whether enlarging that article any further is desirable. Mister.Manticore 20:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I didn't say the rest was necessarily Keepable, though I think a list of Tournament Players could be kept, but that should be a category or List of Magic: The Gathering Tournament Players with the caveat that they must all meet WP:BIO to be listed there. The rest of the people in the current article don't meet WP:BIO as far as I can tell, so I don't see the purpose of a catch-all article with various lists of people with differing connections to M:TG, any of whom don't meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 00:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there is Category:Magic: The Gathering players already, but I think that's too specific, since there are people such as creators, writers and artists who might warrant mention as magic related, but not for playing, especially not in tournaments, yet it might be good to have a category for people involved with the game. Mister.Manticore 00:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
IMO, creators, writers, and artists should be mentioned in the main M:TG article (if they don't meet WP:BIO, or in a category if they meet WP:BIO (as is done with)... at the very least they should be at a List of Magic: The Gathering Creative Staff.--Isotope23 14:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete only because this should be a category. -- Grev 23:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Peta 23:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Per bad-faith nom (see discussion at Jon Finkel). The Netreps and fans sections could be cut out, but otherwise I think this could be a worthwhile list. Professionals and game designers seems an acceptable and maintainable inclusion criteria. Irongargoyle 23:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete crying out to be a category rather than an article. Not an encyclopedic list. MLA 10:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:LIST - These people aren't notable outside of magic is a pretty weak argument - olympic athlete aren't usually notable outside the olympics, et cetera - they all pass WP:BIO in letter and spirit. WilyD 13:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, the biggest problem though is that this is a muddled amalgam of people with varying relations to the game. The criteria for inclusion is vague or non-existant. Even the parts that may merit inclusion should be broken out into separate lists and categories where the criteria for inclusion is solidly defined.--Isotope23 14:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Would you prefer I said keep per WP:SUMMARY ? WilyD 15:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, you can cite any guidelines you choose Wily... I simply disagree with keeping this. Anything salvagable should be moved to a more logical place (per my comments above) and this namespace should be deleted. Besides, I don't see how WP:SUMMARY even applies here...--Isotope23 19:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The notable ones have their own articles, the rest are sub-trivial. I used to play Magic a bit in school, and I doubt that myself or anyone I played with knew or cared what the names of the "netreps" were either then or now. The creators have their own articles and are mentioned in the main article, while the players (most of whom I'm not convinced are encyclopedic, but that's another debate) have a category Category:Magic: The Gathering players. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is this nomination a WP:POINT - and if so, what is the point itself?? --LiverpoolCommander 14:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Some Yu-Gi-Oh card player got deleted. WilyD 15:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Replace with category, although I think this list is as notable, if not more so, than many others, like List of Norwegian photographers, List of dance style categories, List of German-language philosophers, and List of drugs known to cause paranoia. Stifle (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Wryspy 19:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, condider renaming to List of notable Magic: The Gathering players or similar.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I agree, any article or list that ends in the word "people" just seems awkward. Irongargoyle 02:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As one of the NetReps, I find it mildly amusing that some Wiki guardians - who have no concept of who I may be, nor what contributions I might make - find those things to be trivial. I'm left with a simple conclusion - delete, since it makes you happy. Certainly, I don't care if Wikipedia immortalizes me or my peers. SleazyOtto 18:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The reasoning used here by SleazyOtto does not conform to anything outlined in any policies that WP has on article {in,ex}clusion. Also (only slightly related) see semi-precedent of Angela Beesley's multiple AfD's, where no consensus was reached and it was (it seems) generally felt that User:Angela's wishes to be removed do not trump WP:BIO. Storkk 15:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and create a category. In my opinion, a list would smell crufty. --Storkk 15:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and create a category - the ebcyclopaedic content can easilly be incorporated into the main article. BlueValour 01:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WilyD writes: "These people aren't notable outside of magic is a pretty weak argument - olympic athlete aren't usually notable outside the olympics". Olympic athletes are written about in NUMEROUS VERIFIABLE sources, in media outside of themselves, magi-thletes are not. Guyanakoolaid 10:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. We seem to have gone to a standard where any olympic athlete is considered notable for purposes of inclusion. I'm not saying there is a problem with this; but particularly with the minor athletes who don't place in the olympics--but do participate--I bet you would be hard pressed to find "numerous verifiable sources" (at least those which are easy to find). Certainly fewer reliable sources exist for them than the major Magic: The Gathering players listed on this page. Irongargoyle 15:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Not just any olympic athlete rates for inclusion. The subject has to perform at the "highest level." The reason for deletion or inclusion of this list is not whether or not the list members are notable, it's whether or not the list members meet the exclusion critera of WP:NOT. However, the list also fails to state is reason for being a list and fails several points of WP:LIST. Many delete nominators are correct: this should be a category. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Notable entries already have articles, this list should be a category. -- Norvy (talk) 15:29, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikispiracy

Non notable per WP:WEB. 21 articles since 1st Jan says a lot. Dweller 13:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 13:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. I would also discourage the creator of this article from writing about projects he is involved in and writing about himself per WP:VANITY. Wickethewok 14:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; no WP:RS indicating that site meets WP:WEB. It was created a few days ago... WP:CHILL applies. --Kinu t/c 16:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB.-- danntm T C 16:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. Simões (talk/contribs) 17:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete conspiracycruft and per everyone. Danny Lilithborne 19:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Brand new project, no notability achieved yet. Wikipedia is not for promoting new ventures. Fan-1967 20:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB. --Nishkid64 23:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Yamaguchi先生 23:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. Wikipedia is not a wiki directory. eaolson 23:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Wryspy 19:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The project has been live for three days. This violates so many policies and guidelines- WP:WEB, verifiability, reliable sources, notability, crystal balling, and more. --Wafulz 04:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Wafulz. GassyGuy 08:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB Echalone 23:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


Comments

[edit] why this article is of benefit to readers of an encyclopedia.

[edit] Purpose of article

The article is intended as a short article which will provide the reader with an understanding of the wikispiracy project.

  • To describe the wiki in a manner that is in keeping with other articles on wikis that are currently listed
  • To include the wiki in the wikipedia List of wikis page
[edit] What it is not
  • This article is in no way intended as a form of self promotion. I note user:Wickethewok's comments. (I have removed the small reference to my submission of articles to the wikispiracy. This was an oversight on my behalf)
  • It is not intended as a form of promotion of the site which went live (was put available on the Internet) only a few days ago.
  • It does not contain any original material
If it went live only a few days ago how is even it notable? Unless 10,000 users appeared from the heavens making it an amazing event that wikipedia must report about? come back in twelve months --Charlesknight 22:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Personal note

I was somewhat amazed at the overzealous rapidity of this marking for deletion. I think the actual article was up for literally seconds before it was earmarked for annihilation. At least this provides evidence that the Wikipedia is an active thriving community.

I also respect the Wikipedia for being an open project. It is a project built upon open source software and open thinking. No corporation nor any government could have created such a successful project as the wikipedia which largely survives on the free energy and enthusiasm of unpaid yet very loyal people. Irrespective of what the wikipedian community has decided of and about itself, there is indeed an uplifting and empowering feeling that comes from such success. zorg 16:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technical note

This project went live 15 September 2006. It runs entirely on open source software including mediawiki-1.6.8 using PHP 4 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zorgrian (talk • contribs) 11:01, 18 September 2006.

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Anderson (pastor)

He does not meet WP:BIO. "Planting churches" might be a notable and important activity to the people who attend those churches, but for the rest of the world it's just not a significant achievement. -IceCreamAntisocial 13:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. I suspect he is at least borderline notable, as a regional and international leader of a significant Christian denomination. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --InShaneee 15:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete He's a mid-level beaurcrat in a loose association of churches. Even the head leader of most Protestant denominations is barely notable, given the decentralized nature of most such organizations and the limited publicity the leader gets.--Prosfilaes 22:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Prosfilaes, there are thousands of people in the world who could fit this profile. WU03 00:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Wryspy 19:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep A regional pastor and director of a church with a weekly attendance of 10K+ (25K+ plus after facility expansion), influential in the Vineyard movement. J henry waugh 17:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - the article does him no service, lacking independent sourcing that is needed for verifiable notability. BlueValour 02:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - he runs a substantial church and is influential in the Vineyard movement which is itself a significant part of the Evangelical movement. JASpencer 06:41, 23 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, Mailer Diablo 15:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nn pastor. -- No Guru 18:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete To those who argue his stature in the Vineyard movement, I took a look at Association of Vineyard Churches, There is only one other person on the Board of Directors who has a separate article, and that is due to his notability in his own right as an author. Everyone else is a red link, including the National Director. --Roninbk t c # 23:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Look at this search: [15] 13 hits, one of which is this article. (I didn't want to google just his name because it's far too common). Ultra-Loser Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites 05:35, 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Isweden

Contested prod about a non-notable website. MER-C 13:17, 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 keep, WP:POINT. Kusma (討論) 14:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kai Budde

Non-notable collectible card player. Does not meed criteria at WP:BIO. Violates WP:BLP due to not being sourced. Not notable outside the realm of Magic:The Gathering. Delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Malber (talk • contribs) .

  • Keep. Does meet WP:BIO criteria. WP:BIO talks about athletes, but I think it clearly extends to competitors like Kai. There are plenty of sources out there on him; see this for instance, which is a published book, that describes Kai as "the best player in the world as of this writing." Lots of columns published on the Wizards site too. If it needs better sourcing, it should be fixed, not deleted. We shouldn't have articles on every Magic player with some success, but even if we could only have 5, this guy would definitely be one of them. And there's no reason not to cover the MTG corner of the world: Wikipedia is not paper. Mangojuicetalk 13:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as he is clearly notable and verifiable. Mister.Manticore 14:03, 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 speedy keep, nom withdrawn. Mangojuicetalk 16:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mong

An unneeded disambiguation page, and one previously deleted: Mong (AfD). All three uses given are basically slurs; encyclopedic uses of those terms will be extremely rare. (See Spong for one of two examples that uses "mong"). The existence of this page, when it isn't useful as a disambiguation page, amounts to a dicdef. Mangojuicetalk 13:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. According to Hmong_people, the Hmong are sometimes called the Mong. Of course, in English 'Mong' is far more often used as a slur against the mentally handicapped, as a contraction of 'Mongoloid'. I'm rewriting the disambig to more adequately reflect this. mgekelly 00:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above. --physicq210 01:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep To be specific, "Mong" refers to people who speak the Mong Leng dialect of the "Hmong" language. Based on recent calls for more recognition of Mong Leng culture and language (especially within the United States) it is likely that more people will searching for this term.--Nposs 04:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I just looked at the previous AFD for this article and it was very poorly handled. The nominator actually wanted it redirected to Hmong, which s/he should have done him/herself rather than taking it to AFD. Understandably, once it was up here, other editors supported this nom as if it were a deletion, but without producing new arguments, and an admin wrongly took this to be a consensus decision to delete. Really I despair of the way people treat AFD as if it were a vote. mgekelly 06:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - That mentally handicapped people are referred to as "mong"s should be sourced. If it's removed (as bollocks), this should be a redirect to Hmong --Storkk 15:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
In response to this, I looked the word up in the OED. The OED points to an obselete verb usage meaning to trade, a contraction of 'among' and two noun usages, namely as a contraction of 'mongrel' and pejoratively in this sense, and as a pejorative British term to mean a stupid or mentally incapable person, but the OED does not give an etymology from 'Mongoloid', or any etymology for this usage at all.
Interestingly, the OED does not list the Hmong meaning, or indeed the word "Hmong".
I shall change the disambig to cite the OED on this. mgekelly 16:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the comments above. Yamaguchi先生 07:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MK8

An eighth Mortal Kombat title may be under development, but this article appears to be complete speculation, with no sources to back it up. RobWill80 13:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christine Davison

Contested WP:PROD. Depending on how notable astrologers are, potential speedy deletion candidate per WP:CSD#A7 for not sufficiently asserting notability of the subject. Original PROD concern was "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The article as it stands doesn't explain why Davison is notable, per Wikipedia notability criteria. Searching Google didn't turn up a single external reference to her work.". Delete unless reliable sources show the person's notability. Kusma (討論) 13:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Also, there are <1000 hits for her on Google, and her website doesn't show up Alexa. --Nishkid64 23:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but modify. Author of the article chiming in here. We should stress that Christine Davison is really a local personality to the Atlantic Canada region and perhaps the article should stress this more. We'd be willing to modify the article to have more emphasis on her local work. We'd also be willing to list her current publications for credibility purposes and remove references to her website as it is in a state of transition. For the record, Christine is currently writing for Atlantic Canada publications under "Advocate Publishing" "902 magazine" and "The Source". If more references are required and there is consensus for changing content, we'd be happy to comply. Sjsandford 21:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • If you can modify the article to show that it meets the inclusion criteria at WP:BIO, please go ahead. I don't see any third-party sources writing about her so far. Kusma (討論) 08:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay, thank you. We'll do our best. She'll be on the cover of several Advocate Media inc publications for October 2006 as the cover story doing a special seasonal article and profile. We'll cite them. I know this is small fry local fame but I hope it fits the bill. Sjsandford 21:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Peta 04:08, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World's Worst Girlfriend

In an attempt to stop advertising at List of webcomics, a requirement is that all links must lead to an article. So when this webcomic was removed for having no article, the obvious thing to do is to create one, and then return to webspamming. This article asserts no claim to notability, the webhost has no Alexa rank and the article reads like the advert that it is. - Hahnchen 13:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy keep (bad faith), nominator is annoyed about the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy St. Clair and is taking it out on Magic player articles. Mangojuicetalk 14:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jon Finkel

This article was kept after a previous nomination for deletion, however there have been no substantial reliable sources included to substantiate this subject's notability. Much of the article is original research. Inclusion of this private person's biography is unsuitable per WP:BLP. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 13:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Previous discussion here. Kusma (討論) 13:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, appears notable and sourceable per this book. Kusma (討論) 13:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Sources need to be included in the article. Plus that book is about poker, not his achievements in M:TG. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 13:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Same reason, it is sourcable, and verifable. Whups, forgot to Mister.Manticore 13:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable champion, passes WP:BIO. --Nishkid64 14:01, 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 and redirect to Milwaukee School of Engineering --- Deville (Talk) 16:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MSOE Architectural Engineering Program

I don't think this university program is notable enough to have it's own entry on WP (I might be wrong :)) -- lucasbfr talk 14:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This nomination was incomplete. Fixed now. Yomanganitalk 13:59, 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. Redirect is optional. - Mailer Diablo 15:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heavenly Hiraani Tiger Lily Hutchence

This is a good faith deletion. I promise. While this name is fabulous, the article makes no reference to anything notable this person has done. So what if she carries a picture of her dead dad (the INXS dude) around. OK, her parents are famous (Paula Yates and Michael Hutchence) but this article doesn't talk about Tiger Lily, apart from where her name comes from. Plus, she's only ten and few ten year olds have done anything famous - Some ppl will name some now, but don't bother. Her sister Peaches Geldof deserves an article cos she has done shows. But not Tiger Lily, imho. --Dangherous 14:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC) Dangherous 14:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - should be mentioned on her parents' pages, not her own. BTLizard 14:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per BTLizard. Legis 15:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete/redirect. Needs her own notability for her own page. JPD (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - this is similar to the Suri Cruise Deletion process. --Dangherous 17:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to one of her parents (I'm not picky about which one). Her notability can only be derived at present from that of her parents, which isn't enough (Andre Agassi's son and Katie Holmes' daughter being relevant cases here). Looking at the record of her elder sister and parents, chances are we'll hear from her in some capacity within the decade or so, but not just now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 21:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - all good reasons above. Caulfield14 20:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to one of the parents. --Storkk 15:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect Could feature her as part of her father's/mother's page like Angelina's children?
  • Delete or Redirect Just don't Keep it. Mad Jack 20:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University Hill Elementary School

This is an article on an elementary school (the editors'?} in Canada, with no reason given why this subject is noteworthy (other than to the children who go to the school and their parents). There are more elementary schools throughout the world than there are articles in Wikipedia. Unless a grade school is really noteworthy (ie. Columbine High School), it should not be the subject of a Wiki article. Askolnick 14:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Repaired AfD.--Andeh 14:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing. Askolnick 14:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep For reasons explained at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. This article is part of a complete series covering education in Vancouver, British Columbia. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 16:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The purpose of the WP:EiC project is to create complete entries for all Canadian schools which is an encyclopedic goal in itself. Deletion of indivdual articles harms this effort. Unless a claim can be made about the quality and validity of the article the article should stay. --Wakemp 17:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I question the editorial wisdom of any project that opens up Wikipedia to articles on every grade school within any country. What about the New South Wales school system in Australia? Should we have a Wiki article on every grade school there? Or how about every grade school in China - a country that is increasingly objecting to Western cultural imperialism. I personally would like to create articles on P.S. 115 and P.S. 172 in Queens, New York. I fail to see the logic of creating Wiki articles for every grade school in any one nation. There are probably more than 100 million grade schools throughout the world. If "creating complete entries for all Canadian schools" is an "encylopedic goal in itself," why not create a separate Wiki encyclopedia on "Education in Canada" and head off the problem of nationalistic educators competing for the most Wiki articles? If I'm missing an important reason for creating a separate Wikipedia article on every school in Canada, please let me know.Askolnick 17:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment
* What about the New South Wales school system in Australia?, I personally would like to create articles on P.S. 115 and P.S. 172 in Queens, New York. - I would support any other project from Australia or New York that wanted to do the same thing.
* I fail to see the logic of creating Wiki articles for every grade school in any one nation. It continues to stun me what harm these types of AfDs are trying to protect Wikipedia from. I could also list reams of other types of articles that I have no interest but I would stop short of saying they shouldn't be allowed (Ball Parks, Xbox Games, Anime characters come to mind). I don't object to them and I would expect the same consideration.
* why not create a separate Wiki encyclopedia on "Education in Canada" and head off the problem of nationalistic educators competing for the most Wiki articles? If necessary I would put up my own wiki but I thought the reason wikipedia was here was to collect information not fragment it. Again the great concern seems to be what if everyone did this - that would be awesome, that would be wonderful. Wikipedia could engage educators and students all over the world that would create a generation of wiki contributors. That is why I do it and I contribute $$ to the wikimedia foundation instead running my own server. If someone is so worried about a few MB of disk space send me the bill would happily pay it. --Wakemp 18:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, but ball parks, Xbox Games, Anime characters and such are of interest to many people around the world. What I'm asking is who is interested about this elementary school - other than its students, their parents and teachers, and some of the people involved in the school system in Vancouver, Canada? If your goal is to put everything in the world inside of Wikipedia, no matter how unimportant, we already have something a bit like that. It's called the Internet. Askolnick 04:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
And I said that was fine, if you want your silly little games in Wikipedia. I don't AfD those, and I was asking for the same consideration. But when you compare a school (real physical structure that thousands of students go through and that serves a community) to a fictional animated character - I don't feel there is any need for me to have to continually justify the existence of a school in Wikipedia. You can continue to assurt that notability is your standard, it juts isn't mine. --Wakemp 15:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Being part of a wikiproject does not mean an article is encyclopedic. Like most articles on elementary schools, this seems more like a puffed-up directory listing. Agent 86 21:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Buchanan-Hermit; the article is well written, verifiable, and part of a series. Yamaguchi先生 22:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but this argument does not seem to make sense. An article can be well-written and verifiable and yet be about something utterly unnoteworthy. The most well-written and verifiable description of the puddle of rainwater on the street where I live (it's pouring out) would neither be noteworthy or Wikiworthy. As for being part of a series, stringing unnoteworthy articles together into a series will only provide you an unnoteworthy series. Please, will someone explain what is acutally noteworthy about the subject of this article. I'm dying of curiosity. Askolnick 04:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable and useful article to local people. Wikipedia is not paper so we can have this kind of information. bbx 22:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Query How is it notable? How is it useful? Being a "local people", I fail to understand either point. Agent 86 23:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, encylopedic topic and content, valuable part of the 'wiki encyclopedia on "Education in Canada' suggested above. I don't agree with splitting WP into separate General and Specialist volumes, but a proposal like that should be made from the top, not by an individual AFD. Kappa 07:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This was previously a K12 school, so the nomination's suggestion that it's merely an elementary school is misleading. Kappa 07:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment And this makes it noteworthy how? Askolnick 03:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as the article is part of a WikiProject. Issues regarding the appropriateness of a WikiProject need to be discussed elsewhere, though remember that Wikipedia is not paper. 23skidoo 13:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Again, I would like to express my props on the level of structure and forethought demonstrated by the WP:EiC initiative, which has set a very high standard to follow for creating other networks of school articles in an organized fashion. This article already demonstrates thoroughness and verifiability, which makes the promise of expanding the articles for this and other Canadian schools, to make them yet more productive and useful, all the more eminently justifiable. It's about time that a group gave the serious attention, organization and planning to schools that usually only gets applied to Pokémon cards or imaginary Star Wars planets. If there really are "more than 100 million grade schools throughout the world" we've got our work cut out for ourselves, and we're going to need efforts sturctured like WP:EiC to get all the required articles created. Kudos WP:EiC! Alansohn 23:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep worthwhile article on signficant topic. Deleting this article, will undermine an attempt to improve the quality (not just quantity) of school articles, in an organized manner. --Rob 00:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment And why is this a "worthwhile article?" How is this a "significant topic?" I keep asking this, but all I am getting are affirmations that the article really is noteworthy. I'm not asking for affirmations. I am asking what possible reason is this article noteworthy. And no, I'm not buying the argument that without an article on this school the collection of every known school in Canada would be incomplete. That's not a credible reason.Askolnick 03:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Askolnic and other comments. I see no reason to keep it, nothing that is at all notable. The only relevant detail otherwise is the claim that as a former K12 school is should somehow be magically kept which is less than persuasive. If anything WP:EiC is a good demonstration of the absurdity of attempting to keep all these schools. They are non-notable and nearly identical. And also note that being a part of a Wikiproject is in no way a keep argument. JoshuaZ 01:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Joshua, this mind boggling debate reminds me of Lewis Carroll's story about cartographers who created the most wonderful map ever. It was a gargantuan map of England drawn to the scale of 1 inch = 1 inch. It was truly a work of wonder. The only problem was that people wouldn't let them unfold it - farmers said it would destroy their crops, and others had equally trivial complaints. One of the cartographers finally suggested that they could use the actual land itself, since it was a reasonable facimile of the map. Askolnick 03:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per schoolwatch flood above. --ForbiddenWord 19:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment This essentially says keep per lots of people shouting for keep already. This is not an argument. JoshuaZ 19:33, 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 It provides a fine example of the logical fallacy, argumentum ad nauseam. Agent 86 21:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment What we have here is a lot of people who claim the article is "notable," "noteworthy," "worthwhile," on a "significant topic," who are utterly unable to articulate why the article is notable, noteworthy, worthwile, or on a significant topic, other than to tell us that it is "notable," "noteworthy," "worthwhile," and on a "significant topic." I really can't believe this is the kind of debate that can go on in Wikipedia. Wiki editors should be able to provide reasons for their positions that are not circular arguments, which beg the question. Askolnick 23:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn school; so there's a wikiproject schools so all schools are kept? Geez, there's a wikiproject biography, too. Figure that out. Carlossuarez46 02:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, one of the top elemetary schools in Vancouver.-THB 16:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment And you base that fact on what? And how many are at the top? Ten, 100? And how far from the top? Should we also have articles on the horses that came in fifth racing against Seabiscuit? Askolnick 16:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
      • The citation for that is right in the article, dude. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 17:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Buchanan-Hermit. --Myles Long 21:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article and others related to it either through WP:EiC, School District 39 Vancouver, and Template:VancouverSchools shows that the editors in question have well-planned out articles that contribute to the knowledge available through Wikipedia. This is a plus to our encyclopedia, not a negative thing! There is no reason here as to why we'd want to delete the article in question. --Stéphane Charette 22:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Askolnick adding this text to the middle of the article is not appropriate:
    I repeat, this is noteworthy why? "Being the only X in Y" in the vast majority of cases is NOT noteworthy. I happen to own the only 1998 Toyota Camry XLE in town with under 35,000 miles on the odometer. Is that noteworthy enough for a Wiki article? What in the world is noteworthy about being the only elementary school in whatever University Endowment Lands are? Why is this school more noteworthy than my Toyota or the other hundred million+ schools in the world? [16]
I understand some people want to delete school articles, and it is bad enough that we continuously have to deal with school AfD, but those of you who make AfD requests should refrain from adding garbage to the articles. --Stéphane Charette 22:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Our nominator is asking me to delete this based on his opinion that only educational institutions once host to mass murder (i.e. Columbine) merit a wikipedia article. I find that far too limiting. As the leading internet encyclopedia, we need to include every town, village, school, landmark, etc. - even the boring ones where, on the surface, nothing much seems to have ever happened. That includes the few that have not yet produced a nobel prize winner, soap opera star or serial killer. Our burden is to go beyond body counts and to provide information on all the mundane subjects that people constantly seek in reference works, such as this informative, encyclopedic treatment of University Hill Elementary School. --JJay 02:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. If the primary reason to keep it in order to have a complete compendium of some otherwise-non-notable-thing pages, why not instead just have a single page about the topic itself? Elementary Schools in Vancouver could talk about them generally. It's already been asserted that the various school-specific pages have lots of common material. Then that page could list all the schools. Heck, give each a header section and add a sentence or two about what makes it unique vs the others. DMacks 04:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Probably the sanest solution to everything, IMHO. --Storkk 21:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, since being part of a Wikiproject does not make it notable. It is schoolcruft until it becomes notable. --Storkk 15:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per User:Silensor/Schools and Buchanan-Hermit, part of a notable series of articles. Silensor 16:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep One of the joys of reading an encyclopedia (online or otherwise) is to stumble upon trivial information about things you never even knew existed. Having this type of article also adds to the encyclopedic (in the literal sense) nature of Wiki. Davkal 17:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: by "trivial", do you mean "cruft that doesn't meet WP's criteria for inclusion," or am I misreading you? How would you not find your trivia by reading a general article on Canada's School System (where this might be merged, per DMacks above)? How would you even find this trivia, being that it won't ever be linked through anything substantial, owing to the fact that it's not notable in and of itself? I'm just curious on how you think this will benefit anybody, including those interested in trivia (I agree, this is a great attribute of encyclopedias in general), since (being not notable) it won't be linked to except by projects and large lists (pages that trivia seekers don't generally seek out). --Storkk 21:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - joy, oh joy, another school AfD that will end as 'no concensus'. For the record the only notable feature, its ranking position, is admitted to being unreliable and there is nothing encyclopaedic that cannot be better placed in a school district article. BlueValour 02:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: its unreliability is questioned -- the stats from the Fraser Institute is still widely recognized. The questioning of the stats' reliability is inserted to prevent a POV stance. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, encyclopedic topic, notable and useful to anyone interested in education in Vancouver, British Columbia. bbx 07:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. Arbusto 02:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Wow, that's a really cool mid-century modern building that is likely notable because of its architecture as well as its other merits. Could someone please point me towards some more photographs of it? Who was the architect? -THB 22:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • This is a really neat shot, too: [17]. Love the way the volumes collide at the entrance. Are there any photos of major interior spaces? -THB 22:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • keep' please it is notable to the local area and part of a wiki project series too no need to erase it Yuckfoo 04:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Notable to a local area is not the same as notable and I have seen actually no source or claim that it was at all notable for the area. Part of a wikiseries is not a reason to keep something either. JoshuaZ 04:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
      • completeness is a reason to keep something but that is my opinion Yuckfoo 05:00, 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 g1, nonsense, India place name article moved to Gurh. NawlinWiki 15:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gurh

This article is sheer invention. The article on the real place in India by this name, that should be renamed here after this article has been deleted, is at User:Ganeshbot/sandbox/Gurh. (Renaming requires that this article be deleted first, in order to make way.) In addition to my nomination, this article was also {{prod}}ded by 89.57.7.182 (talk • contribs) with the rationale "joke?, google has almost no hits for that use of the term, example: "oh gurh" has only 4 hits including this site". Uncle G 14:29, 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. —Centrx→talk • 00:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2L programming language

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete derivative nn cruft. Once you have seen P′′ (which is cool), you have seen all of these "languages". Leibniz 15:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no demonstrated notability.--Isotope23 20:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There have been many previous esoteric programming language-related AfDs, often with mass nominations. Not all of the following will be relevant, but many may be.
Dates shown are the date on which the debate started.

Previous Esoteric programming language-related deletion debates:
--ais523 15:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - already merged whilst the concept of overloading by direction is interesting, it's technically nothing new, and not something that new works would be based upon. Lack of verification is an issue. LinaMishima 02:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, already merged. Kappa 06:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect Already merged. --ais523 11:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - What the fuck has it been merged to, can someone actually explain their votes? And if it is already merged, why then, is Kappa voting Speedy Keep? Has something been merged here? What is Ais523 suggesting we redirect to? - Hahnchen 17:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      • If you read the penultimate debate in my modified {{multidel}} above, you'll see that User:LinaMishima is planning to merge all the minor esolangs to List of esoteric programming languages, in which case the history is needed for copyright reasons, which is why I'm advocating a redirect. --ais523 17:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I figured that out. But as I've now commented on other AFDs for esolangs, if these are not used, not notable, and just something invented at school in one day, then they shouldn't even be on the list, as they are nothing beyond a nerdjoke. Speedy Keep is still a ridiculous vote, given the reasoning which suggests a delete or redirect. - Hahnchen 17:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Anything of worth is covered in Brainfuck. No assertion of anything. Speedy Keep is the stupidest vote I've seen. - Hahnchen 17:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages. —Ruud 19:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, not encyclopedia material. The external link doesn't work. RickReinckens 05:33, 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. Molerat 09:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darwin Kastle

Non-notable collectible card player. Article does not include references to substantiate notability beyond realm of Magic:The Gathering. Unsuitable for inclusion per WP:BLP of private persons. Does not meet criteria of WP:BIO. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep; bad faith nom in retaliation for Articles for deletion/Roy St. Clair. This article is only a stub, but could be much more; see [18] for a profile of Darwin; BLP doesn't seem to be a critical problem, as there's nothing especially negative in the article. Mangojuicetalk 14:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep: I concur that this is a bad faith nomination; come to that, the nom messaged me wondering if I wanted to buy into this discussion based on my previous involvement in the 3rd St. Clair AfD, in which I strongly argued for the subject's notability. I can't see myself inviting into my own AfD debate someone I knew for a fact would oppose it. RGTraynor 16:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep; having weighed up the possible bad faith of the nom and the precedent set by the recent AfDs of other MtG players versus a nagging thought i have about collectible card players being non-notable outside of their clique. Onebravemonkey 15:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep due to the problems with the proposal. If nothing else, bundling all 5 or so of the proposals should have been done. Mister.Manticore 15:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think the rules about athletes applies here in spirit. He's in the Magic: The Gathering Hall of Fame, you can't get more notable than Hall of Famer. Jay32183 18:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think Speedy Keep is valid here... Article has one huge problem: it is completely unsourced, making it apparent original research.--Isotope23 20:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I've added the official hall of fame profile as a reference, it verifies the basic information and notability. Jay32183 20:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Are there any sources outside of ones published by WOTC? -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Why would there need to be? If there was an argument about the verifiability of a professional hockey player's information, NHL.com would be all the sourcing required. Is there some reason why the company that produces this game is an unreliable source for information about the game? RGTraynor 16:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

contribs) 17:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That the MTG community is smaller and somewhat more insular than many other sports doesn't mean it's notable members are not themselves notable. If nothing else, I would consider membership in the official Hall of Fame sufficient on its own. It'd be one thing if Magic were only a year or two old, but it's been around over a decade, so it has a solid foundation behind it. Mister.Manticore 17:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
              • But if the community is so insular that its top players aren't recognized in mainstream press, then how can you argue for its notability on WP:BIO points #1 and #5? -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Because it's not so insular that it doesn't exist to the outside world. Otherwise they wouldn't have gotten on ESPN. Mister.Manticore 19:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Professional collectible card players who earn hundreds of thousands of dollars doing so are notable. Yamaguchi先生 21:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. In the Hall of fame for players of the game, so he's inherently notable. And for the record, had I actually seen the AfD immediately, I probably would've voted Keep for Roy St. Clair, too. -- Grev 23:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per Kai Budde and Jon Finkel deletion discussions. Irongargoyle 23:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. --Nlu (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • FUCK he's a keep cause he's in the hall of fame... but can we purge it with flame because its pokecruft??!??! Can't come up with enough motivation to go either way really. I guess weak keep  ALKIVAR™ 01:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:BIO - as well, WP:BLP isn't relevent here - it's only says delete potentially libelous material, not articles Read it here! WilyD 13:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, successful professional player of a widely played game. —ptk✰fgs 15:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, possible speedy keep, per all previous keeps. Stifle (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, seem notable.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:27, 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. —Centrx→talk • 00:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ALPACA programming language

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment There have been many previous esoteric programming language-related AfDs, often with mass nominations. Not all of the following will be relevant, but many may be.
  • Delete, no demonstrated notability.--Isotope23 20:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable for being one of relatively few computer languages dedicated to cellular automata, let alone CA languages that are as powerful as this. Indeed, the article doesn't do ALPACA justice - we should expand it to give a much wider view of ALPACA's features, and link to it from the cellular automaton page. I can imagine people coming to it looking for languages used to specify the things. -- Smjg 21:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Could you point out several secondary sources which refer to this language? —Ruud 19:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


Dates shown are the date on which the debate started.

Previous Esoteric programming language-related deletion debates:
--ais523 15:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Already merged, and a lack of apparent references prevents proper verification. As much as it's novel and interesting, it's nature means it's an end-tool rather than something future works build upon. LinaMishima 02:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, already merged. Kappa 06:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect, already merged. --ais523 11:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages. —Ruud 19:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of notability as an esoteric language. Equendil Talk 00:15, 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 argh, delete! - Mailer Diablo 15:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Argh!

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment There have been many previous esoteric programming language-related AfDs, often with mass nominations. Not all of the following will be relevant, but many may be.
  • Delete, no demonstrated notability.--Isotope23 20:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Dates shown are the date on which the debate started.

Previous Esoteric programming language-related deletion debates:
--ais523 15:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Already merged, whilst certainly interesting, it's clearly a logical derivative of befunge only really adding data handling. Unlikely to be considered a prime base of future works, and hard to verify. LinaMishima 02:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, already merged. Kappa 06:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect, already merged. --ais523 11:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia isn't a place for things invented in school in one day. If it's not used beyond being a programming joke, then it's a pretty useless article. - Hahnchen 17:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages. —Ruud 19:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BAK programming language

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment There have been many previous esoteric programming language-related AfDs, often with mass nominations. Not all of the following will be relevant, but many may be.
  • Delete, no demonstrated notability.--Isotope23 19:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Dates shown are the date on which the debate started.

Previous Esoteric programming language-related deletion debates:
--ais523 15:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I've got a copy of the details for later merging. More importantly, the details on this langauge are hard to find, and the article itself is seemingly a raw stub. Unlikely to be verifiable. LinaMishima 02:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, out of curiousity... where do you propose to merge this to and why merge something that is unlikely to be verifiable when it should just be removed from the target article as unverified?--Isotope23 16:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep' until LinaMishima merges it, then redirect. Kappa 06:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Although it may go against radical inclusionism, there is no point in merging this with anything. If it's not notable, and not used beyond a joke, you might as well have Wikipedia Lists of people living in York or List of computer programs that no one actually uses. - Hahnchen 17:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages. —Ruud 19:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable. Equendil Talk 00:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Punkmorten 09:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beatnik programming language

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Dates shown are the date on which the debate started.

Previous Esoteric programming language-related deletion debates:
--ais523 15:53, 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 delete, author blanked page. NawlinWiki 20:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Vegas

nn notable fails WP:BIO, failed Ghits, probable vanity (authors name is Vegas) Shella ° 15:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Even if verifiable (which is an issue), local/regional wrestlers are not notable. Also, no Wikipedia reader should be subjected to that picture. Fan-1967 15:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or userfy as vanity and nn. --Storkk 16:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete but the Wikipedia is not censored Fan-1967 Computerjoe's talk 16:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, how about no Wikipedia reader should be subjected to that picture without good reason? Fan-1967 16:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete notability. The JPStalk to me 18:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. The subject is a non-notable local wrestler. Erechtheus 18:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Author has blanked the article. Fan-1967 18:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Energy vampire. There is nothing here to merge, and at least the target article makes it clear how scientific we're being. --- Deville (Talk) 16:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Empathic vampire

Huh? This goes far beyond 'not citing sources'... --InShaneee 15:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect as empathic vampire is listed as a synonym for energy vampire Mister.Manticore 15:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:BOLLOCKS. I am not even sure where he gets that Persephone was an emphatic vampire (as he describes it) in the Matrix trilogy. Legis 15:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BOLLOCKS and WP:V.-- danntm T C 16:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Mister.Manticore. Danny Lilithborne 19:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect However, the Persephone claim is out in left field. Is there a "WP:Delusions and Insanity" policy anywhere? 'Cause there seems to be a lot of delusional beliefs being deleted from Wikipedia lately. - CNichols 21:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this nonsense. Do not not not redirect to anything. Wryspy 19:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the article. Calm down. There is speculation among fans about Persephone's status as an empathic vampire because she was able to sense emotions during the club scene and at various points demanded kisses as payment, particularly specifing passionate kisses from which she recieved apparent satisfaction.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Olivier and Antoine Ruel

Non-notable collectible card players. Article is unsourced. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 15:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Split While I can agree the article itself should be deleted, it's because I think it would be best to split the article to cover each brother individually. However, in the interest of keeping discussion, I won't do so until this discussion is completed. However, their remains the problem with [[User:Malber|Malber]'s motivations which are highly questionable. Mister.Manticore 20:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable collectively or split. --Nlu (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think these guys should make the cut. Barely anything worth saying about them, and no sources I could find. Mangojuicetalk 04:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. Daniel's page ☎ 04:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as not notable - don't appear to have won anything and being dq'd in a card game isn't notable. MLA 11:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • They are both in the top 5 of Lifetime Pro Points at [19] and Olivier for one has written many articles on magic. Still, I'd accept putting them in a list of notable mtg players. Mister.Manticore 17:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the info, I haven't followed Magic for nearly 9 years now. My personal view on notability for magic card players is that they should either be world champions or have some other exceptional claim to notability. Writing about Magic isn't notable and by my standards on a minority interest collectible card game, top 5 doesn't cut it. MLA 08:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think they get past WP:BIO WilyD 13:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable players. —ptk✰fgs 15:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, two of the most prolific professional Magic players of all time. Stifle (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. They don't seem notable, unless we list all Pro-Tour winners?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:27, 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. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of famous women in history

Completing a nomination. Rationale was given as edit summary: "Nominated for deletion. Absurdly general, very presence of article (segregated from other Famous Figures in History) gives credence to male chauvanism." No !vote from me. (Liberatore, 2006). 15:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - either unmaintainable or non-neutral point of view. Yomanganitalk 16:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Criteria for inclusion far too vague and subjective and is extremely broad. Agent 86 21:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This would draw out many POV issues. Famous can mean different things for different people. --Nishkid64 23:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete List definition is too broad - would contain an unmanageable amount of entries Bwithh 00:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too broad a criteria. Could have thousands of names -- and what does "famous" mean, really... 23skidoo 13:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not delete. Please leave it--debate criteria if you will, but it's a very useful resource for educators. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.42.141.76 (talk • contribs).
  • Delete for POV violation and being excessively broad with vague criteria. Wryspy 19:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. I nominated this. Once more, segregating women from the "list of significant figures in history" is misogynistic. The inference the reader might take from this list is that the figures included here would not be significant if they weren't also women. And is there honestly room for every single female celebrity ever? - Maggie --64.229.184.47 21:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete. Neither the number of entries, not the size of the table of contents seems too long to me. I would suggest 2000 entries and 200 categories, respectively, as a criterion for "unmanageble". Then we could discuss some other method of acheiving the pedantic goal of finding counterexamples for stereotypes. Also, the number of "broad" puns in this poll seem at least sufficient already. Can we continue with "figures" for a while? --Davidrei 21:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Too broad. A pity though - it sure was a lot of work. --Gego 08:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Pavel Vozenilek 16:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic violence

A POV magnet. We already have Islamic extremist terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism, Islamofascism, Militant Islam, etc... Also note that the newly created article is just a list of Suras which may imply violence. The rest is purely OR.-- Szvest 15:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up ®

  • Keep Sure sure, but those all say nothing of the words of the Qur'an that imply violence directly, and that there might be some linkage between violence and islam itself, rather than just extremists. Since there is debate at the current time about this, there should be a page noting such occurences in the Qur'an - to delete this would be BIASED toward Islam. - Malrak Dossta 15:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC) (article author)
  • Delete This page is not up to WP standards and should be deleted. While the topic is valid and of current interest, it lacks any substantial anaylsis of violence in Islam. Instead it offers quotes refering to violence is Islamic texts. The intent of the author indeed seems to be to push a POV and promote a website. A better (more analytical, neutral POV) pre-existing article on the subject is Criticism of Islam, which links off the Islam main article. Neobolts 15:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete for recreation of hitherto deleted material. This is pretty much the same thing as the recently deleted Intolerant Quran verses. BhaiSaab talk 16:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete For one, this page doesn't even come close to WP standards. And second, any relevant quotes can easily be merged into the existing articles on Islamic violence (as listed by Szvest above). Standing by itself, this list of quotes doesn't really give the reader any deeper understanding of the issue at hand. --Frescard 16:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Frescard. Contents can be merged into one of the existing articles (maybe). --Gabi S. 18:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Without any context provided by secondary sources, this verges on OR. Context is (or at least should be) provided in the articles cited by the nominator. Deletion will not in fact result in a pro-Islam bias. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 21:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Neobolts and BigHaz. WU03 00:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've prodded today some OR pro-Islamic and pro-Catholic articles as well. This has nothing to do with bias but everything with the difference between an encyclopedia and a free webhost for your ideas. Fram 13:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Very useful markers for location of violent related clauses in scripture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.154.65.186 (talk • contribs).
Such information is already available (in whatever context you want) in other articles mentioned in this AfD discussion. Why does it need to be duplicated here? BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 08:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable topic. Perhaps a more descriptive title as the theory that this article is (badly) describing is that Islam is an inherently more violent religion than others. JASpencer 10:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. It is a bunch of Quran copied and pasted quotes. No context, no analysis, no sources. Arbusto 17:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Pavel Vozenilek 16:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minitokyo

No evidence of passing WP:WEB, not so many sites links to this one [20]. (Liberatore, 2006). 15:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep Comment - Alexa rank of 9,805, and one of the main "anime wallpapers" websites - the difficult bit is proving it (and I'm not sure if that's enough to keep the article anyway. -- makomk 16:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- DOTHC 21:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This one is hard to say. 218K members would certainly make it pretty notable, but there ought to be sources about the site, I think. The page as it stands seems somewhat self-serving. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment To me WP:V is more important than membership numbers. ColourBurst 22:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:V is a big problem for an article that otherwise would have been kept. --Nishkid64 23:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm a member of the site, but yeah, I haven't seen much coverage of it in outside sources. So sadly, this article has got to go. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 23:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Alexa rank doesn't matter for keeping or deleting. Any number range for making decisions based on alexa rank is purely arbitrary. The test is at WP:WEB i.e. non-trivial media coverage, non-trivial award, or non-trivial media repritn of content. It is nice wall paper, and if Museum of Modern Art decided to do an showcase them at an exhibit next month, it would pass with flying colors... However, that's not the case and the article provides no evidence that it passes our web notability guidelines. --Kunzite 00:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I seem to remember expression an opinion to delete this before, too. Had it not been nominated previously? I guess I'm thinking of something else. Regardless, it still fails WP:WEB. GassyGuy 08:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] J. Hunter Johnson

This article has been prod'ed, de-prodded, speedied, de-speedied, discussed on the talk page, etc. It's not clear to me whether its subject meets WP:BIO, so let us discuss it. (Liberatore, 2006). 15:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • weak delete as there's certainly a number of books and other works published by the author, but I'm not sure if there is enough for notability. Mister.Manticore 16:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • comment as the author (in violation of WP:AUTO, explained on the Talk page), I won't vote, but the nominator for deletion appears to have done so in retaliation for my nomination of Steve O'Keefe (attorney) for speedy delete. Number of works doesn't appear to be a criterion, just "who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". Some reviews:
    GURPS Monsters on RPGNet
    GURPS Monsters on GamingReport
    GURPS Japan on RPGNet
    GURPS Japan in Out of the Box (archived)
    gToons has been covered in USA Today (2002-08-30)
    Roliste (French)
    Pen & Paper RPG
    Some of the books have reviews on Amazon as well, but I'm not sure if they "count", so I'll leave them out. -- JHunterJ 17:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, so you made Gtoons? Could you tell them to fix it? :) Still, it's a bit troublesome to have you as the subject and author of the article, though I don't think you are doing anything specifically improper, and I understand your desire to not be confused with other people named Hunter Johnson. So if anybody else wants to chime in to keep it, I'll go with them. Mister.Manticore 17:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
If any of the other J. Hunter Johnsons (there's a lawyer in Texas, and a newspaper editor from 1904) gets a page, then I'm in trouble. (I have gotten them to fix several things, but obviously not everything.) -- JHunterJ 17:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Clarification: I have nothing to do with Steve O'Keefe (attorney); I presume the above comment is about the anon editor who tagged the article with speedy, prod, and then afd (but could not complete the nomination for the obvious reason that anons cannot create new pages). (Liberatore, 2006). 17:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Right, sorry -- I'm familiar enough with the sequence that I didn't recognize the ambiguity... -- JHunterJ 17:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, author of various notable game supplements. Kappa 06:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep-Cleanup by WP:RPG The man is a published author, (in an albeit specialized genre of Role-Playing Games.) WP:BLP suggests caution here, specifically Dealing with edits by the subject of the article, especially the part where it says. "The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing mercy to the subjects of biographies, especially when those subjects become Wikipedia editors" I suggest we flag this for attention by WP:RPG and have them clean this article up to conform to WP standards. At the very least, userfy instead of delete.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roninbk (talk • contribs) 09:55, 19 September 2006.
  • Keep, author with several widely-available published works. Noteworthy within the genre. Shimeru 18:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Anybody can get published. His edits blow. I agree with the guy who said this article is about a hypocrite. Anybody who patrols wiki like JHunter does needs to be watched. 65.4.111.33 05:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Page was created as a disambiguation of other people with similar names (Hunter Johnson, etc.). Jokestress 08:20, 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. Glen 05:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Camellia Gardens Condominiums Association, Inc.

Non-notable condominium (Liberatore, 2006). 16:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable.UberCryxic 20:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Only 58 Condominiums in total, and in only one city. --Nishkid64 23:19, 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. DS 19:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critical Links

100% spam. Parent company might also need to be AfD'd but going for the non-notable products first. Storkk 16:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete spam for non-notable software. JPD (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete clearly Spam, non-notable. Mister.Manticore 16:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete spammy spam. Danny Lilithborne 19:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Spam, non-notable. --Charlesknight 22:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT. The company's website has an Alexa Web Traffic ranking of 1,654,198. --Nishkid64 23:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ITEMS

100% spam. Does not meet WP:SOFTWARE. Parent company might also need to be AfD'd but going for the non-notable products first. (See above discussions) Storkk 16:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete spam for non-notable software. JPD (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although a good argument can be put for edgebox, this definitely is non-notable software. It fails WP:SOFTWARE. --Nishkid64 23:25, 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 20:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boston's Hidden Restaurants

non-notable online restaurant guide; fails WP:WEB Tom Harrison Talk 16:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Richard 16:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The article does not asssert the subject's notability, and a look at the site and Alexa (rank 600,000+) makes it unlikely there is anything notable, it's just one more local commercial restaurant listing site. A good reason for deleting such articles has just been demonstrated by a new user. Apparently on seeing the article along with the "not many articles link here" template, the editor went to various articles and wrote the link in (see new editor's explanation[21]. Unfortunately, since this isn't a prominent site, those entries came across as spam. See the diffs for Restaurants, Boston, MA, and New England. Apart from the difficulty having this sort of quality of subject can pose for similar new editors, we need to get this deleted before marketing professionals see this as a legitimate and Wikipedia accepted way to promote their causes. --SiobhanHansa 17:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB, but damn I wish that website was useful. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 13:05, 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.

[edit] Big plastic factory

The result was speedy delete as word-for-word repost of deleted material (see previous AFD). Wickethewok 18:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable, really poor Google results (31 unique, 222 total), already been deleted once, doubt it meets WP:WEB, etc... - makomk 16:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Links given in artcile now are on other non notable websites, not critical reviews in mainstream media. Fram 12:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete. Comes up first in a Yahoo search. Creativity magazine is a mainstream magazine: Print Circulation of 32,276 [22].Gregoryashadwick 10:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: how is the fact that the subject comes up first in a Yahoo search relevant, apart from the fact that it shows that there are no other memorable things using this three word combination? And can you give us a reference to Creativity magazine which mentions Big Plastic Factory? I can't find the combination online, but if you can teel us what issue this is about, then perhaps some other editor can verify this. Fram 15:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by 'really poor Google results' to mean its ranking upon a search of the term. If so my apologies. See Creativity Interactive issue on September 13, 2006. Gregoryashadwick 10:16, 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. Petros471 16:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kaneva

Non-notable beta stage website. Alexa rank 180,461, fails critera of WP:WEB. Haakon 16:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete due to a non-notable site. Go somewhere else to advertise. --real_decimic 21:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB and an unremarkable Alexa web trafic rank. --Nishkid64 23:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • With respect, this judgment is harsh, Kafkaesque, and differs in treatment from similar WP citations at 'List of social networking websites'. Please cite section of WP:WEB that is offended by this article, as we've attempted on several occasions to adhere to your guidelines with no complaints. Also, please explain why this entry is "less notable" than, for example, ActiveRain, GolfBuzz, Studybreakers, and so on, who often violate NPOV, list fewer members, have less traffic (as per Alexa), cite no external references, and are of similar subject matter. Thank you for your sage reconsideration. Andre Frech (http://www.kaneva.com/afrech) 01:05, 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Countess

notability questioned as 13 links come up in search, some are mirrors of this Wikipedia article; addition could be seen to bolster support for critics of Jehovah's Witnesses as the template box was added to the article and it is linked in many different JW-related articles - CobaltBlueTony 16:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. By the looks of it, he doesn't seem to be such a prominent revisionist. As Cobaltbluetony said, not many links come up and not many G-hits either. --Nishkid64 23:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:V due to lack of sourcing. BlueValour 02:41, 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 nomination withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 15:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pauline Robinson

Fails WP:RS and WP:BIO. Possibly notable by virtue of being the mother of Barbara Bush and a rumor of having an affair with Dwight Eisenhower, but these things alone aren't a basis for an article. Simões (talk/contribs) 16:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn. The article is still a sourceless mess, but Pauline Robinson is probably notable herself. I'll just put up a handful of shiny tags to complain about this and that. Simões (talk/contribs) 03:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. She was the mother of George H.W. Bush's wife. I don't know what to take of this though. There aren't many G-hits, most of which don't even aren't talking about this Pauline Robinson, but rather about the Bush's deceased child who took on her grandmother's name. --Nishkid64 23:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - speculation, rumour but no hard sourcing that she ever actually did anything notable. BlueValour 02:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Mother of former first lady Barbara Bush and grandmother of the current sitting president: I think its at least enough for a useful stub. The rumors/speculations/other weird stuff can be taken care of by asking for sourcing and editing out the outlandish unfounded details. Champaign 18:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with her husband.--Peta 04:09, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gorilla Paintball

Non-notable computer game; The relatively few Google hits are primarily links to a paintball supplies store by the same name or to this article. Haakon 16:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Kaneva is also up for deletion here. --Nishkid64 23:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are very few MMOFPSs out there at all, so if this is in fact an MMOFPS (as the article states it is), then it is notable. If it's just another paintball FPS, then Delete -Aknorals 09:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Changed vote to Delete. I am unable to find enough information on this game to answer very basic questions that any article about a game should be able to answer. -Aknorals 12:29, 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. Consensus has already been formed on Talk:Agassi's last two years. I'm moving that page to this debate's talk page to preserve the debate. Mangojuicetalk 20:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agassi's last two years

This article was originally part of the main article Andre Agassi, and was cut and pasted out of that article as being too lengthy, not objective and too much non-notable play-by-play detail. Consensus on article's discussion page appears to be that this article should be deleted and any relevant information merged into Andre Agassi. Dugwiki 16:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge back pruned version into Andre Agassi. There's no rationale for article proliferation in this case. I doubt the redirect is worth leaving. Espresso Addict 18:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
As was stated in the merge discussion, the info unique to this article should NOT be put back in the main article. The reasonable options are to clean it up, or to delete it. I'm fine with either. Atarr 19:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. While Agassi is a great sporstman (and one my my personal favorites), it is not encyclopedic material. It is much to detailed journalism about two of the least notable years in his career.--HJ 07:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this non-encyclopedic material. Wryspy 19:20, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Church of the Ascension (Clearwater, Florida)

Non-notable church, written in a first person format. Obviously a vanity page. I abstain from the vote. Clamster5 17:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, Church of the Ascension is a historic landmark in Clearwater FL. Significant Outreach results from this parish. Religious Community Services (RCS) was founded at Ascension. RCS provides services for families, abused spouse and their children (Haven House), a food pantry, clothing, "Back-to-school" supplies" are only some of the services provided —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alyce G (talk • contribs).
    • Alyce G I see that you contributed a lot to the article, but please don't take personal offense. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style to see how to write an article the correct Wikipedia way. Also, if you can find online references that explain the church's (such as news articles) please put them into the article. Also, having a local parish program is not considered notable. If it is a national or statewide program, please show sources.Clamster5 21:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Please cite sources that record this church as being a historic landmark. The article cites no sources at all. Uncle G 21:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, original research, no sources, vanity. Simões (talk/contribs) 22:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and cleanup(see change of "vote" below), shows potential. Alyce, please see Wikipedia:Places of local interest for some ideas on how to add such information to Wikipedia. Until I edit this article momentarily, it didn't even mention the denomination, which I think is pretty significant. I also see hints on the Internet about the building being architecturally significant and the musical hardware being special, but I can't find a lot on the web. Alyce, you would be a much better person to find information on these things. JYolkowski // talk 23:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment JYolkowski, your statement "I can't find a lot on the web" says a lot about the church's notability. Clamster5 23:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily, no. A lot of places like these have lots of information in local historical journals and books, but unfortunately I don't have access to a Tampa library (-: My preference is to keep an open mind as to the article's verifiability; maybe sources will turn up (hint, hint, Alyce G) (-: JYolkowski // talk 23:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The notability of the church in Clearwater, Florida, is irrelevant; what is important is its notability globally. That notability is minimal, and thus I'm going for delete. -- tariqabjotu 00:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I just changed the article to assuage most of the complaints. As far as whether it is "globally" notable, I'm sure that many articles in Wikipedia deal with subjects that may not affect the entire world. Importance in the community is important enough, I think. Goldsmitharmy 00:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I have a concern that Goldsmitharmy might be a sockpuppet as his/her only edits are the to this talk page and the page nominated for deletion. Clamster5 02:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Please keep in mind Wikipedia:Assume good faith and also that this is a discussion, not a vote. Certainly he is a new user, but seeing as how he's making significant enhancements to articles (complete with inline references) and not just "voting", he's making a more significant contribution to this discussion than someone who just creates an account and votes "keep". JYolkowski // talk 02:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean-up. This may now be the first keep-worthy local house of worship I've seen at AFD. The sourcing isn't all that good yet (for example, the relative size of the organ is linked to a site that is clearly incomplete), but the history, carillion and architecture make this a keeper. If we don't have solid sourcing and expansion of the history bit in another year or so, my opinion may change in a future AFD. GRBerry 02:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing my "vote" to keep after rewrite by User:Goldsmitharmy. Good job. JYolkowski // talk 02:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn church only of significance to it's local community. Not at all convinced by the history, architecture etc.. on that basis almost every building in France would have to be listed! Marcus22 10:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Wryspy 19:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep! Not exactly the most noteworthy church, but if a CD of next year's forgotten music and a plant that would be noticed by only a few botanists, get their pages, why should one not respect the work of the architect and builders, the sentiments of the parish, the authors of the article. I would not have written the article, but now it is there; destroying it would be an act of vandalism: Compare the price of a few kilobytes of server space with the cost of having the church itself. There are less than 200 carillons in the USA, not all of these in churches, and this church has got one. — SomeHuman 19 Sep 2006 19:49 (UTC)
    • Comment SomeHuman, read this statement again: "Not exactly the most noteworthy church". You're the second person who thought the article should be kept, yet also stated its not notable. Clamster5 22:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Reply You had stated your argument at the top. I stated mine, which says 'not exactly the most noteworthy', that means of minor notability but not void of any notability as 'not notable' would – Do not put words in my mouth. In fact I did express one reason why it is clearly noteworthy to a large group (its carillon) and that it is generally noteworthy for smaller groups. An encyclopedia is not a bestseller roman that needs to be interesting to many from the first page till the last, but has and must have a lot of articles about minor details for the few who are interested in some of these: where else would they find their information? Voting to oust articles based on notability alone is a popularity contest and undignified for an encyclopedia, especially one of larger size. — SomeHuman 20 Sep 2006 05:14 (UTC)
    • Additional reason for keeping at least for now: Since 'notability' as a reason for Afd is still under debate in Wikipedia:Non-notability, one should be twice as careful not to eagerly delete (that is: against that proposal's guidelines) until that debate is resolved. — SomeHuman 23 Sep 2006 15:04 (UTC)
  • Delete parishcruft; nn church pushing its vanity page -- it's claims to notability fail the straight-face test; however if they could raise the dead or pull a Heaven's Gate, things might be different. WP is not an advertising service. Carlossuarez46 02:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I can't make sense of this comment - "parishcruft" isn't a word, I can't see any vanity on the page (an example, maybe?), and the comment about "if they could raise the dead" is not only ridiculous, it's insulting to nearly every religious article on Wikipedia. Goldsmitharmy 03:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Simoes. Prolog 21:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think that Goldsmitharmy has done a great job and there is enough interesting stuff in this article to makeit encyclopaedic. BlueValour 02:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - The claim "Carol Schwenke, the first woman to be ordained a priest in the Episcopal Diocese of Southwest Florida, serves as Sunday assistant" is notable. JASpencer 18:30, 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. —Celestianpower háblame 16:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Denis Forde

Living person that does not meet WP:BIO guidelines. Only 319 ghits [23], most of which are about different persons of the same name. The subject is nn, who would probably only have one or two hits from online church directories if it weren't for the very few news articles online about his recent conviction. (Indeed, this article has itself become the top hit for the name "Denis Forde" on Google.) Aaron 17:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be absolutely no reason we would ever have had an article on this person without their conviction. Wikipedia does not exist as a sex offenders registry; the conviction alone is not enough to justify an article. Dump it. Shimgray | talk | 22:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no need for a page on every sex offender. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Wryspy 19:21, 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. (aeropagitica) 11:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jockey Club Brown Sea Island

This appears to be an article about a boat. And not a big cruise liner boat, but a 30ft tug. Since we don't seem to have notability guidelines for boats I thought we had better run this by AFD and establish a precedent. DJ Clayworth 17:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, unless somebody can come up with a reasoning for notability. Mister.Manticore 21:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Wryspy 19:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Far too small to be notable without good reason. -- Necrothesp 00:12, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carlos Petroni

Possible vanity article. No sources, nothing links to it, non-notable subject Blue Lilac 17:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep 14k Ghits Computerjoe's talk 20:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - said hits relate to a number of different guys! Article fails WP:V due to lack of independent sourcing of the content. A foreign languaguage link is no help on the English WP. BlueValour 03:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Since when is a foreign language, especially Spanish, too obscure to serve as an illustration? At the very least, one can recognize his name as being the editor. I added a section 'References', having a translated interview that largely confirms the content of the article, published on a Marxist website. Being extensively interviewed at least proves that Petroni was noticed and thus notable, moreover since that website and the title of the interview also occur on another website (see my edit comment). Notability already followed from the man having been a "leader of the Argentinean Partido Socialista de los Trabajadores (PST) from 1973 to 1976 and its continuation, the Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS) from 1983-1988", stated in the article. Non-notable does not mean 'I do not like Wikireaders to notice that Marxists still exist'. — SomeHuman 25 Sep 2006 23:54 (UTC)
    I also found on archives.econ.utah.edu a recent article: Nepal's struggle – Article and photographs by Carlos Petroni (22 Apr 2006), such proves once more that he is notable. I am not at all amused by the proposing of an AfD if I can in just half an hour find references and other sources that prove notability, on a subject I am not familiar with. — SomeHuman 26 Sep 2006 00:27 (UTC)
  • Keep --Peta 04:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Igbogirl 17:02, 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 16:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Achayan

This is too trivial to deserve an article. If it can go go in, many more similar trivia need to go in. Like Mooppar, Poola Chettan, Rubber Chetan, Kammal, Thamburan, Atiyan, Kettiyon, Kettiyol, Annachi, Valacheruman, Moyiliaru, Ummachi, Ithatha etc. Kuntan 17:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep I dont agree with you Kuttan, if you can add these topic it will be great, because you know what these terms means, but others does not, that is waht Encyclopedia is for. The article Achayan realy gave me some more details what I was not aware. Kjrajesh|talk
  • Weak keep or merge I guess this slang/popular culture term applies to (some or all?) of Syrian Malabar Nasrani people. There's usage of "achayan" in journalism and Malayalam movies, including discussion of stereotype roles [24] so it probably deserves a mention somewhere. --Mereda 13:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per mereda.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep- Achayan is a common Central travancore usage. You can see the usage of Achayan in Booker Prize Winner Arundhati Roy's Magnum Opus The God of Small Things. Keeping this article will help foreign readers to follow the common usages in Indian Writing in English. Adv. P. R. Bijuchandran 05:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep it is a common suffix used with names of syrian christians of South Kerala/Travancore given by the rulers of earlier time which i cant claim sources.also i feel Mr.Kundan is quoting those words as if he had some rages against syrians.Please mind.i believe u thought Achayan for the word which commonly called by students of other regions(eg Thrissur/Palakkad) friends from Travancore areas who perhaps dont know the socio-economical backgrounds of Syrian Christians,this is not a slang as many in other parts of kerala thinks. "Poola Chettan, Rubber Chetan," this shows he is purposely here to vandalise the article/destroy.infact FYI Tapioca- /Poola/Kolli/kappa is eaten widely in kerala and mostly in Travancore parts.

Praka123 23:10, 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 Speedy close. AFD is not the place for merge requests. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kimberly Leach

The subject of this article is not notable outside the scope of the Ted Bundy case, and the content of this article is limited to the subject's role in the Ted Bundy case. Accordingly, I recommend Merge/Redirect. Cribcage 18:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Ayranikudy

non notable Kuntan 18:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I dunno. It says that he published a book of poetry and a "famous" research book. There's not a shred of verification, though. If he did do those things, his notability would depend on how popular his poems and his research were. But who can tell? Not I. Herostratus 19:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • very weak keep let's be careful here. How do we know he's not notable? I'd like to hear some confirmation by someone familiar with the Malayalam language or at least someone very familiar with the litterature of India. Here's a source that mentions him [25]. Now of course I have absolutely no way of knowing whether that site is just rewriting from Wikipedia content so that does not say much. Still I think a bit of research is needed before we go ahead and throw this away. Pascal.Tesson 21:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment tried to do more research. I have to say I find no trace of this guy or his books but again I'm not entirely convinced this means much. I guess I'll change my vote to very weak delete unless someone can come up with some sort of reference21:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per nom and Pascal.Tesson. Notability is definitely not established in the article. --Antorjal 14:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I proposed the article for deletion. There are hundreds of such poetasters in every land. If you are going to put everyone of them in an encylopedia, it would be a compendium about Tom, Dick and Harry. I am fairly familiar with the literary world of Kerala and I never heard of such a poet. Kuntan 14:31, 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 keep and remind Herostratus to use correct metaphors. — CharlotteWebb 17:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Edwin Fox

Is a man who was one of 23 people executed in the state of Ohio in the last 7 years really that notable? In addition, there are sources given, but I don't think most of the content is in those sources. It is mostly unverifiable and reads like an original narrative of the proceedings. I don't know of the author's relation to this case, but if you look at the article talk page, the author says s/he witnessed the execution. Delete as non-notable and unreferenced. Metros232 13:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As the author of this article, I stand by the content. The Ohio Supreme Court case cited as a source does provide all of the facts of the trial as noted in the article. The AP article summarizes the appeals and last days of Fox. I will be happy to provide copies on request, or add attribution within the article.
Regarding notoriety, I cannot vouch for Fox being notable except that there is a page of executions carried out by the State of Ohio and there were links to uncreated pages for the executed men. If Fox is not notable, then the only notable person on the list is Alton Coleman, who was a spree killer. All other pages probably could be deleted under the issue posed by Metros232.
I would also suggest that someone then examine this page to remove the non-notable persons there.
Regarding my comment about witnessing Mr. Fox's execution. I put that in very late at night, I regret doing so because it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, and I have removed it. How and why I was there isn't important at all. Marklemagne 21:40, 8 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) 18:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Pull the switch. His 15 minutes are up. Herostratus 18:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. If Herostratus wants the article deleted, it would have been in better taste to have said Delete rather than what he said. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Conspicuously evil people can be notable. -- TruthbringerToronto (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs)
  • Keep. With a little more than 3,000 prisoners among the 2.2 million persons in the American prison system, the fact that Fox was even on death row make him notable. Considering fewer than 60 of these prisoners were executed enhances his notable status. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2006). If being executed or being one of the few people who kill another person do not make someone notable under the Wikipedia guidelines, how many murders must a criminal commit, or how "heinous, atrocious or cruel" does such a crime have to be to justify inclusion? Furthermore, because Ohio has become quite active in carrying out executions, I think being one of the first in the modern era makes Fox notable. So what if he wasn't the first (or 3rd or 5th)? Marklemagne 12:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep the news sources are a weak indication for WP:BIO. Arbusto 22:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepI worked in the Wood Co. Prosecutor's Office at the time this matter was prosecuted. While it may not have been notable at the time of the original prosecution, it became so at the time of his execution as death penalty opponents made widespread use of this matter in the media as a prime example of what they assert is the arbritrary nature in the implementation of the death penalty. While not particularly sympathetic, his execution does seem to be for circumstances that are not as egregious as dozens or even hundreds of other murders for which a lesser sentence was imposed. For that reason, I believe this is notable and should be retained at this time. Source citations would perhaps cure some objections. And I can say from personal knowledge of the case that a few details are incorrect, so citations may cure these errors.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 author requested its deletion (via e-mail.) Grandmasterka 05:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jerry O'Neill

Musician. While he has played with people who have played in bands that have Wikipedia articles, he hasn't played in those bands himself, except for Pretty Mary Sunshine, which is not exactly the Beatles -- it was up for AfD earlier this year, and, while it survived, it's kind of hard to see why. And it's not like he's been a sideman for Miles Davis or something; all the people he's played with are basically local Seattle music-scene types. I don't see being a member of very short-lived and marginal band rates an article, nor does the notability of the bands composed of people he played with before or after their membership rub off on him. But it's not a slam-dunk either. NOTE: Do not confuse this person with the radio-talking-head Jerry O'Neill who recently had his article deleted. Different people. Herostratus 18:40, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tommi Hovi

Collectible card players do not meet notability at WP:BIO. No sources cited to substantiate notability outside realm of M:TG -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep For the purposes of WP:BIO, collectible card players are athletes, as the spirit of the guideline is more important than the letter of the guideline. Tommi Hovi is in the Magic: The Gathering Hall of Fame and the first player to ever have two championships on the Pro Tour. What more is needed for notability? There also appears to be no requirement for notability of an athlete outside of their sport. A baseball player only needs to be famous for playing baseball, he doesn't need to do commercial endorsements. Jay32183 18:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and this is at least the 6th time today Malber has proposed a Magic player's article for deletion. I believe this may reflect bias on said User's part, and is certainly unfair as if there were a problem with so many members of the group, it would be better to handle them all together than separately. Mister.Manticore 19:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:AGF Mister.Manticore... accusing someone of bias is not the best way to make your case. Besides, multiple noms are preferable to one mass nomination because each of these individuals may have different levels of notability per WP:BIO or different reliable sources to demonstrate their notability.--Isotope23 20:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
reply I assumed good faith with the first few postings, but with Malber's own contributions regarding this issue, I'm inclined to think that he's violating WP:POINT Mister.Manticore 22:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the bigger issue is that this article is completely unverified.--Isotope23 20:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I've added the official hall of fame profile as a reference, it verifies the basic information and notability. Jay32183 20:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Can a source be provided outside of one published by WOTC? -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
CommentWould copies of Scrye and Inquest be acceptable sources to you? Mister.Manticore 21:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Professional collectible card players who earn hundreds of thousands of dollars doing so are notable. Yamaguchi先生 21:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per discussion at Jon Finkel. Irongargoyle 23:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep passes WP:BIO and is certainly more notable than 95% of people who do. WilyD 13:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, successful professional player of a widely played game. —ptk✰fgs 15:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, possible speedy keep, per all previous keeps. Stifle (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 11:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Child of Chaos

A self-published novel by a nn author (Michelle Hamilton, also the subject of an AfD). Little more than an advertisement, clearly in violation of WP:NPOV. Victoriagirl 18:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as vanity/PR. No evidence of notability. --Charlesknight 19:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because. Danny Lilithborne 19:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per my nom. Victoriagirl 19:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.UberCryxic 20:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Nishkid64 21:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Wryspy 19:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep ~Kylu (u|t) 00:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Selden

Non-notable collectible card game player per WP:BIO. Article does not include sources to substantiate notability outside realm of M:TG. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep as this is yet another in a list of at least 8 similar entries today. At the least, user should have bundled these together so the issue itself could be directly discussed to reach a consensus, and then decisions could be made upon it. Oops. Forgot to Sign. Mister.Manticore 20:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment right now I'm leaning delete per WP:V as this is completely unverfied. If it were sourced though, I'd be willing to extend WP:BIO sports coverage to this guy. If walking around hitting a little ball is a sport, then cards are too.--Isotope23 20:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Added a link to a Wizards.com page describing his championship match, still looking on the biographical details. and found that as well. Satisfactory? Mister.Manticore 22:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment, works for me.--Isotope23 19:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not as notable as Finkel or Williams, but still a world champion of the game, which equates him with Philip Vischjager and Adam Logan for notability purposes. -- Grev 23:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Peta 23:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; while I don't think this batch of MTG nominations has been in good faith, I couldn't find any solid sources about this one. Mangojuicetalk 04:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, MTG world champion. Kappa 06:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep passes WP:BIO WilyD 13:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep champions of competitions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, world champion in a widely played game. —ptk✰fgs 15:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, possible speedy keep, per all previous keeps. Stifle (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, and hope the nominator will consider this a lesson.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unconventional Theories of Deindustrialization

Partial AfD, listed but not tagged properly. This is a procedureal nomination, I have not read the article. Herostratus 18:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Neutral as nominator.
  • Comment Delete Mostly original research and speculation based on blogs. But I am not completely sure this is not notable as a crank theory or cult. For instance, this Pentti Linkola guy seems influential in some circles, and he holds similar views. Some of the article could be cleaned up and used for Deindustrialization, but the "unconventional" blogcruft is not encyclopeadic. Leibniz 14:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This article was originally listed under the title 'Deindustrialization'. It ignores a large and important literature on this subject by historians and economists, and refers only to a small number of speculative theories as if they were accepted facts or analyses. It certainly cannot serve as an encyclopaedia entry on 'deindustrialization', any more than a wholly homoeopathic account would be an acceptable entry on oncology. It does consitute a (sub-standard) essay on unconventional theories on this subject, but I don't think merits an encyclopedia entry.--Nmcmurdo 22:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems that the two sections 'Deindustrialization in the US' and 'Other examples of deindustrialization' are mainstream economic coverage. The sections 'Deindustrial revolution' and 'Industrial decomposition' are offbeat, but potentially important, contributions. The intro is a mixture of both. Perhaps separate the two approaches onto 2 pages, or clarify on a single page that the first part is mainstream and the second part is emerging ideas.--ekotekk 12:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV essay.--Peta 04:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I am the original author - my entry was very short, began with what was essentially a dictionary definition and then listed three or so examples of urban areas that experienced significant industrial decline. There were a few helpful additions in the first year and since then it seems to have gone off the rails.
  • Delete Deindustrialization is a worthy subject for an encylopedia entry, but we basically need to get rid of this one and start again. What next? Do a straw poll? I'm not an expert on the process! --Nmcmurdo 13:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think there is a process for this case. If the article started off OK and then went "off the rails", I suggest reverting to an earlier version, moving back to Deindustrialization and keeping an eye on "unconventional" edits, particularly by anons. Leibniz 15:32, 29 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. (aeropagitica) 11:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marc Bourdages

WP:NOT "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered." Another man, Curtis Dagenais, was "accused of the murder of two RCMP officers and the attempted murder of another." The Curtis Dagenais article was nominated for deletion on July 2006 and the result of the discussion was keep. Marc Bourdages, besides being one of Curtis's alleged victims, is not notable per WP:BIO. Prod remover claims notability, but as of writing, no sources for notability have been posted. Delete ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:V, WP:BIO, & WP:NOT as cited in nomination.--Isotope23 20:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete When this subject was alive, he did not achieve anything noteworthy (with due respects). Although the information in the article is verifiable, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Moreover, a google search shows about 5 unique hits and his death did not make it into international news. (although his death was reported in local news. Moreover, in my personal point of view, it is fairly common for police officers to be shot while on duty. This is not a rare event as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This was national news in Canada, and killings of police officers in Canada are still relatively infrequent. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Question - If it was national news, then why hasn't anyone found reliable sources (where Bourdages is the main subject of the article) for his notability? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 03:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Wryspy 19:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I found this article because I looked it up when I read the news story, and I'm in the UK not Canada. Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:45, 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. (aeropagitica) 11:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ghost of Lester Bangs

Contested A7 speedy. Band vanity about a group with a couple of self-produced releases. A Google search[26] finds a MySpace page, a number of bulletin board/web forum entries, and a mention in an article about another band, but nothing resembling a reliable source. No indication in the article that the group meets the WP:MUSIC guidelines. --Allen3 talk 20:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete. notability not demonstrated, no sources, likely vanity Anlace 20:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delte per above Hello32020 20:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I was about to A7 this, too. Delete, then. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NMG. PJM 21:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not delete This is for a band from my area, but no, I am not personally promoting or benefiting from this at all. I just saw other local bands the same size with entries and thought they deserved one too. Bands like ASOB have a listing, but they are no bigger. I think it is fair to leave this listing and I believe others will update this listing to make it more complete and have the most possible amount of information. These are just the facts I know about the band and have read on websites, reviews and their own site (which seems to be down at the moment).User:WSeconds12:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The primary issue is not where the band is from nor your motivation for writing the article. Instead the primary issue is the availability of reliable sources to provide a neutral and verifiable article without resorting to original research. If you can provide the needed sources then the article may be saved. Conversely, if you are aware of other articles that do not meet Wikipedia's policies for inclusion of material please help us by either making needed improvements or, when minimum requirements can not be met, nominating them for deletion. --Allen3 talk 16:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
What else can be done? I have updated the entry a bit to show the only things that come directly from the band. The other stuff, (musicbrainz is a massive discography of distributed popular music and a review featuring seemingly pretty accurate information about the band) is verified without the band and most likely with the band saying it is accurate by not telling these sites to edit the information. Let me know if there is anything else I can do.[User:WSeconds]17:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately there does not appear to be much else that can be done. The links you added to the article point to sites that appear to be open bulletin boards (MusicBrainz) or personal webpages/blogs (the band's home page and WRANKmusic which uses MySpace for contact information) under Wikipedia'a policies and guidelines. What the article really needs is newspaper articles or stories in the music press to establish notability. --Allen3 talk 19:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not trying to put someone on the spot, but what does a page like this use for sources (because the sources are not listed). I'll look in further about articles to see what I can find, because I know they have been in various publications.WSeconds 19:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks like that was one that got past the New page patrol. As a check on the article subject could only find a self-produced CD, appropriate processing has been started. --Allen3 talk 22:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this indulgence. Wryspy 19:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep To say the article does not mention notability per WP:MUSIC is false. There seems to be some misunderstanding here about WP:MUSIC. From the list provided, a band need only meet one of the requirements, and a national tour of the US seems to certainly meet that qualification. Here's a list of California shows from 2004, they're listed under the 25th playing in California. How notable the sources need to be is not clear, and highly debated. And they're from New York, as well as other web mentions of a prior Midwest tour. It also seems unfair to use the fact that their albums are self-released against them, but if the 2 albums were the only claim to notability I would have to acquiesce and vote no. However, for any band in to have demonstrably played in at least three time zones of the US, much less the four demonstrated here, that is, under the GUIDELINES LAID OUT IN PLAIN ENGLISH AT WP:MUSIC, notableGuyanakoolaid 08:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 15:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani

The articles subject is not notable, he is merely one of many prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay. The lack of information in the article goes to support this. The article is primarily made up of Combatant Trial information and nothing about the articles subject but his name and prisoner ID numebr to mark him as notable. NuclearUmpf 18:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - per my own above reasoning, lack of notability. --NuclearUmpf 20:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - agreed. Unless the author could describe specifics of his case (and how it's unique) then this article would qualify for NN Bio. WU03 00:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • In the 14 earlier nominations to delete articles about Guantanamo Bay detainees one of the recurring themes is for people to cite WP:BIO -- as if it were an official policy. It isn't. It is described as a shorthand to test whether the article might violate WP:VER, WP:OR, or WP:NPOV. I don't believe this article, or any of the other Guantanamo Bay articles violates those real policies.
    • I have started to expand the article.
    • Why is Al Juhani notable? WP:NPOV proscribes me from spelling this out in the article. But, it seems to me that Al Juhani didn't understand what was going on. He is not the only detainee who couldn't understand the difference between the Tribunal, and their regular interrogation sessions. He seems to not understand that this was his sole chance to explain why he should be released. He really blew it. Is this unique? No. A minor fraction of the detainees made the same mistake.
    • Is Al Juhani among the dozen most notable Guantanamo detainees? No. But those working on the wikipedia's coverage of the Guantanamo detainees, and the camp can't reach the conclusions for the readers. They have to be allowed to reach their own conclusions as to whether the process was fair, whether it was complete, whether the Tribunal's officers mandate allowed them the authority to access all the material they needed to reach a fair conclusion. In order for readers to do that, they need access to what actually happened at the Tribunals, even for detainees who may not have had copious numbers of newspaper articles written about them.
    • In addition, please bear in mind that whether each of these detainees was entitled to a Geneva Convention competent tribunal is a matter of great controversy. If these detainees were American citizens no one would question, for one second, whether they merited articles on them. -- Geo Swan 20:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. -- GRBerry 02:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment These articles are usually kept, because they are easy to expand. However, the pdf file that is a target of the second link, and thus creates the ease of expansion, seems to broken at the DoD website at the moment. At least page 29 gave me a square white box less than 1 cm by 1cm the first time, and then completely failed loading the second and subsequent times I tried to load. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibrahim Daif Allah Neman Al Sehli for the most recent AfD discussion (a test case) on stubs like these. GRBerry 02:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, we've been over this ground a dozen times - the articles are notable, we have hundreds of Nazi officers with articles, there's no reason we can't have these (relatively) few identified insurgents and leaders with articles. I'm getting sick of people just nominating a random new GB-er for deletion as soon as another AfD fails. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 03:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    Comment There is over 40,000 insurgents in Iraq, do you think they all deserve articles? Being a soldier in an insurgency does not make someone notable, his article does not detail even that he is an insurgent, just that he is at Guantanamo. --NuclearUmpf 11:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge, producing to unmerge when GRBerry's link starts working and it can be expanded. Kappa 06:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The link is working now. -- Geo Swan 20:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Change to plain Keep, good article, wanted poster clearly establishes fame or notoriety. Kappa 03:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
      • OK after a message from Umpf I think I'll have to discount the wanted poster. I still think keep for the convenience of users but I believe a merge to some kind of omnibus is acceptable although not desireable. Kappa 04:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This article is part of a set, however the article itself contains no information. Wikipedia is not a depository for US captives. Someone said they are easy to expand, but the expansion is not related to the subject of the article at all. The article is about the man and none of the article except the first sentence contains information about him. The rest is fluff, how many articles are there gonig to be that contain the same information no the tribunals? The tribunals are notable, the people involved are not. Perhaps merging these people into a list is best, as there currently is no content on these people to support seperate articles. --NuclearUmpf 11:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • You assert that "...the article itself contains no information." This is incorrect. The link, to the article, is unique. The DoD released 6,000 pages of transcripts, in response to a court order, forcing them to identify the detainees, after they had exhausted all their avenues of legal appeal. But they didn't fully comply with the court order, at first, because those transcripts didn't have the detainees names, only their detainee ID numbers. Seven weeks later they released a list of names, and detainee ID numbers, making it possible to match the transcripts with the detainee, by name. But doing so required visually scanning through all 6,000 pages. I did the work of correlating all the transcripts with the detainees by matching them by their detainee ID number. It took about 20 hours.
    • There is no other public place on the internet an interested reader can use to find a detainee's transcript without spending hours visually scanning through all 6,000 pages of transcripts. Those transcripts are not machine readable. Scanning through them takes hours.
    • So, sorry, your assertion that "...the article itself contains no information." -- is incorrect. The link itself is an unique, valuable resource, since it potentially saves readers hours of useless work.
    • As for the material that briefly summarizes the purpose of the Tribunals. Yes, those same paragraphs occur in other articles about Guantanamo detainees. And, if you were to look at the articles about the chemical elements, or the members of the US congress, you would find that they repeated material that was in articles about the other chemical elements or the other members of the US congress. So far as I am concerned this is not a meaningful criticism. When I started writing these articles I didn't put in the introductory paragraphs about the Tribunals, and, from the reactions I got, some readers really needed to have the context laid out for them in the article itself. Those paragraphs are brief. I believe they are accurate and written from an NPOV. -- Geo Swan 20:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      • CommentThere are 50 articles that all contain the same content in one PDF file and one other article. Your reason for this is not because they are notable, but because its great for people who want to find their testimony? Wikipedia is not a clearinghouse for easy to find testimony. --NuclearUmpf 21:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Where did you get the idea that the DoD released all 6,000 pages of documents in one PDF file? They released the documents in 75 PDF files, which varied in length from 16 pages long to well over 350 pages long. What do you mean when you refer to "easy to find testimony"? Are you stating that the unique links I spent 20 hours crafting are redundant, because the testimony is "easy to find"? Or, are you arguing that we shouldn't be helping readers find that testimony? If this is what you mean could you give a fuller explanation as to why you believe this? -- Geo Swan 09:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep -- reasons given in response to other contributor's questions.
    • Disclaimer, I started this article, and most of the edits to it are from me.
  • comment -- merging to one large omnibus article is unworkable, for a number of reasons:
    1. That article would be hundreds of kilobytes long.
    2. links to the individuals, if redirected to a large, omnibus article, would rob the readers of any of the value of having the links in the first place.
    3. lol. Many other reasons, but I have run out of time to explain. -- Geo Swan 20:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • History -- Guantanamo related articles which have been nominated for deletion -- Geo Swan 21:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Why is it hundreds of megs if none of these articles actually have individual content. The same PDF can be linked for people to reference each persons testimony, testimony which apparently ammounts to, "I will not answer your questions." All of the names can be put into a single article with an explanation of what the tribunal is and a link to the testimony, why are we creating individual articles for each name, splashing in the same tribunal information into each of the 50+ then a smalle xcerpt of their testimony which ammounts to "no I didnt do it" "No I will not answer your questions", this is honestly bordering on fluff since the testimony isnt saying anything more then, "not guilty" but doing it in 3 paragraphs instead of a sentence.
    • Sorry, that is kilobytes, not megabytes. My brain wrote kilobytes, my fingers wrote megabytes.
    • Articles that are larger than dozens of kilobytes raise problems for wikipedia readers who have slow connections or are using computers with limited resources. They are also dozens of pages long, raising a human-factors problem when they are being read. -- Geo Swan 17:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Regarding your characterization of the detainee's testimony as nothing more than "not guilty":
      • How many articles did you read?
      • Are you aware that the Bush administration routinely describes these guys as the "worst of the worst"? Only last summer the camp commandant Admiral Harris, said "there are no innocent men at Guantanamo". At that time Murat Kurnaz, Abdullah Kamel Al Kandari and Nasrat Khan were half way through their fifth year of extrajudicial detention. When examined, in detail, each of their cases exposes highly alarming hints of dreadful miscarriages of justice.
        • Murat Kurnaz was accused of being friends with the Elalamumble suicide bomber. Except this suicide bomber was alive, and well, and still living in Germany. And both Kurnaz and his friend were thoroughly investigated by German counter-terrorism officials, who cleared them both.
        • Al Kandari was one of the two dozen detainees who was being held, in part, because he was captured wearing a Casio F91W, a cheap digital watch, that has been used for the timer portion of time-bombs. Except, if you do a google image search, you can quickly determine, from the description in his transcript, that he was wearing the much more expensive Casio Prayer Watch.
        • Nasrat Khan acknowledged that he had joined with other patriots to throw foreign invaders out of his country -- except those foreign invaders were the Soviets. Khan had fought against the Soviets when the mujahideen were receiving training, funding, weapons from the USA through the CIA. This was when the CIA, in order to put a spoke through the wheel of the Soviets, encouraged fundamentalist Islamic militants from other countries to go to Afghanistan, to fight foreign invaders. Khan, a very old man, had sufferd a debilitating stroke before the Taliban ever took over Afghanistan, which would have prevented him engaging in any hostilities, without regard to his political preference. But he was one of the many guys in Guantanamo who said they welcomed the US intervention to remove the Taliban. His son was one of the half dozen or so detainees who were picked up because they were guarding armories who acknowledged guarding armories, but on an official, salaried basis, under the rubric of the Afghan Ministry of Defense. He and his son requested Rahim Wardak's testimony to clear them of this charge. Their Tribunal documents describe Wardak as a "Defense Ministry official" -- and said that he couldn't be located. Wardak was then, in fact, the Deputy Minister of Defense. He is currently the Minister of Defense. Maybe his testimony wouldn't have cleared Khan and his son, but the DoD didn't make more than a token effort to try to apply any sanity tests to the allegations against these men. This is not only morally reprehensible, keeping innocent men imprisoned at Guantanamo, but it makes us all less safe. The Guantanamo detainment camps cost $100 million per year. The Guantanamo detainment camps ties down two whole battalions of camp guards. These resources could be much better spent elsewhere. Wasting them there makes us all less safe.
        • Or consider the case of Abdullah Khan -- captured in the winter of 2003, he spent his first year and a half at Guantanamo denying his interrogator's accusations that he was really Khirullah Khairkhwa, the guy who read the Taliban's press releases, and briefly the GOvernor of Herat. When Khan was captured it was based on a denunciation that he was really Khairkhwa. Unbelievably no American intelligence official made the effort to test the truth of the denunciation. The real Khirullah Khairkhwa had been captured over a year earlier, and was undergoing his own interrogations in Guantanamo. Khan quickly learned this, when he arrived. He kept telling his interrogators this, and they couldn't be bothered to take a look at the camp roster.
      • Having read about half their transcripts for myself I know that the Denbeaux study's conclusions are entirely accurate. A very significant fraction of the detainees are very likely innocent men. The public needs to be able to read the allegations against the detainees for themselves.

--NuclearUmpf 21:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment You arent even arguing these people are notable, just that you did alot of work and want it to stay, that its hard to match a number to a testimony, none of these are grounds for keeping 50+ articles that have 0 content in them. --NuclearUmpf 21:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • For the record, I am arguing that they are all notable. The Geneva Conventions require a captor, like the USA, to use a "competent tribunal" to distinguish between its captives, and determine whether:
      • The captive is an innocent civilian, caught up in a case of mistaken identity, or forcibly evacuated from a fire zone, or reasonable equivalent. The Geneva Convention says that civilian evacues can be sent, temporarily, to refugee camps, but that they should be returned home, as soon as it is safe for them to do so.
      • The captive is a combatant, but a lawful one, who has not violated any of the laws or customs of war. Lawful combatants can be detained, until hostilities cease. But they are supposed to enjoy certain protections and privileges -- ie. POW status. A captive who is a lawful combatant, who has POW status, can't be charged with murder. Killing an enemy, when following all the laws and conventions of war, is not murder. And, if I understand the GC correctly, even killing a comrade, or an innocent civilian, is not murder, if the combatant followed lawful rules of engagement, and the death was a tragic accident.
      • The captive is a combatant, but they violated the laws or customs of war. Once the "competent tribunal" makes this determination the captive can be stripped of many of the protections of POW status. They can be tried. They can be tried for murder, if they killed an enemy soldier.
      • I believe the Geneva Conventions are quite clear. The captor is obliged to treat all captives as if they were entitled to POW status, until a competent tribunal meets, and makes the determination that the captive is not entitled to POW status.
      • The George H.W. Bush administration convened something like 1300 competent tribunals during and shortly after the first Gulf War. Those competent tribunals determined that more than 70% of those captives were innocent civilians. Those competent tribunals determined that all the remaining captives were entitled to POW status. The DoD has army regulations on how to conduct competent tribunals so that they comply with the USA's Geneva Convention obligations. AR190-8, IIRC. The Bush administration has yet to comply with its Geneva Convention obligations, and convene a single competent tribunal on any of the captives taken in Afghanistan. No, the Combatant Status Review Tribunals don't count -- for the reasons you characterized as "fluff". The Combatant Status Review Tribunals did not have the authority to determine whether captives qualified for POW status -- only whether they met the Bush administration's definition of an "enemy combatant".
      • IMO, if we believe in the rule of law, if we respect the rule of law, we comply with our Geneva Convention obligations, and allow all our captives to have the protections of the Geneva Convention POW status, until that competent tribunal determines they don't merit those protections. We extend those protections even to the captives that we suspect are "the worst of the worst". Captives whose detentions violate the Geneva Conventions, for whom we have information from authoritative, verifiable sources, merit articles.
      • Some of the articles on Guantanamo detainees have not been expanded beyond the stub status that gives the surface appearance that they are identical to some readers. There are approximately 400 articles on individual Guantanamo detainees. Approximately one hundred of these articles were based on reports from human rights groups, the captive's families, press reports, habeas corpus requests. When the DoD released the transcripts, I started going through them, and expanding the original 100 or so articles, and creating new articles, based on the transcripts. When I had spent the time necessary to enable myself to match the detainee's name to their transcript, and after I had created a couple of dozen new articles, I realized that the task was quite repetitive, and could be automated. At first, I kept all the stubs on my computer, and only added fleshed-out articles. But then I realized that it could be interpreted that I was hoarding the connection between the names and transcripts, making it almost impossible for other authors to write articles about those detainees. So I uploaded all the stubs. I am plowing through them, as fast as I can. Following the previous nomination to delete a detainee's article I went through all the articles, to measure my progress. At that time something like 145 articles hadn't been expanded beyond stub status. The week when I was responding to that nomination was a washout. As has been this week. Including Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani I swatted 15 articles, leaving about 130. -- Geo Swan 09:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, the link is now working and the article is expanded. This one is pretty much fluff even after the expansion, and could be adequately handled by a merge that preserved the detainee ID number and the link to the particular PDF with the appropriate page numbers. There is even less here than there was for that last test cases I linked above. I continue to believe that the relevant WP:BIO standard isthe one about renown or notoriety due to involvement in newsworthy events. If there is such renown/notoriety, then the articles should reference articles other than the government sources. Not seeing such sources in the article, I think that merge to List of Guantánamo Bay detainees and redirect is the appropriate result until they are found, at which point the article can be reverted to the current version and expanded from such sources. GRBerry 22:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Content removal
For anyone interested in why it was removed and removed again, please see talk page. Only information Geo Swan offered was that arab names are hard to illiterate and so they are the same person. I ask for a source other then him stating this as WP:RS WP:V and WP:OR are important for us to follow. I do not object if you have something other then your own words that arab names are hard to illiterate. --NuclearUmpf 14:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me NuclearUmpf. I think if you read my explanation more fully you will see that I linked to the wikipedia article on Arabic names. I think I said that they were hard to transliterate, and I think you will find that the wikipedia article backs up that assertion.
As for your concern that the two names may refer to two different individuals. This is a straw argument. No one is disputing this. As I pointed out on the article's talk page readers deserve to know the facts, and they can make up their own mind as to whether the two are the same individual.
Your removal of the {mergeto} tag is, IMO, highly Ill-advised.
Cheers! Geo Swan, not logging in because I only have a few moments, and I am not at home... 70.51.132.154 17:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Please read WP:OR and WP:V you arent allowed to make connection simply because you feel like it. --NuclearUmpf 17:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I think I am sufficiently familiar with WP:OR and WP:VER thanks. I am not "making a connection simply because I feel like it."
The two names are very similar. The likelihood of them referring to the same individual is high -- FWIW. But, let me repeat. I never stated that the two names refer to the same individual. I invited discussion as to whether the referred to the same individual -- with the {mergeto} tag. And, forgive me being so blunt, but you shouldn't keep removing that invitation to a discussion, based on your personal interpretation. You should state your opinion, on the talk page, and let other readers offer their opinion. If you refer to WP:NOT you will see a subsection entitled: "Wikipedia is not a battlefield." -- Removing the invitation to the discussion, is confrontational. It is consensus destroying, not consensus building.
As I stated on the article's talk page, without regard to whether the two similar names refer to the same individual, both names should be mentioned in this article, for the benefit of readers who assume they are the same. With both names mentioned the reader gets to make up their own mind. I know I am repeating myself, but you haven't addressed this point in your earlier comments, and I think it is a very important one.
I strongly urge you to be more collegial.
Cheers! -- Geo Swan 19:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Who other then you is stating these people can be mistaken, if you cannot provide someone from a WP:RS source in two days I will remove the information again. Please read WP:OR again it seems you failed to see the part about maknig your own conclusions. --NuclearUmpf 19:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Here is a CNN interview in Washington DC with SAIO Director Nail Al-Jubeir, that refers to a Muhammad al-Juhani -- without specifying which Muhammad al-Juhani the interview subject was talking about. Do you really need me to prove that people could conflate two individuals with similar names? -- Geo Swan 20:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes some proof that these two individuals are being confused, not that Muhammad al-Juhani was mentioned in the news. There is no proof this person is being confused with the other person. Please provide a source of this. Just because I find a Mike Tyson in a city in New Orleans at the age of 5 doesnt mean I can add him to the Mike Tyson (boxer) article saynig they have been confused. again please provide a source or I will remove the information again in two days. --NuclearUmpf 20:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
When the Saudi official used the name Muhammad Al Juhani that was inherently confusing, if our two names do refer to two separate individuals. Both men would be alleged terrorists. Both men could be referred to as Muhammad Al Juhani. If, on the other hand, the two names referred to a single individual, then referring to him as Muhammad Al Juhani would be perfectly acceptable. So, would the Saudi government know the identity of all the Saudi Guantanamo detainees? Well, variouse Saudi detainees told their Tribunals that a delegation of Saudi officials visited them at Guantanamo, so I think the answer to that question is a clear yes. -- Geo Swan 09:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Just because you were confused doesnt mean the Saudi's were. Its like me seeing a report on Mike Tyson and being confused because the kid down the block has the same name, so I goto the Mike Tyson article and write information about the kid down the block to that article, dont say they are related as you did not, just slap a block of text in the middle of Mike Tyson (boxer)'s article about the kid down the block from me. can youprove someone was confused with a source? You seem to be the only one confused and citing confusion. --NuclearUmpf 13:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding your Mike Tyson analogy... You and I don't know how common Muhammad Al Juhani is in Saudi Arabia. I have no problem assuming that Muhammad Al Juhani is at least as common as Mike Tyson. But, all the males born in Saudi Arabia is not the namespace we are talking about. The namespace we are talking about are Saudis who are wanted by, or in the custody of, the USA, because they are suspected of being terrorists. That is only a couple of hundred individuals. Please, let's compare apples with apples, and oranges with oranges. Agreed? Now, if the guy down the street, was not only named Mike Tyson, but was a world famous boxer, that would be a fair comparison.
  • I didn't say the Saudi official was confused. I said that if the two transliterations refered to two individuals, then the Saudi official confused the issue for their listeners. I thought I already explained this. When the Saudi official spoke about the suspected terrorist Muhammad Al Juhani they would have then introduced confusion as to which suspected terrorist named Muhammad Al Juhani they meant. -- Geo Swan 16:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Comment I would like this resubmitted for further comment instead of closed when the time runs out if no other people chime in. only 5 people have stated their views and think further opinions are needed. Thank you. --NuclearUmpf 22:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I, on the other hand, would like to see this discussion closed, on schedule. NuclearUmpf has been mischaracterizing what I have written. Since I am going to AGF, I should start with the assumption that this is either due to inattention on his part, or lack of clarity on my part. IMO, in either case, NuclearUmpf should have made a greater effort to understand what I have written. I am doing my best to understand his concerns. I'd like him to reciprocate that effort. Civil, tactful questions would have prevented the mischaracterizations. Perhaps someone else can spell out to NuclearUmpf how mischaracterizing what someone has written gives the unfortunate appearance of bad faith, even when those comments were made in good faith, but with a lack of attention to what the other contributor actually said, or actually meant. -- Geo Swan 09:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I dont appreciate your comments, you have stated yourself that you have added information to this article about people unrelated to the article person in any fashion. People that you have not connected via a source and admittedly have no source linking them in any way. You have added information to this article that violated WP:NOR and WP:RS and WP:V to extend its size purposely without providing any link other then your understanding that arab names are hard to illiterate, so apparently anyone wioth Muhammed (a common arab name) and Juhani are actually being mistaken for the same person. This is obsurd in its own right as I am sure there are hundreds of arab men with the last name Juhani and what is probably the most common first name. So here is my simple question since you ask for one. Do you have a source linking these two people? --NuclearUmpf 10:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
        • NuclearUmpf, in several of my responses I stated my concern that you weren't reading my comments. In this comment above, you repeat your assertion: "noone is even arguing these people are notable". Well, in this comment, predating your comment, I started the major portion of my reply with: "For the record, I am arguing that they are all notable." Surely you can agree this gives the appearance you aren't reading other people's comments? I followed this statement with a detailed explanation. In your comment on WP:AN/I you told the administrators that I was simply reverting your changes -- neglecting to mention that I have diligently explained my actions. Would you please pause, and consider, whether telling your audience that I simply reverted your changes, without saying I make honest, civil attempts to explain myself, is a fair characterization? Please put yourself in my shoes. I am doing my best to understand your concerns. Can you really say you are trying to understand my replies? If so how come my repeated explanations that you are mischaracterizing me go ignored?
        • You keep repeating that I have acknowledged that the two transliterations represent two different individuals. And I keep telling you that you are mischaracterizing my statements. I don't think you understand that there is a difference between not asserting, in the article, that the two transliterations name a single individual, and acknowledging that the two transliterations name two different individuals. I did the former. You keep insisting on asserting on the latter, on User:Kappa, and on [[WP:AN/I. I am not going to assert, in the article, that the two transliteration name a single individual. That is, at present, unverifiable. Asserting this, in the article would violate NPOV. So, I didn't do it. Please stop mischaracterizing my restraint, to comply with NPOV, as an acknowledgement that the two individuals are unrelated.
        • Regarding your comment that it is absurd to conflate individuals based solely on their name... There are on the order of one hundred Guantanamo detainees, whose continued detention is justified, in part, because their name, or one of their "known aliases", was found on a list that American intelligence analysts found suspicious. What kind of lists? Well, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had a list of 324 Arabic names on his laptop. A handful of those hundred had their name, or alias, matching one of those 324 names. But some of the other name matches are far less credible. FYI, one of the justifications for continuing to detain Faruq Ali Ahmed was, according to the National Journal: "The board told Farouq that a new piece of evidence had turned up against him, he later told his lawyers. Somebody had said, at some point in the past four years, that they had heard the name "Farouq" over a walkie-talkie during the battle of Tora Bora." Another list was simply a website that listed the known Guantanamo detainees, with the avowed attempt to put pressure on their governments to lobby for their release. If you think it is absurd, have you considered writing President Bush, and telling him so?
        • Regarding your assertion that I am violating WP:RS and WP:V, could you please explain why the Department of Defense and the FBI should not be considered verifiable, reliable sources?
        • Regarding your assertion that I am violating WP:NOR -- it seems to me that WP:NOR does not preclude me noticing the occurrence of two similar names. I don't think it precludes me from finding that article from the Saudi embassy's web-site. I am going to repeat myself. The namespace we are concerned with here is small. It is not the namespace of all Saudi males. It is the namespace of all the Saudis that the USA regards as threats to its National Security. And this is a small namespace. Namespace collision in such a small namespace is noteworthy. I don't think I have to prove this.
        • Do you wish to explain which of my comments you don't appreciate? If it is the comment that you keep mischaracterizing me, I'm sorry, but I think that is undeniable. I didn't close my mind to the possibility that I what I wrote wasn't clear. But, since I am doing my best to understand your concerns, I would continue to appreciate you to try to understand my concerns. Your final question implies something that is not verifiable -- that the two transliterations refer to two different individuals. Forgive me, but I am going to suggest that this is not a good starting point for the questions you are going to ask that show you are making an effort to understand my points. -- Geo Swan 16:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is one of the major political events of this century, to date. That the Bush administration has unilaterally decided to ignore certain rights granted to detainees under the Geneva convention is of major significance. Everyone detained at Guantanamo, whether legally or not, whether "innocent" or "guilty" is notable and should be included in this encyclopaedia. This discussion is long overdue for closure, although I will not do it myself. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
THis is on par with arguing that everyone in the World Trade Center deserves an article because the even twas notable or everyone on the planes. Or everyone at Tienaman Square because that event was notable, how about every prisoner in Abu Ghraib, how about every prisoner in every jail outside of the US, but is ran by the US? I mean where does it stop, noone is even arguing these people are notable, just that the event was notable, this is obsurd. I hope the admin reviewing this can see that noone here has so far argued this person is notable or proven they are by showing any media reports. --NuclearUmpf 13:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Do I think every victim or survivor of the WTC attack merits an article? Sure, why not, if there is meaningful content, verifiable from an authoritative source? For what it is worth I started two articles about WTC survivors, Brian Clark and Stanley Prainmath. Regarding the prisoners at Abu Ghraib -- well, I read much of the Fay Report. The Taguba Report estimated that more than 60% of the Abu Ghraib prisoners had been rounded up in error. The Fay Report went into more detail. The US practice was to cordon off an area and arrest ALL the military age males. Can I imagine circumstances where this approach would make sense, be acceptable? Yes. Provided the technique was put to use under very limited circumstances, and there was a prompt mechanism to release those who were innocent, and they were treated with dignity and respect until that determination was made. What the Fay Report documented was that over 90% of those rounded up were determined to have been rounded up in error. And, the reason they weren't released is that a high-level committee of busy senior officers, who didn't get along with one another, had to meet to agree on the releases. General Karpinski, the senior Military Police officer was on it, and General Barbara Fast, the senior intelligence officer in Iraq, and Colonel Warren, the senior JAG officer. They were busy, and they didn't get along, so the meetings that would have approved the release of the prisoners kept getting postponed, for months. That is the reason the prison population swelled. That is why Abu Ghraib, and, presumably, the other prisons, continued to be full of men whose innocence had been determined months earlier. -- Geo Swan 16:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought as much now read WP:BIO and see why these articles would be out of line as well as this one. Thank you. --NuclearUmpf 16:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
As I pointed out, in the very first paragraph of my very first comments on your nomination, WP:BIO is not a wikipedia policy. It is a document that is based on other policies, WP:VER, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. If you are just realizing that this is my view now it strongly suggests you aren't bothering to read the comments to your nomination. IMO, if you nominate an article for deletion you should feel obliged to make an effort to try to read and understand the comments of those who don't agree with you. -- Geo Swan 18:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I give up, if you add it I will just remove it, if this is a problem then call an admin. You are asking questions that show you are not reading policy. Why can you put that you notice a similarity? This isnt your blog, this is a place for facts and reporting what others have said, you are not a reliable source. Noone is debating that another person with a much shorter and not very similar name exists, you just havent given a single source saying they are the same person. That is why you fail WP:RS not because you dont have a reliable source saying they exist, its because you dont have a reliable source saying they are the same. I know ... you arent saying they are ... then good there is no problem with me removing it. You have a problem with this then as I said call an admin. I have tried in good faith numerous times to explain this and you seem to be not reading policy or just flat out misrepresenting it. If you really think WP:RS and WP:V just has to go toward existence and not the actual thing you are attempting to state (a link) then you need to read the policy again. Its like me putting a large section on cocaine into the Mike Tyson article then showing a ATF report saying Cocaine exists and then showing a boxing magazine saying Mike Tyson exists and reporting that I am not saying he does it, just that they both exist according to WP:RS and I think it should be in the article. --NuclearUmpf 12:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable on his own. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as per Cactus.man Travb (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
So you believe WP:BIO is not relevant? --NuclearUmpf 19:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I see why you are here, I am sorry if you took that post personal. --NuclearUmpf 19:44, 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 - OR concerns trump any lack of clear consensus.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 07:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ladies Bible Study

Doesn't seem notable (no lasting impact even at the school where it happened); request to be kept as a forum for discussion in the context of a class project seems to at least border on original research. Jaeger5432 21:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep: Despite what someone posted in discussion, this article is NOT research (for a class or otherwise). It is the account of an event and does not propose an idea, theory or argument and therefore does not fall into the category of original research. The only basis for deletion seems to be a matter of impact. This event has had a lasting impact at the school where it happened and was experienced by a large percentage of a university population of nearly 39,000 students plus staff. You need only ask any student on campus or look at the tshirts being worn to see it's impact. There are many other Wikipedia articles far more worthy of deletion (and volunteer time) than Ladies Bible Study. UserDeleted092906
I think you need to read the WP:OR page closer. In the discussion page, I quoted part of it, but it apears that you have not read it. I'll quote the second sentence of the WP:OR page: "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article and to adhere to what those sources say."
Now take the very first sentence of the ladies bible study page: " "Ladies Bible Study- tonight!" was a 'mail storm' that was created on September 11, 2006 and has still not abated. ". This sentence is all original research because there are *zero* sources that are considered reliable for the purposes of the wikipedia that I can independently confirm that this event started on Sept 11. There is no way I can verify that, over a week later, this mail storm has yet to abate. Wrs1864 19:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I did read your post in the discussion, but I believe it is you that needs to read the WP:OR page more closely. Specifically, get past the intro and read the section called "What is excluded?". It clearly states:
--
"An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is, if it does any of the following:
* It introduces a theory or method of solution;
* It introduces original ideas;
* It defines new terms;
* It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
* It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
* It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
* It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source."
--
This clearly shows how the WP:OR rule does not apply to Ladies Bible Study since it is not introducing a theory, idea, argument, etc. It is not research; much less original research. UserDeleted092906
*sigh* Please read what you quoted and what I wrote. In particular, pay attention to the places that talk about "reputable sources". Again, not only are there zero reputable sources cited in the article, but from what I can tell, there aren't any in existance. Even if there were one or two, that would still fail the search engine test. Wrs1864 02:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
You're missing the point. You can't just take the words "reputable source" out of context. The point of the WP:OR rule is to keep people from publishing their own theories or arguments on Wikipedia. That theme is common among all the bullets that are in the "What is excluded?" section. You can't just research a topic, make your own theory and then tell the world using Wikipedia, effectively bypassing the standard practice of having your discoveries scrutinized through peer review. Read the "Why original research is excluded" and "Policy origin: the opinion of Wikipedia's founder" sections of WP:OR. Sure, you'll find more requirements of "reputable sources", but you can't just take that out of context. Ladies Bible Study doesn't qualify as a theory; it's an event. In general, I understand what you're trying to argue, but it just doesn't apply in this case. UserDeleted092906
Ok, you win. I'm going to stop wasting my time on this. You are very much mistaken about the need for need for Wikipedia:Verifiability from Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It isn't just theories or arguments. It includes the first publication of any sort of data or statements. You say to read the "why original research is excluded", but it says right there that "That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article." The facts and interpretations in this article have not been published elsewhere. You say to read "policy origin" section, and it says "Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history." This is an historicial event, and you have failed to see why no-original-research applies. Wrs1864 14:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you... we should stop wasting our time debating this. However, I'd like you to read the citation for that last statement you quoted. I think it's clear that they are discussing analysis/interpretations of historical events that have the possibility of inciting debate. For example, the cause of WWII is up for interpretation and debate. Ladies Bible Study is not, because no ideas are expressed in the article. UserDeleted092906
  • Delete as per nom. Wrs1864 05:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Wryspy 19:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)—
  • Keep: This article should not be deleted as it provides a microanalysis of how a "mail storm" can occur even when the originator of the source e-mail had the most innocent of intentions. With this in mind the wikipedia article is a valid tool for people researching internet and e-mail culture. Also, UM campus has already developed a subculture on "ladies bible study" as shorthand for describing useless clogging e-mails, and as such, the description of the e-mail storm's origination is valid and should stay on wikipedia.
No, this article should be deleted *because* it provides microanalysis and *because* this is the only place where people can reasearch this topic. Wrs1864 14:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Per nomination and all the arguments that back it. This is about a single school -- and if this persists, what's to keep articles from being created about flamewars and mailstorms at every school/organization on the end of this earth? -- and the argument of subculture would mean terms used at any school would be fair game, i.e. "night shifted" (for sleeping during the day and working through the night) for MIT, "that's how I roll" (slang for that's how I go about my life) for any school, and bag used in very derogatory senses. This article is very much OR. It's well written and with cute graphics, to be sure, but what purpose does it serve to educate? Nothing. No one outside the UMich lists that were spammed would possibly care, and note that for the most part, people looking to keep/edit the article are new on WP and may not have read WP policies. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers but this does cast suspicion on the claims that this article has any prominence or value outside of the school. Janet13 16:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, the article names people and lists by name and publishes emails (and signatures) without people's consent. No idea the legality of it but the morality of possibly defaming/misrepresenting people when the subject is something so trivial? Janet13 16:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying save or delete, but you're beasically saying 'only 40,000 people would care'. How about this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Army_acronyms_and_expressions - only a few hundred thousand people would care, why not delete it?--Eljamoquio 23:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Delete. This is a waste of time. 68.42.67.23 22:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. After personal references and opinionated sections have been removed. Nonsufficitorbis 17:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- even though I've tried to keep this from being a storm of biased ranting and insults, it still isn't suitable to an encyclopedia. --FOo 21:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As per UserDeleted092906 and Nonsufficitorbis above. Panchero 16:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't believe using the 'its only happening at this school' reason is sufficient for deletion of the article. Many similar events happen around the world and they are not just lumped together. To reference them separately is a critical component of being able to discern the different ways people, groups or 'subcultures' react to similar situations. The fact that UofM has had this reaction with vicious emails, a weak response from the IT department, and Tshirts being made exposes different facets of the life there that make it unique. I personally did not know about the 'night shifting' at MIT, for example. But if I were a prospective student, I would have like to have known about that from a source i could trust. As Wikipedia expands and more people are coming to use it as a source of information, the trust will follow simply because it literally does have everything. Another issue: Wikipedia is used by many people to gain details of the facts whatever they may be as long as they are verifiable. Now the question of verifiability may be in dispute in a case where things are happening at the same time they are placed onto the Wikipedia. However, the only way to have one hundred percent verifiability is for every human being on earth to conclusively believe an even occurred...this never happens. Reasonable verifiability depends on the general public's trust of several independent sources. 'Reputable' is up to debate, i agree. However, if we want to wait on this to publish the information, the Wikipedia has no business publishing news information on current events such as the Thai Coup. SandyB
  • Strong Delete -- This is a description of an insignificant event with an attempt to fit it in under the context of encyclopedic recordkeeping. The only topic under which this could justifyably fall under is "e-mail storm", where this event would be given no more than one or two lines as a reference that this happened at the University of Michigan. However, because of its insignificance (i.e. no press coverage at all), even such mention would not be proper. Although some of the quotes and graphics are amusing, there are more appropriate locations on the web to post those than wikipedia. -- Hero27 00:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I have to say that I found it interesting but, sadly, it has to go as unencyclopaedic. There is, though, scope for a generic Mail storm article. BlueValour 01:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Keep - I believe the concept of wikipedia which makes it more popular and useful than a traditional encyclopedia such as the Encyclopedia Brittanica is that 1. It is not under the natural constraint of printed paper books that take up space which limit the amount of data that go into it and 2. It allows for users to input the information that they believe is worth documenting within the limits of verifiability. Relevance should be a minor concern...it is not a good idea in the long run to decide whether a subject matter is 'relevant' or not. In the old days, Encyclopedia writers from Diderot onwards would be challenged by the issue of relevance as the physical limits of the size of the encylopedia had to be considered. Today, if the Wikipedia administrators are concerned about the size of the project becoming too large, then by all means this article should be deleted. Other articles worth deleting are:
Old Toronto Board of Trade Building
Zsanett Égerházi
Springfield Model 1863
Darcy Hogan
The Widow Jones
Kim Jung-Joo
Dumped
1956 in country music
These articles include: a year when nothing happened, a bronze medalist in the olympics, a 31 year old playwright who has written one obscure play, a gun being described as slightly different from the model design 2 years prior, a building that was torn down long ago, a hungarian porn star, and an episode of a cartoon show. I got this list by hitting the random page about 30 times. The list of deleted articles could conceivably form another wiki, one could reasonably argue that each of these should be tagged for deletion. The point here, however, is that these should not be deleted because they help to conceive a unified database that people can come to as reference point of our culture, both past, present and future, that should not be cut down by our 'traditional' ideas of what an encyclopedia should be. To rephrase: Wikipedia is not simply an encyclopedia, it is a new medium of information conveyence that people have yet to fully comprehend. It can have tremendous influence in the future as it becomes more detailed and refined, in shaping the way our society learns but only if we let the authors have some leeway to decide what they think is a relevant article. Sure this episode is about an incident at one school that lasted only for a month or so and then kinda died away. A century from now, historians combing through the wikipedia may stumble on the 'email storm' article and find it about as drab as i found the Brittanica entry on Hong Kong I had to go through for a report in the eighth grade. How different would their perspective be by reading this article...a living example written by the people who went through it. Equally importantly, how discouraged would this group of University students taking time to document the incident be? A slap in the face now may keep them from ever contributing in the future. SandyB
I agree... well said. UserDeleted092906
The question of whether other articles are notable or not does not mean that this one is. The other key difference between this article and the ones you list is that they are all based on independent sources, or at least that published sources can be found. (This doesn't mean that the sources are necessarily correct, just that someone else has written something about it in a reasonably permanent medium.) Wikipedia is not (just) "a unified... reference point of our culture", it's an encyclopedia which includes *facts* about culture. And there needs to be some way to verify those facts -- even about seemingly trivial subjects such as Hungarian porn stars and a run-of-the-mill year in country music.
Am I suggesting that this didn't happen? No; I was on one of the lists myself, so I got to experience it in all its glory. Am I suggesting that the interpretation is wrong? Not necessarily. I'm suggesting that, *since* no reliable sources have been found, and *since* the conclusions therefore constitute original research, it does not belong on Wikipedia. If you want to show that it's good, useful information, then find reliable sources for it. If you think this is such a vivid narrative of exactly what it's like to survive an "email storm" that it must be preserved (here instead of some other site), then perhaps you could go on and merge it into email storm or some such.
On the feelings of "the authors" -- one of the things that makes Wikipedia special is that we're *all* "the authors"; it's not just the original writer of the first draft of the article who gets to decide its "final" form. Do the authors (even the brand-new-to-Wikipedia ones) have the freedom to decide what we think is a relevant article? Sure! that's what this process is all about :) Jaeger5432 04:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
What "conclusions" are in this article? What are the hypotheses of this "research"? UserDeleted092906
"Research" here refers to "material placed in articles by Wikipedia users that has not been previously published by a reliable source". The whole section "A Socio-scientific classification" is "conclusions", as is the (POV) statement that the IT department was "the real culprit". Take those out and what's left? a story about something interesting that happened at school one day. Hey, we had a fire drill this morning, maybe I should put an article on Wikipedia about that! It certainly affected hundreds of students and I could probably come up with some sort of "socio-scientific classification" of how people reacted. Sarcasm aside, even the bare facts are not currently verifiable. If they are, feel free to improve the article by adding sources. Contribute to the article rather than the argument, and you might yet convince people it's worth keeping. Jaeger5432 15:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with your interpretation of WP:OR since the page also says: "An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments." and consistantly refers to "ideas" and "arguments" throughout (read my posts above). I wish my advisor would agree with your definition of "research"... it would make the Ph.D. so much easier. :-)
I do, however, agree with you on the issue of those statements about the IT department being the "real culprit". I apologize for not have seen that earlier... it shouldn't be there. I'm glad that you agree with me that this article is just an account of an event. Wikipedia is full of these. And hey... if your fire drill keeps forcing thousands of people out of the building for 10 days and people start selling t-shirts or writing songs about it, I think you have a good case for putting up an article. ;-) UserDeleted092906
The standard for what constitues original research on Wikipedia is in general much less than that of what constitutes original research for academia. JoshuaZ 03:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
And UserDeleted092906 and SandyB - no, it's not well said. What this article does is give UMich people a bad idea of what wikipedia is. It makes wikipedia look like a random website. I'm with Jaeger here... although I don't believe this could ever be actually encyclopedia unless something newsworthy happened as a result - like dozens of people throwing their computers out of their rooms in protest, like one of the serial spammers getting assaulted for their participation (hopefully not!). And then, it would belong in Wikinews... and MAYBE Wikipedia. Oh. And my old dorm constantly had firedrills that led to comments about its inhabitants that have entered school lore - does *that* count as encyclopedic? Janet13 06:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Keep - Keep after ensuring it maintains a NPOV
  • Comment - apart from the sweatshirt the whole article is unsourced. It could all be complete bunkum as far as anyone knows. Where is the verifiability of the emails? This was a minor mail storm in a tea cup. As I said above, a generic article on mail storms might be fine but this is a fundamentally unencyclopaedic article. If this article is allowed to remain it will compromise the reputation of Wikipedia as a serious encyclopaedia. BlueValour 23:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and BlueValour and per being very WP:OR. JoshuaZ 15:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN per nom. Arbusto 02:09, 29 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.
  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]}}
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. - Mailer Diablo 15:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monster Zero Productions

Nonnotable "virtual television network" (i.e., a website where people can post homemade TV shows made from clips of real shows). Delete this and all "shows" listed in the article:

  • The DSR
  • The Fempiror Chronicles
  • Homeostasis (Virtual Series)
  • Independent Living (Virtual Series)

NawlinWiki 21:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete All per nom. MikeWazowski 04:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not Delete per the following:
    • The Fempiror Chronicles is actually not a Monster Zero show, but a collection of stories that predates Monster Zero's existence on Wikipedia and has already established its own notability. This collection is also not exclusive to Monster Zero, but is actually listed in multiple places across the Internet, and has been widely read. It should not be lumped into the mix with Monster Zero just because it was listed in Monster Zero's article. Monster Zero is simply another site from which it can be read. Tubkas 13:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Monster Zero is actually quite a project that has been on the 'net for about 2 and a half years, and Virtual series are quickly becoming a staple of the Internet. The series in Monster Zero (original as well as spin-off) do not use clips from existing shows, but are scripts that are entirely the original work of the authors who write them, even though the spin-offs use existing universes for their frameworks. Budding writers can "pitch" ideas to the heads of this network and work on developing them in a professional-like environment. In the world of virtual series, MZP is one of the most notable. I believe Monster Zero can definitely stand on its own as an article and the individual shows judged on their own merits and notability. Tubkas 13:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Commment - this discussion is not about whether the sites and items exist - it is clear that they do; however, the discussion is whether they are notable enough to be included in an encyclopedic reference. They have had no mainstream media coverage that I can find. A Google search on "Monster Zero Productions" only returns 107 unique returns. "The Fempiror Chronicles" brings up only 49 unique, and most of those are copied from Wikipedia. Homeostasis +"virtual series" brings up only 27 unique, same conditions. These entries are clearly not notable, IMHO, and apparently that of the nominator. MikeWazowski 14:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Commment - What? So only things that have mainstream media attention can be on Wikipedia? Well cripes, better get deleting then because there's sure as sh*t a load of articles that breach this. What a ridiculous thing to say. There is an article on Wikipedia for Virtual Series, Virtual Seasons, fan fiction -- so by association, why not articles on the most noteable websites for these? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.210.160.63 (talk • contribs).
    • Comment - I will admit that these things are better known in smaller circles, but some statiscal info about Monster Zero's site that is readily displayed on the main page shows it has (when I just looked) 50,872 posts and 733 members. The Fempiror Chronicles shows a total number of hits across the three boards it is listed on of 5242, and that does not include hits the site itself might have received since that information is not readily available. Granted, since these are all message boards, not all of those hits are reads, but likely at least half if not more are clicks that resulted in a read of at least one of the stories. Not sure how notable that makes them, though. They both have pretty high numbers, so it's not like we're dealing with something that no one has ever seen before. I know when I consider a VS hub, MZP is what comes to mind, though. I can't help but wonder how much research the nominator did, since he refers to the series as using "clips of real shows" which they do not. His wording almost reads a bit vindictive. Tubkas 15:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I'm really failing to see the logic in this proposed deletion. A previous poster, who is in favor of deletion, questions the notability of MZP, Fempiror, and whether or not they warrant an encyclopedic reference. I say yes, especially in regards to a virtual series, which if searched on wiki will reference not only the series proposed for deletion, but Buffy, Angel, Banana Chan, and Galaxy Task Force Astroranger. In my opinion, all of these series are more than worthy of a listing based on their following, which is there despite the lack of media coverage that you so desperately require. Does media coverage really constitute what is an acceptable entertainment medium? Absolutely not. This is the internet we're talking about, and virtual entertainment in one form or another is what it's all about. There are literally millions of websites out there that have a built in fanbase and regular daily visitors without any media coverage. Perfect examples would be Maddox and Tucker Max. Both have huge internet followings, but are they regularly covered by the media, if at all? Not that I've seen, yet their pages are on wiki for all to see, and justifiably so based on their internet followings. I say let it ride, but if for some reason the articles do end up being deleted, you might as well hit up the fantasy football, baseball, etc. entries as well, because let's be honest, those are nothing more than virtual reality themselves. --Mike Shelton 16:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Also, approximately 125 full-length television scripts have been written for, posted on and read at Monster Zero Productions, which is a rather large number and continues to grow every week the site is running. -- AldenCaele 06:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - In this age of the internet, in which Wikipedia is often a virtual reality unto itself, novel uses of this medium will continually come to light. The so-called “virtual series” is one such phenomenon that will undoubtedly continue to grow, and it is somewhat ignorant to claim that a lack of mainstream media coverage is the sole criteria for inclusion into a vast information repository that prides itself on up-to-the-minute relevance. The virtual series not only deserves a Wikipedia definition, such as it is, but also examples of this novel form of storytelling, if only in the interests of completeness. The Fempiror Chronicles – one such series nominated for the axe – is as compelling and textured as any fiction that I have encountered on the internet. Not only is the series entertaining, but it is also instructive in terms of the providing a sterling example of the proper industry format for screenplays or teleplays, which also has value in and of itself. I, too, suspect this nominator has some kind of axe to grind, and question his motives at nominating something so clearly relevant to this age of virtual technology and entertainment. -- Robert Newcomer.
    • Comment - I also just noticed the comment "a website where people can post homemade TV shows made from clips of real shows" and feel the need to make a comment on this - it is ignorant and wrong. A virtual TV show is not a collection of clips from real shows, not at all, and by reading the virtual series/seasons articles on Wiki he would know this. Virtual TV is real scripts, in real script format, trying it's very best to be as entertaining as the real thing -- the quality is extremely high. This is a medium that is growing every day, and deserves to be represented.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.210.160.63 (talk • contribs).
    • Comment - As the guy who started MZP and has been running it quite merrily for the last two years, I feel I should also contest this propsed deletion on the grounds that the person voting for it in the first place clearly has zero understanding of what the site is all about. We're an online resource for scriptwriters to showcase their work, chat with other writers and fans and generally look to make themselves better writers and get our work out there into the wider world. The implication that we, and I quote, "post homemade TV shows made from clips of real shows" is pretty inaccurate - a large percentage of the work on MZP is 100% original, written work in professional script format. I'd say that the 165,000 hits our website has already registered is an indicator of our relative popularity! -- Captain MZ
    • Comment - A search on google for "virtual series" gets 34,900 hits, a search for "virtual season" gets 45,600. This is obviously a popular field of interest and will continue to grow.
      • Clarification - "virtual series" gets only 544 unique returns, which is the more important number. "virtual season" only brings back 622 unique. Very few those are MonsterZero releated, though - the concept *may* be popular, but that's not the focus of this discussion. MikeWazowski 05:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Monster Zero Productions is quite possibly the most well-known virtual network there is and has a number of shows which continue to impress and delight readers. The numbers quoted above show just how many people are invested in it and just how important it is to the web-community that it remains on wikipedia. A lot of hard work has gone into the wikipedia page and it most certainly shows, looking professional and accessible. The site is loved by many - as is this one - and it would be a shame to have it be taken off of wikipedia when there is such support for it to be here. It is a fantastic website with high quality and deserves the exposure wikipedia grants it. A number of other series allowed to remain here certainly do not warrant the same amount of readers and fans and yet they remain, so why shouldn't Monster Zero Productions? Long live MZP! -- Mr.Dark Fake signature.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.32.44.154 (talk • contribs).
    • Comment -Why should MZP be deleted when there are other shows that you aren't complaining about (and that is not a reason to). I am a member of the forum and I don't see what is wrong with having this here. It doesn't hurt anyone and you obviously wouldn't have looked at it if you weren't interested.--66.41.32.68 00:35, 21 September 2006 MZPite For Life!
    • Comment - Why would I use Wikipedia to search for information on things that are only available in mainstream media? I Wiki things that are hard to find info on. The Fempiror Chronicles have not been mentioned in any mainstream media that I know of, yet somehow I know for a fact that people from around the world that have read it. This series may even some day get snapped up by a major studio (it's that good). Why wouldn't Wikipedia want this virtual series to grace their site?Mz. Pia
    • Comment - MZP is a growing community for script writers and continues to be the number one place for virtual series and support for talented script writers. I don't see any reason why this page should be taken down.-- William C. Lonero
    • Comment -George is a tremendous writer, the question should not be why to leave in on wikipedia, but why not? Wikipedia is a user submitted site,the Net is user driven, so why shouldn't something that has a following on the net be noted here? you have a freaking article on the Numa Numa guy for Christ sakes, and yet you are wondering if this should be removed? I think George's script should take more priority over the Numa Numa guy,because it is more than a significant contribution to online literature and that should be noted. Numa guy lip-synched and gained fame, only thing he should be noted as is Milli-Vanilli Reloaded. why the need for the wiki page is not seen right now, i feel it should stay because the need for it will grow as the story and fan base does.(theprodigalson) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.63.96.118 (talk • contribs).
  • Delete all per nom. Naconkantari 01:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Mz. Pia, are you for or against deleting it? Not judging just wondering.--66.41.32.68 02:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)MZPite For Life!
    • CommentI'm not sure since this is my first time I've posted on Wikipedia but what's the deal with the attention signpost on the top of the article. The reason there are more posts here decrying the proposed deletion is because we all feel very strong on this matter and believe that this article should not be deleted- not as it is suggested "because someone told us to or there was some message posted in a forum". That is quite a narrow minded view to take of things to assume that is why there are so many comments against this deletion. Perhaps the editors should be aware that the posters of these comments are quite intelligent, informed individuals who are well aware this is a discussion- people discussing the reasons why this article is within the guidelines for articles to be on the site. Others have pointed out very good points why this article should remain to which I concur but I will add this- this is an informative article discussing the new phenomenon amongst fans first there was fan fiction that is now even being recognised/mentioned by tv series creators in the mainstream media now the next step is virtual series- people writing their own scripts. I'm sure in the next year or so people in the mainstream will start to take notice just as they did with fan fiction. However I find it highly amusing that the editors of wikipedia seem to think-that posters like myself and others here that disagree with this are mindless lemmings that all bombard this discussion board with rants because someone told us to or because it's part of some campaign. I assure you it's not. The posters of these comments wish to inform everyone who reads this of the complete inability of the first person who nominated this for deletion as evidenced by his comments- that he/she obviously have no idea what they're talking about. The fact that only two others have "agreed" with him on separate days about this deletion without adding any comments of themselves I think is suspect as well. Especially if you feel so strongly about something that you wish to delete it. I hope you, the editors can read all these posts for and against and come to a sensible, well thought out and fair decision after reading all these comments as the person who first nominated this for deletion, obviously didn't.Reeamya 03:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not DeleteI want it to stay of course :). Pia
    • I to have to say don't delete it on the idea that if Virtual Seasons, Virtual Series and other forms of this medium have notability - then one of the more established sites dedicated to them should be seen as notable. Xandmatt 14:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I find this series to be very interesting and worth keep here on wikipedia. The internet is the only place where the little guy can be read by a large audience. If you take Fempiror (and all the other MZP entries), you will make these works that much less accessible. Phil

  • COMMENT: This network is EXTREMELY noteworthy, as it is one of only two online networks that I have seen on the internet that have stayed afloat and are worth any merit. They run like a real network, and it gives those writers who have to work out the kinks in their scripts the chance to do so for an actual audience. This article is worth it!

.

  • Delete all - fail WP:WEB. BlueValour 02:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete All - fans, don't take it personally, there are specific criteria an article has to have to not be deleted. Go to WP:WEB and read "Criteria for web content". Your passion is lauded, however to be notable, you need links where somebody else is talking about you. Guyanakoolaid 08:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - "...to be notable, you need links where somebody else is talking about you." While I can't necessarily speak for Monster Zero on this account, my primary interest in this discussion is the Fempiror Chronicles, whose article opens with a list of comments where other people are talking about it. Those comments are drawn from three message boards and two blogs where someone else talked about it. None of those five sites are places that I have any control over, nor are the people anyone that I could influence to say something they don't mean (nor would I wish to). SimplyScripts is where it is most popular having nine pages of discussion/reviews and over 4,000 hits on its thread. -- Comments on this topic have been a mix of Monster Zero devotees and Fempiror devotees, and as I've stated before, grouping Fempiror with Monster Zero is kind of a case of death by association since the only reason it ended up here is because it is listed on that site. -- The other objection that has been brought up is the original nominator's knowledge of this topic. I find it very strange that this was brought to the table by someone whose definition comes no where near what Monster Zero actually represents, and actually cheapens the effort these people put into their site. This original argument is the backbone of this article for deletion discussion, and it just seems ironic that someone who nominates an article for deletion gives a definition that is not only completely incorrect, but actually seems to have been written to serve the sole purpose of influencing those who look at it to delete it. "Officially" notable or not, at least give us the credit of being writers and using our own creativity to make stories that are unique. Sure, some of them fall under a category of "fan fiction," but this in no way makes them "clips of real shows," which is a definition nothing short of insulting, especially considering that a good portion of the shows are not fan fiction, but completely original works. -- So if in the end we all end up being deleted because we're not notable enough yet, so be it. We can't control that. I did respect the comments left by those who did say Delete All after the original nominator, but... I think the biggest kick in the teeth was being nominated by an individual who (based purely on his definition) has no idea what we're doing, likely did not read the article, and clearly did not look up what a Virtual series is (even though that term has enough notability to remain on Wikipedia). George Willson 11:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 10:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael lindine

Allegedly famous internet entrepreneur. Both he and supposed partner generate zero relevant google hits. At best, unverifiable; most likely pure hoax. -- Fan-1967 21:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per all reasons in nomination; vanity/advertising. NawlinWiki 21:57, 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, WP:BAND refers. (aeropagitica) 10:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAT Samba

This band is not yet notable. Naturenet | Talk 21:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete per nom. Borderline speedyable. Irongargoyle 23:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Wryspy 19:24, 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 Delete G4, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost Island Census and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Island Census (Lost). Deleted by User:Bhadani. ColourBurst 03:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lost Character Dossiers

This article is an exact copy of this TV IV page. It contains a great deal of speculation, cites no sources, and is redundant due to the Characters of Lost page. Jtrost (T | C | #) 21:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I love 'LOST,' but is pure fancruft. Something similar used to be on the Characters of Lost page and it has been deleted. --theDemonHog 22:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. I tagged it speedy due to recreated material. -- Wikipedical 23:28, 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. (aeropagitica) 10:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Whittler's Paradox

I can't find any reference to this paradox. Not a single hit on Google. References not provided despite mention of 'critics'. {context} and {prod} removed without comment. Deletion on grounds of WP:NFT? Marasmusine 21:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and WP:NOTABLE. Hello32020 22:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Something like this should leave a Google trace. Espresso Addict 22:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:OR. ColourBurst 04:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above and WP:NOT. Wryspy 19:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not only OR, but also nonsense. The first knives (for whittling) were made of flint, which gets quite sharp by being chipped with other stones that can be far duller. Similarly, dropping a very dull glass on a hard floor increases the number of very sharp objects in the world rather easily. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is actually a parodox featured in a good number of philosophy texts. It's also sometimes refered to as "The Idiot's Parodox," that is, one cannot become smarter than his smartest teacher, thus, as time goes on, the population becomes progressively dumber. It is also sometimes refered to in Artifical Intelligence texts regarding the question of whether an intelligent program can be created by an inferior intelligence. I'd hate to see this article deleted because of your majority; if it helps, I'll offer to add context when I get a chance (I'm very busy right now). Bristow
  • Keep this article. I could also do my best to look through my old philosophy books for references to it. I majored in philosophy four years ago and it is indeed a genuine area of epistomology. It might be called a few other things though. Maybe we should keep on the lookout for other names of the parodox (it is not uncommon for paradoxes to have multiple names. Arrowoftime 01:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I think a more encyclopedic entry could be written about the "Idiot's Paradox". Though I have to admit I got a chuckle out of the one line "Controvery" and "Rebuttal". All it needs is for the rebuttal to include "Oh but Grasshopper..." Agne 20:22, 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. (aeropagitica) 10:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Billy Bunkie The Science Junkie

NN series of blogs and YouTube videos. Google throws up a little, but there is not enough here to count this as verifiable or notable. Delete J Milburn 21:59, 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. (aeropagitica) 10:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] House of sarcasm

Prod removed by anon. Apparently a fashion brand that doesn't exist yet. (Earlier version of article said the line would debut in 2007.) Fails WP:V, WP:CORP. Can't verify the company even exists, much less is notable. -- Fan-1967 22:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom Hello32020 22:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 00:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Looks like a scam. Wryspy 19:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, third attempt to recreate this vanity bio. NawlinWiki 04:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JNaz

Bio that to me just doesn't qualify for an article, as I did a search on the guy's name and nothing came up. -- P.B. Pilhet 22:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC), Newpage Patrol

  • He is not yet noticable on a world scale. Only because he is not online, doesnt mean hes not notable.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jd330 (talk • contribs).
  • Delete per WP:BIO Hello32020 22:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete nnbio and clear vanity. Danny Lilithborne 00:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete CSD A7 and G4. This was speedied A7 repeatedly, as James nazarov and James Nazarov, and author was warned repeatedly. Author should be blocked for vandalism and wasting more of our time with this. Fan-1967 01:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per Fan-1967. Non-notable biography mixed with hoax/joke content, and not verifiable from reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 01:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • While we're at it, can someone delete that picture? What is he, about 14? Fan-1967 01:27, 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 deleted G4 by User:MONGO. --ais523 11:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Royal Theatretime Briefs Company

Template:AFDAnon I doubt this is real, but then again, there are entities with 'Royal' in the name which are notable. Anyhow, this is nominated for deletion as a suspected hoax. --LiverpoolCommander 22:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: this user has created a lot of strange articles about underwear and other vandalism. Most of it is speedy deletable, but see special:contributions/Polemyers and user talk:Polemyers. It only gets 8 unique google hits, and see this one, indicating it has been posted before. The associated image should also be deleted. Graham87 10:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, very very very entertaining. And genuine as well.Ask "Mr.Pelican Shit" about this one.It's been posted on the simple wikipedia! --Balmayres 15:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Excellent article. --Vaolza 15:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

— Possible single purpose account: Vaolza (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

  • Keep, without a doubt. --Annamoine 15:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

— Possible single purpose account: Annamoine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

  • Keep, it's great fun! --Horsurfc 15:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

— Possible single purpose account: Horsurfc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

  • Keep, it's good.... don't deleeete it! --Wolasa 15:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

— Possible single purpose account: Wolasa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

  • Keep, meets WP:CORP --PLEEEASE 15:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

— Possible single purpose account: PLEEEASE (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

    • Hmmm, six keeps inside 9 mins, the last five editors having only a single edit each... I wonder.... Budgiekiller 16:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Wonderful article. We need more underwear articles here. you can never have enough underwear articles. Andromeda466 10:25, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Queer Alliance

Individual clubs at small colleges are not notable; there can't possibly be an article's worth of encyclopedic knowledge on this or most any other college club out there. CheNuevara 22:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • keep is notable, first such club in the country, nationally copied program even at UniversitiesGuaguis 22:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • If there is any actual support for the claim that it was the first Community College GSA, it might be notable. When was it founded? that's not even covered in the article. - CheNuevara 23:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • it was founded in the early 70s 1973 i thinkCholga 18:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Again, please support that. - CheNuevara 19:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
          • It is a matter of arithmetic. The article says 15 years old. This means 1991, which is rather different from 'the 1970s'. Since the Gay Liberation Front is a 1960s organisation it is improbable that Queer Alliance is the oldest queer alliance, but it is possible, I suppose. Fiddle Faddle 20:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
            • There isn't even any support for the "15 years" claim. Although the "oldest" claim seems to be the "oldest GSA at a community college". Like I said, if that's true (which I would really love to see evidence for) it might make it notable. Until evidence for that surfaces, school clubs don't get to advertise on the 'pedia. - CheNuevara 20:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
              • Not disagreeing with you. The point I was making was the improbability, community college or no. I've tried and I can't find any source other than the article itself for the timing. Fiddle Faddle 20:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Given that it's only been around for 15 years I have a hard time believing that it's the first in the country. If you can reference that it was the first, I would support a keep, but for now it's NN, unverifiable and stinks of self-promotion. Irongargoyle 23:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete after merging anything relevant into City College of San Francisco (whose opening paragraph sounds like a vacation brochure). No notability has been asserted in a cited manner in the article. In addition the article contains a lot of electioneering and non enclylopaedic "stuff" which was deleted and has been replaced. I'm not sure whether it is in WP:NOT or not, but Wikipedia is not an election platform. To be clear, there is no hideden agenda here. I don't care whether this is a gay or a str8 organisation, I care solely about article quality. This one does not cut it. Fiddle Faddle 07:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - as a college club simply not notable. BlueValour 02:37, 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. (aeropagitica) 10:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiTimeScale

Delete seems non-notable and does not seem to match WP:WEB (well according to my searching about the site on the web). Charlesknight 23:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete notability issue :( Anomo 09:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable --Dweller 10:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Worth an entry. By the way: New version just started. Also this website has already been mentioned at various BLogs. And there are a number of other likewise websites entered in the Wikipedia, for example: Wikitimeline. If you input WikiTimeScale into Google you get 1230 results. www.wikitimescale.com already had a google pagerank of 5 (dropped to 2 because this domain is currently not accessible). Currently there are nearly 400 entries into this wiki and its growing daily (especialy since the new version started today, so I'm expecting a growth of public interest)! Here are the links to the BLogs:

Echalone 00:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

All you seem to be doing is supporting the case it's non-notable. Oh and thanks for pointing out Wikitimeline - I'll prod it as that does not look notable either. --Charlesknight 00:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 10:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Altador Cup

This fictional event does not meet the requirements of WP:WEB as the only sources provided are from the topic's webpage itself, failing WP:RS. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 11:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. If there's anything worth keeping it could be merged into Neopets plots instead, but a fictional event occuring entirely within the realm of one website isn't notable without outside evidence. Wmahan. 11:11, 13 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, Daniel Olsen 23:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Kunzite 02:30, 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. (aeropagitica) 10:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oldest Living Actor

Delete Un-encyclopedic cruft. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not un-encyclopedic, it was featured on many networks shortly after Bob Hope's death.

  • Delete. Uncited, unverifiable. And what does Bob Hope have to do with anything? 23skidoo 13:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Wikipedia is not the Guiness book, even if this is accurate. Wryspy 19:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopaedic and unverifiable. Implies it is an actual title, which is highly unlikely. -- Necrothesp 00:19, 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 20:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ColumbusX

Contested prod about a non-notable MMORPG. Also contains crystal ball material. MER-C 13:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete The article asserts no notability, and it seems written in a way to promote the game. Lets wait for it to actually be launched prior to re-evaluation of notability, eh? Picaroon9288 23:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Olsen 23:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete being an advertisement and not in any way establishing the game's notability. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 23:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Recreate when the game actually comes out and becomes notable; otherwise, this is speculation and an ad. "So-and-so claims X" definitely shows speculation and unverified claims. --physicq210 01:41, 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. (aeropagitica) 10:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karoliina Salminen

Non-notable, no record deal, music shareware. Was deleted on the Finnish WP. Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення) 23:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep. "no record deal, music shareware" or not selling your soul to the record industries should not be a reason for deletion.-- Roc VallèsTalk|Hist - 02:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment, so you can provide reliable third-party sources to satisfy WP:MUSIC (which does not only include mass media criteria)? ColourBurst 04:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I can't see the subject of the article meeting any of the criteria of WP:MUSIC. And as I pointed out, the article was deleted unanimously on Fi-Wiki. --Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення) 15:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete, come on. No notability. Punkmorten 20:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. 4 listeners on Last.fm confirms lack of any kind of fan base. Prolog 15:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete. As said above, non-notable. --,,n 12:57, 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. (aeropagitica) 10:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Derry Brownfield

Non notable radio host. Peephole 15:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Olsen 23:18, 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.

I tried following the links to deletion review to know avail what happened to the discussion on this??? The guy is relevant and has been syndicating his show since 1973 ! The "radio station" mentioned above by Punkmorten is ONE network he is on (GCN)(he is also on RBN-Republic Broadcasting www.rbnlive.com and other stations that pick up his show as listed even on wikipedia which dont even now exist but Derry is on the air every day !)- [[27]] It might be irrelivant to those who think everything that means anything originates in NYC or Hollyweird. 209.209.140.21 07:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (aeropagitica) 10:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illusive Entertainment

No demonstration of notability, independant or otherwise. Feature film not distributed. Prod tag removed, the only change to the article being the removal of the admission that the film is seeking distribution. Drat (Talk) 23:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable and fails WP:CORP. Tarret 23:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Wryspy 19:27, 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 as a crystal ball article. Can be recreated when appropriate press releases & other official news sources are available. (aeropagitica) 10:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saw IV

For prior related discussions, see Saw III (AfD discussion), Saw 3 (AfD discussion), and Saw 3 movie (AfD discussion).

WP:NOT a crystal ball. Prod was removed on the basis that the creator has announced this sequel. There is no cited source for that claim nor the claim in the article that a sequel is probable. In addition, there is no apparent source for that claim out of the 16 unique Google hits for the film name and the creator's name. [28] Erechtheus 23:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as an article that has already been deleted twice. [29] (Unless verification can be provided). eaolson 23:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I think G4 only applies when there has been an xfD. There has not based on the history linked. Erechtheus 23:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. Good point, I've removed the speedy tag. eaolson 01:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 00:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "tentative ... not yet set ... expected ... sometime around ... if ... almost definite." There's not one single definitive, reliable statement in the article, which means it has no actual information to impart. Fan-1967 02:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Allow me to add "all but announced" from the vote below. Fan-1967 14:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wait till an official production is announced. 23skidoo 13:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Saw 4 has been all but announced by the director, James Wan. This is not, therefore, crystal ballism. Dev920 13:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Is "all but announced" different from "unannounced"? eaolson 15:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Actually, that is the definition of crystal ballism. Danny Lilithborne 21:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      • He has said that a sequel will be made if Saw 3 is a success. As Saw 3 will be a success, deleting an article that will need to be immediately recreated seems silly. Dev920 19:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Do you have a verification for your claim that "Saw 3 will be a success"? Outside of, say, a crystal ball. eaolson 20:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
          • You are being very incivil. Please remember we're an encyclopedia, not a sarcasm competition. Dev920 22:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
            • All I'm asking is for you to provide information so the article can meet the verification policy. From WP:NOT: "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." Go look at the Saw 3 article. It has six external links, including the Saw III official website. The Saw Series template lists the movies as the Saw Trilogy. You've made the prediction that (a) Saw III will be a success and (b) therefore, there will be a Saw IV. I'm not saying either of these things won't happen. I'm just saying that making a WP article because you say they are going to happen isn't good enough. That's crystalballism. eaolson 23:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
You may well be asking me for information, but you are doing so in a rude and unhelpful manner. Just because I'm not a newbie doesn't mean you can be unpleasant. Dev920 07:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Dude y do u wanna delete it just put the sources and resources damn every solution u guys come up with is not improving something, but deleting it wtf help it, don't destroy it GOD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.146.36.66. Note that it was the first comment logged under this IP. (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a cystal ball. --Charlesknight 00:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 10:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cameron Jamie

Don't see any reason why this person is notable enough for wikipedia. Chris M. 23:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete No attempt to prove noteability. --MECU≈talk 02:31, 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. (aeropagitica) 09:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Coffee Achievers

Webcomic with no claim of notability. No reliable sources given/found. ~1 mil Alexa ranking. Delete as not meeting WP:WEB, WP:V, etc... Wickethewok 23:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. No 3rd party realiable sources, Wikipedia is not an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 05:37, 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 Merge with Dawson College shooting. —Centrx→talk • 00:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anastasia De Sousa

I don't wish to be insensitive, but the sole claim to notability here the reason for this woman's death. She's already named in the Dawson College shooting article. The bit about coming back to shoot her repeatedly is not mentioned in the only source listed. I don't think this is a particularly encyclopedic article. eaolson 23:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge into Dawson College shooting, per nominator. -- tariqabjotu 00:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Frédérick Lacasse 01:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If you ask this article for deletion, then we should do the same for some of the Columbine victims (at least several articles) were created on individual victims). As far as the article this should at least be merged with the main article. If though the article would become too long, that it should be kept as an individual page since we have occurence of individual pages of victims of other shootings for instance Columbine. No deletion what so ever--JForget 00:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. There are only two pages for Columbine victims (Laura Townsend's page actually redirects to an article on her mother, who was the subject of a Lifetime movie). Both have considerably more information than this article, and discuss in detail an urban legend that sprung up around them, and both have been the subjects of books written about them. This page was originally a eulogy/tribute to the deceased, which is a large reason of why I AfD'd it. eaolson 03:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think this girl merits it like all the other pages. I agree with JForget. Jo9100 03:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge --Durin 05:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • No deletion - The subject is well notable because of the insicdent she was involved in. If it is consensually afreed upon that she does not deserve an article on wikipedia then info about her should be added to the article on the incident. Unitedroad 09:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jo9100. NorthernThunder 10:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree 100% with eaolson, this article contains no encyclopedic merit. Icemuon 10:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing to merge that isn't already in the main article. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Agent 86 17:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with JForget. As for other victims having more information because of books and urban legends, I am sure these will come in their own time. If the page is there, there are more chances these will be recorded while if the page is not there, the recorder might not want to do it. It is there, it contains information, let us monitor it instead. Danleo 18:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per above. An utter tragedy, but we don't generally have articles for every murder victim.--Cúchullain t/c 23:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete/redirect/merge -- We could fill this with the intricate biographical details of her life, but all that really matters is her death, which is sufficiently covered at the aforementioned articles. Dylan 03:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect --gumol 11:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect with condolences. A tragedy, but she doesn't meet WP:BIO and the information can be sufficiently gotten across in the article for the incident itself. -- Chabuk 21:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Dawson College shooting per nom. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 23:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Regarding comments by Danleo, Wikipedia does not create news, nor should it be the testing ground for what is "valid" as news. Let others do that job, let wikipedia continue to be an open-source encyclopedia.Derekwriter 01:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't really know why we even have to discuss this. The guidelines for these cases are very clear: "Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered." --Frescard 04:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Dawson College shooting and redirect. Mindmatrix 15:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect to Dawson College shooting. The victims in the École Polytechnique massacre, frex, are all handled this way, and as noted, the only Columbine victims with their own articles are the ones who subsequently had books written about them. Bearcat 16:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Wikipedia isn't for memorials, and an extensive description of victims is not suitable either, but people will likely search on her name for some time to come. -/- Warren 00:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Dawson College shooting. --Stéphane Charette 01:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Dawson College shooting. Resolute 20:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Dawson College shooting. While she deserves to be remembered, the article is too lacking in any info to get its own page. 66.131.66.139 02:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It's been 7 days. No decision yet? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 23:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well I can really see that the majority are prefering about merging this article with the parent article Dawson College shooting I will put the template above--JForget 03:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect. If this page is merged with the Dawson page, then Kimveer Gill shall have his page merged as well. The killer does not deserve a memorial more than the victims.
    • Comment. I'd suggest that the article on Kimveer Gill is an article and not a memorial. If it is a memorial, it should be removed regardless of the outcome of the AfD, as that is not what Wikipedia is. eaolson 23:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not about memorializing people; it's an encyclopedia. Gill having his own article while De Sousa doesn't is not inconsistent with that. In fact, it's entirely consistent with any reasonable encyclopedia's policy on the notability of candidates for inclusion. Gill did something notable; De Sousa didn't. Just to clarify in case anybody misunderstands, "notable" does not mean "positive" or "good" — it means "significant". Bearcat 23:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Utterly, utterly non-notable person. Thousands of people are murdered every year. I can't believe that we're even having this discussion. Delete. Herostratus 07:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Dawson College shooting Simple. --Paulm27 23:56, 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. (aeropagitica) 09:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invention Index

A minor project about "misconceptions" around who invented what. This is its website. It has no Alexa rank and no links. Zero reliable sources and no news mentions exist. The site is not notable under WP:WEB and the article is not verifiable. As a last argument, I don't think this site could ever have been remotely popular or notable solely because of its extremely awkward layout (one small, unsizeable window). --Wafulz 23:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete This article is an attempt to capitalize on an Internet hoax. The website tries hard to mislead gullible people while being a clever joke for cognoscenti. It is a single page with one image and jokes like "Hegel invented the toaster" and "Sarte invented the escalator". It is a Fictitious entry that belongs, if anywhere, in the List of hoaxes. --Blainster 17:19, 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. (aeropagitica) 09:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greg Hawkins

The article is a hoax. Please see Talk:Greg_Hawkins. Another Wikipedian 23:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Pan Dan 17:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Also note that the person who started the article is an IP address who has made no other contributions. --Tim4christ17 talk 16:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable and probable hoax. --Satori Son 03:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Planetary 07:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 09:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evan handlers

This is a hoax or a non-notable neologism. There are 2 Google hits for the title, neither of which has anything to do with the subject matter of the article. [30] De-prodded without change or comment. Erechtheus 23:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I thought maybe they misspelled something called "even handlers," which of course has lots of results on Google that have nothing to do with exercise. But searches for "even handlers" paired with "stretch" or "exercise" bring up nothing that has to do with exercise either. Pan Dan 23:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is completely true. It is a new name for the article, that is why it is not well known. Please do not delete this article because it can be very informative to individuals wishing to stretch out before sporting events or any form of exercise.

  • The issue is not truth -- it's the appropriateness of the subject for this encyclopedia. See WP:NOT for a start. If this is indeed beneficial, it has its place on the Internet. That place just isn't Wikipedia at this point in time. Erechtheus 19:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I first heard of the Evan Handlers stretch four years ago while attending a course on cheerleading instruction. The stretch is both effective, and as said above "beneficial." I don't understand why a person would say that the issue is "not the truth, but the appropriateness" of the subject. How does one decide what is appropriate for Wikipedia, when encyclopedias are supposed to be limitless wealths of knowledge. Excluding valid information from Wikipedia seems detrimental to the very mission of the website.

  • "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." That's an official policy of this project. That's a big part of the appropriateness I mentioned above, though there are other concerns that keep verifiable information from being appropriate. Also, go read the WP:NOT document I linked above. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That's also official policy. Erechtheus 20:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Erechthues' claims are obviously bias becuase he has not heard of or used this stretch before. Please Erechtheus before you continue your arguement think about what you are saying and know that this stretch is real. I have been using this stretch for many years now and i would like to share it with a mass amount of people. Please do not delete this article because as the person above said it is a new name for this article.

  • Delete per nom. I find nothing to support verifiability. --Charlesknight 00:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 09:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intertron

Even if this is a notable neologism, it's still a dictionary definition and unlikely to ever be expanded beyond that state. Powers T 16:16, 13 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, Daniel Olsen 23:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It might just not have made it across the Pacific, but I've never heard it used by any of my IT-student/incorrigible-computer-slang-using friends. Therefore, 'tis but a neologism searching for a reader. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 23:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google reveals 22,600 hits, a few of which use the word "intertron" to refer to the net. Agree with BigHaz, simply a definition of an insignifigant neologism searching for a reader. --Kieran Bennett 00:29, 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 as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 09:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Von Graudenz

Non-notable, general poor quality. Explodicle 23:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable to English speakers. --Blainster 16:59, 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 Delete. (aeropagitica) 09:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Matthew Brown, 4th Baronet of London

  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]}}

Non-notable individual who is listed as having claimed an extinct Baronetcy in England. No independent confirmation found. Probable vanity. Also nominated under identical material at Matthew Brown (Socialite). DMG413 23:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Claim was published in The Times and London Gazette. Entry can also be found in Who's Who. James. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.188.112.172 (talk • contribs).

Fail to see how vanity when clearly, even if forgetting claim to baronetcy and only through his father/business he is a figure of note. Wilfredclose 01:15, 19 September 2006 — Wilfredclose (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, JS14877 02:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep Would agree with Wilfredclose, figure is notable. JS14877 — JS14877 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep I know I am new here, new to the internet if I am truthful, so please ignore if inappropriate comments. If the claim to the baronetcy has been established, or submitted it would perhaps suggest that the figure is one of note. Rest of biog needs more support, I would agree and would suggest allowing time for this? On balance keep. Nationalalamo — Nationalalamo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Article seems to be developing, benefit of the doubt for further source material to come? 12588 — 12588 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete I hate to disagree with the, uh, unity, of the above editor(s?) but I don't find, in the links, any verification on the alleged baronetcy, and what's left looks like an upper-class delinquent who was active in politics as a teenager. And we never keep an article in hopes that "future source material" will come. If you want it kept now, find sources now. Fan-1967 02:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A baronet does not appear to make one notable itself (note that it is not a peerage); this young numbskull has done little but inherit some money. The picture, incidentally, appears to be of one "William Summerskill". Also, the emphasis on titles smells of WP:VAIN. bikeable (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non-notable (if rich) person. If the claim to the baronetcy is a serious one, I'm not convinced that every single baronet on the planet is notable just for being one. If the claim is false, then we're left with someone who hasn't actually done anything much notable aside from being a rich socialite, which should be reason for deletion in itself I sometimes think. His father doesn't appear to be notable either, but that's academic since only the immediate family of royals tend to inherit notability without doing anything. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 07:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • -Keep-I would disagree with bikeable in that surely a baronetcy makes one noticable, given the small numbers of them around? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 183.118.114.162 (talk • contribs).
  • Note The above "unsigned" attribution is forged. Vote actually entered by 172.188.112.172 (talk • contribs) who had already voted above. The sockpuppetry in this discussion is amazing, and makes the claims all that much more dubious. Fan-1967 13:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Note 2 - per this list, there is in fact a very large number of baronetcies still extant. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 21:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - In a previous edit the article said his father was "Lord Brown of Wan Chai", who I don't think actually exists. No sources for his 'baronetcy'. This is a hoax.--Berks105 09:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, yes it is. It's vandalism (according to WP:HOAX itself), which is indeed a criterion for speedy deletion. -- Necrothesp 00:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Utter rubbish. -- Necrothesp 00:24, 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 as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 09:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mathew Enoch Mount

Article created by its subject, a non-notable person Blainster 23:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, as the only evidence of notablility is the subject's own web site, and some self-published books. --Blainster 00:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. It was tagged as a speedy delete and still should be, but an anon IP address with no other edits removed that --ArmadilloFromHell 01:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not Delete In Illinois colleges and universities can be contacted about open record reports of educational awards. Also note that news paper articles are now available online, and organizations founded are a matter of public record that can be freely verified by anyone. Note that I made the article, and I can verify details about the subject. Also note that correspondence between Randall Auxier and Mathew Mount as well as other great authorities is published in correspondence form. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.230.135.203 (talk • contribs) 10:30, September 19, 2006 (UTC)
    • This entry should be discounted, because it is by the non-notable person himself! --Blainster 18:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. --DeLarge 19:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Thee Not I was just looking at one of the works of Mr. Mount entitled Lover's Myth and Eternal Union (http://www.shadowpoetry.com/bookstore/loversmyth.html ) when I realized how much of a value that his work is to the creative writing community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.230.74.185 (talk • contribs) 20:47, September 19, 2006.
    • Matthew, you can only vote once, and because you wrote the article about yourself, it must be discounted. Wikipedia establishes notability by the published work of other people about a person. --Blainster 22:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have witnessed this gentlemen's involvement at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale, and hold him to be a trustworthy person. I met him during the Spring 2006 semester of college in the class entitled PHIL 305B Modern Philosophy: moral/political philosophy; instructed by Professor Andrew Youpa. Also, I have engaged in discussion with him and Professor Randal Auxier during Apologia meetings, a Registered Student Organization, here at SIUC. I frequently help him with his RSO's Gospel table within the SIUC student center. I also attend Mr. Mount's Temple of Faith Ministries, as conducted in the Interfaith Center here in Carbondale, IL. I have spoken via telephone to Bishop Gentry, and can verify their acquaintance and friendship. I am also a member of his Google group entitled Jesus on the Web. Likewise, almost all the things within Mathew Enoch Mount's Wikipedia page can be accessed through public records. Again, I hold him to be a trustworthy and reliable person. His page should be allowed to stay and, due to his dyslexia, only minorly revised. My name is Adam Colbert and I am a music student at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.230.135.202 (talk • contribs).

Please stop posting under these IP addresses - we consider you to be the same person and it's just weakening your case. --ArmadilloFromHell 03:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Do Not Delete - My name is Colin West and I live in Mr. Mount's Dorm. He is the real deal, I've seen his drivers license - so his name, address, and age are accurate. He also wears a priest outfit every day and goes in to very long discourse about his beliefs. No man could make up the stuff that comes out of his mouth, so it must be real. He is, indeed, an odd character, but this is no reason to delete his page. Good Day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.230.55.99 (talk • contribs) 06:15, September 20, 2006.

Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Verifiability are all valid reasons to delete the article. A reason to keep the article has not yet been established. And I'm quite impressed with such a campaign self-promotion by a man of the cloth. Isn't pride (superbia) one of the seven deadly sins? --DeLarge 07:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom (and it's pretty fucking shameful how he's tried to stack the discussion) --Charlesknight 00:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Log_2006_September_18_25af.html"