Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 26

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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'm closing this one early per the overwhelming concensus of the participants. If someone can provide the reliable sources the discussion's participants couldn't find, I have no objection to recreation. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danielle Winter

Obvious hoax; there is no Senator or prospective presidential candidate by this name. Prod was deleted by anon author with no explanation. Russ Blau (talk) 00:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Appears to be a hoax. --Hyperbole 02:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree, this is likely a WP:HOAX.-- danntm ^T _C 03:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Scottmsg 05:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Hoax, as per nom. If she was a likely presidential candidate, I believe there would be at least something online. I'm going to watch that user who created it. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 06:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No such South Carolina Senator, and is certainly not a presidential candidate (except perhaps in the gadfly category). Jeendan 07:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Seems to be a hoax --NRS ^T/_M\^B 07:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites} 09:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per reasons above Leidiot 10:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Also added hoax template to page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Deleteas per the above, patent hoax. Badbilltucker 16:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteThere is no such South Carolina Senator.It is definitely a hoax. Doctor Evil 16:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Freaking Speedy Delete then. Wtf are we waiting for?UberCryxic 16:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no speedy deletion criterion that covers out-and-out fabrication, no matter how blatant. If I write an article saying that "Alfred E. Neuman was the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1956 and is widely considered the greatest thinker of the 20th Century"; it can't be speedied because (a) it isn't patent nonsense and (b) it asserts notability. The patent nonsense criterion specifically says that being "fiction" is different from being "nonsense." --Russ Blau (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Check the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion page, where Patent Nonsense is cited as a General criteria. And, on the Wikipedia:Patent nonsense page hoaxes (excluding pages on real, notable hoaxes) are described as patent nonsense. A hoax is defined as "an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real" in the Wikipedia:Hoaxes page. Therefore my vote goes for a speedy deletion. - Aditya Kabir 19:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually on the patent nonsense page it clearly states that haoxs and not examples of patent nonsense. It is listed in the "Not to be confused with" section of the page. I don't think this article should be kept however, this is not pattent nosense. --67.71.79.236 21:39, 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 Speedy delete. Glen 22:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Office of Scientific Investigation and Research

While this group may exist in fiction, it has in no way been proven to exist in reality, the citations source dubious articles and messages, and it seems to cite fiction as fact. This is a complete hoax.WilliamC24 00:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Oh my freaking god what the hell is this....UberCryxic 00:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It is purportedly the organization upon which the television series Psi Factor: Chronicles of the Paranormal was based. Uncle G 08:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This article itself even claims that it doesn't exist. Tarret 01:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Fiction cannot be passed off as fact, esp. in Wikipedia. --NRS ^T/_M\^B 07:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong and speedy delete as a hoax. Vizjim 07:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Why wasn't this done sooner? Ultra-Loser ^{Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites} 08:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Psi Factor: Chronicles of the Paranormal, as it's an integral part, and main component of the show. 70.51.11.232 11:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect. Gazpacho 17:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Out of the context of fiction it sounds more like conspiracy theory, but with the Psi Factor involved, it could be merged. --Dennisthe2 19:58, 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 12:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Think-adz

Contested prod. I prodded this on the basis that it is a non-notable piece of spyware, and Wikipedia is not a directory of spyware. (For those who take notice of such things, there are no google news hits, no relevent google groups hits, and most of the relevent web hits are forums where people are discussing how to remove it.) Also, based on the comment left when the prod tag was removed ("No other information sources Think-Adz"[1]) this may be original research. AJR | Talk 00:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per reasons above. Looks more like a report from some Spyware removal site.--Niroht 00:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.UberCryxic 00:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Query Wikipedia may not be a directory of spyware, per se, but it is a directory of information entries. The reason articles do not exist on Google, relating to this software, is that noone has prepared any (and most likely will shortly). The majority of Google hits are indeed forums entries, as that is the only medium the average user has to discuss this software. Thus the Wiki entry to inform others. But if original research cannot be sourced, and there is no information available, how can one inform others?

No idea, but it's not Wikipedia's job to inform people about nonmajor spyware, especially since no one's likely to find it unless clicking random page. --Niroht 02:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If no one has prepared a text about this yet and if forums are the only place this is discussed, then there's no reliable sources to cite from, meaning this will fail the [[WP:V|verifiability requirement. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. If you cannot source it without original research, then simple, you find some place that's not Wikipedia and inform from there. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means it's the job of Wikipedia to give information on published material; not original research. And before you suggest that Wikipedia expand its job duties, Wikipedia already has a hard enough time trying to fulfill being an encyclopedia. ColourBurst 04:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Wikipedia isn't an anti-spyware or anti-virus database. After all, how many people immediately look up a virus on Wikipedia after they've been infected? –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 06:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. JIP | Talk 07:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable - only 827 hits on google Ultra-Loser ^{Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites} 08:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. · XP · 05:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Railway parade

What we have here, ladies and gentlemen, is an suburban Australian street with no claims made for any notability whatsoever. As such, it's either show those claims, or go. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.UberCryxic 00:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete — Kill kill. That is in no way notable what so ever! Delete per nom —— Eagle (ask me for help) 01:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless article establishes how the street is special (e.g. on a Monopoly board, major provincial route, historical route), for all I know this is a cul-de-sac.-- danntm ^T _C 03:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A quick look on whereis.com.au (unfortunately, I can't seem to be able to link you to the exact page) seems to indicate that it's a suburban street that runs about 1km (at most) along a railway line. Not a cul-de-sac, but not even a main road either. Lankiveil 05:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC).
• Delete -- unless some claim to notability is established. - Longhair 03:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - this is currently a substub of one sentence length. A search of sources available online through the ACT public library system indicate that it cannot be easily expanded. There are a number of Railway Parades in Australia and it seems that this street in Pascoe Vale, Victoria is one of the less notable ones. Capitalistroadster 04:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 04:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above comments. RFerreira 04:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Are we going to list every street in every city? (by coincidence, I live in a Railway Parade in Sydney, and there's nothing special about it, let me tell you) Jeendan 07:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --NRS ^T/_M\^B 07:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if the article isn't expanded. There should be something more to say about the street than just that it's there. JIP | Talk 07:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable --Michael Johnson 04:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per my comment above. Lankiveil 05:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC).
• Delete per nom. RFerreira 23:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

  Strike through duplicate comment. Yamaguchi先生 22:36, 29 September 2006

• Delete NN, per nom. Delete. · XP · 05:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedied per author request. -Mgm|^(talk) 10:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eleazar:

Author-removed prod (well, it was removed by an IP which I strongly suspect was the author). What we have here is an excerpt of a novel which is being written - it's not even at the stage of using Wikipedia to get a publisher to have a look at it, which would be a no-no anyway. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 00:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia is not for writing Chapter 1 Yomangani^talk 00:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - belongs in Wikisource, not here. per nom. --physicq210 01:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikisource is for freely available source materials. This is neither free, available, nor source material. Zetawoof^(ζ) 03:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a project host. Zetawoof^(ζ) 03:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a project host, a crystal ball, or a free advertising medium. JIP | Talk 07:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is a thinly disguised troll/advertisment Ultra-Loser ^{Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites} 08:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete under Wikipedia is not a free webhost or advertising service, Wikipedia is not for advertising, and WP:VAIN.-- danntm ^T _C 15:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT... and constructive criticism: the author should really consider some creative writing classes or seminars.--Isotope23 18:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• "With a vicious thrust of his keyboard, the valiant editor, surrounded by a halo of goodness and light, pierced the creature's heart, shouting 'Be DELETEd, thou artless thing!' And yea, it fell to the ground with a squishy thud and passed unto the unquiet depths of memory." Tony Fox (arf!) 18:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Tony Fox's hilarious comment. ---Charles 01:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per author request for deletion, on the article's talk page. BrokenBeta [talk · contribs] 08:43, 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. Closing early because we already have very clear consensus. Mangojuice^talk 19:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page 606

Unencyclopedic. This kind of nitpicky trivia really doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Djcartwright 01:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, don't forget the now orphaned Image:606.gif which I removed because the spoiler warning didn't hide the particular spoiler in that image. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a stand-alone and merge any useful info with the main article. The title, with all due respect, is useless. - Lucky 6.9 02:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Why the hell would this have an article? TJ Spyke 02:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Rename I'm not sure if this is the right title for the article, but I think that the Harry_Potter#Legal_injunction controversy, and the subsequent spoiler published here [2], which started the whole thing, deserves a page of its own. Dontdoit 02:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Sorry folks, this just doesn't belong. RedRollerskate 02:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. How is this relevant to anything? Different editions will have it published on different pages. --Wafulz 02:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Wait, you mean English is not the only language in the world? JIP | Talk 10:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Indiscriminate, incredibly derivative cruft.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete If I have been canvassing the new pages, I would have tagged this with {{db-nonsense}}. --physicq210 05:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all delete recommendations above. --Metropolitan90 06:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete — Why would a Harry Potter book's page merit its own article? Aaargh. Not Wikipedia-material, for sure. On a Harry Potter fansite, matbe, but not here. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 07:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, way too trivial information. JIP | Talk 07:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Hilarious. --Masamage 16:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete please -Markeer 23:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. This page was deleted here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Talk:Page_606 and then recreated. Shouldn't we also delete Image:606.gif, too ? -- Beardo 03:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• This particular topic (and the related controversy of early revelation of this plot point to unsuspecting fans is sufficiently covered in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and related articles. Totally unsuitable for separate article, bad title too. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I suspect the so-called fault mentioned in this article is in fact not wrong at all but simply a difference between the US and UK editions of the book. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Wait, you mean the US isn't the only country in the world either? JIP | Talk 17:27, 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 Speedy delete: No context nonsense. —Centrx→talk • 03:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Upstairs

Appears to be a hoax and has no context. Midnightcomm 02:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the nonsense. RedRollerskate 03:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speed Delete as no context (although nonsense could also work), and I tagged as such.-- danntm ^T _C 03:23, 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 12:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BW Expert

This page is is not a notable publication. It describes an online company newsletter. According to WP:WEB, the article MUST meet any ONE of the following criteria:

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
2. The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.
3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster

The subject of this article meets NONE of these criteria.

In addition, a PROD was put on this article earlier. The original author of the article removed the PROD in bad faith by NEITHER:
a) making any improvements or changes to the article to show that the subject was notable OR
b) by even acknowledging the concerns expressed by the PROD and making any defense of the article on grounds that it MIGHT be notable. As such, I propose that the article is deleted as per WP:NN, and WP:WEB guidlines -- Jayron32 02:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Jayron32. This is one of a series of articles written by the same editor; the remainder have been tagged for PROD. In fact, the entire category is full of redlinks, but I have insufficient expertise to determine which are relevant. Risker 04:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • To piggyback on what Risker has noted, I have made a cursory check of the SAP category, and the ENTIRE category consists of articles that are circularly linked to each other and EACH seems to be an article that exists solely as an advertisement for whatever services this SAP company provides. An administrator should SERIOUSLY look at this category. There are dozens of pages there, and they ALL seem like vanity/advertising pages. If all that can be done is to AfD-tag each page individually, then we should get on it, but SOMETHING should be done. It reads like someone who is associated with the company is familiar with the Wikisystem is gaming the system for advertising for his company. That MAY not be the case, but if it IS not, then the original authors OR others should be pushed to improve these articles. If notable ALL of these articles should be improved (at best, they should ALL be merged into a single article. 2 dozen seperate articles describing each product or service that this SAP company makes or offers seems a bit, well, you know...). If not notable, they should ALL be deleted. --Jayron32 05:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • There's nothing to stop non-administrators reviewing the articles in the category, and pushing for improvement; or even trying to improve the articles directly by looking for sources, citing sources, and adding content. If you wish articles to be improved, then pull out the toolbox yourself and use the tools in it. Uncle G 08:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Good point Uncle G, and I agree with you to a point. However, there has been no assertion of notability made on any of the articles, so I am currently leaning on the side of the fence that says that this entire category is not worthy of inclusion. I lack the expertise in the area to improve these articles. I am also under the belief that if they were worthy of being kept then their creator or someone else should improve them. SAP may not, a priori be worthy of deletion as a subject, BUT there has been no effort made to defend them as such. This AfD should either push for changes or delete entirly. Either way, in my opinion, wikipedia improves. I am not myself 100% for deleting ALL of the articles. This information is not giberish, but there is nothing internal to ANY of the articles that merits their inclusion. So barring some rewrites, as they are written now, they ALL need to go. --Jayron32 18:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advertising as per Jayron32. Vizjim 07:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom; a walled garden. Another management consultant spam. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advertising, and fails to meet any qualifications. Delete. · XP · 05:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Calton. Fits clearly into the CSD A7 criterion. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DMSL

CVG league simulation with no assertion of notability. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 02:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete {{nn-club}}. --Calton | Talk 07:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete appears non-notable in every way possible, also completely unverifiable Canadian-Bacon ^{t c e} 15:41, 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 12:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romantic comedy (film)

This movie was originally slated for shooting in August of 2003. So far, pretty much nothing official has been released other than the synopsis:

A guy intends to woo the women he loves by using romantic ideas from famous films.

Here's the IMDB page, which hasn't been updated in about a year and a half. I think it's crystal balling and should be removed because there is no actual information about the movie to be found anywhere. Wafulz 03:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per the arrow of time.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia will still be here if and when it gets made - Richfife 04:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. JIP | Talk 07:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• I feel unallur'd by this article, but hope that it returns if and when the film is made. Vizjim 07:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wonderfully, there's an undelete function which can be used if this ever comes to fruition. --Masamage 16:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• While the crystal ball clause doesn't apply here since it's no longer really a future film, it looks more like a project that never really got going. Either way, it doesn't exist, so I go with Delete. Good luck to whoever wants to produce the film. --Dennisthe2 19:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete film hasn't materialized. No information to base an article off. Mgm|^(talk) 10:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete We can have this on here if it ever comes out at this point OR goes live in production. · XP · 05:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Glen 21:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shan wells

Vanity article, creator and sole editor is its subject. Subject is not notable, and the user's mainspace contribs are only to articles about or related to himself. A move to User:Shantroywells' userspace would be more appropriate. Mr. Darcy talk 03:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Yeah, it's vanity, but he's out there (kind of): [3] and [4]. I guess I'm not just my usual cranky, judgemental self this evening. - Richfife 04:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep with extra milk. Just about meets the notability criteria. Vizjim 08:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Expand considerably or delete. The only contributer was the subject of the article, he only gets 1000 google hits (for a common name) and it doesn't mention loads of basic information (birthdate?). It doesn't cite sources. If no one but the guy himself can expand it, then he's not notable. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites} 08:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete though I am with Ultra-Loser here. There is an element of vanity without some real supporting evidence Nigel ^(Talk) 12:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Implied Keep Please explain why wiki Andrew Drummond entry is considered notable if this one is not. Supporting evidence of notability:

http://www.coloarts.state.co.us/news/report/FY03_Annual_Report.pdf#search=%22colorado%20council%20on%20the%20arts%20shan%20wells%22, pg. 8 http://www.durangotelegraph.com/telegraph.php?inc=/06-08-10/quick.htm bottom article http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/news/artnetnews/artnetnews8-19-99.asp, seventh article down Shantroywells 19:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Reply Please don't say "Why is X included if Y can't be?" There are literally millions of Wikipedia articles. We're working as fast as we can. - Richfife 21:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. But please follow links for supporting evidence. Thanks.66.118.223.69 01:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As an exercise, go here: [5] (the log of new wikipedia changes), note the top entry on the list, wait 60 seconds, hit refresh, and see how many new changes have come in in front of the old top entry. Wikipedia is hard to keep on top of. - Richfife 04:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Bog-standard working artist, nothing really notable here. --Calton | Talk 05:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, because getting three significant fellowships/grants is much more notable than we require in other areas, certainly more notable than being nominated for giving the best blowjob of the year in the opinion of 25 guys who spend their lives watching porn and blogging about it (snide reference to WP:PORN criteria). VivianDarkbloom 19:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Just barely asserts notability, to sneak in, and could grow. Weak keep. · XP · 05:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Davies

A high school basketball coach. Apparently never went on to do anything more than coaching at the high school level. No google hits. Delete —Brim 04:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. - Richfife 04:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There are no google hits, he never won a single state championship, nor did he coach any notable players. Scottmsg 04:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per above. Not notable at all.UberCryxic 16:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. · XP · 05:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was complex.

The deletion nomination was a very poor one. Much of the lengthy (but commendably cordial) debate below could have been avoided by a well researched deletion nomination. No biscuit.

The issue of verification was raised, and is the critical discourse here. Of the sources tendered as reliable sources, only the The UTD Mercury is without debate. Thanks to the fantastic research by ImmortalGoddezz, most would concede Brand Republic as a reliable source as well.

But not a very good one in this case. A source's reliability is not uniform. The Times is not the best resource on itself. Brand Republic can probably be counted on to get it's big stories factually correct, but a little one-page lacks the editorial oversight required of a secondary source.

An article with only one reliable source is standing on very thin legs.

However, another positive argument was presented, that this was "notable." Many editors did not provide a reasoning beyond "it is." No biscuit for them, too. Evidence of notability was given as number of Google hits, an on-line poll, least common denominator, and the previously mentioned Brand Republic/Orange marketing piece.

Google hits are not a reliable source when demonstrating notability. On-line polls except in very special circumstances are not even a reliable source of their own existance. Working upwards from the lowest bar in the form of "if you've kept foo we must keep bar" fail to understand that Wikipedia isn't perfect yet. Thus we must again fall back on the Brand Republic/Orange piece, like a dog returns to its bone.

Getting picked up by a major retailer for an ad campaign does not count as "independent distribution"as the web material guideline discusses. Questions of inclusion at this level defer to consensus, both as measured in this small sample and as demonstrated over time.

There was no consensus to delete this article at this time.

brenneman ^{L} 12:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyanide and Happiness

I deleted this page yesterday as a repost, but since the last AFD had been a while ago, I'll see what others think. Neutral. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• strong keep: its notable, damn it!!! -ruolin59
• Strong keep: what once got 144 google hits now gets 327,000 (with 501 unique out of the first 100, similar to microsoft). Distribution by an outside company adds notability. The article was deleted and protected for too long, the comic is now deserving. --Daniel Olsen 04:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Distribution doesn't affect notability in the slightest. Something is notable if it is noted. What matters is whether people independent of this subject and its creator(s) have written about it. Uncle G 01:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually WP:WEB #3 mentions quite specifically that independent distribution by a notable entity is a criteria for notability. The Orange Wednesdays promotion fulfils this criteria [6] [7].--TexasDex 04:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's bad. Very bad. But it's notable. Go figure. - Richfife 04:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. And funny. Not that that matters. Vizjim 08:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per Daniel Olsen as well as the large amounts of evidence on the talk page. Wikipedia has a large number of articles on webcomics that are less notable than this one. Since this article was deleted there have been many people on the talk page complaining and preparing evidence to take it again to Deletion Review. Please note that there is a better article here that was written while this was deleted. --TexasDex 11:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyanide and happiness (webcomic), deletion review, this has been deleted at Cyanide and Happiness (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Cyanide and happiness (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Cyanide and happiness (webcomic) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), and it was re-created within 24 hours of deleted-protected status being removed. Guy 12:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep G-hits look like it is popular, as a benefit of the doubt weak keep. I have seen this before, although some are pretty bad. I agree with Richfife. JungleCat talk/contrib 14:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep and strong improve per above. --Masamage 16:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vote changed due to lack of solid references. Which isn't an insult to the comic; it may be hilarious or common knowledge, but we can't prove it's historically relevant enough to go in an encyclopedia. Those who are fans don't need to worry--if it's that important, it'll be written up somewhere soon enough, and then we'll undelete it. --Masamage 22:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep, per ImmortalGoddezz below. Last time I'm switching sides. :) She convinced me. --Masamage 05:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, does not meet WP:V or WP:RS as article's only third-party source is college newspaper. "Notable" comics receive far better criticism and media coverage than this. Counting google hits is meaningless for encyclopedia writing. WP:NOT an internet guide; we need multiple reputable third-party sources to discuss a topic's historical importance. -- Dragonfiend 17:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and Improve Notable enough for Wikipedia but the article could be better.--Nimrod1234 20:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and improve per Daniel Olsen. Additionally while this might not meet WP:V or WP:RS as has been pointed out, a majority of the comics on wiki do not even have references besides their own page, so I think this page is at least making the effort which is commendable. This article can definitely be improved more but from what I've seen in the edit history the effort is at least being made. --ImmortalGoddezz 23:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • An argument that the article cannot satisfy our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy is an argument for deletion, and a strong one, no matter that it may be preceded by the word "keep". If you wish to make an argument for keeping, instead, please cite sources to show that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied by the article's subject. Uncle G 01:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Actually what I am saying in a round about way is that if the article could be edited to include more (amongst other things) citation (thus my improve) then it should be kept. Since it has been in a constant state of editing lately I state keep in hopes that an article with appropriate citation will form. It might be putting the cart before the horse but I've seen people vote keep with less. Additionally if this article does not meet criteria for notability then I think all of the comics should be re-evaluated per WP:V or WP:RS since when viewing the Category:2000s webcomics a great deal of the articles have no citation. Examples being Queen of Wands, After Eden, Carpe Diem (comic), and Greeneyes all of which have very few outside sources or citation. I do not bring this up to start an argument (and frankly my plate is too full to get into an argument like this online) but only because I see variation in how webcomics are being handled and believe that if one is handled in this form that all of them should be given the same consideration and critiqued in the same manner. --ImmortalGoddezz 03:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, only source citation is to a student newspaper and to the website hosting the comic. No references provided that attest to the importance of this web comic. To all those saying this web comic is notable, let's have some source citations meeting the reliable source guidelines that say that it is notable. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:RS says nothing to specifically exclude college newspapers from being cited. In addition it allows "self-published sources" as long as the information found on them is reported to be the point of view of the publisher, which this article generally adheres to. --TexasDex 04:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I think it's time to give this webcomic the article it deserves. It has shown merit as a webcomic that people actually enjoy on a daily basis: it's not some unnotable nothing. It's linked all over the internet (especially on social networks like myspace and livejournal) and its forums have gained thousands of posts over the last two years. Some have commented that they find the humor of the comic lacking: that should have no influence on the significance of Cyanide and Happiness! Just like many things on TV (The Simpsons, Family Guy, South Park, Futurama, etc.), the humor may not be to your taste, but that doesn't mean that the topic isn't significant... bernlin2000 ∞ 14:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Give some proof that it is frequently linked, please. --Masamage 18:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Every comic provides the HTML and forum code to leech that comic, providing a link back to Explosm. Underneath each hotlinked comic, if the leecher copies and pastes the code given, is the text "Cyanide & Happiness @ Explosm.net". A Google search of this exact phrase gives 230,000 results. --RobDenBleyker 03:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Dragonfiend.--Peta 05:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You have got to be joking. Since Dragonfiend's statement, two external sources have been added, Readers pick best webcomic and Orange unveils cartoon stick man print campaign. -24.1.140.128 20:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • To reiterate, what I wrote above included "WP:NOT an internet guide; we need multiple reputable third-party sources to discuss a topic's historical importance." Simple "externality" is not our sole concern when determining the reliability of a source. Fan blogs, online polls, press releases, college newspapers, the Digital Bulletin article which doesn't contain the words either "Cyanide" or "Happiness" -- those are not reliable sources for much of anything, let alone for determining that a webcomic is of some historical importance. I like to think of wikipedia as having standards for verifiability and reliable sources that are at least as high as a junior high school research paper rather than a place for my original research about my favorite things on the internet. -- Dragonfiend 20:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
      • The source in fact does mention "the Explosm team", the authors of C&H.--129.25.30.59 23:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment You bring up a good point in determining the reliability of a source. I do understand where you are coming from, I personally have used the WP:V and WP:RS recently myself, though I might comment on the links. I see no fan blogs anywhere, a blog by Kris Wilson one of the editors of the strip yes, fanblog? No. All it is doing is establishing the fact that another book is being self published. According to WP:V Self Published It is relevant to the person's or organization's notability, It is not contentious, It is not unduly self-serving, It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject, and There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it. Joystiq is a notable video gaming weblog, notable enough to have it's own wikipedia article, given the fact that it has established notability for itself it would, I hope, establish notability for any polls, articles, etc it publishes. But the main point of inserting that citation is to point out the fact that it has gotten word about about Cyanide and Happiness and does have a reader base. Additionally if you look through the 'what links here' a few articles do use Joystiq as a reference. The "Press Release" I assume you're commenting on the Brand Republic article is not a press release and Brand Republic has been cited before (in a featured article) without comment, additionally while it does not have "Cyanide and Happiness" it mentions 'web-comic team Explosm'. According to Haymarket Publishing, Brand Republic is UK's leading website for news and jobs from the advertising, marketing and media industries. It is also the home of Campaign and Marketing magazines online. [8] The Marketing Society says With over 150,000 articles from 12 leading industry magazines, Brand Republic also contains more than 1,000 jobs, book reviews, industry data and reports. [9]. A not for profit company ABC Electronic has audited BrandRepublic for traffic and it has established that it is indeed a high traffic site with over a million page impressions over the period of 30 days. [10][11] To me it sounds as if this is an established UK marketing website. Not only that but the writer is on staff at Brand Republic so it has not been imported from another article, sounds notable enough to me. College Newspapers might be toeing the line, but featured articles such as Cornell University, Duke University, and Michigan State University all use their own newspapers as sources and citation for themselves not only have they been used like that but college newspapers have been used in several other articles (not just it's associated school article) , I don't see a problem here as college newspapers have been accepted as reliable sources in the past. Not only that but I believe that it is held in good regard in not only the community but the state as evidenced by [12]. It has been established for 25 years and has an established record having won at least 32 awards for journalistic excellence in state along with the National Pacemaker Award [13] amongst others. As you've said Masamage It's not featured. Its flaws are acknowledged, and it's a work in progress. If I might say so this article is not defining jargon, publishing original material (what is on the page has been cited and sourced verifiable to some and not to others), propaganda, a repository of links, personal home page, indiscriminate list of info, or a crystal ball. Granted when you go do a google search for this you don't come up with much unless you dig because most of the links are hotlinks to blogs, which is the main goal of the site, which I suppose they've accomplished. I'm personally of the thought of just leaving the page alone for the next few months and see how it develops. I guess what this really boils down to on here are people's opinions (or the closing admin) on whether it deserves to be on an online encyclopedia. Many people keep saying does it show historical importance?, but when you look 50 years down the road I can't see User Friendly being a paragraph in an encyclopedia, nor can I see Ctrl+Alt+Del being in their either, neither can I see how they have been important enough in a historical sense so far but that's just me. As I said before I have far too much on my plate to be arguing about this (except for obviously this past weekend), and I hope that those who read it take it in a kind tone as I mean no offense. I'm just stating what I think/feel/have researched in regards to this article. I'm sure some will find my reasoning wrong/skewed/whatever else you can come up with, quite frankly you're entitled to your thoughts as am I. I am just stating plainly for all to read and have no intention of debating this particular section further as I have stated all of my thoughts and ideals about it. (aka I have no intention of starting an argument, continuing to argue, etc.) --ImmortalGoddezz 04:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Wow. I think my mind has just been changed. --Masamage 05:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
        • OK, ImmortalGoddezz, that's a really long paragraph ending with your agreement that this topic doesn't come close to meeting WP:NOT, as this is website of no historical significance. And, yes, college newspapers are used as sources for colleges like Cornell University, but a single college newspaper is not good for determining that a webcomic has any sort of great impact or achievement. If we're talking about "notability" or not being an indiscriminate collection of information, then we're looking for sources like The New York Times, U.S. News and World Report, and The Wall Street Journal. All of which are used as sources in the Cornell University article, of course. If our only sources for Cyanide and Happiness are still a single college newspaper, a marketing website that doesn't mention Cyanide and Happiness, and an online poll, then delete. -- Dragonfiend 19:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete having reviewed this again I find that numbers of hits evaporate rapidly when subjected to any kind of reliability test. Yup, plenty of "heard it on the internets" type stuff, but WP:NOT an intern et directory and those are not reliable sources. Absent multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent external sources, it has to be delete. Guy 22:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. There seems to be a double-standard here, which ImmortalGoddezz pointed out quite nicely. Because this subject might be controversial or distasteful it gets intense scrutiny while massive numbers of articles flagrantly violate WP:OR, but remain completely unchallenged because people like them. I don't care all that much either way, but I wish wiki would be consistent. It would be a bit of a shame to delete so much material though. --129.25.30.59 23:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I hugely object to this. I've never read C&H; I have no idea whether it's controversial or not. I did relevant thing and checked around for notability. I certainly would never vote 'delete' on something just because I didn't "like" it, and not a single person here has given any reason to delete the article not solidly rooted in WP guidelines. From what I can see, the only mentions that it's lame or unfunny were accompanied with a 'keep' vote. So I don't see how your complaint has any relevance or fairness. (Your examples don't make any sense either. What on earth is OR on this page? There's barely any content. And are you honestly suggesting Monty Python is non-notable? Sure, it's only a B-ranked article, but doesn't that speak for itself? B rank! It's not featured! Its flaws are acknowledged, and it's a work in progress. Isn't that the point?) --Masamage 23:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I didn't claim that people were voting delete because it's controversial. I said they were selectively applying standards, and setting a much higher "burden of proof" because it's controversial, whereas less controversial articles survive AfD with a few blog links and a link to the page the article is about. Stuff like the articles that I suggested (although some of them may have been bad examples), or especially ImmortalGoddezz's links don't get that type of scrutiny, and are held to a much lesser standard. I don't see anything wrong with having standards, I just have a problem with selectively applying them as seems to be the case here. --129.25.30.59 01:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I feel the same way, and I deal with it by tagging things that need citations, and when I know how, finding them myself. Rather than grumping about it, why not be the one asking for proof on those other pages? The fact that no one has done it yet only means that someone needs to, and there's no reason that can't be you. --Masamage 04:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • "Other crap exists therefore this crap must exist" has never been a persuasive argument for inclusion. You are free to nominate other crap for deletion, or tag it for cleanup if you feel there is a chance it might be verifiable. Guy 07:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
      • In this case I have a problem with the inconsistent application of WP:RS. Whereas plenty of articles cite college newspapers, in this article a link to an award-winning university paper is being shot down as "not reliable". The other sources are being similarly dismissed even though they're from a reasonably reputable publisher. And WP:V specifically allows self-published information as long as it is stated as being that party's POV, therefore sourcing the FAQ is not unreasonable for confirming facts, if not for confirming notability. --TexasDex 21:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V and WP:RS. Arbusto 03:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is clearly notable. Keep. · XP · 05:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No reason to delete it on previous AFDs. —Drowne | Talk 16:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bulldog crusher

Advertisement -Nv8200p talk 04:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to delete the logo along with this. Was mistagged as PD-self. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: per WP:VSCA. Nothing but an ad, no assertion of notability, no reason to stay. --Daniel Olsen 04:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Exactly 2 non-Wikipedia GHits, both buried in the middle of pages about other things. - Richfife 04:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 07:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete strongly --Nigel ^(Talk) 12:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advert, D. · XP · 05:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Xezbeth 06:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Gurg

Recreation of a previously deleted article entitled Gurg (which, incidentally, has a hanging nomination tag on it because I can't figure out how to finish a second nomination), one sentence dicdef, not especially notable. Djcartwright 04:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy deleted as a recreation of deleted content. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurg. —Xezbeth 06:16, 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 12:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greg scalera

Non-notable "upcoming" band musician. Delete. —Brim 04:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non notable for sure --NRS ^T/_M\^B 07:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN musician from NN band. Speedy Delete per EktarCanadian-Bacon ^{t c e} 15:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory scalera - Ektar 03:04, 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 12:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SMETANA 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 04:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable programming language. JIP | Talk 07:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This appears to be purely a novelty exercise with no particular relevance - the article even admits as much. flowersofnight (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages. —Ruud 21:40, 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. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Victoria University of Wellington Students' Association

Prod that I disagree with, so I am taking it here instead (in the interests of democracy etc.) Nominator of Prod gave following reasons: "Virtually non-notable. Deserves nothing more than a small sidenote in the Victoria University of Wellington page." Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 04:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC) "

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 04:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)"
• Strong Keep - notable organisation with significant influence in student issues in NZ. Other students associations have articles. --Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 04:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Do you have any sources to back this up? Also, since you are a student at the school, I recommend you abstain from the discussion due to conflict of interest (however you should still provide sources). --Wafulz 04:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Respond - Nationwide politicians/political parties discussing VUWSA [14] [15] [16]. Just part of the 68,900 hits for the acronym VUWSA. Will get more if you need it, but have to go elsewhere now --Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 04:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per Midnighttonight, whose reasons are accurate. VUWSA is one of the main student bodies in NZ, being the students association for the country's fourth biggest university. For an example of its role in stdent politics in new Zealand, the article New Zealand Union of Students' Associations may be edifying. And no, I'm not currently or ex-VUW, I was a member of the Otago University Students' Association, which does not yet have its own article, though others, such as the AUSA do (I note that the Otago Polytechnic Students' Association has, too. Perhaps I need to start the OUSA article...). Grutness...wha? 04:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, original nominator, who first asked for a speedy delete, then prodded it, either doesn't understand the customs of Wikipedia or is trying to make some point.- gadfium 05:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - see VUWSA raised its levy last week, could be some form of misguided 'revenge'. --Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 07:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Given this edit [17], someone with a bit of a animosity towards VUWSA entities. Oh and Keep. --Limegreen 10:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. The IP address of the user that suggested the deletion should not be a factor in the discussion, especially since it is a constantly changing address, and doesn't belong to a single user. Cicadaboy 12:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems as notable and encyclopedic as any other university student association found at Category:Student societies. Agent 86 18:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable. Just because it exists, does not make it notable. The fact that there could be another page of equal status not yet deleted, does not make this notable. This is a compulsory organisation in a single university. A section of the Uni page seems fine. It is certainly not as notable as ANY of the student associations - many are notable for various reasons. Obina 19:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per everyone above; but it needs more sources (as always!). Ziggurat 21:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN. Alumni and student groups generally lack notablity. This is no different. Merge anything of importance to the university article. Arbusto 03:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep/Merge I've tried to make the page better by removing a lot of the irrelevant material there, but I still feel it isn't particularly notable. Why not consider merging the relevant material (of which there isn't much, admittedly) to the University's page? I am not convinced that it deserves its own page.Cicadaboy 07:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Other student assosciations in New Zealand have their own page. VUWSA is one of the largest and most important student assosciations in New Zealand. Member N 28 September 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Member N (talk • contribs) .
• keep please this association is important but maybe semi-protect from vandalism problems Yuckfoo 01:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SMITH 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 04:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable programming language. JIP | Talk 07:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as the language itself is merely a one-off thought experiment, but I think this is perhaps worth a brief mention in Turing completeness to further illustrate the variety of possible Turing-complete languages. flowersofnight (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • No! Please do not add useless trivia/cruft to genuinly encyclopedic articles. There are dozens of Turing-complete esoteric langauges in existence. —Ruud 21:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages. —Ruud 21:39, 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 12:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SNUSP 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 04:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• The article is informative and entertaining. Keep. Engelec 07:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per above. JIP | Talk 07:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and cover this in Funge along with other similar languages. The notion of a two-dimensional language is maybe novel enough to have its own article, but unless one of these languages really takes off, one good article with external links should suffice to cover them all. flowersofnight (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages. —Ruud 21:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Just a brainfuck derivative, non notable. Equendil Talk 00:33, 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 12:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SFMC

Non-notable per WP:ORG -Nv8200p talk 04:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or merge with VESIT. Non notable organisation.Obina 19:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No more notable than any other student organization at one school, of which there are millions. Fan-1967 22:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 07:16, 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. Kusma (討論) 20:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shakespeare 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 04:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Is this an AFD I see before me, a language toward the head? Come, let me delete vote. I vote thee out, and yet I see thee still. Art thou not, whimsical lingo, sensible to deletion as creation? Or art thou an article of the mind? A false creation persisting to the close of discussion? - Richfife 04:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Ah, but I have to disagree here! Lo, a language that allows writing computer programs as play scripts! What possibilites for the imagination! Come, surely you must keep this article. JIP | Talk 08:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• (Sorry, I don't do Shakespearean language.) Delete Weak keep. It is one of the more elaborate esoteric prgramming languages, and a very funny parody of the quasi-english languages of the COBOL legacy. However, I still do not see the language as notable enough to justify its own page on wikipedia. The one-line description on the List of esoteric programming languages should be kept, and the contents of the article should probably be copied to the Esolang wiki. The Slashdot article establishes (weak) notability. — Tobias Bergemann 11:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC) 09:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Tobias Bergemann. flowersofnight (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Prithee, mercy I thee beg! -- Gwern (contribs) 21:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Prithee nay! Good sir Phillip Sidney! Oh wait, that's Monty Python. - Richfife 21:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• To be or not to be? Not to be! —Ruud 21:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Shall I compare thee to a Slashdot post? I mean, there was a Slashdot article and as such this is probably somewhat known. However, as above comments say, it's still pretty much esolangwiki material. This language definitely needs a brief mention elsewhere due to its profoundly unique nature. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A quick search on Google shows 664 hits, of which the first 10 are from the designers of this computer language. Maybe more details on the language and it's use as a teaching aid should be included on the page. Even though odd, it should remain at least to show others what is out there. Mjcompgeek 05:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• On What Grounds? Any Wikipedia page is deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy and I would like to know what "problem" that this page has that requires it's deletion. The policy regarding this can be seen here. 153.25.87.34 05:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The original AfD (this is a relisting following a Deletion Review) was based on notability and verifiability. This AfD doesn't have a nomination, it's a relist; saying 'Keep, no arguments given to delete' is fine, but this would mean that you considered the above variants of 'delete' invalid. --ais523 16:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 153.25.87.34 makes a good point; it's unclear what policy this breaches. WP:N is an essay, and the Slashdotting seems to help with that; WP:V is policy, but the interpreters that are available and a listing on http://www.99-bottles-of-beer.net (which does its own checking) mean that there are probably enough sources available to write a verifiable article.
  • Comment. As with the vast majority of AfDs, the point is that an article for a non-notable topic should have never been created as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. However, I have changed my opinion above from "delete" to "weak keep" as the coverage on Slashdot establishes enough notability in my eyes. —Tobias Bergemann 07:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spaghetti 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 04:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable programming language. JIP | Talk 08:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This language doesn't really constitute an enlightening thought experiment; the perils of spaghetti code are well known from other languages as it is. flowersofnight (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages. —Ruud 21:33, 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. - Bobet 15:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emongoo

Reason Donkdonk 05:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Can you say spamvertisement?

• Delete I would agree. About 170 unique ghits - not a lot for an online biz. --Brianyoumans 07:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - seems like an advertisement. Lincolnite 18:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Katalyst

Attempt to promote a band that fails WP:MUSIC; no releases yet. Prod tag was removed. Also see afds for Tarek Moore and Full-Frontal. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Unless this claim: "the first single "Finality" debuting at No.2 on the Australian Top 40." from the Full-Frontal page can be verified, in which case there's notability. I won't be checking back, message me if that verifiability can be found. Guyanakoolaid 07:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT a crystal ball as Google doesn't confirm the release of either the single or the upcoming album. Prolog 10:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone else. Moreschi 19:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There is another Australian artist under the name of Katalyst Details who is well known in the alternative scene in AU. This unknown band will no doubt be changing their name soon. 05:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment

Dear Editors! My name is Kiera bateman and i'm writing to you to confirm the bands authenticity. They were signed onto Sony/BMG in Australia on i believe late 2005. The band memebers are Tarek moore and Ryan Joseph Sheperd. They do have a current album out in australia called "full fontal" which is doing quite well in the aussie charts. They are what australia calls the new "katalyst", they are the younger versions of our old aussie punk band.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tarek Moore

Bio of non-notable member of non-notable band Katalyst (also nominated for deletion); prod tag was removed without comment. See also nom for unreleased album Full-Frontal OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Unless this claim: "the first single "Finality" debuting at No.2 on the Australian Top 40." from the Full-Frontal page can be verified, in which case there's notability. I won't be checking back, message me if that verifiability can be found. Guyanakoolaid 07:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A Google search for "Finality + Katalyst + full-frontal" only yields Wikipedia hits. I can't imagine a song charting like that and not getting some hits. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 08:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT a crystal ball as Google doesn't confirm the release of either the single or the upcoming album. Prolog 10:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Hi, i can't believe you all havnt heard of Katalyst. Their a new band in australia and their kinda new, so its quite obvious you wouldnt have clue. Yes, it seems odd that there are no links for them on the net, but if u waited a while then somethings sure to bound up. It's just like waiting for an article from wikipedia to pop up on google. And if you keep deleting articles which you ASSUME are incorrect, than wikipedians are not going to have access to information.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Full-Frontal

Unreleased album from Katalyst, band that fails WP:MUSIC; prod tag was removed without comment. See also afds for Katalyst and Tarek Moore. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Unless this claim: "the first single "Finality" debuting at No.2 on the Australian Top 40." can be verified, in which case there's notability. I won't be checking back, message me if that verifiability can be found. Guyanakoolaid 07:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm unable to verify that claim. A single charting that high should be easy to find via Google; no relevant hits. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 08:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT a crystal ball as Google doesn't confirm the release of either the single or the upcoming album. Prolog 10:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Hi, this is actually a real album currently in the Australian Charts. Right now, i think its at number 4 in Australia. Finality dropped last week to number 7 on the ausralian charts too.

• Delete no hits on google, not even a myspace Jeffklib 01:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. As the nominator explains in the nomination, xe wants an article merger, which does not involve deletion at any stage. Please read Wikipedia:Merge for the correct way to perform article mergers. Uncle G 08:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barzini Crime Family

Not really a lot to say about them; I recommend combining all the fictitious families from the 'Godfather' trilogy, except the Corleones, onto one page. Djcartwright 05:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• AFD is not the place to propose mergers. Punkmorten 06:35, 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 speedy keep. As the nominator explains in the nomination, xe wants an article merger, which does not involve deletion at any stage. Please read Wikipedia:Merge for the correct way to perform article mergers. Uncle G 08:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tattaglia Crime Family

See "Barzini Crime Family" above. Djcartwright 05:23, 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 Speedy Deleted by Sarah Ewart (A7) - Yomangani^talk 09:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Girishms

Not notable, probable vanity article, little information, but too serious-looking for a speedy delete. Djcartwright 05:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, looks like an attempted userpage? 05:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, second update: it's been edited from minimalistic to just plain vanity, even with bad grammar.Djcartwright 05:38, 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 Speedily deleted by Luna Santin (talk • contribs)) (content was: '{{db-blanked}}')

[edit] Madison wappett

Vanity. Clearly created by the same individual, judging by username of "madwap". Djcartwright 05:46, 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 13:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moneyhats

WP:OR on a gaming meme based on a Penny Arcade comic about Lorne Lanning. Tried to find sources myself, but only found references to the penny arcade joke in question, and not really about a more widely established industry term. Wikipedia is not a "slang and idiom guide". Codemonkey 05:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - This is a term that started on the PA forums after the Lorne Lanning strip and spread elsewhere. More unverifiable effluvia from gaming forums. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. JIP | Talk 08:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Bonus points for use of the word "effluvia". OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 08:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.UberCryxic 16:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for completely different reasons. This is basically a synonym for "bribery". In addition, wikipedia is a guide to slang and idioms! Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Yamaguchi先生 22:34, 29 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 keep -- Samir धर्म 03:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ross Global Academy

Badly written article about a charter school that just started this month Jmabel | Talk 06:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless notability is demonstrated. May be related to (also AFD'd) Nathan Damweber. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Nigel ^(Talk) 12:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The school seems to be better thought out than a lot of others, which together with its celebrity supporters makes it notable. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article cites no sources, much less the independent, reliable sources needed to establish notability. If it is indeed better thought out, someday in the future it will be notable, producing coverage by independent reliable sources allowing us to write an article adhering to the core policies. This article isn't it now. GRBerry 01:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Presuming that someone sources this better between now and then end of the discussion. If the claims made are accurate than it easily is notable and will almost certainly have WP:RS sources on it. JoshuaZ 02:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This has to be the most inexcusable and unacceptable justification for deleting an article I have ever seen. Not one word or clause of the nominator's "reason" is a valid cause for deletion. There are about 37 tags that could and should have been applied to ask for rewriting the article or providing sources, and age is not an automatic disqualifier. The article makes explicit claims of notability based on the type, format, partnerships, facilities, approach and innovative practices used by the school. This AfD, and the fact so many sheep will submit knee-jerk deletes, demonstrates in one sentence the fundamental problems with this process. Alansohn 02:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No sources, article does not meet NPOV, does not meet WP:Schools. Catchpole 07:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep pending addition of reliable sources to article. Article provides strong claims to notability. However, I must disagree with Alansohn's summarily uncivil comments above, labeling people who think standards are needed for an article as "sheep" and "knee-jerk"-editing editors. I think it is outstandingly naive to assert that people who disagree with you are operating on so simple a level or are so childish. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I support standards; nothing I state here opposes them. While I have come to a different conclusion from those who have specified delete, I respect the fact that they have read and researched the article and came to an independent opinion that the article should be deleted based on their interpretation of Wikipedia standards. What I oppose are individuals who will take a blatantly invalid excuse for an AfD and then make a "knee-jerk" vote "Delete per nom". Those people are "sheep". Alansohn 15:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: That's a strong assertion, that you somehow know other editors' motivation for expressing their opinion better than they themselves do in AFDs. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: I claim no gifts of telepathy. I am simply stating that the rationalizations used for this AfD are invalid. Any person (as above) who says "Delete per nom" is a knee-jerk response by an individual who will agree that articles should be deleted because they are "Badly written", which covers the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia articles. I wish these individuals would express an opinion, as others have, based on the content of the article, not on the text of the AfD nomination. Alansohn 16:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The school has several mentions in the press at this very moment. Yamaguchi先生 23:58, 29 September 2006 23:58, 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 13:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional weapons

Per the similar AFDs here and here, here's an even more unlimited, less useful list. No limits mean that this can never be usefully complete or particularly useful for navigation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 08:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Btw, the whole Dune arsenal is missing. Duplicate to the much better Category:Fictional weapons. Pavel Vozenilek 11:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Pavel. --Masamage 16:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per A Man in Black and Pavel. This is better off as a category. If kept everything that doesn't have a standalone article should be megadeathrayed (aka removed) as unverified original research.--Isotope23 18:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above; also, where's the hamster cannon? Seriously, though, this list is effectively infinite. Zetawoof^(ζ) 22:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • If that were true, then the same would be true of list of weapons, since the latter is a superset of the former. In fact, however, it is false. The list of weapons that exist in fiction but that do not exist in reality is finite. Uncle G 00:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of that -Markeer 23:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• The sole stated objection to this article, that it has "no limits", has no actual foundation. The limit was clear to me, for one, from the article's title alone; and upon reading the article I found that the entries in the list corresponded with the limit that I expected. This is a list of weapons that exist in works of fiction but that do not exist in reality. (Compare this with the explicit statement at Category:Fictional weapons, which says pretty much exactly that.) That is a set that is clearly limited. There is not an infinite number of fictional weapons, for starters because there is not an infinite number of works of fiction.

  Furthermore, this list is not comparable to the other two lists mentioned in the nomination. The other two lists were lists of real firearms, in films and videogames. In contrast to those two lists, this list excludes real weapons. It isn't a list of the weapons that appear in works of fiction. Unlike the other two lists, this list will not potentially have several thousand historical novels listed against "sword". It is the list of weapons that appear in works of fiction excluding all of the real ones, which narrows the scope of the list significantly from what, per the nomination, it appears some editors erroneously think the scope of the list to be. The crossbows, guns, swords, and so forth in historical fiction are all are excluded from this list because they are real weapons.

  The only real reason for considering deleting this article, which hasn't even been mentioned in this discussion, is whether the categories (note the plural) do the job a lot better. They currently don't. The categories don't include duodecaplylatomate, the DeLameters, and the Sunbeam from the Lensman series, for example, and cannot include them because we (rightly) don't have individual articles on them. There are plenty other fictional weapons that similarly don't warrant whole articles to themselves. There is a clear place for this list to supplement the categories, and the list is neither too broadly construed to be maintainable nor too narrowly construed to be useful. Keep. Uncle G 00:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Although the number of weapons in fiction is technically finite (as the number of books that have been written is finite), it's effectively infinite, as there are a very large number of novels (and movies and comic books...) which invent weapons, particularly in science fiction. Can we expect to be thorough in this coverage? No - there are entirely too many books to realistically expect that we've covered everything that's been envisioned. Does this list serve a specific purpose in grouping these things together? No - these weapons bear no relation to each other, besides that they're all fictional. The only reason for its existence that I've seen mentioned is for listing fictional weapons which are too minor to get articles of their own, and I don't really see how this is particularly useful. Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Zeta hit it on the nose. The problem is not that it's literally infinite, but that it's so hopelessly unlimited so as to never be usefully complete. This will always be "List of a random selection of fictional weapons." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Novels of Jan Matzal Troska employ many psysically impossible weapons like a heat ray capable to boil an ocean. What good would be the list containing heat ray (novel A), heat ray (series B, has feature x), heat ray (novel C, can blow up a planet), ... Pavel Vozenilek 09:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is much better covered by a category. Fictional weapons we do have articles on vs. those we don't is a good way to determine what gets on the list and what doesn't. After all, just about every sci-fi book creates new weapons. Mangojuice^talk 19:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Much better we stick with Category:Fictional weapons --ArmadilloFromHell 07:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swami X

Is this really worth an article? I am getting the munchies for delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the sources given are very barely mentioning this guy at all, not enough to support what is said in this article. --Daniel Olsen 06:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment this person has not read the sources. The published books cited in the article, in particular, set the scene for Venice Beach in California in the 1960s and 1970s and identify Swami X as a noteable part of the scene. It is inarguable that Swami X's name is widely copied and parodied as a persona and that his witicisms have been published and quoted so often that NOT to include his biography in Wikipedia would be to omit a notable personage from a source that is supposed to supply knowledge where the standard publications fail to do so. The addition of "Swami X and his lady (in her leopard skin bikini and bellydancer's fancy waist-encircling jewelry) sat on the steps of Billy's Boarding House playing chess" underscores the matter of fact relationship between the subject of this article and the social milieu of Venice Beach in the 1970s. How can those of you who have not been there be so dismissive? How do you respond to the fundamental point, that a stand-up comedian who works on the street, i.e. a busker (look it up before you comment further) is not "reknowned in his own field". "Reknown" is a contextual term, and not solely based on whether one has achieved noteriety in the past 25 minutes on CNN or MTV!!! Elcajonfarms 04:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep While it still needs a bit of work, the article is decent enough, and convinced me that the Swami was at least marginally notable as an long-time and well-known eccentric street performer. --Brianyoumans 06:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The article does need more sources but it passes WP:NOTABILITY. Really, no reason to delete --NRS ^T/_M\^B 07:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but Clean up. This article in completely original research, doesn't have the right tone for an encyclopedia, and doesn't cite sources. However, a google search gets 11,600 hits so he passes the notability test. Someone just needs to completely rewrite it, that's all. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites} 08:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment that figure of 11,600 Google results is not reliable. I checked through the first few pages and only a couple of the resultsw are anything to do with the subject of this article. I suspect the vast majority are unrelated. A more narrow search for "Swami.X Berkeley" returns just 38 results

• Response to Comment Why don't you try an equally narrow search for "Swami X Venice"? you will find 35,000 hits!!! Also, before assuming this is not a significant venue, you might also try a search for "Venice Beach" and for "Venice, California" to get a better idea of the setting and prominence of this public figure, Swami X. Elcajonfarms 03:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[18], now I suspect there are more results to be found, but its probably a few hundred, not 10,000+. Gwernol 18:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Response to further comment Actually, if you search "Swami X Venice Beach" you will find 26,000 hits!!! Elcajonfarms 03:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep -- Anyone quoted as widely as Swami X, who has been a noteable personality and performer in the the second largest metropolitan area of the United States (Los Angeles) for over 35 years, is worth an article in Wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elcajonfarms (talk • contribs).
• Keep, but Edit as appropriate. This article's subject meets Wikipedia's proposed policy for notability for comedians and *stand-up performers, see [19], including the required references in multiple published non-trivial and reputable media, and the criterion for most prominent representative of the local scene in a particular city. The notability criteria for Wiki people [20] pose some obstacles for performers who do not regularly appear in corporate media sponsored venues such as radio, television and movies, and for that reason the proposed policy is more appropriate for the consideration of comedians, particularly street performers and other buskers. A review of the article on busking should suffice to confirm that Swami X satisfies these criteria for notability within his particular field. Further, it is noted that the existing notability policy for people, [21], specifically states: "This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted."—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elcajonfarms (talk • contribs).
  • Comment this keep was striken as it is the second added by User:Elcajonfarms.--Isotope23 18:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment no opinion... but header your AfD's so it is correctly displayed on the main Articles for Deletion page.--Isotope23 18:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah I see what happened now... malformed by someone trying to add a sig...--Isotope23 18:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Reasonable article about local cultural icon. -Will Beback 17:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Please note that the noteability of Swami X has been affirmed by mediators in a previous challenge to this article. [22]. Elcajonfarms.

• Comment that's a misrepresentation of the meditor's comment. The comnment is the article now "asserts notability". Asserting notability is not the same as demonstrating notability. The article was being speedy deleted because it didn't even claim that Swami X was notable. Now its been improved to the point where it claims he's notable. That doesn't mean he is notable, but at least means its notability should be debated. That is what we are doing here. Gwernol 18:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to Comment by Gwernol your suggestion that my comment was a "misrepresentation" is actually a false misrepresentation in and of itself. The mediator, whose Wiki name is Where, responded to the following question about notability standards: "Would you agree that someone who has been an active recognizable comedian in the second largest metropolitan area of the United States [i.e., Los Angeles ] for over 35 years and who is himself the subject of many identifiable citations meets the following standard in the PROPOSED Wikipedia criteria for "noteable comedians"? His response, via an email which you understandably could not have known about, as follows: "Yes; I agree." ElcajonfarmsElcajonfarms 03:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete the sources are either not reliable or only mention Swami X in passing, per Daniel Olsen. The article is full of WP:POV statements like "Swami X hereafter will forever be remembered in the pantheon of internationally reknowned commentators on the human condition" and clear original research. I'm making this a "weak" delete because there is a very weak notability case being made, but I'm not convinced that he reaches Wikipedia:Notability (comedy). Gwernol 18:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment not to be tendentious, but I fail to see how today's "featured article" *[23] about someone who does not even exist (a character in a Nintendo game) could be more "notable" than an actual person who has achieved sufficient noteriety to be mentioned in a bunch of books and newspaper articles about a countercultural mecca like Venice, California and who is a widely quoted figure. Elcajonfarms 03:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC) 02:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pharmacological dissidence

This is just a soapbox rant, not a coherent article, created by a user adding similar soapbox rants in other areas of Wikipedia. Ben W Bell talk 06:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ben W Bell is beligerating against me and not assuming good faith in my contributions. I protest! He is the soapbox ranter, but for the worst causes. Drcaldev 07:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Drcaldev (talk • contribs) is the creator of the article that is the subject of this AfD.

• Delete Seems to be 100% original research, unverified and a google search produces only one hit, which is this article. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 08:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If the article were original research, then how comes it just recalls the opinion of Szasz, Chomsky, Escohotado. How many results does google give for those guys? Why don´t you follow the links to the proponents´s articles? Drcaldev 09:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"War on certain drugs" retrieves 1140 results on Google. "Disidencia farmacológica" (spanish term coined by Escohotado) retrieves 8 results in Google. Drcaldev 09:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unencyclopedic WP:OR. Erechtheus 10:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as stub. It has some references and links that doesn´t fit with supossedly original research. 200.91.136.129 10:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: User:200.91.136.129 and User:Drcaldev appear to be the same user. Ben W Bell talk 10:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm in favour of keeping the article, but it would require a lot of clean-up. User:165.86.71.20 10:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Above comment was also posted by 200.91.136.129 (talk • contribs). NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 18:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The comment by 165.86.71.20 was posted by its author in the discussion page of pharmacological dissidence. Drcaldev 05:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No Google hits, Chomsky link does not use "dissidence" or anything resembling it. WP:OR,should go. Fram 11:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or maybe merge with drug use, drug trafficing, or some such article. Needs MAJOR cleanup, mostly OR with a large helping of POV.L0b0t 11:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Stu. This article and WP:V are two trains passing in the night. --Aaron 17:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete This seems more like an exposition than an encyclopedic article. HighInBC 14:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Search "Drug War dissent"

A search for "drug war dissent" returns 58 hits in google. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drcaldev (talk • contribs).

• Comment Drcaldev has created an article on an "alternative name" to this article's subject over at Drug War dissent. Should we AfD/speedy that one too? NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 04:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I think so. It's placing it as an alternate name for Pharmacological dissidence and unverified neologism. Ben W Bell talk 06:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky, whom you should read before voting on issues you evidently ignore, says: "US domestic drug policy does not carry out its stated goals, and policymakers are well aware of that. If it isn't about reducing substance abuse, what is it about? It is reasonably clear, both from current actions and the historical record, that substances tend to be criminalized when they are associated with the so-called dangerous classes, that the criminalization of certain substances is a technique of social control". Chomsky on http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/223/noamchomsky.shtml

I ask for someone with knowledge of the matter to discuss. Ignorance brings censorhip and censorship preserves more ignorance. That's some vice. It would transform wikipedia in Hawkypedia. Are only prohibionists and scared propaganda victims interested in this very important issue? Drcaldev 05:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No incivility and personal remarks please. You are creating an article with a title no one uses, which makes it original research from the start. If Chomsky criticizes the War on Drugs, add that to the article War on Drugs. What we want is articles on neutral, widely used terms, which present both sides of the argument (if there is an argument, like in this case). What we don't want is people using Wikipedia as their soapbox, not even when it is a sourced soapbox. Please read WP:NOT, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Chomsky is not talking about "pharmacological dissidence", that is a term you seem to have invented, and that is the main problem with this article. Censorship has nothing to do with it. Fram 07:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if you read the article you will note it adscribes the actual coining of the term to Antonio Escohotado. So it´s not original. I´ll put the quotation with page number soon, but searching in spanish in google for "disidencia farmacológica" brings results, so the term can´t be invented by me, can it? And an american equivalent (though less academic in its formulation) is Drug War dissent, which gives 58 results in google...

The adjective pharmacological with the substantive dissidence are a possible and perfectly understandable description for certain political position, not original of mine, and which I try to describe in some detail.

And Chomsky doesn´t talk about pharmacological dissidence, he demonstrates it in his argumentation against drug war propaganda and strategies. He is called a dissident and he deals with pharmacological issues, doesn´t him? Drcaldev 07:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete soapboxing and original research. Drcaldev risks invoking the wrath of the Rouge admins. Gazpacho 09:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. POV soapboxing and original research. -- Necrothesp 09:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, and per Drcaldev's google research. bikeable (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of online puzzles

If this was formatted like a conventional video game list, it would be entirely redlinks (bar one game). As it stands, it is a collection of external links and a forum for self-promotion/advertising. Prod was removed by an anonymous user with the comment: (Removed the removal request as this is a valid resource to illustrate the meaning of an online riddle or puzzle.) Marasmusine 06:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: WP:NOT a directory, a list of game reviews, or a place to promote yourself (and your friends). An interesting page however. --Daniel Olsen 06:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This belongs to DMOZ or similar services. Pavel Vozenilek 11:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Nigel ^(Talk) 12:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Just a list of links. Peter O. (Talk) 23:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete. A brilliant list of links, if you fall in love with one of the games, it is an excelent page to refer you to similar pages. User:AoOs
  • But that's the function of a directory, not an encyclopedia. Marasmusine 19:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete. First this list was part of the Online_puzzles article and same discussion was held there. Then it was moved to this list of links and now the hole discussion gets repeated. I think the article Online_puzzles would be useless at all without a linklist. If this list is deleted all the riddles will start there own articles on Wikipedia again (that is how it started some years ago). But I must admit that a lot of the links are not worth to be mentioned here. Soulmanager
• Delete per nom. Directories belong elsewhere. --Ghewgill 10:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 18:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the Last Day

Non notable band; as far as I can see, does not meet any of the notability criteria. Brianyoumans 06:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I checked out the band's site, which I'll link to in the article. They are touring the US from coast to coast, satisfying WP:MUSIC. The site also has media links. Guyanakoolaid 08:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm afraid I didn't notice the tour link, otherwise I might not have afded. On the other hand, most of the venues are "TBA", and most of the announced venues look like coffee places or such. I see one theatre venue, in Minneapolis, with 3 other bands. --Brianyoumans 19:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Yeah, I looked again, the media link is actually just pictures and stuff, but there's several google hits and interviews and stuff I found. The tour dates on their site only have about four TBAs, but other venues are questionable (Salvation Army?). This article is actually pretty close to the line, it depends on interpretation of tour, and my take is this: I've known lots of guys in bands that were medium-big locally that never got it together enough to tour another state, my feeling is if a band tours straight through at least three time zones, that's a tour. Their website is pretty pro-looking, too. Guyanakoolaid 03:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not going to withdraw the nomination, but I have to agree that they certainly meet the tour criterion. This is a good example of why the notability requirement for bands is too lax - does Wikipedia really need every band that piles itself into a VW Microbus and tours bars and Starbucks across the US? I don't think so, but I guess others do. --Brianyoumans 07:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was: no consensus. Default to keep. Strong suggestion that there be a mortatorium on AfDing this anytime in the near future. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 22:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This was a horrifically out of process "reclosure" that should not have been done without the input of DRV. I've undeleted. Phil Sandifer 13:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] P-P-P-Powerbook

Nominated as unverifiable. I quote from WP:V#Burden of evidence: " If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." All sources cited are self-published, or admit they perform no fact checking. I have noted the problems on the talk page. I have searched. I have requested a Lexis/Nexis search. I am convinced that no reliable source exists for this topic. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Previous nominations:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook Result: No Consensus
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook (second nomination) Result: Keep
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook (third nomination) Result: Keep (Redirected from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook (2nd nomination))

• Delete as nominator. Three previous AfD discussions have focused on notability. I consider that issue settled, and am only concerned about the previously undiscussed verifiability issue, and the associated problems with original research and NPOV as discussed on the talk page. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, since this isn't a vote, you don't need to vote delete when you nominated it in the first place. Kevin_b_er 19:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Chicagoist?. A little blog-like though. This is probably one of the finer examples of internet memes that touched at the point where everyone BUT the media has heard of it. Several major tech sites covered it. Slashdot[24], Zug.com[25], Digg [26], The Register [27]. Kevin_b_er 19:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Um... Chicagoist is "a little blog-like" because... well, it's a blog. Bwithh 00:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment none of the named sites make a point of checking their sources. In particular, Zug is humor site, avowedly uninterested in the underlying truth of a good story. We have no assurance that this was not an elaborate hoax played on the Something Awful crowd, and no NPOV evaluation of its impact, if any. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • So The Register doesn't count? Furthermore, hoax or not, its managed to become an example of scamming in general, and has tended to appear w/o the creator of forray's intervention. Places I haven't even expected to see this story come out of the woodwork years after this thing is done. I could expect different out of something that happened very recently, but its a meme that's managed to stick around after 2 years, which is saying something. Though I'll admit I'm a little biased on this matter. This thing is the example for my own threshold of considering an internet meme to be worth an article, but if the register won't do it, I'm not sure what you expect to see out of something that's not Star Wars kid. --Kevin_b_er 03:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, yes, this isn't Star Wars kid by a very long chalk Bwithh 00:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Respond Per the Register's own website: [28], they evaluate articles for wit and literacy, but nothing is said about fact-checking, so, no, I don't regard the Register as a reliable source. As things stand, it is impossible to write an NOR and NPOV article on this subject because it is not verifiable. Its a great story, and I spent a month trying to find a proper source. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

•  A separate nomination was opened by another editor after this was started. It has been closed and the comments moved here:

• Delete. Don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of SA and I love the story, but without any kind of independant, reliable sources that it is even real, let alone notable, it'll have to go.--Drat (Talk) 18:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No claim of encyclopedic notability and I don't see any possibility of encyclopedic notability. It's not even a meme. Its just a "I thought of a funny thing to do today" anecdote. Falls under WP:NFT in my opinion. Take it to Encyclopedia Dramatic or Uncyclopedia etc. Those are the places for this kind of thing. Not Wikipedia. Bwithh 18:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Already on ED.--Dhartung | Talk 06:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Case closed! (I mean that rhetorically) Bwithh 23:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Incidentally, my corporate firewall filter blocks ED and gives an explanation I've never seen before... "Tasteless". True story. Bwithh 23:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete How many times is this going up for AfD today? Anyway, looks like a good candidate for ED if it had more lulz. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete unless secondary sources added -- The first nom had a bunch of people who said they saw it on the news, but none of that news coverage has been cited in this article. If it can be found and cited, we should keep, but without it we have no verifiability. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Did anyone even look at the article's sources? Two newspapers: The Register and The Independent. Anomo 20:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The article needs better mention of it. One article in the reg isn't enough, but if it can cite several articles specifically about it, then we've got something. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • What do you mean? The article has two newspaper sources? I have seen articles kept just for having one sources in a newspaper. Anomo 20:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• 1) The Register story is trivial - it's categorized under the "Wild Wild Web" section, which is The Register's section for tabloid-style internet news in brief stories with a large dose of lurid sleaze stories. From the current edition, amongst more mainstream brief news stories, there are reports on a sandwich half-eaten by Britney Spears being sold on Ebay; a "Dead Steve Irwin" being sold on Ebay, and various titallating reports with some sex angle.
• 2) The Independent story does not refer to the P-P-P-Powerbook incident at all.
• 3) Media coverage, even widespread coverage in leading news channels, does not automatically equal encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 20:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm.... How come it passed its 2nd AFD with lots of keeps and its third are tons of deletes? What changed? Anomo 21:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:CCC. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Much as I thought this was cool and I hate to say it, it really isn't that notable per the commentary here. I'm not sure El Reg can hold it. Weak Delete. --Dennisthe2 20:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - vote stricken and changed, see below. --Dennisthe2 14:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. wikipediatrix 20:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; subject could be better covered at scam baiting. --keepsleeping slack off! 23:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

•  AFD was never listed on 25 September, so I'm listing it today. Punkmorten 07:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Respond Strange. I listed it on 9/25, as shown by the following diff: [29] Robert A.West (Talk) 19:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• K-K-K-Keep, it has demonstrated enough notability already. JIP | Talk 08:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, like all marginally notable Internet shenanigans; also of weak verifiability. Sandstein 08:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, I actually read this article a while back to understand a reference made on slashdot. It's notable = almost 30,000 hits on google. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites} 09:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete as per "marginally notable Internet shenanigans" stated above. This really only merits a single line on the Something Awful or scam baiting article, rather than an encyclopedia entry to itself. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 09:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep or merge. Previously, I noted that this was one of SA's top 2 or 3 pranks. We can't know whether it was a prank on a person (as advertised) or a hoax (as SA is known to engage in). On the other hand it's a big meme independent of whether it's true or not. Maybe that does mean merging (it's not overlong, could be one paragraph). For what it's worth a blurb was included in Smart Computing (print edition). --Dhartung | Talk 10:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • And I find that the SC article is only accessible with a Google referrer. Ah well. --Dhartung | Talk 06:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Not verifiable? OK, this has gone to the point of bad faith. Speedy keep by a long shot. --Dennisthe2 14:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Rescinded SK, see a couple of lines down.
  • Please assume good faith, and please read and understand the rules of speedy keep. Punkmorten 18:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Well put. In this case, I rescind the speedy keep and simply go with Keep. --Dennisthe2 19:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with (and redirect to) scam baiting.
• Weak Delete I have to admit, I was surprised by the verifiability claim, but I failed to pull up any decent reliable sources, and without those, notability rather fails to be an issue. GassyGuy 15:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Fourth nomination? Sour grapes. A consensus has been reached TWICE now, one of those times just a few weeks ago, to keep this article. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 18:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • True, but the issue raised in both of those was notability. I would argue that this is notable because even I'd heard of it before it got its article nominated for deletion, and that only happens with so many of these things that draw out supporters (and sometimes rather fanatical cult-like ones, but that is another issue). I, personally, would like to see this stay, but when you're dealing with a policy like WP:V, it's pretty clear cut. Unless somebody can demonstrates where this has been given non-trivial coverage in a reliable source, then it doesn't much matter what numbered deltion this is, because it's the one where the nomination focuses on this issue and requires that it be addressed by keep voters. "Sour grapes," whatever truth value it has, fails to address any relevant issue. GassyGuy 03:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Anyone who thinks that The Register or Something Awful are reliable sources needs to get their head examined. -/- Warren 19:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and expand with descriptions of spread as Internet meme. There is a problem with this article but it's not worthy of deletion. I have seen this meme come around to me several times, so it ought to pass WP:MEME -- but it requires some exterior sources documenting its spread as a meme to be a full article. Otherwise it should be merged to an article on Something Awful. The only result I am opposed to is deletion; after passing three AfD attempts I cannot believe deletion is still being seriously considered. Alba 19:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• To those fretting about verifiability: Fine, rephrase as a description of the content. That's verifiable, even if the veracity of that content isn't. I have trouble believing the entire Something Awful community was fooled by a conspiracy involving a poster in Washington State and a cheap barber/cybercafe owner/scammer on the Edgeware Road in London, so I'm not sure why the SA community is being considered as a single source. Other elements could be confirmed by, say, inquiring to Federal Express regarding the package details, which were published. A fanatic could even track down the scammer -- numerous photos of his shop were published; I'm sure he could be found.
  • Or you could just relax, put a few disclaimer sentences down, and get on with life. Alba 19:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, that's original research, again not appropriate in an encyclopedia. Ziggurat 00:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Bwithh. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no reliable third-party sources; 'notability' does not trump that. nn. Ziggurat 22:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; but this should not prevent anyone from moving the article into user space, or mentioning it in Something Awful as a typical story. In that article, a description of SA content is perfectly appropriate, and verifiable under the exception for sources talking about themselves. Septentrionalis 04:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--Peta 05:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ziggurat. No actual media coverage from a really reliable source. Batmanand | Talk 10:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per every other time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per parsssseltongue, smells of sour groups to me as well. RFerreira 23:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Alba's comments regarding the internet meme. Neier 23:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment could someone address the issues of verifiability that have been raised? WP:V is a baseline standard that is usually indisputable, and I don't think that the keep votes have properly dealt with it so far. Ziggurat 23:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Can someone explain how this anecdote is an encyclopedically notable internet meme, without lapsing into a definition of internet phenomenon which is hopelessly broad and without resorting to "People say they like it on their blogs and chat forums" (and yes, trivial news coverage too) arguments? In addition to "Someone did something clever" anecdotes, there are cute animal pictures, inspirational saccharine glurge stories, emails and that people shouldn't have sent (showing how comically obnoxious they are) that get sent all around the internet to thousands of people all the time. Is every single cute kitty picture, glurge story, silly email and "I did something clever today" anecdote encyclopedically notable? Bwithh 00:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah, well, people have already discussed the notability and I don't think that's a productive area for discussion (it's too subjective, and always seems to be reduced to a says-I says-you argument). If we can't find any reliable non-trivial (etc. etc.) sources talking about this phenomenon, however, there's really no disputing whether it should be here or not. If there are satisfactory sources, it harms no-one for it to stay (and I'd vote keep). Ziggurat 00:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Response I don't you can dismiss notability as an issue so easily. There is a large section on notability guidelines on Wikipedia which play a major part in afd discussions, and they certainly don't boil down to simple subjective views as you frame it. Just as the "harmless" argument holds no water either, both these arguments blithely ignores the fact that Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia and isn't supposed to be a free-for-all dumping ground for any information out there that has trivial sources (WP:NOT). Using Wikipedia as a dumping ground in a thousand ways like this does do grevious cumulative harm - to the project's mission and identity as an authoratitive encyclopedia I can find local newspaper reviews for the little kebab shop or the mom and pop diner around the corner - this doesn't make these establishments encyclopedic. And the news media - even internationally prominent news sources are also full of trivial news stories and non-news content which is far from encyclopedia. Take this story about a "killer" teddy bear for instance - 130 media sources (including FOX News, the Washington Post, USA Today, and others outside the US... this far far more coverage than the powerbook stunt will ever get) have published a story about it as shown by google news. The teddy bear has had more practical impact than the powerbook stunt. It's a apparently funny anecdote we can pass on to each other and we can use it to provide a lesson for the kids. Does this make it suitable for an encyclopedia? No, because its trivial ephemera, just like the Powerbook stunt. Bwithh 18:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Respond The notability argument has been discussed in three previous AFDs, while the verifiability issue has not been previously discussed. Arguments to delete on the basis of non-notability alone encourage "keep" arguments that avoid the verifiability issue. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - notability, verifiability... –Outriggr § 23:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Please do not be stupid in thinking about sources. Phil Sandifer 15:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment What is that supposed to mean?--Drat (Talk) 17:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
    • That the people complaining about the sourcing are being silly - WP:RS gives poor guidance on this topic, and should be ignored. Phil Sandifer 01:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Bwithh. Not notable. David | Talk 18:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not-notable in any non-internet kind of way, and not so notable on the internet as to make up for it. Recury 22:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Kuralyov 04:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not an important part of human culture - therefore not appropriate for Wikipedia. Cedars 05:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • We have Anna Nicole Smith on here, too. There's no accounting for taste. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 23:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and get a freaking life, this OBVIOUSLY had some sort of impact on the web in general or there wouldnt have been 5000+ backlinks to the site according to google. Notable sources mentioned it... passes WP:WEB in my opinion.  ALKIVAR™ 05:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Be nice, dick. Recury 20:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or merge (and redirect) with scam baiting. It's a notable meme, if nothing else, and lots of people check Wiki for that stuff if they haven't already seen it. Besides, it's been through four votes already. We're not going to have another GNAA fiasco, are we? TheWarlock 15:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." Even if it cannot be verified that this happened we can certainly verify that this scam was purported to happen and became an internet meme which was covered by several major sources. The article could be rewritten to reflect that. --BHC 18:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What major sources? Blogs? Discussion groups and user forums? Not a single source that mentions the incident is reliable, and the one reliable source does not mention the incident. Producing our own analysis, even trying to be as NPOV as we can, would constitute original research, and hence is not appropriate for Wikipedia either. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It's a stupid and weak article. I have conducted multiple scambaits that had way better circumstances and outcomes than this. Should I post a wikipedia article for each one of mine also?

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. theProject 17:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PureTel

Non-notable company. Google gives lots of hits for what seems to be a German company, but none other than Wikipedia and the company itself for the Australian one. Prod removed because "notability asserted"? Delete --Pak21 08:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Per nom. --Bill.matthews 15:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - fails to assert notability. Tagged as such. MER-C 12:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pagasus

Non-notable software. Couldn't see any actually relevant Google hits. (Prod contested by anon who apparently hadn't read WP:SOFTWARE) Delete --Pak21 08:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• This one sets my spider-sense tingling. The majority of vaguely computer-based ghits that "Pagasus" returns are typos of the Pegasus Mail System, apart from one single entry on someone's CV. The whole article sounds like a wind-up to me: "Dr James Krankie" being a case in point... There's no such guy at Bournemouth Uni and it's too close to Jimmy Krankie to be healthy, nor does he appear in any ghits. Neither does the awesomely named "Mazdatron 3000". I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be a huge hoax, possibly perpetrated by students at Bournemouth. Even if by the smallest margin it is genuine, it still isn't notable. The only sensible option is to Delete the site from orbit (it's the only way to be sure). OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 10:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete definitely Nigel ^(Talk) 12:33, 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 13:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bigredwire

This article is about a non notable website. See WP:NOT. It fails WP:notability & WP:WEB, NPOV and in my opinion should be deleted. MidgleyDJ 08:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence of notability that I can see. Jeendan 09:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Nigel ^(Talk) 12:29, 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 mention at Mozilla Firefox if anywhere, redirecting. W.marsh 18:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MineField Browser

Does not conform to WP:NPOV and it is blatant advertising for a product which is not notable enough for its own article on Wikipedia WP:N tgheretford (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge - Mozilla - does this replace "Tinderbox", or is that another different build? Ace of Risk 12:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Answer - Mozilla - In response to the Tinderbox query, this is what I found on the Mozilla website: Tinderbox is a detective tool. It allows you to see what is happening in the source tree. It shows you who checked in what (by asking Bonsai); what platforms have built successfully; what platforms are broken and exactly how they are broken (the build logs); and the state of the files that made up the build (cvsblame) so you can figure out who broke the build, so you can do the most important thing, hold them accountable for their actions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Panarchy (talk • contribs) .
• delete, the content here isn't worthy of merging. Put a sentence in firefox's article if it isn't there already; there's nothing more than that worth saying about it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This isn't a separate browser - it's a codename for the nightly builds of Firefox. Doesn't need a separate article. Zetawoof^(ζ) 22:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • In Response to the above comment, if you look at the image that I posted you will see that it is a completely separate browser, at least in its version. I finish saying Don't Delete. --Panarchy 03:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Different versions of programs aren't treated separately, unless they're truly treated as completely separate products. We don't have separate articles for iTunes 6.x and 7.x, for example. Minefield is simply a name for any prerelease version of Firefox; when it is finalized, it will be released as Firefox. Zetawoof^(ζ) 04:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Peta 06:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Leave as is - I am the creator of the article in question, and I think that having a separate article for this version of MineField aka FireFox 3, is easier and better then the one on the FireFox webpage. And if you do not like the comments I made on Netscape, just ask me and give me a good reason, and I will delete it. That is all, thanks for reading my comments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Panarchy (talk • contribs) .
• Merge with Mozilla Firefox or keep and move to Minefield (web browser) --- RockMFR 16:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, author request. NawlinWiki 21:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tesla's role in the history of radio

Was tagged for speedy deletion with the comment: "Single user did not act in concert with every other editor in the talk page for Marconi's_role_in_the_history_of_radio, created multiple pages, of which this is one." For some reason, History of radio (more information) redirects to a page on Marconi which seems counterintuitive to me. A page titled "more information" should not focus on a single individual. Since this appears to be the result of a content dispute, I bring it here, rather than leave it on CSD. No vote from me until I figure out the background of all of this. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Very Weak keep, but remove History of radio (more information) links and point directly to relevant articles. My keep is weak, because really the involvement of these people should be mentioned in a consise manner on the main History of radio article and nowhere else. Wikipedia isn't a battleground to fight out who invented the radio. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • For some background on the long-standing arguments surrounding Nikolai Tesla, see User:Hillman/Digging#Tracking_Teslamania, Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Ethnic_feuds, List of articles related to Nikola Tesla (AfD discussion), and Tesla's Tributes and honors (AfD discussion). Uncle G 09:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Invention_of_radio_and_some_pages_that_it_links_to. I have tidied the History of radio (more information) links. Anthony Appleyard 09:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - since the page is now the subject of a request for arbitration and was nominated for speedy deletion by one of the involved parties. If both sides abide by the decision reached the matter should resolve itself and if necessary deletion can take place then. Yomangani^talk 09:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Arb will ignore this... it is a content dispute and they don't get involved in that... so there will be no decision reached (other than the "we won't touch a content dispute" rejection of the RfArb).--Isotope23 19:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. Mgm, if you read the history of the redirect target page, it was not focused on Marconi, but the correct topic, albeit with the wrong title. Maybe you got to it after the editor who is singly modifying all these pages Anthony Appleyard changed content disregarding other editor's views. The title could not be fixed because Anthony created another page with that title and broke the history chain. I'm attempting to fix things. Sparkhead 10:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Though there is a question of who invented what first, this problem is common. The Newcomen Engine, the charmonium particle, each within hours, and that's off the top of my head. Not enough a reason to delete and an insight into the history of invention of a notable yet also obscure figure. Merosonox 12:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - The content already exists in Invention of Radio. Please see the talk history there to discover how this page came about. It should be merged back.

• • Keep. Please no deletion while these pages are under dispute. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Invention of radio and some pages that it links to.

As I edited these pages to:-

• • Tesla's role in the history of radio was a full list of Tesla's radio work.
  • Marconi's role in the history of radio was a full list of Marconi's radio work.
    • I made those pages separate because including them in History of radio would have made History of radio too long.
  • Radio priority controversy was specifically about the radio patent and invention priority dispute.

My versions are in my namespace.

Anthony Appleyard 16:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment man... what a mess. First off, I strongly recommend an RfC, or mediation if that fails. Second, All of this could be easily covered by 2 articles: History of Radio & Invention Of Radio This and the Marconi page could be redirects (they are cheap) or deleted as the namespaces are not such that they would be common search terms. Radio priority controversy would be a good redirect to Invention Of Radio. The bottom line though is that there needs to ba a total solution here and I think that is outside of the scope of this AfD... better dealt with through RfC or mediation processes.--Isotope23 19:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment To quote: "All of this could be easily covered by 2 articles: History of Radio & Invention Of Radio ". All of this was covered by those two articles until a single editor decided to go on an article move/creation spree. That's why I requested speedy delete in the first place. Sparkhead 19:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Sparkhead and review of article/talk pages. The older scheme was NPOV and topically separate. The present scheme simply delves deeper and deeper into POV-pushing, which may satisfy fans of one inventor or the other, but does not serve readers. We are presenting a consensus opinion as a tertiary source, we are not a soapbox to create a favorable impression of our favorite historical figure. --Dhartung | Talk 07:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• As I edited Tesla's role in the history of radio, it was merely a full list of Tesla's radio work and said nothing about the priority dispute. Anthony Appleyard 11:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. All this matter is now in Invention of Radio. Anthony Appleyard 21:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The author (previous comment above) of this page and myself have worked out how to merge the information here back into the appropriate History of Radio and Invention of Radio articles. He's requested a {{db-author}} speedy delete so can we close this down to resolve this? Thanks. Sparkhead 21:29, 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. W.marsh 18:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Street

Losing candidate in a state legislative race. Failed even to make it past the primary. The other offices that he's held don't meet notability criteria (WP:BIO) - they're not "international, national or statewide/provincewide" nor can he be described as a "major local political figure who receives (or received) significant press coverage". Lincolnite 09:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 11:01, 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. Mo0[talk] 22:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hair burning

There are no online sources which mention this. I'd be surprised if there were any sources at all. It's unsourced, unverified, and probably made up in school by someone... The Land 09:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a hoax, original research, unverified etc. Take your pick. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I can't find this exact torture method, but burning different things was very much part of Elizabethan era torture, see [30] MoRsE 13:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:V, as MoRsE pointed out without meaning to. The only relevant ghits are to the article itself; given the number of SCAdians on the Internet, I'd expect to find legitimate 17th-century torture methods all over the Web.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 14:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Dennisthe2 20:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. Choess 22:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per MoRsE. Edrigu 20:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Let it burn as unverified. If true, someday someone will find the reliable source and write a verified article. Meanwhile, this can go. GRBerry 01:14, 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 keep. Daniel.Bryant 01:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] B. Sandhya

Highly non-notable, if every police officer deserves an article Wikipedia would be a collection of bureaucratic record Kuntan 09:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as she appears to be a high ranking officer. Being a published author helps too. A google search throws up some interesting hits, including mentions in The Hindu and the Deccan Herald. Article requires an extensive cleanup though. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 12:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I have (partially) wikified and sourced the article. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 13:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep- She is a very popular, highest ranking Police Officer. Hundreds of news paper reports and articles about her are currently available in any internet search engines.Any wikipedian can examine it. Adv. P. R. Bijuchandran 17:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep as articles such as this indicate she has a role akin to a deputy district attorney in the Indian state of Kerala. A prosecutor is more notable than a police officer. She's still not even the top cop in Kerala, though. --Dhartung | Talk 07:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 07:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Apart from her day job, there's media coverage of the subject as a published poet. I've added a reference to the article. Mereda 10:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - coverage in the Hindu cements notability.Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I have written elsewhere about a career civil servant not being notable purely for being a civil servant. However, as a DIG-level woman officer, and one covered for a notable extra-curricular activity, as it were, I suppose she makes the cut. Hornplease 09:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Please note that an article about an IPS level officer with less credentials (no extra curricular activities and less rank) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/K._R._Kaushik was kept.  Doctor Bruno Talk 13:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect or de-fork or whatever, it's done now. W.marsh 18:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radio priority controversy

Tagged for speedy with the comment "Duplicate of content of Marconi's_role_in_the_history_of_radio which needs to be moved back to 'Invention of Radio'"; actually that's history of radio, I think. Either way this appears to be a POV fork but not a speedy candidate. There may be text worth merging, so this is not an open and shut case. Guy 10:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - see the AFD for a related article, Tesla's role in the history of radio. Yomangani^talk 10:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Fork created by an editor against wishes of other editors in the topic it was forked from. See edit history as well as Talk:Marconi's_role_in_the_history_of_radio which was titled "Invention of Radio" until same editor moved it and created several pages. Currently attempting to get that page moved back, with this content merged back into it, but same editor created a new "Invention of Radio" article and I don't want to lose the editing history by copying content. Sparkhead 11:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment I've restored the title of the original Invention Of Radio article and content. This can be deleted as the same content is there. Sparkhead 12:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Please no deletion while these pages are under dispute. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Invention of radio and some pages that it links to.

As I edited these pages to:-

• • Tesla's role in the history of radio was a full list of Tesla's radio work.
  • Marconi's role in the history of radio was a full list of Marconi's radio work.
    • I made those pages separate because including them in History of radio would have made History of radio too long.
  • Radio priority controversy was specifically about the radio patent and invention priority dispute.

My versions are in my namespace.

Anthony Appleyard 16:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Anthony Appleyard , you're once again misrepresenting the facts. The Tesla and Marconi pages already were separate from History of Radio, they were in Invention Of Radio which contains all the information in this article, until you started cutting things up. This is the last page that needs a delete/redirect to get things back to where other editors agreed they should be. Sparkhead 17:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment see my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tesla's role in the history of radio... The Request for Arbitration is going to be a dead end here... this is a content dispute and they will not get involved in that. Personally I lead towards a redirect to Invention Of Radio here, but as I said above, a total solution to all these articles needs to be reached. I suggest an RfC to see if there is consensus towards a merge or redirect.--Isotope23 19:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, one of the major patent/invention disputes of the 20th century. Gazpacho 22:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  Never mind, I can't figure out what's going on here. Gazpacho 00:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Close and relist after ArbCom ruling --Roninbk _{t c #} 09:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, no reason to do that... Arbcom is going to reject this as a content dispute.--Isotope23 14:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. All this matter is now in Invention of Radio. Anthony Appleyard 21:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The author (previous comment above) of this page and myself have worked out how to merge the information here back into the appropriate History of Radio and Invention of Radio articles. He's requested a {{db-author}} speedy delete so can we close this down to resolve this? Thanks. Sparkhead 21:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • After a merge, the best policy is a redirect unless the title is absurd. --Henrygb 22:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Wasn't a merge so much as a pruning of a fork. Since the article had a life of 5 days, the title is not a commonly used name for the events it references, and no content pages link to it, seemed a delete would be the most appropriate course of action. Sparkhead 22:39, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cruft

It's a neologism used primarily by the wikipedia community. The article's three links show it as an obscure neoligism. Also wikipedia is not a dictionary and this is dictionary definition article. It's "Popular Culture" is basically about its use on wikipedia. The whole article is completely unreferenced and full of original research. Anomo 10:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: while the article may not be great, "cruft" is a term which has significant pre- and out of Wikipedia usage as shown by the external links on the page (noting particularly the Jargon File). --Pak21 10:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Holy paradox, BatChap! So, is the article on Cruft actually cruft itself? I'm not sure that its entirely without merit so i'm going with a rather shaky and weak Keep. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 11:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as the term is used elsewhere than just Wikipedia (per Pak21, the Jargon File entry establishes currency elsewhere). That said, a spring clean on the article wouldn't hurt. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 11:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. This is one of the most common words from the Jargon File, used throughout the Internets. -- Gwern (contribs) 14:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

... which is an argument for keeping wikt:cruft, but not necessarily the associated encyclopedia article. (to the nom: wikt:talk:cruft shows it predates Wikipedia by at least 20 years) --Interiot 14:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Quoting a wikipedia disambig article: "Internets (colloquialism), term used to denote ignorance of the Internet or technology in general; inadvertently popularized by U.S. President George W. Bush's comment during a 2004 Presidential election debate with John Kerry." Anomo 18:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

See, that was supposed to be subtle humor, since the term is generally used to mock Bush's ignorance, but is actually a more accurate term than "the Internet", since the Internet is made up of multiple internets. Oy. -- Gwern (contribs) 14:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. A dictionary definition - so not for Wikipedia - it's suitable for Wikitionary however. CloudNine 15:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete It reads like a long, glorified, dicdef, and I'm not seeing how it could ever be more. GassyGuy 15:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, used outside Wikipedia and the article is and could be more than just a dictionary definition. -- nae'blis 16:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, has jargon file entry and use outside wikipedia. Could use pruning though to excise any OR. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; removing or externally sourcing any references to Wikipedia usage of the term. --EngineerScotty 20:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Cruft is not cruft, but the cruft needs de-crufting... --Roninbk _{t c #} 22:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, nominator is mistaken. Gazpacho 22:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep of course. Article is a bit messy but is much more than a dicdef. --Dhartung | Talk 07:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment why don't some of the proponents of the article who have voted to keep it here make it better then I'm sure we'd all agree to keep it? --JimmyTheWig 09:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Because as it stands, it a stub that could survive without life support. I have performed "article CPR" before, but this one still has a pulse and a breath... --Roninbk _{t c #} 09:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

And besides, AFD is not a club to hit people over the head with. -- Gwern (contribs) 17:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki I read the keep arguments and still this is little more than a dicdef. Wikipedia:Fancruft has a place and wiktionary cruft has a place. I am not seeing anything significant in the article to warrant an article yet. Anomo 11:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable wiki-cruft. MLA 14:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, a jargon term that's been around for a long time and definitely predates Wikipedia. Of course, the article can be improved, but AfD Isn't Cleanup. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It should be kept simply because its a common term on Wikipedia. However some of the more obscure uses of the word (for example in MIT slang) are not notable and those parts can be removed from the article. Edrigu 20:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Tobyk777 03:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A blatant case of cruftcruft 88.104.212.155 09:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep: It is a word that occurs here and there. While it could be moved to Wiktionary, the article looks too nice to be moved to Wiktionary in my opinion. I would also first search Wikipedia instead of Wiktionary, if I wanted to know things about "Cruft". --Bisqwit 11:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see a particular problem with this article, which I find informative. Peter O. (Talk) 21:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this was great for a chuckle, thank you Anomo. RFerreira 23:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional keep per proposal I left on this articles talkpage: see [31]. Barring that then maintain Weak Redirect to Wikipedia:Fancruft --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 03:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chang's Law

Non notable nonsense neologism. WP:NOT for things made up in school one day Fram 11:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 11:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:NFT. ColourBurst 16:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT.--Isotope23 19:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:DUMB. Moreschi 19:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:OR. Interesting observation, (something I personally would very much like to verify the research of...) --Roninbk _{t c #} 22:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. All of the above. - Soulkeeper 17:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the nominator. Yamaguchi先生 22:29, 29 September 2006
• Delete per all the above (but what a nice idea) Emeraude 11:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ineritance places

Don't think this merits an article - should be part of Inheritance Trilogy. Cordless Larry 11:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Tagged for speedy, but does not meet criteria. The issue for AfD is probably (a) whether the Inheritance Trilogy merits yet another article, and (b) whether there are sufficient secondary sources to make this article possible without original research. Guy 11:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 11:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - obviously, because it is spelt wrongly! It also needs a cleanup. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Auroranorth (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment: the wrong spelling can be fixed via a move and the cleanup can happen without the article being deleted. --Pak21 13:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• keep Every place mentioned in the article has its own article, if this article stays all of the others (most are only 1-6 lines long) can be deleted. The spelling has now been fixed by someone (not me)Shadoom1 00:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, a big improvement over the 10s of articles on imaginary places.--Peta 06:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment there are many Inheritance articles which were apparently merged into this one, and are now on PROD. 132.205.44.134 01:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment this article duplicates List of places in the Inheritance trilogy 132.205.44.134 01:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• First choice: Declare a trainwreck and relist The multiple merging and proding, redirection, duplication, etc makes this a mess. I'd let the prod's run and clear then relist as my first choice. Second choice: Delete as original research. Articles on fiction need to be sourced to reliable sources other than the source fiction. Yeah, the books are fun to read, and the author was quite young for a modern published novelist when the first came out. But WP:NOR is policy, and so long as the only source is the original works of fiction, and that is all we currently have in sight (even they aren't cited, but I'm assuming this isn't made up out of whole cloth and I do recognize a few bits. GRBerry 01:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Burning Plains was deprodded. I couldn't make it a redirect as a bot reverted me. IT's all of 2 sentences long. 132.205.44.134 02:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Lots of people going for delete say that it is unnessary to have descriptions for made up places, if you didn't notice, every place mentioned in the article currently has its own article, I think that about 20 articles is more unnessesary than one article Shadoom1 11:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DJ Quixotic

Was prod'd but user complained. Listing here instead. Doesn't seem notable. delete UtherSRG (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete - he seems to be on the very cusp of notability to me, and perhaps just over that line depending on exactly how we take the results of his competitions (i.e. are they big enough that first place qualifies him as notable for winning a competition or two?) That said, if the competitions are small things with grandiose names then we're left with someone with a MySpace following who may or may not be connected to famous people. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 11:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The competitions don't seem notable enough to warrant it. --Roninbk _{t c #} 00:00, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cotwall End Primary School

Non notable primary school Pally01 11:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Nigel ^(Talk) 12:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oy, here we go. Delete per nom. Inclusionists can't even use the stupid "But the school's been around for a long time!" defense here. -- Kicking222 13:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No sources, does not meet criteria at WP:Schools. Catchpole 14:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks in part to Uncle G digging up some sources, it does now. Keep. JYolkowski // talk 00:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is both non-notable and doesn't even have non-trivial coverage from multiple sources (OFSTED is not non-trivial coverage since all schools have it). JoshuaZ 19:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The context that the word "trivial" is used in WP:SCHOOL implies that the word is being used to mean "of little value or worth" (i.e. in creating an encyclopedia article). While almost all UK schools currently open have OFSTED report, that doesn't make the reports any less valuable or worthy in terms of creating encyclopedia articles. JYolkowski // talk 22:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • That reading doesn't make any sense in that context. That would imply that all schools would automatically get articles from those reports and other governmental reports. That can't be what is intended by that attempted guideline because it would make the rest of the guideline superfluous. Furthermore, note that generic government reports are not considered non-trivial for purposes of WP:CORP which uses the same phrasing. A much more sensible interpretation therefore is that trivial in this context means something closer to "commonplace" or "ordinary" possibly with some reference to the mathematical meaning of the word. JoshuaZ 23:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
      • The point of the guidelines is to ensure that subjects have enough verifiable information to sustain an article, so the definition of "of little value or worth" makes more sense here. JYolkowski // talk 23:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
      • You seem to be under the misimpression that the guideline is an attempt to limit the number of school articles; on the contrary, it assumes that every school that can support an article can have one, supposing someone will write it. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Presuming this to be the case: why don't we a) apply these standards to corporations or b) re-word it or add a note to make it clear that the standard here is not the same standard as for WP:CORP even though they use exactly the same wording? c) stop claiming that the current WP:SCHOOL criterion is some sort of compromise? If it is just what the die-hard school inclusionists want we should be open about it. JoshuaZ 20:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
          • We do apply these same standards to corporations. It is, however, not the case that all corporations have generic government reports written about them. (It's not the case for all schools, either.) There's no 33-page detailed report on Conflict Computer Limited (AfD discussion), for example. Your argument, being entirely based upon that false premise, is wholly ill-founded. Uncle G 22:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
      • See User:Uncle G/On notability#The_primary_notability_criterion. Uncle G 17:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Expanded after the AfD template was slapped to its forehead like a dunce cap on a recalcitrant eleve, this article is now well on its way to setting a standard for primary school coverage. Good show! --JJay 21:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep worthwhile article, which is in full compliance with Wikipedia policy, particularly verifiability. No proper reason given for deletion. --Rob 23:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, meets all content policies. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN. Arbusto 02:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Verifiable and significant. Piccadilly 22:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Please go duke this out over at WP:SCHOOLS first. RFerreira 23:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a worthwhile article that meets proposed WP:SCHOOLS criteria. Yamaguchi先生 23:40, 29 September 2006
• Delete. For all of the past reasons. Keep in mind that WP:SCHOOLS may not achieve consensus. Vegaswikian 00:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep non-notability is not a valid deletion criteria as notability is not a policy. VERIFIABILITY is policy, notability is not.  ALKIVAR™ 03:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep, not much different than any other school article we have on WP. Just because it is a primary school is of course not a reason to delete it. bbx 06:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• keep please this school is notable and now there is seven referneces there Yuckfoo 06:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable school, and has verifiable content. Notable primary schools should have a place on Wikipedia which definitely meets WP:SCH criteria. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 07:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 15:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cafe de Nieuwe Vaart

Not notable, reads like an advert. Cordless Larry 12:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Also nominating Grand Cafe Allure, for the same reason. Cordless Larry 12:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, read as adverts, no refs, no notability, weasel words etc. etc. You get the picture. Daniel.Bryant 01:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete reads like an advertisement. No assertion whatsoever of notability. If some one drags up a few great outside sources, it might satisfy my criteria. However, I don't see that happenning. Cool3 21:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of tourist attractions in Amsterdam

This belongs at Wikitravel. Cordless Larry 12:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If this artikel is to be deleted then artikels like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_landmarks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_museums_in_Paris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_museums_and_galleries_in_Berlin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Visitor_attractions_in_Dublin etc etc etc should also be deleted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.192.116.7 (talk) .

The Dublin one is a category, not an article, which I think is more suitable. I've also nominated Visitor information for Dublin, Ireland for deletion. That said, I'll admit that I think the Amsterdam one is a marginal case. Cordless Larry 13:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should make the List of tourist attractions in Amsterdam also a catagory? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.192.116.7 (talk) .

I think that's probably the best solution. It would be good to get other people's opinions. Cordless Larry 13:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I just contributed quite a lot to this page and would find it quite demoralizing to see this page be deleted. As 62.192.116.7 said, a lot of the big city's have such a section, sometime's as a page of its one sometime's in the main page of the city. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iijjccoo (talk • contribs) .

• Keep a list of notable places with wikipedia articles is okay. Arbusto 14:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, useful, encyclopedic information and plenty of community acceptance of this type of list on Wikipedia...though I'd rather see it renamed to "List of landmarks in Amsterdam." Postdlf 14:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, encyclopedic list, not listcruft. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 07:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - nomination withdrawn on discovery of sources and only "delete" was for lack of verification. Yomangani^talk 23:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whirligig (torture)

As it stands this is unsourced speculation. No google hits for this use of the term. Please remove another apparently made-up 'torture' from Wikipedia. The Land 13:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn since an acceptable source has come to light. The Land 21:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, see [this link]. MoRsE 13:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment www.torture-museum.com is a website with an alexa ranking of 1,775,303, which makes it highly unlikely that it counts as a reliable source. It's basically someone's personal website. This article would need to meet Wikipedia:Verifiability to be kept, so we need a better source than that. --Xyzzyplugh 14:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not verifiable. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment After further search I found a publication from the Oxford Journal's "Notes and Queries" called "Whirligig as instrument of punishment", you can read the document via the Athens service or as a pay per view article. I also found the definition in the Websters 1913 edition. MoRsE 16:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Aha, a verifiable source! In that case I withdraw the nomination! Many thanks. The Land 21:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Redundant Keep, another verifiable source here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:48, 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 13:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] M×0

I can't find anything on the web about this. Is it a hoax? MoRsE 13:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Od6 17:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I doubt it's a hoax, as it has an article on :ja which has existed for some time and been edited by many people -- see ja:エム×ゼロ. However, I don't know if this is the correct English title or not. — Haeleth Talk 19:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It's real. [32] Is it notable? I don't know. Try googling: "MX0" manga --Kunzite 20:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Roninbk _{t c #} 23:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is notable, since the magazine it appears in is extremely popular in Japan. However, according to the Japanese article, it only started its run about four months ago, which explains the lack of coverage in English. Dekimasu 01:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I just edited the article a bit, adding the infobox and the cover of issue 23 of Weekly Shōnen Jump showing images and the title. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Nice work, Nihonjoe. Any chance we can get someone fluent enough in Japanese to transwiki some information from :ja to expand this beyond a painfully small stub? --Roninbk _{t c #} 01:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 15:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-African scholarship

Delete POV neologism. Outside of Wikipedia, this term gets 0 hits.[33] Yes, racism has been a part of European culture for centuries, but that doesn't mean this is a proper or recognized way to conceptualize it, or that cultural bias has always even been linked to racism. The second link offered as a "reference" is complete garbage, btw. [link has since been removed by article author] Postdlf 13:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Moreschi 19:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment—see also discussion at Talk:Anti-African scholarship, which further emphasizes my point. Postdlf 22:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm truly sad to have to recommend deletion. This looks like an important point but judging from Google it just doesn't seem to be of much interest. Unless someone can provide a list of print references discussing the problem this seems to be not encyclopedic material and original research.

• Perhaps the article needs to be renamed. It is no great secret that African contributions to world culture are routinely glossed over and there is a strong American/Euro-centric bias regarding which articles are accepted by scholarly journals. There is specific prejudice against articles from African universities. Without publications in scholarly journals, it is essentially impossible for either a university or an individual scholar to obtain professional recognition--hence, it is a vicious cycle. However, I don't think the phrase "anti-African scholarship" really describes those problems and even if it does, obviously no one is using that specific phrase to describe the problem.

RickReinckens 03:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Eurocentrism, American exceptionalism, or ethnocentrism generally are what we're looking for. But I think at its core, this article is just a restatement of the basic position of Afrocentrism. Postdlf 02:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Bobet 15:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Visitor attractions in Paris

No need for this list: category already exists covering same topic Cordless Larry 13:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ditto List of museums in Paris. Cordless Larry 13:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep both. The list of "visitor attractions" is annotated to explain what each entry is. The list of museums is about 50% redlinks. All that information would be lost if we just kept the categories. Postdlf 14:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the list. It does deliver more information. Someone once said that categories would replace the lists on wikipedia, but it hasn't worked that way. Bejnar 04:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. We're an encyclopedia, not a travel guide. --Calton | Talk 04:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep but rename properly to List of visitor attractions in Paris. Paris is just about the only city (perhaps Rome or Athens?) that is so densely packed with world-famous, um, "attractions", so we can make an exception. I'm trying to think of a more encyclopedic word that will include churches and monuments. --Dhartung | Talk 07:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I like "landmarks" myself—its application doesn't depend on whether the location is frequented by tourists. Postdlf 14:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Trouble with "landmarks" is that it also has a formal meaning, i.e. buildings designated as landmarks by an authority. --Dhartung | Talk 12:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think anyone would assume we're being that specific, if the title is something like List of landmarks in Paris; there's no suggestion that any formal designation is involved because no authority is named. Postdlf 14:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both; redlinks in lists encourage expansion. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:50, 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 speedy keep because the nominator explicity mentions article merger for this common mis-spelling at which an article has been grown. Article merger is what we do with duplicate articles, and does not involve deletion at any stage or any requirement for administrator intervention. When you see duplicate articles, your first port of call should not be AFD. Uncle G 15:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paulo Conte

There's already a page in Wikipedia about "Paolo Conte", which is the correct name of this artist (Paolo Conte), a little more complete than this one. I suggest merging them, or simply deleting the article "Paulo Conte". Mocambo 13:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy merge/redirect There's no reason to bring this to AfD. -- Kicking222 15:12, 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 delete, with no prejudice against someone creating a real article that isn't just an ad derived from their website. - Bobet 15:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Communigate systems

Despite pleas with the article creator, this article continues to do nothing to explain the importance of this company. It's written like a company web site, although it's apparently not a copy (though a former version was deleted as copyvio). WP:NPOV is a problem here, and as long as the creator is the only one editing the article it will continue to be. So, delete. Mangojuice^talk 13:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment (No vote yet) Looks like the company may qualify as notable, but there's no way the article qualifies as acceptable. It's pure spam. By the way, are there guidelines for use of the {inuse} tag? I thought it was meant to be for a few hours, not days. Fan-1967 13:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • That may be my fault. The author was making a great number of very minor edits to this article, and I didn't want to nominate the article based on its content when it was still in progress. I suggested the author user the {{inuse}} tag while they were actively editing, and they left it up over the weekend (which is forgivable: not everyone wikis all weekend, after all), but at this point, there has been plenty of time to write the article. Mangojuice^talk 16:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• I appreciate all the comments. CommuniGate Systems creates CommuniGate Pro, which is the email server f over 15 million Americans as well as 125 million users worldwide. Searches for "CommuniGate Systems" on google will yield over 70,000 results, most of which are reviews or mentions of the product created. This kept in mind, the original version had information concering the products we release and the relivence regarding them. While this was posted, I believe it was removed for reasons along the lines of "Corporate webpages that are here for commercial use should not be included on this engine." That being kept in mind, i did my best to edit and scale this page down to non-controversial non-partisian facts that are backed up with independent research (online magazines, publications such as Mac-World etc.) I am quite stuck as to what qualifies as a wikipedia page minus the concerns around neutrality. Many companies such as Avaya, Nortel Networks, Digium, all who do the same things we do have pages on Wikipedia, and in a couple of cases, these pages are much less inclusive of data than the one currently being petitioned. I can understand how WP:NPOV might come up as an issue, and I can accept this, but otherwise please let me know what exactly needs to be done for this to be as acceptable as other "corporations" on the site... Cheers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel@communigate.com (talk • contribs).
  • Comment Theoretically, it's possible for a company employee to write an unbiased assessment of that company. In practice, I don't know that I've ever seen it happen. The fact that other companies' articles suffer from the same failing is, sadly, undeniable, but not relevant to this one. Maybe the solution is have you write Avaya's article, and have them write yours (just kidding, I think). Fan-1967 17:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The previous version, as Mangojuice has already explained above, was deleted because it was a straight copy and paste of a copyrighted non-GFDL web page. This current content is only barely less so, and could be argued to be clearly a derived work, since its paraphrasing, of that very same web page, is (to put it charitably) halfhearted. What needs to be done to make this article acceptable is to delete it, in part because of the copyright concerns of the current text, and start again from scratch this time not using the company's press releases and the company's web page as the sources, as was done here. See User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing_about_subjects_close_to_you for the only way to create an encyclopaedia article about one's own company. If one cannot follow that advice, one should not write.

    The article is an advert, and only slightly less of a copyright violation, of the blurb on the company's own web site, than the previously deleted version. Delete. Uncle G 01:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Hello, I do not get it totally...yes, nobody wants a compay just to post marketing things on the WiKI, but why would CommuniGate not be important to have listed, it is not like they are not known or something? You see Critical Path http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Path,_Inc. You can see Openwave, both of these companies do the same thing, sell big mail servers, so what is the rub? Should we go through and delete all the company listings or inof profiles? I find it useful to see what is up with a company because you often will get more real info on the WikKi than some company website. Let them start the posting and let others put there some real truth about the company.....like do they really do what they say they do etc. User: Marsaro —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marsaro (talk • contribs) .

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wasted Youth (Clothing)

Advert created by user:Wastedyouthclothing. -- RHaworth 13:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Per nom. --Bill.matthews 15:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom. Emeraude 09:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ES Research Group

Advert for non-notable company. -- RHaworth 13:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Cordless Larry 19:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:CORP, no assertation of notability (not to mention documentation of notability). -- MarcoTolo 02:11, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vaughn Skow

Non-notable bio. Pure vanity, created by user:VSkow. -- RHaworth 13:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Userfy and delete There is absolutely asserted notability- claiming to have won a few Emmys and working with "almost every name in country music active from 1986-present" would certainly be notable. However, there's nothing online to support these claims; "Vaughn Skow"+Emmy gets 14 Yahoo! (for some reason, my Google isn't working) hits, and all of them are either message board posts or relate to Skow, but mention someone else as an Emmy winner. In addition, searches such as "Art Garfunkel"+"Vaughn Skow" and "Amy Grant"+"Vaughn Skow" get zero hits. While much of the info in the article may or may not be true, it fails WP:V. -- Kicking222 15:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Laughing Delete. Shocking vanity. Ouch!!! Moreschi 19:30, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nicole Patricia Brown

Non-notable bio, probable vanity. -- RHaworth 13:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - doesn't meet WP:BIO in any case.... -- MarcoTolo 02:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete budding TV producer who fails WP:BIO Ohconfucius 09:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bio, as stated above. --Karafias ^{Talk • Contributions} 09:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As noted above --Quigabyte 09:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Someone has already deleted it? Yamaguchi先生 22:35, 29 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 no consensus to delete. merge possible W.marsh 18:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DPS Dwarka

Though there is a website [34] of this School but looks like an Advertisment and unimportant to me. --Marwatt 13:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I was actually typing in a speedy delete notice when someone tagged it for deletion. Real school, sure, but fails Google test and article does not feature any remarkable facts. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 13:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - this is a significant school on an unusually large campus with national standard sports coaching. I have stubbed the article but see no reason to delete it. TerriersFan 00:16, 21 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, Mangojuice^talk 13:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and Move Doesn't read at all like an ad to me, but it should be placed under it's full name instead of being abbreviated to DPS. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c e} 15:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree; if kept I intend to move it. TerriersFan 15:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. Here are two google searches about it: [35] [36] A total of 700 hits. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites} 05:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Delhi Public School Society. --Peta 06:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 07:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to the main DPS article. Hornplease 09:18, 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 redirect. W.marsh 18:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salophilia

There are no reliable sources on this, therefore it violates Wikipedia:Verifiablity. Google search shows a small number of hits on this, almost all coming from this article, or from another wikipedia article which mentions this term. The only other mention I could find on this was at http://www.thecrimson.harvard.edu/article.aspx?ref=512878 where the word is used, but not defined or explained. Also note that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so the mere existence of the word is not justification for an article here Xyzzyplugh 13:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Paraphillia, which has a list of this sort of thing. Mister.Manticore 14:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Er, I mean Paraphilia 24.254.114.31 21:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect--Peta 06:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No hits on GBooks or GScholar; that's a bad sign. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:52, 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 13:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crocodileguy

This is a non-notable game. It fails the proposed WP:SOFTWARE. The title and the word "game" get 19 unique search engine hits, none of them worth anything. Prod removed by creator. Erechtheus 14:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - this is a self-promotion article. Appears to be aimed at getting people to download the game via the external link. Cordless Larry 14:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the external link because it was a ZIP file, in case it contained a virus. Cordless Larry 15:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Per nom. --Bill.matthews 15:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn Cicadaboy 03:02, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Visitor information for Dublin, Ireland

This belongs at Wikitravel. Cordless Larry 12:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• This article gives a short list of factual information about Dublin which would be relevant to visitors, but which would be difficult to include in the main article without reducing its readibility, it is not a travel guide and doesn't have subjective tourist information. I don't think it should be deleted. Notjim 13:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wikitravel already has an article on Dublin. This article can't be transwikied to Wikitravel because of licensing issues (Wikipedia uses the GFDL and Wikitravel uses the incompatible CC-BY-SA 1.0). Because Wikipedia doesn't like travelguides, I'm afraid this article can't stay here.-- danntm ^T _C 15:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • But it isn't a travel guide.Notjim 17:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It is essentially a travel guide. Gazpacho 17:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Here's something esoteric for a vote. =) Transwiki Merge per nom, and nuke the remainder. --Dennisthe2 20:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• By the look of things, most of it is already here. Cordless Larry 20:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. -- IslaySolomon 02:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT a travel guide. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 08:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Water fresh

The author has created three pages that look like advertising: Water fresh, Waterfresh, and Waterfresh group Do we need all three, and are these articles merely advertising in disguise? Also, have had problems with the article's creator, who removes valid AfD tags. Johnbrownsbody 15:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete All They all appear to be advertisements from a NN corporation. Could not find citations in media, appears to be non-verifiable. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c e} 15:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Blam all three for advertising and non-notability. Google finds nothing in a search for "waterfresh group" or "water fresh group" (in quotes). -->So sayeth Methnor^{Sayeth back}|_{Other sayethings}
• Delete ... ironic that we need to purify the encyclopedia of water purification spam!. Akradecki 16:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I have removed the duplicates already. -- RHaworth 19:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as spam per nom. --Dennisthe2 20:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Pile-on delete per, um, everyone. -- MarcoTolo 02:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: High Velocity Sonic Disintegrator (HVSD) technology, AFD-style. 24.148.93.88 05:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete as a dictionary definition just yet. Should be wikified and probably moved though. W.marsh 18:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hermopolitanism

This seems to be a neologism with no common use. A Google search of the term brings up two websites on geocities and tripod, both created by the same person. Anyway, original research and non-verifiable. Wafulz 14:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Akradecki 16:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Google Scholar finds 36 hits for "hermopolitan", most apparently consistent in meaning with the entry and with the noun form used as the title here, though hermopolitanism itself has no hits. So I'm not convinced it really is WP:OR or WP:NEO; it seems to me more a somewhat-obscure scholarly adjective that was made into a noun so it could be used as a title. I'm more concerned that the current entry is just a dictionary definition; it needs elaboration to stand on its own. —David Eppstein 20:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment That the suggestion that using "Hermopolitanism" to refer to the "Hermopolitan Tradition" may be an unallowable neologism is understood. But, as recently published studies find wider discussion, the term will probably be needed (in the way that Neptune required a tentative reference, being detected from its effects on the orbit of Uranus before being confirmed by direct optical observation). I.e., conclusions are more firmly scientific, but without theories, would not exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sonofthemummy (talk • contribs).Moved from talk page of article --Wafulz 01:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Once the theory has been knocked about in a few academic journals, or at least received some significant press coverage, THEN it would be considered encyclopedic. --Roninbk _{t c #} 10:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Hermapolitan tradition. And yes, it needs to be more than a dicdef. Michael Kinyon 09:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 18:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Krypton glossary

A random collection of contextless and often ill-defined or completely undefined terms vaguely related to Superman's homeworld. No real-world content or context and no hope for same, no source except direct observation of the comics themselves. The important ones are ably covered in their own articles or related ones, and the unimportant ones don't need to be covered at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fancruft Akradecki 16:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Minutia, sure, but the "unimportant" terms crop up, though not often enough to warrant their own entries. Clean-up sure is needed, but deletion is not required. -mordicai. 20:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  Why not just explain them briefly when they crop up? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  Crop up in the source material & in conversation, which is how I stumbled here. Explaining them every time they crop up will just clutter up a variety of articles; a listing here keeps things orderly. I think that sweeping edits of personal nouns &c. are in order, but as it stands, this is as good a place as it gets to answer questions like "Torquasm-Vo what now?" -mordicai. 04:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Seems helpful, no merge possible. Obina 20:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, but wikify (as in, make the names bold). Some people obviously find this stuff useful, seeng as someone spent alot of time working on it. It should be renamed to something like Glossary of terms related to Krypton. Leave a message on my Talk page if you want me to lend a hand wikifying. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites} 05:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, merge possible. W.marsh 18:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King of All Blacks

• Delete Not Notable, fancruft Bill.matthews 15:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Akradecki 16:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fancruft: fails WP:DUMB. Moreschi 19:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with The Wack Pack, which already contains much of the same content. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with The Wack Pack Spazm
• Keep, regular featured player on Stern confers notability, "fancruft" no reason for deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree that being a regular guest on Stern confers notability. It certainly does within the Stern listeners, but not to the public in general. This article belongs on a fan site, not Wikipedia. --Bill.matthews 15:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I vote to merge with WP.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 18:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angry Black

• Delete, Not Notable, Fancruft Bill.matthews 15:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Akradecki 16:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, Seems to be non-notable. No external links were included to check his notability.Adv. P. R. Bijuchandran 17:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Wack Pack, which contains a subsection that's basically identical. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, regular featured player on Stern confers notability, "fancruft" no reason for deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree that being a regular guest on Stern confers notability. It certainly does within the Stern listeners, but not to the public in general. This article belongs on a fan site, not Wikipedia. --Bill.matthews 15:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Brimba 02:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete After (if?) he gets his own show we can talk about an article. Johnbrownsbody 01:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per badlydrawnjeff's possibly inadvertent but nonetheless welcome exposition about things that fail to make you notable. Eusebeus 13:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mo0[talk] 22:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maltafly

Non-notable, edits of substance from page creator only, solely linked to by articles about Norman Lowell which were also created by same user.

I googled Maltafly. The results brought up a mix of (1) Wikipedia and its mirrors, (2) references to it solely in the context of Norman Lowell and (3) miscellaneous porn sites.

Please see discussion on Talk:Norman Lowell. --SandyDancer 17:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - utterly fails WP:WEB. Akradecki 16:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom --Bill.matthews 16:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - One of the most popular Maltese websites. Drew88 16:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. An assertion here of "popularity" is irrelevant. The point is that the subject of the article needs to be notable, and the text of the article needs to 1)clearly assert and describe that notability, and 2)be properly sourced. This article is neither. Akradecki 18:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• The nom's claim confuses me, as a google search for (maltafly -wikipedia -lowell) returns 21,000 hits, and I don't see a mention of porn or sex in any of them (although admittedly many are not in English). Looks notable to me. Keep. - Che Nuevara 17:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment here is a link to the google result [37] --SandyDancer 18:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Not notable enough for wikipedia. Maltesedog 19:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Hatesite. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 08:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment How exactly is it a fansite? Drew88 13:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment You're right. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 08:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Is this page going to get deleted or what? --SandyDancer 19:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greasepole

Delete - Contested prod, information is unencyclopedic, much seems to be speculation (legend has it...). Fails the "would someone on the other side of the world care?" test. Not notable outside of the Queen's Community. Chabuk 15:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Most University traditions aren't notable off their respective campuses, or outside the alumni's fond memories. Akradecki 15:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom --Bill.matthews 16:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - unsourced, uncencyclopedic - if someone comes up with sources that meet WP:V and WP:RS, then I might reconsider. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Is it just my imagination, or are Queen's University students vastly more likely than most other student bodies to delude themselves as to the encyclopedic notability of their school traditions? I seem to recall that AFD has dealt with vastly more Golden Gael cruft than any other university I'm personally aware of. Delete; fails both "would someone on the other side of the world care?" and "Wikipedia is not for things made up in school." Bearcat 23:56, 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 13:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Art Criticism

This reads like a rambling essay, not an encyclopedic article. It doesn't appear to have a specific subject, and it doesn't appear (to me at least) that it could be improved with cleanup, therefore I propose delete. Akradecki 15:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Please do not delete this article. It is very critical to show how Abstract Expressionism was manipulated during the 1940s by the art critics and by a few artists who did not go to World War II along with drafted American patriots. I propose do not delete! User:Marika Herskovic
• Delete as stands as OR without prejudice against a non-OR article about New Criticism as relates to visual arts. - Che Nuevara 17:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Che Nuevara's comments. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 18:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Please do not delete this article. It is not argumentative and it is accurate with proper references. It is needed to be revised to a proper formate. Please help if you can!!

Sincerely, Marika Herskovic 18:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Che. --Aaron 19:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Che Nuevara. Essay. Moreschi 19:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it looks like someone wrote this for a high-school essay. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites} 05:31, 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. W.marsh 17:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taylor Siluwe

Does not meet WP:BIO for notability -Nv8200p talk 16:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or at least Userfy. Since the article was written by the subject, some of the text would be appropriate on his user page. Akradecki 16:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- Sounds like a promotion for the person. bibliomaniac15 02:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: [38] 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. W.marsh 17:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MyStrands

nn website--Dsfbs 16:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Nominator's contributions consist solely of AfD nominations.--TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete can't find any notability. Anomo 14:59, 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. W.marsh 17:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Football.co.uk

spam--Dsfbs 16:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep. Notable football website, provides match reports for all UK teams as well as League Tables, Transfers and stats. Forbsey 16:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete Literally 1000s of football related websites. Never even heard of this one before. Completely non notable and definitely spam IMO Dodge 17:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Forbsey 17:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails to qualify under any of the criteria laid out in WP:WEB. Alexa ranking of 24,000 [39] suggests not notable enough. Qwghlm 17:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Nominator's contributions consist solely of AfD nominations.--TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable website. Minfo 04:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but expand. It gets almost half a million google hits, and an alexa rank of 24,401 with around 75,000,000 hits a day. A google search for football uk returns it as the #1 result. But the current article just sucks, and if anyone cares about it it needs to get added to. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites} 05:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • A lot of those google hits are for things like itv-football.co.uk and www.youth-football.co.uk. I use a lot of English football sites in my research, and I'd never heard of this one.Delete - fchd 17:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It does not get 75,000,000 hits a day - you have misread the Alexa page. What Alexa actually gives is the reach per million - i.e. how many people out of 1,000,000 visit the site. 75 per million is about 0.075% of the internet-connected population. Qwghlm 09:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability. --Peta 06:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not particlularly notable; hard to navigate; not very up to date outside the Premiership. BlueValour 17:25, 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. W.marsh 17:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atmark Techno

nn company--Dsfbs 16:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Od6 17:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Nominator's contributions consist solely of AfD nominations.--TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Cursory google check shows no overwhelming signs of notability in English or Japanese, and the ja: transwiki link was broken, implying the article didn't survive AFD there either. Neier 11:08, 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 17:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 100 Anime

nn books--Dsfbs 16:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Dsfbs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Comment. Nominator's contributions consist solely of AfD nominations.--TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Roninbk _{t c #} 23:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to Notable Anime and restore list. It's published by the British Film Institute very much like the AFI_100_Years..._series. Why are the BFI lists removed as copyvios, but the AFI list gets to stay? --Kunzite 00:08, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ripple magazine

Seems to be an advertisement for a very minor magazine. Google can't even find it, and no website is given. There is no assertion of notability. This article is unverifiable advertising. --Wafulz 17:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete an non-notable and advertising. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites} 05:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN; is just launching; local mag; promotion. -R. S. Shaw 05:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 16:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dave & Darren

The thing was created in November, 2005 and almost immediately tagged db-bio. Was de-speedied as they are local talk show hosts and tagged for clean-up the next day. I cleaned the thing up, but when I googled for "Dave and Darren" +WXLP, I got only 16 unique google hits.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Nonnotable, apparent advert. -R. S. Shaw 05:06, 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 all. - Mailer Diablo 08:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yu-Gi-Oh! cards

• Thousand-Eyes Restrict
• Arcana Force
• Flame Swordsman
• Kuriboh
• Winged Kuriboh
• Cyber Dragon
• Theinen the Great Sphinx

Per precedent in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amazoness series, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amazoness Series, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh! card lists, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh! single card articles. Also, copyvio by directly copying card text. Interrobamf 18:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delele all Individual cards in a CCG should not have articles. I shudder at what would happen if every Magic: The Gathering(which has been around for more than 10 years) card had its own article. 20:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, what a mess. The Yu-Gi-Oh articles are, by and large, a trainwreck, but these are the worst. They confuse in-universe and out-of-universe, substantially duplicate copyrighted source material (failing both WP:NOT and WP:FU), and have scant if any referencing or potential for referencing. Notable cards in the real world should probably be covered in the articles on the sets (as is done with Magic: the Gathering and Pokémon) and notable cards in the anime/manga should be (and are already) covered in the (already hopelessly overdetailed) articles on the characters who use them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Pfsic 00:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, these should be on a fansite, not on wikipedia. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites} 05:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MiB. While there are individual playing cards that deserve articles -- like Ace of Spades -- these are not remotely in the same league. — Haeleth Talk 09:33, 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 Speedy Keep, bad faith nom by SPA. Aaron 19:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mancs

DELETE nn dogs--Zosdp 18:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is this up for deletion? It's on the main page as a featured article, and this user gives no reason for deletion. kraagenskul 26 September 2006

• Speedy keep and close Per WP:SK, an article can be speedily kept if it is currently linked to on the Main Page. -- Kicking222 18:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the dog is very famous in Hungary (actually there are many people who are less known than him, and still they have articles too.) How many dogs you know have statues erected to them in a city? – Alensha  ^talk 18:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as Zosdp gave no cause and the page's subject is notable enough to be mentioned on the main page. Wyvern 18:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, there seems to be no reason for deletion as far as I can see. The article is complete and factual and there are no copyright violations that I can see. Maelnuneb 18:58, 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 -- Samir धर्म 03:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jonny Berliner

It's not at all obvious to me which of the various statements in this unreferenced monograph is supposed to amount to a claim of notability, and the 63 unique Googles did not help me to find out. Guy 22:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete lots of words that don't add up to much. Opabinia regalis 00:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey there, I've referenced a lot of stuff in the article and added a "significance" section. Berliner has a significant reputation in contemporary British musical theatre. I wanted to leave it to other specialists to add to the article and contribute footnotes.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.240.132.41 (talk • contribs).

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, No Guru 18:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Five CDs, although the article doesn't say which label they were on. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment WHAT KIND OF RATIONALE IS THAT?! Simply having CDs does not qualify one as passing WP:MUSIC. If I record 60 songs right now and throw them on CD-Rs, can I have an article, too? -- Kicking222 19:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unreferenced, no assertion of notability, POV. -- Kicking222 19:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 673 google hits], all contributions have been made by one user and one ip address, whom I suspect to be the same person. I very much doubt that he was actually born "Zebedee Allen Gnougy". Ultra-Loser ^{Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites} 05:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, yes, one user making the page, that would be me - there's hardly been time for much organic development of the page before the deletion debate started... British folk-rock musical theatre is kind of a specialised interest field, please just give it time. I'm just going on what information I've been provided. Please give it time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.241.179.27 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 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 speedy kept per WP:SNOW. Plenty of references around; a quick search of JSTOR reveals a couple dozen hits. Mackensen (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Womyn

Article has been tagged with the {{unverified}} and {{originalresearch}} tags since the begining of September and has received no attention with regard to the additon of sources citing usage or coinage of this neologism. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 17:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Additional Comment Many voters have noted that there is widespread usage of the term. While that is certainly good evidence that the term exists as a neologism, it doesn't cite the social significance that the article contends. It is an excellent argument for a dictdef and that the term should be transwikied. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment The traditional argument for deleting a neologism is "non-notable neologism." To me that implies if a neologism is notable -- ie. a word in widespread use, then merely being a neologism isn't a criteria for deletion. A dicdef of this word would be something like "an alternate spelling of the word women coined by feminists." Since there's obviously more to say about this topic than that (though I agree, it needs to be sourced and verified) I don't see how a transwiki could possibly work. Dina 19:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I couldn't help but notice that the nominator of this Afd is the same user who put the OR and CITE tags on the article earlier this month diff. I realize that's doesn't dismiss the nom or anything, but I just wanted to point that out. Dina 21:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Utterly nothing wrong with that. --EngineerScotty 18:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - although the article is unverified and original research, this is a legitimate topic worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. --ScienceApologist 17:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - {{Unverified}} and {{originalresearch}} tags do not constitute an argument for deletion. KarlBunker 17:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • How long do we wait? Surely there should be many references to cite if this is truly a notable neologism. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 17:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the topic isn't inherently unverifiable, a quick check reveals there are plenty academic papers to cite [40]. Article seems to need work, but that's not a reason to delete, as an article on this topic could concievably taken to featured article quality, with just a few determined editors. --W.marsh 17:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep -- Well known term with a substantial history, even if it's not (yet) known to Wikipedians. Atlant 17:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It's a neologism, but it's one that's been around and in widespread use for at least 15 years (though some of that use is to mock feminists.) The article was created in 2002 and the term has been in use at least since I was in college in the early 90's. And by in use, I mean I read textbooks and essays using the term, not that we just yelled it around the dorms. Let's work on this to make it a great article, the sources are out there, but deletion doesn't seem an option to me. Also: over a million Ghits Dina 18:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per everyone. Danny Lilithborne 19:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons above. Gazpacho 19:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is in the Oxford English Dictionary and I added a NY Times article as a reference discussing its introduction in the 1991 Random House Webster's College Dictionary as a nonsexist alternate spelling of "women." Herstory and waitperson were also introduced as alternatives to history and waiter. Is it ok to remove the OR tag and the Unverified tag now?Edison 22:22, 25 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, EngineerScotty 18:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Not enough time for a WP:SNOW close; and the accusation by the closing user that the nomination was in bad faith was out of order. No evidence for bad faith on the part of User:Malber that I can discern. FWIW, I'm in favor of keeping the article (though it needs cleaning up; a trip to the OED would be a good start); as I'm relisting the debate I will instead abstain.--EngineerScotty 18:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - No valid argument has been presented why this article should be deleted. "How long do we wait?" (for references) isn't an argument for deletion, nor is saying that the article should be transwikied to a dictdef, since the article obviously deals with issues that go beyond what would be covered in a dictionary definition. Seems to me that a consensus was reached. KarlBunker 18:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong, speedy keep - The excuse for deletion has been taken care of with the NY Times article being cited. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 18:56, 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. W.marsh 20:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Papaya (group)

non-notable defunct band that does not meet the criteria of WP:BAND. The article is replete with unverified and unsourced statements (including self-acknowledged "rumours" as sources). I had removed all unverified/unsourced statements, but another editor not only replaced that info, but also replaced all the grammatical errors. While not a reason for deletion per se, additional problems with the article is that it uses a large amount of non-roman characters and includes a non-encyclopedic trivia section. There are also problems trying to verify any information on this band, as there are other bands around the world using the same name. Agent 86 18:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

strong keep Non-roman characters are there to assist in verifying the information. The band is notable as per WP:BAND, because only real requirement there is that band has released two albums. Papaya has released two albums and one of their songs was remade in Chinese by notable singer (Cyndi Wang). What comes to trivia section, it is there because separate sections with just one factual statement is just no right... That's what for there is {{expand}}. Monni 19:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• strong delete - Yes, it's notable (at least according to WP guidelines), but without Papaya only got about 10,000 600 google hits, making it difficult for this page to have reputable sources. Not to mention that there are no sources regarding the remake of the song either which was one of the reasons why Monni said the article was notable. mirageinred 21:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I googled "파파야 여성그룹" btw to avoid confusion with the fruit. Oh and I had 1,000 hits when I did "Papaya Kpop girl group." mirageinred 21:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm not going to put any original search or YouTube links as sources, but I do think it's pretty easy to download those two songs out of eMule or some illegal download site just to verify if those two songs are identical enough. Mentioning artists and song titles was enough proof for me when one of my Korean friends did mention about resemblance of those two songs. I didn't accuse Cyndi Wang of making that "remake" illegally, because that would have been something that would require hard proof evidence. Monni 17:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, though not very strongly. It would be nice for every such article to disappear, but unfortunately that's not likely to happen; given that, we should at least avoid systematic bias. Note that both Naver and Yahoo Korea have categories for the group and its members, as does something called "Zaao". Given all this, it should not be terribly difficult to locate somewhat reliable sources about the group and its members. For instance, here's a (Korean) article from 2005 in the Dong-A Weekly: [41] And I'm not familiar enough with them to evaluate their reliability or significance, but the first page of a Google search also turns up profile pages from EPG and MusicON. OK, I have now exhausted the time I willing to spend on articles of this nature for at least the next month. Blech, pop music. >:-< If only we could delete all of it...  :-) -- Visviva 01:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and it does not meet WP:BAND because it's not JUST "2 albums", but 2 albums on a major or "more important" indie label. - Ektar 03:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • comment In Korea there is only one major label, SM Entertainment. The rest are small labels. I don't think Trifecta/iStar group is too small, because it is not only for singers and groups but for actors and models too. Monni 04:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • comment We shouldn't have to lower the threshold for notability just because "there is only one major label" in Korea. If that were a good reason, then should we allow articles on ANY group from countries with no major label. (BTW, I just found JYP Entertainment and PFull Entertainment. Are these not major labels in Korea?) - Ektar 20:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
      • comment I think we should allow all bands in any country as long as they have released atleast two albums, it should not matter if the albums are from major label or just digital downloads. What I have understand from Korean music industry, is that SM Entertainment has monopoly in controlling it. Only way artists can deal with is to either join some label that SM Entertainment supports, or go to Japan or USA and sign with one of their labels. Monni 04:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • comment - Are you kidding? Do you realize how many absolutely inconsequential and non-notable bands that would qualify? And, sure, the plight of non-SM Entertainment artists in Korea might be lamentable, but I fail to see how that makes this group notable. - Ektar 15:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
      • comment No I'm not kidding... If you read carefully the wording in the reasons for deleting or keeping non-notable articles, it clearly says notability alone is not reason to delete any article. I agree that notability and verifiability together is another issue, but I also must say that article about Korean artist without English sources, but atleast one major Korean source is verifiable. Monni 16:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • comment - Actually, I don't see where it clearly says "notability alone is not reason to delete any article." (I see that notability is not a reason for a speedy delete, though.) In fact, when it comes to musical groups, it seems clear that notability is the deciding factor for keeping or deleting articles. That's why WP:BAND exists. - Ektar 03:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
      • comment - Excluding WP:NOT, there is only two valid criterias in Deletion policy, "verifiability" and "original research". What isn't explicitly mentioned there should not be implicitly assumed just because some WikiProject thinks there is consensus about. For this large site there has to be over 50% of current users making up the consensus to it be the final consensus. Where this really belongs is Portal:Korea which maintains most of the articles about Korean artists. And I can say that I'm one of the participants there. Monni 04:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • comment - You completely glossed over WP:NOT, which states "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information," "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed," and "Wikipedia is not a soap box." All of those policies are why there is a threshold of notability articles must meet (WP:BAND explains that threshold for music). It may help for you to read this failed proposal which argued the same thing you are arguing. Finally, about your argument on consensus: we do not and certainly can not expect "50% of current users" to agree on deletion. That is why a rough consensus is acceptable. - Ektar 15:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I guess I can plea on WP:IAR on the first point. Normal users aren't supposed to memorize contents of all of the pages, just the important rules. Well... This might be totally irrelevant, but I could tell about how I discovered Papaya. Simply. BoA did sing one of their song in one competition. I think it was on some program on TBC or something. What comes to getting 50% consensus on anything, it is matter of narrowing it to specific Portal or WikiProject. Like I implied before, I think it is better to use narrowest guidelines to justify existence of some article. What works with articles about USA or Japan or any other country doesn't always apply with similar articles about Korea. Also when there is people involved who know more than average Wikipedian about this specific area (for example Korean dance music) it is easier to explain if article is better expanded or just plain trashed. Monni 18:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • comment - I guess it comes down to this: I believe all articles should meet the same standards regardless of where the subject is from. It seems to me you disagree with that, at least when it comes to Korean music articles. - Ektar 19:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
      • comment I guess it comes down to this too: People think differently, people are individuals, people don't agree on every thing. Like I said, I do agree that verifiability is a good thing, but I also said that all important rules should be mentioned in the main guideline/rule, not hidden across several pages. I also implied that sometimes we need to assume that using common sense is not original research and as such non-verifiable. We need to assume that contributor was in good faith when he/she did weigh if some controversial clause is fact or fiction. Also... I think strongly we need to get rid of clauses which say or imply something "alone" isn't reason to delete and isn't reason to keep things; clauses that contradict itselves. Wikipedia isn't a book of laws, it is community driven encyclopedia. Monni 19:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • comment - Wikipedia is certainly not a book of laws, but the "community" does have a "book of policies" to determine what is notable enough to be included. I agree with some of the things you are saying but like it or not, the policies exist and this discussion should stick to the topic of whether or not this band meets those guidelines and not argue the merits of the policies themselves. - Ektar 19:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      • comment - Well.... I still believe the article should be kept, if just for being borderline case, as there has been previous vote already about keeping article that is close to be notable (refering to recent vote on Moulann article, which I did participate in too. Monni 19:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • comment - Your argument that "We kept X so we should keep Y" is misleading. First, the afd for Moulann resulted in a "no consensus" which maintained the status quo (also meaning that it can very easily be nominated for another afd). That is not "a vote for keeping" the article. Second, the only thing, germane to this discussion, that those two have in common is that neither meets WP:BAND, which is obviously not a good reason to keep the article. - Ektar 14:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
      • comment Well... Duh... "No consensus" is a consensus too. It does say that we really don't care about WP:BAND and their so-called policies. I'm not saying that it is totally useless WP, but some of their work clearly is against one or two ground rules of Wikipedia. They sure do piss off some of the users and that is something we should try to avoid. Well... I guess I should just turn this vote to "no consensus" too so we have two cases when someone tries to use WP:BAND as excuse to delete something. Monni 15:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • comment - Well... Duh... "No consensus" is a consensus too. It does say that we really don't care about WP:BAND and their so-called policies. If you honestly believe that then there really is no sense in me continuing this discussion. Thanks. - Ektar 20:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Peta 06:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I wish I could use the argument that since I have heard of this group, and I have no other exposure to Korean Pop music, that it HAS to be somehow notable. Alas, I cannot even remember WHERE I heard of this group, much less try to verify it... --Roninbk _{t c #} 10:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Lots of people have heard of bands that are unnotable. And, Visviva's last links don't show me any mention of the band (EPG), and the MusicOn link has the word "Papaya 2" and appears to be a music download site. Sorry, no notability here. Contact me if you can find some, and in English. Guyanakoolaid 09:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep One band member is notable in her own right (so I suggest that means they qualify under WP:BAND's "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable") and one of their songs has been covered by a notable artist (which arguably qualifies on analogous grounds to WP:BAND's "Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria"). Bondegezou 15:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment That "one band member" is up for AfD deletion as well. Agent 86 17:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If someone would dig and translate some information about Yun Jung and Yoon Mi, both would be as notable as Se Jung. Former as member of both O-24 (released two albums) and Papaya, latter as member of Papaya and as TV personality (using pseudonym Ko Eun Chae). Monni 18:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment 고은채 (Ko Eun Chae) gets plenty of Google hits. Bondegezou 19:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Thirteens (A Series of Unfortunate Events)

List of Thirteens (A Series of Unfortunate Events) was nominated for deletion on 2005-12-31. The result of the prior discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Thirteens (A Series of Unfortunate Events).

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Interrobamf 18:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete appears to be fancruft rather than any sort of intentional meme of the series author that could be merged back into the main articles. But then...how would one know? This article is completely uncited from beginning to end. -Markeer 23:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• "not an indiscriminate collection of information" in AFD rationales usually means nothing more than "I want this article deleted.". (We need "'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.' is not an indisciminate rationale for deletion.", I suspect.

  The clearly applicable policy in fact is Wikipedia:No original research, as one can see by reading Talk:List of Thirteens (A Series of Unfortunate Events). The author (according to the talk page discussion) never states that the number 13 is special in this series of books, and the idea that it is is an inference that is being drawn, with no evidence presented that this analysis and conclusion have already been made outside of Wikipedia, by Wikipedia editors. Searching, I can find no such evidence, either. Arguments that it is "obvious" don't wash. Cases for other numbers, such as 26, are equally "obvious". One can find apparent "codes" in any reasonably substantial work of fiction, if one works hard enough. Such work is original research unless it has already been done and documented outside of Wikipedia first. Delete. Uncle G 01:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete, as pointless. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites} 05:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong deleteOR --Nick Y. 17:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

*Keep (I will resist the temptation I often have to write Ultra Strong Keep). The prevalence of the number 13 in the books is widely recognised. This information is unverified rather than unverifiable. Merge if necessary. Mallanox 00:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn Mallanox 11:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Please point to where it is recognized. As I mentioned above, there is no evidence presented that this analysis and conclusion have already been made outside of Wikipedia. You haven't presented any, either. Uncle G 15:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Whoa, reel it in there, lets keep it friendly. A series of thirteen books each with thirteen chapters with an inordinate occurence of thirteen is going to get noticed. Google comes back with a ton of results for "Lemony Snicket" and "thirteen"/"13". If I had the time and inclination wade through all of the "I love ASOUE and I'm 13" there is no doubt evidence. Mallanox 19:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Counting Google hits is not research, nor is it citing a source. Google Web comes back with a "ton of results" for "Lemony Snicket" and "queer", too. You still haven't pointed to where this is widely recognized, and demonstrated that this is not original research. That's because there isn't anything to point to. (You first wrote that it is verifiable, implying that you had a source that everyone else had missed. But now you write that you haven't actually looked for a source.) As I wrote above, I have waded through the search results. Uncle G 22:18, 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 08:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Faryel Mouria-Beji

If the writer of this article is the Sam Sloan that I've read about, his credibility is lacking, and the article cites no sources. From a chess point of view, this person is completely off the map. Maybe a Tunisian expert can justify his inclusion from that perspective. Also, it has the appearance of a vanity page. YechielMan 23:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• This is a tough one, as there definitely seems to be several claims of notability, but they are just lumped in a weird running list with a bunch of colons in between... as none of these claims are properly cited, this is a delete.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Themindset (talk • contribs).

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, No Guru 18:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. The current article is completely unreadable. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites} 05:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Reads a bit like a resume. Unreferenced. Likely vanity. Questionable, although possible, noability.--Nick Y. 17:37, 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 as no one has recomended deletion (the nominator abstained) after 14 days. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 03:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ramón Julián Puigblanque

Possible non-notable. Only assertation of notability is of first climb of The Rambla Direct. I abstain as I don't know much about rock climbing Hopefully someone more knowledgable in rock climbing could verify notability. At the very least, this article could use some clean-up. Clamster5 22:44, 20 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, No Guru 18:36, 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. Daniel.Bryant 02:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greg Fox (author)

As asserted in article, I think notability is not sufficient. Delete if that's all that there is. --Nlu (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The awards sound notable: Society of Collegiate Journalists "Best Illustration Award" and a nomination for a Lambda Literary Award. Moreover, the other work independently demonstrates notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think he (somewhat easily) passes WP:BIO by having won an award and been nominated for another, working for notable publishers (i.e. Marvel), and having an independent review from a reliable source. -- Kicking222 19:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Upstart author, but is going somewhere. --Dennisthe2 20:06, 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.

[edit] Waspard

The result was snowball delete as obvious hoax. JDoorjam Talk 22:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Article about Waspard, attempting to extend a practical joke in Robert Popper's books, The Timewaster's Letters. Apt really. (FYI: google search) Mr Stephen 18:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm you obviously missed the point about Robin Cooper, for that was name, and his book. It was a waste of time in trying to educate people about the finer things in the world, such as waspard, I thought that might be something that wikipedia might understand and support. Mjenkins —The preceding comment was Mjenkins (talk • contribs) first contribution.

I refer users to my notice on the page, regarding the encyclopaedia I own from the times of the Empire. I am happy to photocopy and distribute the reference in my personal collection (I am sure that this tome is now public domain!). Jamesr84

Thank you for your support regarding my article - There are, few reliable sources on the topic on the internet regarding waspard. Although I am in possession of several reference papers, which include how to make ‘waspard’, and it is something which I have grown up with. I can quote several titles and there relevant ISBN numbers, which relate to waspard directly. Please take advantage of the address I provided, if you wish to make further research, Best-kept Secrets of the Woman’s Institute, traditional cookery and advice for the 21st century (ISBN 0-74323-897-4) Good Housekeeping Cookery Book, the classic cookery book completely revised. (ISBN 0-85223-420-1) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jpcrayford (talk • contribs).

• There are, few reliable sources on the topic on the internet regarding waspard. Then this topic does not belong on Wikipedia - Wikipedia is a tertiary source and thus articles need primary sources and references from outside sources to support them. Unless the defenders of this article can provide reliable sources about the subject of the article, delete this article. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 19:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have provided two very reputable primary sources. I would hope that if the topic interests you enough you would consider reading them, maybe if you consider increasing the depth of your research you will conclude that this is a suitable page for Wikipedia and deserves a place here. Many Thanks P. Longhurst

• Strong delete Hoax article. Neither cookbook has any info about waspard in it. Wildthing61476 21:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Wildthing. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 21:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Uber No - Please support your demmands with an argument young sir and cite any sources, to not upset other members of the wikicommunity

Many thanks P. Longhurst

• Strong delete per nom. --Charlesknight 21:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Does a yellow jacket that lands on my hot dog count? No? Then, strong delete. --EngineerScotty 22:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Make that strong speedy delete. --EngineerScotty 22:10, 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. W.marsh 20:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kang Se Jung

This can be read in conjunction with the AfD nomination for the article Papaya (group). NN person who does not meet criteria of WP:BIO. No sources or verification provided. Main portion of article appears to be a copyvio of this. Everything beyond that part of the article is generic material not specific to this biography. The only external link (source?) is to a non-english language website. Agent 86 18:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• keep Not a copyvio.... Main sources are the Trifecta profile and empas profile. She's singer turned model and currently listed in Trifecta homepage. I'm not fluent in Korean, but even I did understand what the Trifecta page said using simple lookup in Hangul transliteration guides and Babelfish. Monni 19:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: It appears that this article also does not comply with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Agent 86 19:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Empas is not a reliable source? I would have thought it falls under more or less the same rubric as anonymous tertiary sources like Encarta, which are specifically permitted under that policy guideline ... see WP:RS#Some definitions. -- Visviva 01:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• delete - She's not really that famous and the article doesn't have actual content. mirageinred 21:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Papaya (group), until there is more information available about her. There doesn't seem to be enough reliable stuff online information to build a proper article. Oh, and I know many K-pop enthusiasts disagree, but I don't think "blood type" is encyclopedic. -- Visviva 01:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Peta 06:09, 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 SPEEDILY DELETED as vandalism. Take it to Uncyclopedia, but do be careful to be funny and not just stupid. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pet duel

Non notable event, possible hoax, can find no information on this alleged event. Prod removed by author. Wildthing61476 19:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Also nominated the very similar page PetDuel, created by the same editor. Mr Stephen 20:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Ah yes, sorry, that was a beginners mistake! Apologies!

I'm fairly certain that if you lived in Hampshire that this was a notable event. Of course, you may just not want to learn about other peoples cultures. This is only an encyclopaedia. It should only contain events that YOU personally witnessed.

First off be civil, secondly, do you have any prrof, any reliable sources to back this up? An event like this certainly should have gotten plenty of coverage correct? Wildthing61476 19:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I was indeed being civil, but I don't take kindly to being accused of lying. Slander is hardly a civil gesture is it, my good friend? This did indeed make the press, which is where my information for the article came. I have the articles from the local papers on the event, including adverts and entry forms. There were also three articles from the naitonal press, including a piece in Hampshire BBC news. I'm fairly certain you'll find no external sources for the Holocaust, but would you deny that occured?

• Comment Already invoking Godwin's Law are we? Look I searched on google in a variety of ways and came up with NOTHING. Can you possible show me a link or two of WHERE this was written about. If the BBC covered it then certianly they would have something to show for it correct? Wildthing61476 19:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Then perhaps you'd be kind enough to supply the local papers names and publication dates. exolon 19:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The hampshire chronicle featured a monthly update on the debate, from 1994-1996. BBC Hampshire News covered the event on 6th March 1996. Local papers such as The Gazette, Mail & Star and the South of England Lawn Bowls Society newsleter covered the events in greater detail. I am happy to distribute scans of any of the articles, if not all! I think we should get off the debate on wether this occured, and instead refer back to the reason that this article is placed on this list; is it notable. This is a debate I would welcome, rather than a cowardly attack on my character. Thank you.

Never once have I attacked your character, I merely SUGGESTED that perhaps this is a hoax. Honestly, an event like this would have SOME press, even 10 years after the fact. 287 pets dying in a staged fight is pretty significant if it can be proven true. What we need is verification of this, which if you can supply, would help in making your case. We do not have to prove it is fake, YOU have to prove it is true. Wildthing61476 19:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. There is nothing to debate, really. If proper sources cannot be provided, the article will ultimately be deleted. Please see WP:V. PJM 20:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• DELETE. I do live in Hampshire, England and I've never heard of this. 287 animals killed at an illegal animal fight? Somehow I think that might just have made the local press somehow. This is complete rubbish. Hoax, unverifiable, no external sources - take your pick. exolon 19:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. A very amusing and well-written piece, but no background info. Good candidate for Uncyclopedia? DavidMack 19:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V. PJM 19:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE You are all fools, the internet is the not the source of all the world's information, 'i did a search on google and nothing came up, it must be fake!'. I am willing to give a first hand account of the both Pet Duel II and III. I used to reside at 45 Bagers Farm Road, a short drive from the Anchor Inn, to save you the trouble of verifying this address on google, I have posted a link to multi map. Although I do no condone blood sports, my neighbour was in truth was the owner of a small Staffordshire Pit-bull Terrier, which competed, sadly unsuccessfully, in Pet Duel III

• http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?client=public&X=445000&Y=127500&width=700&height=400&gride=446132.818520006&gridn=127466.570594357&srec=0&coordsys=gb&db=freegaz&addr1=&addr2=&addr3=&pc=&advanced=&local=&localinfosel=&kw=&inmap=&table=&ovtype=&keepicon=true&zm=0&in.x=5&in.y=9&scale=50000

Thanks P. Longhurst

• Comment The map though tells NOTHING if this is true or false. Again, proof please? Wildthing61476 20:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Not to mention that the "Anchor Inn"s I'm finding are in Southampton & Yateley and nowhere near there. exolon 20:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as complete fiction. Creating author Jamesr84 is also involved in defending the hoax Waspard article. Mr Stephen 20:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

KEEP yes that's why I'm sitting here eating waspard "tangy yet sweet" on a bun and watching my fave Video "80 minutes of animal carnage: The very best of Pet Duel". And the Anchor was closed down a few years ago sadly.--Mjenkins 20:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I wished to join the wikipedia community, and have recieved nothing but scorn. I wished to write a good article, and could not work out what to write about, until my dad's scrapbook reminded me of the silly competition that got out of hand in our pub. For your information, I used to live there, and despite my good friends efforts to the contrary, it is still open. http://www.beerintheevening.com/pubs/s/19/19971/Anchor_Inn/Lower_Froyle I would also like to know when commenting and participating actively in a public debate meant that anything that came out of your mouth is lies? What has me commenting about a seperate article got to do with my article? Is this because I disagreed with your point of view? To parody myself perhaps this reminds us all of a famous nation in the 1930s. I have the proof by the way, but as I am new I have yet to 1. Upload, 2. Reference. I was hoping with some sort of help in doing this, rather than damnation. Do I need to scan in the paper cuttings? Upload the photographs? Help would be nice, as I believe this is a very entertaining part of Hampshire's local history, and one that people should be aware of, as it shows how a small silly event can get out of hand. Much like National Socialism.

Comment Are you done using all the Nazi references yet? As for your proof, you've already had someone from your own town say it never happened. Wildthing61476 20

• 54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, my use of those references were entirely ironic. I assume you're not from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. No-one from my town has said it never happened. Please ammend your statement accordingly, as that is a complete falsification. I would not want people to pass judgement on reading that blatant lie. Thanks.

• Comment Read the comment by exolon then earlier. "I do live in Hampshire, England and I've never heard of this" Please, PLEASE stop with this hoax. Wildthing61476 21:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh for gods sake PLEASE PLEASE do some research! Why comment on an article you know NOTHING about? Hampshire is a county! Let me put it in layman's terms. I am from San Diego, and my friend is from San Francisco. We are both from California. We are not, from the same town. I do not know his local business, as it is obviously not local to me! Mon Dieu! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamesr84 (talk • contribs) .

I've done research and pently and absolutely nothing can be found to verify this. The brden of proof is on YOU to show where this is located. Wildthing61476 21:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• CommentHampshire is not a town I’m afraid, my ‘wikifriend’, it is a county a large area, originally the domain of a count or earl. Counties include many towns, cities, villages and hamlets, and many inns, many of them with the same name

thanks P. Longhurst —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jpcrayford (talk • contribs) .

• Comment At the time of these supposed events, I lived around 30 miles from Lower Froyle. I still live in the county. So I'm local enough to know that this is complete and utter bullshit. To put it into context, around the same time there were a spate of attacks on horses in the area, and speculation was published in the local and national press that a "horse ripper" was responsible. Googling "horse ripper" + Hampshire pulls up quite a few relevant results. The fact that google can't find ANYTHING about this event tells me it's crap, regardless of my personal knowledge. And of course I can always phone the Hampshire Chronicle tomorrow and I'm 100% certain they will know nothing about a "monthly update on the debate, from 1994-1996". You're wasting everybody's time with this stupidity, GO AWAY. exolon 21:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I suspect that "wasting everybody's time with this stupidity" is the idea. Mr Stephen 21:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, with all due respect, will you please read what I write. I have said do your research in respect to knowing what Hampshire is, or in your case, what it certainly is not. Secondly, I stated QUITE CLEARLY, that I am but a humble beginner, and I extended a warm handshake to you, my friend and subject in the Great Imperial Colonies, and asked for assistance. I have the sources, and I wish to put them on. As stated before, I do not know how. I am asking for assistance with this. You cannot find reference for this anywhere, as a someone said, that is because many things live outside of Google. I for instance, cannot be found on Google, but I most certainly exsist. Faith too, is absent on Google, and yet I know many who have found that. Thank you in advance, and Godspeed.

The LORD will demonstrate his holy power before the eyes of all the nations. The ends of the earth will see the salvation of our God." - Isaiah 52:10

Is swearing at me and telling me to go away really in the spirit of wikipedia? I have offered the proof, I am not lying! I merely wished to make a contribution. Thank you for your help, rather than saying, please come forth with the sources, this is how you put them into the article, you use deplorable language and insults. I think I may just go away, this is certainly not a very nice community.

• Look, just post the scans and we'll beleive you. Most major press sources are extensively indexed by google and signifigant coverage should be detected via a google search. It is possible that some how this story slipped through, but you need to show us that by posting scans (or links) to the articles in question. Otherwise, delete. AmitDeshwar 21:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that i would quite happily 'upwikiload' my sources regarding Waspard (my favourite condiment). Its funny you say that your not on Google either, the same thing happened to me, maybe google needs to cite more sources, or we might have to take google out of the 'wikifunclub'. Allah akbar Thanks P. Longhurst —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jpcrayford (talk • contribs).

I wish people would read what is written before comment. I wish to post the sources, so that all of the morons who live life by the judge before trial philosophy can apologise to me. However, as I have written a millions times before, an offer of some assistance would be welcome. If this is not possible; i.e. if you don't want me to upload the files, and help source the article, then this would be very distressing. Thanks in advance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamesr84 (talk • contribs).

• Strong delete - Not notable and, even worse, not funny. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 21:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The Pet Duel debate seems to have become quite quiet now that some assistance has been requested. Perhaps the 'wikicommunity' allows it's pupils only to baldly critisize people contibutions, rather than offer assistance or even constructive critisism. Many thanks P. Longhurst

• Strong delete per nom. --Charlesknight 21:54, 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. Don't know if this should affect the merge discussion; if there is consensus on that, it wasn't clear here. Luna Santin 06:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Camp Pathfinder

A non-notable summer camp. Delete exolon 19:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep A camp been running almost 100 years seems notable. And like schools, real places with real history seem more encyclopedic than e.g. internet chat rooms.Obina 19:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability.--Peta 06:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete It's been around for a century and gets 531 hits on google (which is pretty good for a rural Canadian summer camp), but it doesn't have an alexa ranking and, according to the site, only takes in 110 boys a year. It's already been mentioned in the Algonquin Provincial Park page, perhaps a full merger would be best. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites} 06:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable, NPOV. See Wikipedia:Non-notability. arj 19:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think it is notable per Obina and agree with the merge idea. Also, there are articles for swarms of tiny "census-designated places."Yes I created the article, you can siscount this or whatever, but I still think it's a keep.Grand Slam 7 22:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Referenced by a non-trivial publication. Batmanand | Talk 10:21, 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 transwiki. W.marsh 16:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Segment (travel)

This is more of a dictionary-style definition that an encyclopedia article. Cordless Larry 19:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wiktionary per nom. arj 19:30, 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 speedy delete as empty, nonsense, whatever. Guy 21:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bandarban

This article is a hoax

As opposed to the Bandarban town described in Bandarban District this article is a hoax, and it should go for a speedy deletion. - Aditya Kabir 19:27, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mickey Dee

Vanity, unsourced, and likely a hoax. Nonpareility 19:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Psychostrong delete Sweet jesus, that's a lot of non-notable, nonsensical vanity. -- Kicking222 19:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: "The Youngest Caucasion Hip-Hop Artist To Produce/Mix/Write/Record An Entirely Original Full Length Record" Notice there's nothing there about actually releasing and selling anything. Looks like a high school kid with ambitions, but nothing in the article indicates he's actually accomplished anything of note yet. Google is unhelpful, as a lot of guys seem to be using this nickname, but I can't find anything that looks relevant beyond the usual myspace page. Fan-1967 20:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it out of its misery. PJM 20:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity piece. He's young (sophomore in HS), if he has talent he'll make it and then someone else will write an article about him. Until then, doesn't have a place here. -Markeer 23:39, 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 08:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Travel in Costa Rica

Blatant advert and copyright problem, ought to be speedyable. Spamlinks were taken out (together with the "reprinted with permission" part). This one was deprodded, same situation with Travel in Costa Rica. All content copied from www.infocostarica.com by the same user, presumably the owner of the site, used to spam Costa Rica with internal and external links. Femto 20:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• How about listing it at WP:CP? Punkmorten 21:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advert: An article of this calibre is better suited to Wikitravel. Sadly, doing a transwiki with this in mind is impossible, because of incompatible licenses. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 21:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It was originally written as an advertisement, and it still reaks of one. --Patstuart 01:22, 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 as copyvio. W.marsh 16:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Costa Rica Traditions