Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 3

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mimi Gardner Gates

Article is non-notable. Fails multiple criteria of WP:BIO. --GoOdCoNtEnT 07:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)art

• Strong Delete - per nom --GoOdCoNtEnT 07:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, two-off from notability. Gazpacho 09:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. VegaDark 09:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - a CSD A7 looks tempting but unfortunately it isn't a speedy. MER-C 12:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, she is individually notable for her career, see. And with her husband she is a noted philanthropist. Not just "Bill Gates' step mom", despite the stub. --Dhartung | Talk 16:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bigtop 20:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with William H. Gates, Sr., not sure why this wasn't suggested before. RFerreira 18:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, in anticipation of a consensus for deletion (at which I'm baffled -- accomplished academic, leader of notable cultural institution?), I was expecting to smerge relevant info into Gates family. Doesn't seem appropriate to handle one person's career within another's article. --Dhartung | Talk 21:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the article in its expanded form. Notability has now been established such that this warrants an indepedent page. RFerreira 19:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to William H. Gates, Sr. per Dhartung, unless the article can be expanded by the time this AfD ends. In no case delete. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 07:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep expanded version, seems she has made significant, recognised contributions in her field of work. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 18:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Being director of the Seattle Art Museum during it's largest and most significant period of expansion is distinctly notable, regardless of who her step-son is. I included into the article a reference to her work in establishing the Association of Art Museum Director guideline against selling museum collection art (a very hot button issue in the art world). Also please look at the biographies in the American curator category and the individuals whose notability is intrinsically tied to their position as Museum curator. Being a major North American museum, SAM's director is a notable position. Additionally she is considered an expert in Asian art and I included reference with ISBN for her work. I would ask the delete votes to review the updated article and reconsider their votes. Agne 17:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable as the average tenured college professor. Not to mention her work as a curator is noteworthy.  ALKIVAR™ 21:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 recreation of previously speedy deleted content. JIP | Talk 07:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] G-Star

Contested speedy, article apparently created by manager. Notability contested. My vote is Delete Danny Lilithborne 00:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wow, so many things wrong with this: "He is founder and owner of G-Starz Records," his record label. Translation: self-published, or he will be when/if he actually releases something. The record label's website is the default page for the webhost; he hasn't put any content there. Google has never heard of the label. The other external link admits it has nothing to do with him; it's for an unrelated clothing chain called G-Star RAW. He claims to have earned two Thatcham Awards for his EP, which is a good trick, considering that the Thatcham Awards are the British Insurance Car Security Awards (in case you're interested, Audi is the overall winner this year). But my favorite part of the article is: "G-Star works full-time at Blockbuster DVD to earn his crust." I wish him luck. Maybe he'll actually release a CD, and people will buy it, and he can get out from behind the counter, but right now he's nowhere close to WP:MUSIC. -- Fan-1967 00:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It is sad - when you Google "G-Star" and "DEMO-Lition", you get 3 hits - none of them relevant. There must be a conspiracy to conceal how famous this guy is. --Brianyoumans 00:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Michael 01:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Maybe Speedy delete under WP:SNOWBALL. TJ Spyke 02:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This does indeed seem like a case for {WP:SNOW Resolute 04:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Fan-1967, but possibly BJAODN the part about him winning the Thatcham Awards. --Metropolitan90 06:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 07:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete This is recreated content but the admin refused to speedy because it was "contested". Do we really need to keep this any longer? --Spartaz 07:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agnostica

Almost non existent Christmas alternative invented by a webcomic. - Hahnchen 00:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - A reason for nomination rather than a summary of the article would be nice. Yomangani^talk 01:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:OR and non-notable. It is entirely unreferenced and I see little to suggest it is anything other than something made up for the entertainment of Dr. Darren Bleuel and his friends Yomangani^talk 01:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NN. Michael 01:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Yomangani
• Delete Original research — FireFox ^(talk) _{11:12, 03 September 2006}
• Query. I would like someone to explain the difference between this and Festivus, also a fictional holiday created for entertainment purposes. The distinction may help me decide this article's viability. — Michael J 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable through reliable sources. The line in the aticle about how "About twenty-five people participated" seems to explain this topic's lack of cultural impact pretty well. Festivus, on the other hand, has been covered in Time Magazine ("Subverting Christmas", November 21, 2005) and The New York Times, ("Nada, Nada, Nada; Has the End of 'Seinfeld' Ruined Festivus for the Rest of Us?", December 27, 1997). -- Dragonfiend 19:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Cynical 21:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• I merged this into Nukees once upon a time (and was apparently reverted), as it's a running theme in the comic. I would be fine with merging it back. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was CANCELLED. Nominated by a serial sockpuppeteer. -Splash - tk 23:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Susan Barnett

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:N S. A. B. 22:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC) — S. A. B. (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Weak keep There is a category, Category:KYW-TV, dedicated to people who work at that station. If we keep them, why shouldn't we keep this one? Joe 01:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment' I'll need to do more digging to find out if they are one and the same, but there was a Susan Barnett (same spelling) who was Miss Pennsylvania Teen USA 1990. If they are one and the same, she is notable and the article should be kept. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 02:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Progress report - time frame seems right (she graduated in 1994 which would be about right). I'm still digging. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 03:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep Photographs prove pretty conclusively that this Barnette is the Barnette who competed at MTUSA 1990 (and was a finalist), and thus she is notable in that context, regardless of her news career. Put together, she becomes strongly notable. I will update the article with this info. (Photos - Miss Pennsylvania Teen USA 1990, Picture of Susan Barnette) -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 03:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And how did I miss that she was also Miss Pennsylvania USA 1996? That means she is even more notable. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 03:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

comment The official photo per kyw is of a blonde, and the ones you found are from a private website, and I would not ascribe the same level of independence (as they could be subject to errors). The best one I found oft he beauty queen is here. Someone with a better eye can jusdge whether they are of one and the same. My vote remains unchanged. Ohconfucius 06:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The private website (if I assume you're talking about Miss USA magic) has a very high reputation in the pageant community for providing pageant information and photos and I would certainly trust them. There is no picture of her at the link you provided... the pic on the left is of Danni Boatwright and the one on the right is of Holly Roehl (I assume you are talking about the pics close to Susan Barnett's name). Finally, the video footage (see Susan Barnett's article proves that the TUSA photo I linked is legit, and since the current photo is from CBS I can't see what the issue is! -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 07:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• weak keep. Barnett probably has some name recognition as co-anchor of the morning news (not prime-time evening news) for the second station in Philly, which is apparently the 4th market in the US. According to the kyw bio, she has won one award which could warrant a closer look of keeping her article (WP:BIO does say "multiple" however). I do not subscribe to the view that every journalist who has ever appeared on TV news to be sufficiently notable for a wiki article, and the category appears to contain more than its fair share of non-notables (at least two county level reporters and a number of fill-in reporters with close to no name recognition and no awards). Susan Barnett seems to be quite a common name. "Susan Barnett" + journalist scores 146 unique out of 231 Ghits, other than the 2 wiki articles, geneology sites, the hits were mainly for other Susan Barnetts; many involved a 1992 case (before the subject graduated from Delaware University) between Food Lion and ABC, another who was Miss Pennsylvania 1996; another was/is assistant psychology prof at NW State U.Ohconfucius 03:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Conditionaly KeepIf and only if she was Miss Pennsylvania USA 2006 and/or Miss Pennsylvania Teen USA 1990, othewise some local TV news person isn't really notable. If it isn't the same person, Delete. Belly Flop Patrol 18:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the above comments. RFerreira 18:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: It appears that this nomination was made by a single purposed account with less than 10 edits, created solely to nominate this and a handful of other articles for deletion. RFerreira 19:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep - The winner of a state contest, thus becoming a finalist in a nationally televised contest which is decades old, with a long history, etc, the telecast even reaches Australia (no I don't watch beauty pageants).Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. See my comment below. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Masago

None notable webcomic, found here and written entirely by the author of the webcomic User:Sirmambo, as he has released selected images under GFDL onto the commons. There is no assertion of notability, and Alexa comes back with a paltry rank of 4 million. - Hahnchen 00:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note When Pokemon Diamond and Pearl come out, Masago is the JP name of a town. When it gets US release, redirect to appropriate article, as we document all Pokemon towns. The JP release is in ~2 weeks, so when that happens, redirect to Masago Town. The article will exist soon. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 02:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Masago is also a type of seaweed as can be seen from whatlinkshere as well as Google. But what matters now, is that Masago is not a webcomic of note. - Hahnchen 02:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, does not satisfy WP:WEB. ColourBurst 02:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, on the web for three years; anyway WP no self-promotion. User:Yy-bo
• Closing comment: the article about the Pokemon town can be recreated in due time, with no effort. Redirecting this article now is inappropriate since it refers to another thing; it's better to start from scratch. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explorepda

Non-notable corporation as per WP:CORP Valrith 00:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and probable WP:VAIN (also a copy on User_talk:Explorepda) Yomangani^talk 01:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Michael 01:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Probably WP:VAIN? It definitely is! Allow me to present the strong evidence.

• Firstly, the user who created this article made his/her first edit about a week ago on this article.
• Secondly, the username of the particular user is Explorepda. This is a compelling evidence of vanity.

Furthermore, a google search shows less than five seperate hits for this company and completely fails the three main criterias of WP:CORP as well. Lastly, in their webpage[1], this company claims to be the leading provider of mobile downloads. This claim, however, is highly questionable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 01:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, advertising. JIP | Talk 07:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising but not that good! Nigel ^(Talk) 10:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jan Mendoses

7 hits, 2 of which are Wiki. No substantive sourcing •Jim62sch• 01:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep Article references four printed sources and there seems to be no reason to doubt them. Again, Ghits is not the most appropriate criterion for such a subject. Dlyons493 Talk 01:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep I've improved the sourcing in the article and feel the content is now clearly verifiable The Danish Royal Library seems to be the source for the notorious pirate statement - just follow the links in the article. Editors can decide for themselves whether the subject is sufficiently notable or not. Dlyons493 Talk 15:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep per above. Michael 01:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - some of the back story is verifiable, no reason to doubt the quoted sources, editor doesn't seem to have attempted any sort of support to the story if it is a hoax - assume good faith Yomangani^talk 01:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment -- this has naught to do with assuming good faith. Also, how do you know the back-story is verifiable, can you read Danish? BTW, one of the "sources" listed, a book entitled "Den danske Ishavafarer Jens Munk" returns this when when searching Danish sites: Vi fandt ingen resultater for ""Den danske Ishavafarer Jens Munk"": -- In other words, nothing. Speaking of AGF, perhaps it might be wise to assume good faith the the person who nommed it for deletion might actually have done some homework. •Jim62sch• 12:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment the book does exist - see [2].. So apparently does the magazine article Biografi af Jens Munk er meddelt i "Danebrog" 1882. Dlyons493 Talk 13:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I wasn't doubting good faith on your part, just assuming good faith on the part the editor that created it. I assumed you were nominating on the grounds of non-notability, but since you didn't say, I was covering my bases in case you were claiming it was a hoax. Assuming everything that a nominator of an article says is true isn't a good way to go about discussing an AFD in my opinion. And, yes, I can read Danish, but you can turn up info on the existence and history of other of the characters without having to. [3]Yomangani^talk 14:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! No, I didn't think it was a host, but I disagree with the concept of having articles on every person ever mentioned in some book somewhere. It seems that the concept of notability has been lost. •Jim62sch• 15:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• CommentThe book referred to in the article is here. So Mendoses is clearly verifiable. That link also makes a claim for notability - editors need to make their own judgement on that. My view is that there are adequate multiple non-trivial sources. Dlyons493 Talk 14:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment -- OK, the book exists, and this proves...? It proves that the book exists is all. However, how can this meet WP:V or WP:RS if no one has access to the book? •Jim62sch• 15:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Follow the link - the Danish Royal Library is the source for the notorious pirate statement. Editors can form their own judgements. Dlyons493 Talk 15:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. We tend to think of pirates as notable because they do so well at the box-office and get women with huge busts. But sadly, this is over-romanticized. These people steal, they do so with impunity, and they still exist--and there's nothing glamorous about floating off of the coast of Somalia and terrorizing the fleets which pass by. I have no reason to doubt the sources, either, and assume good faith--however, I think I can pretty safely assume that in this instance, there's not sufficient notability, even apart from the sourcing issue, and the google hits points to that, but isn't dispositive.-Kmaguir1 02:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The listed articles may prove he existed, but I can point to reliable sources to prove I exist as well. The question is, is this particular pirate notable? Based on the article, the answer is no. He was just another pirate. Resolute 05:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per above. I have faith that the "notorious pirate" quote comes from one of the cited documents, which would suggest that he was somewhat well-known in his day. Google hits are low, yes, but most of the available info on the this guy probably exists offline, and in Danish. Zagalejo 07:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, then the Danish encyclopedia can judge him notable.-Kmaguir1 08:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt he's that well-known in Denmark -- this is the relut for a search on him in that country: "Vi fandt ingen resultater for ""Jan Mendoses"":" "We find no results for Jan Mendoses" •Jim62sch• 12:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Not surprising - the admiral Jørgen Daae only get 4 hits in Danish. The Danish Web is not that extensive. But I don't think we'd be proposing deleting a Jørgen Daae article. Dlyons493 Talk 12:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Given that there isn't one, the point is moot. •Jim62sch• 15:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep — Difficult one this. This is the sort of information you expect to see in an encyclopedia but not as a separate article ( as being hanged as a pirate is hardly an endorsement of importance) - fortunately wikipedia has the space to have these separated or together. If 4 sources that can still be found 400 years after his death then he's more notable than many of the other pirates of the time. The article is better referenced than many pirate articles we have. Tag for importance and come back in a few months. Peripitus (Talk) 12:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete or merge with Jørgen Daae and make an article for him. Whether he was a merchant or a pirate doesn't seem that relevant. Either way he was not-notable. If for example his execution had provoked an international incident he might be notable. JoshuaZ 14:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia can afford to include people who were notable in their own times but aren't currently the hottest items in the blogosphere. The name of the admiral is more commonly written Jørgen Daa (which also gets more hits). Whenever that article has been created, a merge may be contemplated, but that is no reason to delete a sourced article now. Tupsharru 17:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting - it throws up a couple of hits I can't read. Are either usable? Juan de Mendoza and [4] Dlyons493 Talk

Not really, or not directly, at least. One is a historical/genealogical discussion board, the other a private webpage. But the first claims that Mendoses/Mendoza was actually a "Belgian" (Flemish, I suppose) called Mandaus, and gives reference to a report by Daa in a source called Norske Riksregistranter, which appears at least partly to be printed. The other is about the arctic explorer Jens Munk and is probably based on the type of printed sources already in the article here. Searching for Mendoses in Google books gets three hits, one of which is Danish Arctic Expeditions, 1605 to 1620: In Two Books (by several authors). I think there is enough to work from here for anyone who is interested and has a reading knowledge of Danish. Tupsharru 18:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I (PCU123456789) have cleaned up the article to make it more comprehensible. Possibly merge it into a related article, e.g. Thomas Tucker. 68.111.72.167 20:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Seems to be low importance but still notable. Flying Jazz 22:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Peripitus. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or more preferably merge to Jørgen Daa whenever it is created. bbx 22:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bertron

only 162 google hits for "bertron superman" despite the fandemonium that superman usually demonstrates. Let's get this straight: he created a machine, Doomsday, that killed Superman. None of these exist, Bertron, Doomsday, Superman. Everything here you need to know is already on the Doomsday (comics) page. Delete and merge with Doomsday (comics)-Kmaguir1 01:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete for reasons given by Kmaguir1THB 17:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Edward Wakelin 21:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete --Peta 06:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swish (Internet slang)

Neologism, there are no reliable sources on this so it doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability Xyzzyplugh 01:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, violates WP:V. Michael 01:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 03:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Something made up in school one day? Resolute 05:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Delete Delete. TJ Spyke 05:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, something made up in school one day. JIP | Talk 07:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, inane rubbish, not notable. BTLizard 09:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and JIP — FireFox ^(talk) _{11:14, 03 September 2006}
• Delete per nom Cynical 21:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris & Joe

Does not assert the notability of the subject, seems to be WP:VSCA Leuko 01:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete These are characters from a video which seems to exist only on Youtube. Doesn't meet WP:V, or any of the various notability requirements. --Xyzzyplugh 04:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Resolute 05:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NN. Michael 07:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non notable lego characters — FireFox ^(talk) _{11:17, 03 September 2006}
• Delete Wiki has some ridiculous trivia, but this is beyond the pale.

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ahmet Köksal

Notability insufficient, per WP:BIO. — ERcheck (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete copyvio from [5] Dlyons493 Talk 07:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --DrTorstenHenning 17:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I added five book titles from the Library of Congresxs http://catalog.loc.gov All are in Turkish. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 13:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment For the book with ISBN 975-95659-1-9, the Author is Sadan Bezeyis (with Ahmet Koksal, which is a very different thing). As far as I can see all the other works are [hazırlayan] also, which I take to mean with. Nearly all books have ISBNs these days - I wonder why don't the others? What it looks like to me, is that he's working for Lebriz who are publishing their own material After having served for 20 years as one of Turkey's first art galleries, Lebriz diverts its business activities towards the new economy and introduces Turkey's premier Art Web Site. I'd appreciate any Turkish-speaking editors' views. Dlyons493 Talk 14:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Dlyons493. -AED 06:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems a self projection. Marwatt 17:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] T'AI-KARA-TE-DO

Advertising. Only two Google hits for T'AI-KARA-TE-DO, and they're word for word copies of each other. This is an ad for a single dojo in South Carolina. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a vanispamcruftisement or some permutation thereof. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 02:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as VSCA. Also, several of the "Japanese-based styles" purported in the article are actually from Korea and China. ColourBurst 02:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Victor Sierra Charlie Alpha. Danny Lilithborne 03:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as advertising for non-notable company. Daniel Case 05:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no such speedy deletion criterion. Please do not abuse the speedy deletion criteria. Uncle G 11:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Tsdng96 06:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NN. Michael 07:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. JIP | Talk 07:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, advert — FireFox ^(talk) _{11:18, 03 September 2006}
• Delete as an advert, non-notable mixed martial arts style. (aeropagitica) 13:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Duplicate article created at T'aikaratedo. Danny Lilithborne 06:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to LGBT. - Mailer Diablo 09:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GLBTQQIA

Neologism. 63 Google hits, of which the first is Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete neologism, little known, and nothing but a dicdef. It could be sent to wiktionary, if anyone thinks they'd want it, I doubt it's worth the bother though. --Xyzzyplugh 04:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Michael 07:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Wiktionary I've actually seen this term before in my campus newspaper. When I first saw it I was like WTF? I could see people coming here trying to figure it out. VegaDark 09:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Obscure abbreviation. User:Yy-bo 17:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to LGBT, which already discusses the many variant abbreviations. —Celithemis 00:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to LGBT. I despair of the endless variations on this that we're going to end up with, because we've already redirected a few dozen of these. The moment I saw it, in fact, I was planning to redirect on sight until I saw that there was an active AFD, so I'd like to just speedy-redirect it right now, if that's okay. Bearcat 00:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

  Comment I'd normally wait 24 hours after you saw the AFD, but as this is a weekend, I'd wait until 24 hours after the weekend is over to give people extra time to comment. If noone has explained why it should be kept, then boldly redirect and close this discussion. GRBerry 01:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• (Speedy) Redirect to LGBT. And I agree with the despair of the endless (probably local?) variations. Maybe for possible interest people could indicate where they are used since they are not widespread? CyntWorkStuff 21:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not generally tied to specific localities, as such; it has more to do with the fact that there's no standardized version of the longer variant (either in what it includes or in the order of the letters). There isn't even universal agreement as to whether the L or the G should come first in LGBT itself, let alone any of the extended variants. So you end up with a lot of different variations simply because everybody more or less uses their own version of it. Bearcat 23:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to LGBT. --Deenoe 01:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to LGBT. I got 435 Google hits [6]. Used for instance in the web site of The University of New Hampshire [7], and many more ".edu" web sites. --Edcolins 11:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 author's request. JIP | Talk 07:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creatology

Wow. Not entirely sure about this one. On one hand, the subject seems legit but there are serious concerns regarding WP:WWIN, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:AUTO, and WP:VAIN. The article largely credits and references the work of one man, István Magyari-Beck. The article on István Magyari-Beck recently did not survive an AfD. Furthermore User:81.182.83.171/User:81.182.83.49 admits in Talk:Creatology that he is István Magyari-Beck, that he created the article, and that he wishes the article to be deleted. -AED 20:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)edited 16:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deville (Talk) 02:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per author's wishes. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 03:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above. Michael 07:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Please defer merge discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xeper

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, much less an egyptian hieroglyphic dictionary Kheper (misspelled Xeper here) is an egyptian hieroglyph with no semantic meaning. While words like Ankh have semantic meanings, if we allow kheper to exist, we have to theoretically allow several hundred other symbols without semantic meanings, and any other egyptian word as well. Thanatosimii 20:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deville (Talk) 02:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wikitionary, unless there is already an entry there, in which case just delete it. TJ Spyke 02:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 06:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Michael 07:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Retain but retitle it to the dominant spellling. It has been expanded to include reference to the Temple of Set. GeorgeLouis 14:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per GeorgeLouis, and with the articles on Ä, S, Й inter alia as precedent for "articles on symbols without semantic meaning". Tonywalton  | Talk 10:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep don't know if hieroglyph's are dictionary item's. User:Yy-bo 14:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Probably the best thing to do with this would be to merge it with the section from dung beetle which is not about the insect, but about the Egyptian use of images of dung beetles as amulets, at a new article Scarab (amulet). The ancient Egyptian use of the beetle as a symbol is certainly worth an article, but that article should have an English language title. I presume the spelling "Xeper" is meant to represent χeper, which was E. A. Wallis Budge's transliteration. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to the above, let us remember that cross, Star of David and pentagram all have their entries. I am sure you can find more examples of religious symbols throughout WP. As for the spelling, I suppose as a religious symbol we should tend in the direction of Xeper. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 18:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.-Kmaguir1 20:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to either List of hieroglyphs or an appropriate sub-article of Egyptian hieroglyphs, assuming it isn't a hoax, cause I can't find the image on those articles. GRBerry 01:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I will point out again that this is not just any old symbol, but one that is used in a religious context. No, I am not a Satanist; I am an atheist. Your friend, GeorgeLouis

• Comment. All this talk about a religious semantic is pointless in this instance, since that data is not actually in the page in question. This page is about a fairly insignificant hieroglyph, not the philosophy of the temple of set. And a page on a hieroglyph, probably with the exception of Ankh, is cruft. Thanatosimii 03:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I added the data as suggested. GeorgeLouis 14:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If the temple of set stuff is legit, by all means let it stay (although not necesarrily in this article, perhaps then a redirect will be in order), however everything above "philosophy" in this article is still cruft, and rather erronious. Thanatosimii 16:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fernando Rizo 16:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heat of Battle

A mod for call of duty. The article claims this used to be a popular mod, and I do not claim to know the truth of that, but the statement is unsourced. What I do know is that the homepage has an Alexa ranking in the two millions, the mod itself gets very few hits (the over 40,000 hits one gets for "call of duty" AND "heat of battle is misleading because that phrase is commonly used to describe the core game, only the first 30 or so hits deal with the mod, and nearly all of these are just download mirrors), and the article itself reads like advertsing. Indrian 20:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• The article itself is less than 3 hours old. I'm not even done creating it and it's been marked for deletion. Upholder 21:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• I note that there are other pages for modifications for various games available such as Point of Existence and Battlefield 1918. I intend for this page to be in a similar vein within the next few days. Upholder 22:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Also, the google search gives much more relevant results if you do: "Heat of Battle" AND "Call of Duty" AND "mod". Spot checking thru about the 12th page showed a good number of reviews, forum hits, etc in addition to the official website and download mirrors. Upholder 07:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Question: Hello Upholder. Forum hits and download mirrors are not really relevant, but could you please post links to the reviews so that we could evaluate them? Thanks, --Satori Son 12:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• An interview done by planetcallofduty.com, gamespy mini review , gamespy also ran some HoB servers when CoD was popular (in the "Servers Update section at the bottom), answers.com's entry for HoB , Macologist gave HoB an Honorable mention for Mod of the Year in Jan 2006, ModnMod's review , mentioned in the mods section of the CoD Multiplayer FAQ at IGN. Upholder 23:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deville (Talk) 02:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 03:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Point of existence and Battlefield 1918 are significant mods. Yours is not. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I seem to remember it getting coverage in the UK edition of PC Gamer, can't remember what issue off the top of my head. Cynical 21:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - please supply proper citations to its claims of popularity. Themindset 23:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notanility.--Peta 09:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Deleted, obvious hoax. Cyde Weys 03:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wesurvived

Textbook case of WP:HOAX. Crystallina 03:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete but the article was redirected in the meantime. Erring on the side of caution, and to avoid recreation, let us keep it that way. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beetle (video games)

This article covers a very minor aspect of one level in Sonic Adventure 2, of which the stage itself does not even have a level. It can't be considered a character (such as one that could be listed in Minor characters in Sonic the Hedgehog because it has no personality and is essentially just a robot, a feature of the level. ScarredSun 03:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 03:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable gamecruft. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, generic enemy who appeared in 1 game. TJ Spyke 03:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete gamecruft that uses an ordinary enemy, if this was even a boss I might change my stance, but not for non notable enemies.guitarhero777777 05:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Sonic Adventure 2. Cynical 21:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Egg Quarters does have a level, so I say Merge it into that article. Terraxos 17:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It is a very minor enemy in one level in one sonic game. This deserves no mention at all on Wikipedia.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 spam. Sam Vimes | Address me 10:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Surplus business

It is an Advertisement masquerading as an article, the author has been spamming the PLC article with this same stuff, similar names to Radwell have been banned such as Radwell International -Crunchy Numbers 03:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - SPAM. Yeah here's the debate for an article from the same guy which was deleted a few days ago, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radwell International. It was very similar, used the same pics and everything. -IceCreamAntisocial 03:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom as WP:SPAM Also need to get rid of the free advertizing here. JungleCat talk/contrib 07:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Change to Neutral pending the outcome of affected articles to be "cleaned" JungleCat talk/contrib 14:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 07:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe user Brian Radwell can explain some of the spam going around. Just like a Monty Python bad dream, its everywhere. See this user's contribs. JungleCat talk/contrib 07:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nigel ^(Talk) 10:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• The surplus business is the business of a surplus store, amongst others. Uncle G 12:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the information about ebay is not spam. they indeed trade (among other things) surplus goods. otherwise article not really clear, looks a lot spam-style User:Yy-bo 14:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Hello, I am the second contributor to this article. I contributed what I thought was a lot of objective, informatiive, factual information to an article that already existed before I added to it. It was very vague, and I tried to expand on it. All of the links I added were from/to companies and articles directly related to the industrial "surplus business". I am in fact employed by Radwell International, so I want to be very honest here. I added one line mentioning Radwell, and would gladly strip it out since I now see that the spam policy is understandibly very rigid. Addionally, I can add more content about other examples -- commercial and consumer venues -- relating to the topic since I have done a lot of research on the surplus topic, work in the field and have quite a bit of knowlege that readers can learn from. If there are no votes to let the article stand, then the jury has spoken and all is fair. Thanks for reading my explanation. I am a new user, and I would be glad to elaborate further if you'd like. -Brian Radwell 2:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible Resolution - The direction this AfD was going, my best bet on the outcome would be: 1.) Not only delete, but 2.) Further action such as a noticeboard report, with all the bells and whistles due for the WP:SPAM. I reported this to an admin recently as I did not want this to end up with permanent blocks, etc (but I was willing to take this further). I want to assume good faith here. Brian Radwell, you help us clean up the articles affected? I believe you are here in good faith as you are participating in this. Therefore, lets work together and clean this up. If you have any questions, I might be able to help, but I am no expert on editing, trust me. I believe your response will have an impact on the closing admin's decision here. JungleCat talk/contrib 03:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I will clean this up asap and then request a review of my changes. I appreciate JungleCat input here and follow the advice. In good faith, Brian Radwell 9:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• This article seems to present useful information, although I'd lose the links to Brian's own firm. I don't quite see the relevance of the hand held scanner image to the article but this seems a good faith effort to have an article on a topic. It needs cleanup, but Keep. I would ask those suggesting delete to relate where this material can be found instead, because the material is encyclopedic in my view. ++Lar: t/c 17:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - "Radwell" has been stripped in the text body. I have kept the link to the Radwell URL as an article Source... I believe Wiki policy allows for a link to a Source? It appears I've had some cleanup help from the Wiki patrol; much appreciated . Thank you admins and users for your feedback. Brian Radwell 11:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking into the history of this page I see that the post from "Brian Radwell" 11:30, 8 Sept 2006, was added by 12.107.75.162. After looking at the edits from that ip I see that at the same time he is "thanking" us for deleting his spam he has been adding it back anonymously to some of the same articles he defaced in the first place. This person has admitted that Brian Radwell isn't his name and is actually the name of the owner of the company.-Crunchy Numbers 16:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - "I added NO spam at the same time I was thanking anyone for assisting me since JungleCat offered assistance and guided me as to how to remedy this situation. It is an incorrect statement to say I was spamming at the same time or since Junglecat post. The entire post by Crunchy Numbers is not factual. Additionally, I have never said my name is Brian Radwell, and it is not. Brian Radwell is the President/CEO of the company, not me. I have not breeched my integrity in any post. I have to say that this is a real drag on adding anything of substance to this site. .-Crunchy Numbers 16:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC) needs to look at history more carefully. Brian Radwell 3:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC).
  • Note to closing Admin I am surprised this AfD is still open. I have gone through (a while back) and removed some of the spam links as of these edits:[8][9][10][11].I have warned the anonymous user who was adding Brian Radwell’s sig to talk to stop as this is in violation of Wikipedia policy here. Brian Radwell has since then only added possible copyvio photo as this. That is it. My patience has been worn out. The registered user Brian Radwell, not the anonymous sock, needed to clear this up, but instead Brian was the sock. Very confusing. What a waste of time, etc. etc. I just wish I would have gone straight to WP:ANI from get-go. Strong Delete this as a violation of WP:SPAM. JungleCat talk/contrib 02:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Centrx→talk • 07:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Franco Bourbon Kassel

Fails WP:V. No references, only Google hits are Wikipedia and its mirrors. Durova 03:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete There is almost no info here, other than who his royal grandparents were. The article doesn't name his parents, or if this guy actually did anything in his life. Out!!! --Brianyoumans 07:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough, no reason to think that this in unverifiable Orange Kangaroo 22:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Most actual royalty would have references somewhere on the Internet besides just Wikipedia. The article can be recreated if this becomes verifiable. Delete as possible hoax. Durova 01:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Reading the article Henry V of France, it doesn't list or mention any children. His property was left to a nephew. So, claiming to be his grandchild is an interesting claim that needs verification. --Brianyoumans 02:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps worth noting: creation of this article was the sole contribution of an anonymous IP (July 2005). Durova 08:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melanie Craft

If her major notability is as the wife of somebody, then she isn't notable enough for her own article. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and clean-up. 29,000 exact Google matches, many about this Melanie Craft. Michael 03:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • And do those Google hits give any idea of notability? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, they do. The article is wrong. She is not most famous for being Ellison's wife; she's famous (to a certain segment of readers) for her books. I suspect this article was written by a computer type, unlikely to be familiar with the genre at all. Scrolling through the google results with "Larry Ellison" excluded ([12]) finds a lot ofreferences to her books. (There are a lot of forums about romance novels.) No Barbara Cartland: two Silhouette Romances and two mass-markets, from what I can see, but that passes the standards for authors at WP:BIO. Needs definite clean-up and expansion by a romance reader. Fan-1967 03:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, most don't even reference who her husband is. Several sites says, "Melanie Craft and her husband live in..." Michael 07:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Well that's because that particular search excluded any hits with the words "Larry Ellison". There are thousands of hits that include his name, but as you can see tons that don't. I suspect much of the romance-reading crowd are as unaware of Ellison as the geeks are unaware of her. Fan-1967 08:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, she is famous in her own right. Michael 08:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I added some bio details and removed the POV about her marriage. Published authors are generally notable. --Dhartung | Talk 18:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Her books have been independently reviewed and appear to sell in respectable numbers per Amazon. Ohconfucius 03:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep published, non-vanity press authors. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep after update clearly demonstrates notability. Fan-1967 00:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This person is notable as a published author, not for being the wife of one of the most powerful men in the world. RFerreira 19:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virginia delegate race

removed speedy deletion tag because I couldn't find any criteria it'd fit under. However, the article makes no attempt to show WHAT delegate race it is. It's all original research, no cites, no external links etc. POV rampant, and just plain bad writing as well. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of original research. --Xyzzyplugh 04:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I suppose the attempt at a speedy delete was using A1. I cant figure out the context either. Resolute 05:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, article has too narrow scope, also original research and/or soapbox article. JIP | Talk 07:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless it can be upgraded with more information and context. A date would be good - well, essential - for a start, and an indication of what body these delegates were being elected to. It's also grossly POV. BTLizard 08:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• The article is about the 2005 elections to the Virginia House of Delegates. Uncle G 12:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, should be Virginia statewide elections, 2005 or some such but not really worth saving. --Dhartung | Talk 19:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vita (rapper)

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Just a few featured vocals on other artists albums and a couple of minor movie roles in two independent features, one that looks like it never got released. -Nv8200p talk 03:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If this one gets deleted, many other obscure records would have to go instantly. Lots of new articles are indeed about untraded records (and musicians), means they are not the usual sortiment of media markets. Guess this one is noteable enough. Anyway, i have in mind to discuss the issue (in general) on the village pump. Wikipedia needs more exact policies on what is noteable in terms of music records, musicians.User:Yy-bo 14:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and WP:MUSIC. Marcus22 15:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep She receives label credit on "Down 4 U" and "Put It On Me," both of which were top ten hits in the United States. Does it matter if she wasn't the primary artist if she is still credited with two big hits? It doesn't appear to by WP:MUSIC. Her releases were on a major label. The work she did was with major artists. GassyGuy 04:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• keep please she is credited on hit songs with major labels and major artists Yuckfoo 17:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] T3GM: Genesis

A book that hasn't been released yet, and is due to be released only on the internet. Plus, it does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability, not just because it doesn't yet exist, but also because it only gets 2 Google hits: one on Freewebs, the other on a fan fiction forum. Prod tag removed without comment IceCreamAntisocial 03:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Consider bundling together T3GM with this AfD. --Xyzzyplugh 04:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both this, and, if possible, T3GM. The main website for this series of unpublished books has 365 total hits (it has a hit counter). Only 1 google hit on this title from outside wikipedia, so no reliable sources, doesn't meet WP:V. --Xyzzyplugh 04:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per Xyzzyplugh. Resolute 05:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both Dlyons493 Talk 11:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete externally linked sites not WP:NOTABILITY User:Yy-bo 17:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CPU3D

Non-Notable software company. Fails WP:CORP and WP:VSCA that fails WP:V. Article was deprodded by author. Michael Greiner 03:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - The current Alexa ranking is about 182,000, and the article is an ad. Out!!! --Brianyoumans 04:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There are no sources and the article is an ad full of non NPOV. --Benjaminx 07:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. JIP | Talk 07:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam Dlyons493 Talk 07:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as spam. MER-C 11:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hamblin family

Wikipedia is not a genealogical website. Plus the information is mostly speculation. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Further, non-notable. —ExplorerCDT 04:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Also, the "reference" cited - "From the records of Ruth C. Hamblin, 1930 - 1980" - is uncheckable. BTLizard 09:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Mugaliens 14:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fernando Rizo 16:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beer Die

nn drinking game. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

I believe this article needs to be improved not removed. Why delete it anyway? (nn?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.226.72.188 (talk • contribs).

*"'Keep'". I love beer die. It is a big part of my cultural experience and I plan to contribute to the entry.

• Keep. I have considerable experience in this area since I went through Category:Drinking games a while back and nominated all the ones that didn't show at least one non-mirror Google hit (I was being very generous). This one has its own website; that's good enough for me. Daniel Case 05:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It has its own website, at http://www.beerdiegame.com/ but that website has no alexa ranking. The website is neither a sign of notability nor a reliable source. --Xyzzyplugh 08:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentSeptember 20th, 2006 - I am the creator of www.beerdiegame.com and I can assure you that it is a legit site. Some people may play it differently than others but it's all basicly the same. I learned it at Ball State University from a friend in ZBT. His brothers brought the game back from out east in the early 90's. Originally played on a door that had been ripped off frame. From there we/it evolved into what it is today. Minor changes to the game to only make it better and more competitive, like adding the net with the fringe so you can see if the die goes under the net. Circles on each corner among other rules.
    • I tried to use that logic last time, but got shot down by people who insisted one non-mirror ref was good enough. Daniel Case 14:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete drinking games are not inherently notable, does not meet any notability standards otherwise. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 11:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • We have quite a category of drinking games (see above), actually, and even a nav template in some of the more popular ones. Now some IMO should clearly be deleted, but when references were put in by badlydrawnjeff (I think), they were kept despite very minimal web presence. I am more partial to saving a drinking game if it has its own site and not just a mention on "submit a drinking game" type sites. (And we definitely need to delete TV-based drinking games like this. Daniel Case 14:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Almost anything has a website nowdays. no verifyability from reliable sources for this drinking game. Definately non-notable . Peripitus (Talk) 12:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Website OK but not WP:NOTABILITY (hits) User:Yy-bo 17:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • We're judging a drinking game here, not the website. I realize this is a much more nebulous standard, but consider ^{[Check Google hits]} what you get for this on Google. I suspect that might be a better argument for notability. Daniel Case 17:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete not quite noteable enough
• Delete not notable. Marcus22 15:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Changed vote to Keep Just looked at Daniel Case's g hits. There are a lot not related to Beer Die and a lot in German - which means little to me - but it also looks like there are an awful lot of people out there who have heard of this. That does it for me. Looks notable enough. Marcus22 19:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

*Delete per nom. --Dennis The TIger 16:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Prior vote retracted, switch to Keep. If Quarters is in and if Bouncing coins survives, frankly, so should this. Yes, it's silly, but frankly, so is The Fifth Element drinking game. --Dennis The TIger 16:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

*Don't Delete!! This is a legit game with complex offensive and defensive strategies. It is in the interest of the people to have this page up and running on wikipedia. Froda —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.144.193.245 (talk • contribs) .

• Comment: Complexity and/or legitimacy does not necessarily equate to notability. I could give an example of 43 Man Squamish, which is so complex it's unplayable and definitely not legitimate, but seems to be included as a notable parody of sports. My vote, for one, still stands. --Dennis The TIger 20:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: edited for a verbiage correction on my own text. See history for prior text. --Dennis The TIger 20:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• • 43 Man Squamish is, as the article notes right off the bat, notable because it was invented by MAD magazine as a joke, but so great was the popularity and influence of the magazine that students at a number of colleges formed teams to try and play it.

    I can't believe I'm the inclusionist here. I have demonstrated above that a) Wikipedia has a number of drinking game articles and b) Google returns 103,000 hits for this game, very few of which are mirrors. Upgrading my vote to Strong keep to make my point better. Daniel Case 02:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: This is precisely what I said: 43MS is a notable parody of sports, and you have demonstrated exactly why it is notable by effectively summarizing the article.

  It's my opinion that you should not so much be more assertive in defending the article, but find better assertion in why the article should not be deleted. How you do that is left as an exercise. --Dennis The TIger 19:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• • "...you should not so much be more assertive in defending the article, but find better assertion in why the article should not be deleted."
    Hmm ... how exactly are those two different? I thought by doing the first I was doing the last. Daniel Case 04:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Allow me rephrase, go for quality versus quantity. --Dennis The TIger 07:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. NN.-Kmaguir1 20:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to Liar's dice. Beer dice is a quite notable drinking game, plenty of books on drinking games regarding dice, etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The German-language ghits look to have nothing to do with this subject. From the top: "Barq's Root Beer Die Alternative"; "Der kleine Eisbär rettet die Rentiere von Hans de Beer. Die ISBN lautet: 10 3-314-01450-3"; "Am besten gelungen ist Genossen Beer die Geschichte des Sozialismus seit Anbruch der Neuzeit."; und so weiter. Well there's 25% of the ghits gone for a start. Google hits, or their absence, prove nothing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In and of themselves, no. But eliminate 25% of the ghits for this and you've still got well over 70,000. We've kept articles with far less than that as a measure of sheer notability. I believe that in this case the ghits are a proxy for whether people actually play this game. We've got multiple non-mirror sites discussing and delineating rules for this. To address a point that's come up in other drinking-game AFDs, there are places to go if someone challenges where a particular rule came from other than Wikipedia. Daniel Case 04:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but subjects with zero ghits would be fine, just so long as they cited reliable sources and were thus verifiable. This article doesn't do that, so it has to go. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I said keep or merge - there's plenty of "reliable" "verifiable" sources available for this, check Amazon. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Deja vu all over again. You have your book but I don't think it's a reliable source. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So this basically comes down to whether this book is a reliable source or not. I suggest we put on hold any deletions over this issue until you settle this one. Daniel Case 03:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Everybody please look at this one for comparison, where there are many of the same issues but the ultimate consensus was keep. Daniel Case 04:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Also here. Daniel Case 04:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: That's precisely what I was looking for. =^_^= Stand by for my own retraction and recast. --Dennis The TIger 15:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

*Keep You won't change the importance of this game at Colby, Middlebury, Dartmouth or wherever else it is played, by removing it from Wikipedia. However, just because this game may not be "notable" to some people on this chat, that does not mean this resource should be deleted. Would you understand how to play this game if you hadn't heard about it on Wikipedia? Would you even know about it? I learned about it through friends from school, but now I know people who use this website to verify the rules and find out different strategies - whether they're new to the game or veterans. Keep! definitely keep! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.232.62.11 (talk • contribs) . *Keep. To those of us who have spent literally hundreds of hours playing this game, its relevance is unquestionable. The most compelling reason to keep this is that it is a valuable resource to those who choose to play Beer Die. Additionally, one of the great things about the game is that while there are basic, undeniable rules, the more nuanced rules are open to discussion, debate, and style. This wikipedia entry provides a necessary forum for hashing out those nuances. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jjabodee (talk • contribs) . *KeepWhat makes our country great is the freedom to spend days on end throwing balls at cups - and the right to spread the gospel of the sheer beauty of the game to others.

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Webcam Effect

WP:OR - original research and a non-notable neologism. Crystallina 04:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. Article smells like it was created only to provide the external links - either to promote or attack the sites. JIP | Talk 07:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No significant external use of the term. BTLizard 08:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete clearly OR; vanity (not used by other article) User:Yy-bo 14:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per JIP.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 23:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tessa Carlson

Reality TV show cruft, not notable outside TV show. Renominating after a train wreck. Also nominated for the same reason are:

1. Ebony Haith
2. Nicole Panattoni
3. Giselle Samson
4. Heather Blumberg
5. Jenascia Chakos
6. Anna Bradfield
7. Bethany Harrison
8. Xiomara Frans
9. Nicole Borud

MER-C 04:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all of these - no notability outside of a show in which they appear to have had an undistinguished time of it. BigHaz 05:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all or merge into the article on the show itself. No different than writing an article on every contestant on Wheel of Fortune. Resolute 05:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All, reality show contestants should rarely ever have their own articles. TJ Spyke 05:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all; as per other noms I almost think being a contestant on a reality show should be a strike against notability. Daniel Case 05:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Extremely obscure failed contestants. NN. wikipediatrix 05:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per WP:BIO. --Metropolitan90 06:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per listcruft. Michael 07:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all Obscure people who should stay so until they do something interesting. BTLizard 08:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. — FireFox ^(talk) _{11:21, 03 September 2006}
• Delete the lot Dlyons493 Talk 11:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all 10 No evidence of any notability or importance outside the show, either in the current version, the talk page, or the last version by Lil Flip, one of the stronger opinioned keep voices in the train wreck. GRBerry 01:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all. Worthwhile reality contestants, seen by millions. No reason whatsoever to delete. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Would you support separate articles for every contestant to ever appear on Jeopardy, Wheel of Fortune or The Price is Right as well? Resolute 16:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment I agree with the deletion of these contestants; however, reality show contestants are a lot different than game show contestants. Elcda0 17:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Are Jeopardy, WoF or PiR contestents considered "reality" contestants? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• No, but that is beside the point. They are contestants, exactly like these people are. There is absolutely nothing about reality television that is inherently notable. It is simply another genre of entertainment. And the point is, simply appearing as a contestant on a popular television show does not make one worthy of an article. Nobody outside of their families cared about any of these contestants a week after they lost, and nobody will remember them a year after. They are not notable. Resolute 21:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Nonsense. Very few, if any (outside of Ken Jennings) are able to spin one of two time appearances into careers, unlike many reality contestents. Furthermore, game shows do not have the same sort of long-term cultural cache for its contestents that reality shows clearly have. Reality television is inherently notable. The amount of discussion, newsworthiness, and attention these shows get proves it quite easily. Perhaps when the day-to-day happenings on "Wheel of Fortune" get the sort of attention "Survivor" does, it'll be worth a discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• You are correct that the shows are notable, which is why the show itself is not up for deletion. As for turning an appearance on a reality show into a carreer, that may make such an invididual notable depending on what carreer and how far they get. There is no indication that any single individual on this list has done so, however.
• Really, the only thing you have shown is that other people who have done other things have become notable after appearing on a television show. You havent shown that appearing on a reality show itself confers notability on an individual. Resolute 21:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Well, no, the idea was that it's fairly clear that people get immediate fame and recognition from being on reality shows, and they don't on these game shows you compared them with. The day the winning team from Supermarket Sweep gets the same recognition as one of the first-off finalists from American Idol, I'll be in your camp. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all Not notable contestants, hard to find valid sources. Elcda0 15:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge all to their respective reality show seasons. Why isn't this being done? RFerreira 19:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was CANCELLED. Part of a socketry attempt. -Splash - tk 23:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephanie Stahl

• Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:N S. A. B. 22:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC) — S. A. B. (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete - even if this person was known, there's very little there. It's not an encyclopaedia entry. Neilajh 23:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Why is there even a category dedicated to people associated with this particular television station? I can see the station having a page, but it appears that a good chunk of personalities that station has or had had in the past has an article. I think a bigger question is should the category and most of its member pages be deleted as not notable? Seems to be in conflict with the "not a indiscriminate collection of information" policy. Joe 01:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand or merge to the relevant television station article. RFerreira 19:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per A1/A3. Xoloz 00:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Disassociate

Webcomic and "anonymous column" i.e. a blog by any other name, that doesn't look like it'll make WP:WEB. Daniel Case 05:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not nearly notable enough to be listed in an encyclopedia. Akradecki 05:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NN. Michael 07:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Looks to me as if the article - such as it is - has been created to generate hits on the site, therefore it's spam. Get rid. BTLizard 13:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kingdom of Drakkar

Internet RPG whose main page hasn't been updated since 2001, has an alexa ranking of 6,045,517, no assertion of notability beyond being an online RPG, 67000 google results but a lot of those seem to be lists of RPGs Lid 05:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete advertisement for a really non-notable game. Akradecki 05:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NN. Michael 07:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 10:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as extremely non-notable. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 10:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, don't think there's any question over this one. Terraxos 17:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, not even an assertion of notability. --Huon 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Electric Head (band)

Notability claim of being well known in the Cinncinati underground dubious and doesn't seem to ascertain true notability article, probably a hoax considering other sections, no discography Lid 05:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

AUTHOR'S NOTE: Uh...did you ask anyone in the Cincinnati underground? Probably not, because if you did, you would not be using the word "dubious," you'd be using the word "obvious." Sorry about the discography, my bad, I fixed it. Also, I resent the idea that this article is a hoax. Just because these guys choose to show some individuality in a world of meaningless Top 40 homogenized crap in which "music" has about as much flavor for the ears as extruded cardboard has for the mouth, doesn't mean they're frauds. It means that they stomp some serious backside.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lordpox (talk • contribs). User:Lordpox is also the writer of this article. --Metropolitan90 06:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:V. The problem with "underground" hits is they're unverifiable, like the EP from Chimichanga productions: ([13]). In fact the only company I can find of that name is the personal label of comedian Jim Gaffigan. As far as Electric Head is concerned, I can't find anything on them beyond a myspace page, with a blog entry that says they're "now legit" ([14]) because they're on Wikipedia. Fan-1967 06:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of indication that this band meets any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. --Metropolitan90 06:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless sources can be added showing this band meets the standards of WP:MUSIC or is in any way notable.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benjaminx (talk • contribs) 07:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Fan-1967. The idea is that the band becomes "legit" through other means and then gets listed here, rather than the other way around. BigHaz 07:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, and using Wikipedia for advertising. --Wafulz 22:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not delete. Certainly meets WP:MUSIC, And you can tell this band is using the wikipedia to greater the benefit the world of the internet user. Electric Head is using the wikipedia to allow users to learn about the band. I have been to a few underground shows where Electric Head has played and I liked them and wanted to learn more about them. I can now, I really enjoy that.. --Pirate-M.Lifnen 8:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC) — Pirate-M.Lifnen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Lifnen is absolutely right. Electric Head's music is inventive to the point that it is difficult to really pin a genre on them. This means that it is difficult for them to find record companies that are willing to take risks on them. They're self-released stuff has been nothing short of amazing, and I fully believe that a few years down the road, they will be hailed among the saviors of rock music. Until just recently, definitely notable punk band Anti-Flag were still releasing things on their own record label, and I saw no one questioning them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lordpox (talk • contribs). User:Lordpox is also the writer of this article. – Lid^–(Talk) 23:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
      • • And you can tell this band is using the wikipedia to greater the benefit the world of the internet user. And therein lies the problem. Wikipedia isn't the place to tell people about the amazing band you've just come across. It's the place to write about bands who are notable already. When Electric Head is notable (and passes WP:MUSIC, which it does not), then it gets an entry. Until then, let's stick to MySpace or somewhere like that. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 21:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete Electric Head's Wikipedia page. They are a real band, they play lots of shows, and just because they aren't very well known doesn't justify deleting their entry. I, for one, found the page very interesting and informative.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.128.47.4 (talk • contribs).— 69.128.47.4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Nobody ever said they didn't exist. What's in question is their notability, and in a question like that the fact that "they aren't very well known" most emphatically does become relevant for deleting their entry. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 21:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a notable band though. Thats why people want the wiki to stay up. I am just confused as to how this is not a notable band.. --Pirate-M.Lifnen 7:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC) — Pirate-M.Lifnen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Contribution actually made by 216.48.128.10 (talk • contribs • WHOIS)

Does the band pass any of the relevant criteria at WP:MUSIC? There seems to be no evidence that it does. If there's no evidence that it does, it's not notable in the sense that the term is used here. The band may very well be notable to people who've seen them perform live, but that doesn't mean that they get an article here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 12:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was {{wi}}. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Automagically

Dicdef, already in wikitionary, doubt there are any reliable sources about this subject, though they might mention it in passing. Recury 05:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete it was probably created because it's in a few Wikipedia namespace pages. Danny Lilithborne 08:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Too bad CSD A5 doesn't cover this possibility. MER-C 11:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it's a common enough slang term that's been around long enough not to be a neologism. But wikitionary is the place for it. Dlyons493 Talk 11:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment {{wi}} below seems like a good solution. Dlyons493 Talk 12:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Reliable source (the Jargon File), in common use (2,320,000 GHits for "automagically -wikipedia"), and is just as important and notable as the many other Jargon File entries on Wikipedia like Quantum bogodynamics, Bzzzt, wrong, One-line fix, Shotgun debugging, Eyeball search, Deep magic, Autoconfiscation, One-banana problem, Blogroll, etc etc. --maru (talk) contribs 15:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It's certainly at least as well established as most of those, so maybe we should be consistent. Personally I question their existence as well :-) Dlyons493 Talk 15:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• What are the other sources besides Jargon File? Recury 16:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, I've come across it over the years in technical articles in places like Byte and Dr Dobbs but don't have any definite pointers. It's on Usenet since before 1990 e.g. [15] Dlyons493 Talk 16:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not questioning its usage, I'm just questioning whether non-trivial sources are available (that is, sources that do more than just mentioning it or using it). Recury 19:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Anyhing I've seen has just been a usage which the reader was assumed to understand. Dlyons493 Talk 19:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wiktionary, poss. include in computer slang. There's no real article here to be written. --Dhartung | Talk 18:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• It's already in wikitionary. Recury 19:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• {{wi}} Let's at least let readers know where to find the definition; also, let's give people a chance to make this an encyclopedia article if they think they have the sources and can make it pass WP:WINAD. May as well leave this history, too. --ais523 08:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• {{wi}} works for me. It's a notable enough piece of computer slang, and there is potential for a more-than-dicdef. Guy 12:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete, csd G7 per author request below -- Samir धर्म 03:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I Am Jack

This article is decently written, long, and in depth. Trouble is, it's just simple vanity. I don't know what else to say. A comic strip in a college newspaper should not merit inclusion in enWiki. alphaChimp ^laudare 06:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I'm not sure we have an article this long and detailed on War and Peace, but no, a comic strip that never made it beyond a college paper is not notable. At a guess, likely vanity, as well. Fan-1967 06:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Michael 07:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable OR + vanity - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • CSD G7 applies per blanking and consent to delete - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Fan-1967. Gwernol 14:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete college paper comic strip is just not notable for WP. feydey 15:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Oops! I didn't understand the criteria that was necessary for an article to be posted -- as this article does not fit the criteria, you are welcome to delete it. I was under the impression that if something was published somewhere and had resources that it was qualified to be on here -- Sorry for all the confusion, fellas! Wish it could stay up, but I understand why it can't. No hard feelings! Thanks. IAmJack600 19:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge and redirect. Fernando Rizo 17:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phase I clone trooper armor

Total fancruft, not notable, entirely fantastic. Someone should try to source this multiply--not sure... lots of google hits, but that hardly is a good standard for fancruft-Kmaguir1 06:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, I like Star Wars, but I agree this is fancruft. JIP | Talk 07:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and add sources - almost all of this is canon, all it needs is some sourcing, not a deletion. Perhaps merge the two articles. Here is the source backing up almost all the claims in the article: [16]Wooty 07:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Canon, like what? Religious canon? It's trooper armor for clones, clones who do not exist, and armor which does not exist. Does their armor that doesn't exist, and a detailed examination of that non-existence, convey any content to the non-existent clones, or the very-existent drones obsessed with this fancruft? If they have Phase II clone trooper armor (which is next up, by the way), does that protect them from more non-existent things? Merging is an option in addition to deletion, but deletion is the only rational option. Pure, unadulterated fancruft.-Kmaguir1 08:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If non-existence was a sufficient criterion for deletion, we would have to delete literally tens of thousands of articles related to Star Wars, Star Trek, The Lord of the Rings, and so on. And that's using "literally" in its correct form, not as a synonym for "figuratively". However, I agree with you that this particular article is fancruft. JIP | Talk 08:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The information is too trivial to deserve a separate article; if it's to be in Wikipedia at all it needs to be set in the context of a broader Star Wars related piece. BTLizard 08:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into an article on clone trooper armor. There's no particular reason why we need an article on every phase, but given that there's decent coverage from multiple sources (as opposed to, say, this pile o' fancruft), I can strongly support at least bringing the armor up. Captainktainer * Talk 09:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (merge first if anyone wants to take the job on) Dlyons493 Talk 11:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I'd be willing to make a article similar to List of Ranged Weapons in Star Wars, except for armor and types, from the KOTOR armor and weaves all the way up to clone and stormtrooper armor. Wooty 21:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Clone trooper. MikeWazowski 13:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: see Phase II clone trooper armor as well.-Kmaguir1 22:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per MikeWazowski Flying Jazz 22:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Clone Trooper. Atlantic Gateways 01:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no need for separate articles on fictional armor. BlueValour 02:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Phase I clone trooper armor + Phase II clone trooper armor into Clone trooper. —Encephalon 21:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zoomag

Advertisement, spam Kmaguir1 06:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SPAM. Michael 07:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• And the most important of Delete free of charge. Danny Lilithborne 07:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, AND MOST IMPORTANT Z O O M A G IS ADVERTISING. JIP | Talk 07:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pompous clotted management-speak with very little actual information. BTLizard 09:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SPAM. Nigel ^(Talk) 10:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above — FireFox ^(talk) _{11:23, 03 September 2006}
• Delete as spam. MER-C 11:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kamains world

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Fan forum for the RPG Maker series. It has 609 members, which is less than marginal, and has an Alexa rating of 3,243,548. Fails the website notability guidelines. Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Given the recent vandalism this article has seen, and because it is a web forum, I am preemptively applying {{afdanons}}. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Practically content free - little more than a vanity page. BTLizard 07:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable web forum. 609 members is not alot either. TJ Spyke 07:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As above - reads like an ad, not notable. --Brianyoumans 07:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 08:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non notable — FireFox ^(talk) _{11:24, 03 September 2006}

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Murphy's laws-all

Listcruft with a horrible article name; evidently, this stuff wouldn't fit into the Murphy's Law article, so it got shuffled off to a separate article. Brianyoumans 07:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Unnecessary cruft. Danny Lilithborne 08:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Just complete bollocks. BTLizard 09:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Redundancy.--Húsönd 17:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bollocks indeed. .V. 14:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was CANCELLED. Socksocksocksocksock. -Splash - tk 23:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tracy Davidson

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:N S. A. B. 22:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC) — S. A. B. (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Speedy keep. Nomination made by an account with less than 10 edits. The subject is an Emmy-award winning news reporter. RFerreira 19:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was already redirected to proper capitalization. GRBerry 01:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syed ali akbar

First principal of the first evening college in India? Brother of someone? I hardly think that this is notable, and only answers.com and wikipedia mention it. Hmm. I don't think so.-Kmaguir1 07:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Syed Ali Akbar No need to bring this to AfD Dlyons493 Talk 12:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

There was nothing to merge! I've turned it into a redirect to Syed Ali Akbar. Taking the AfD notice off will activate that. Dlyons493 Talk 13:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karla LaVey

Karla LaVey, current High Priestess of the First Satanic Church and former High Priestess of the Church of Satan making one of her regular appearances on Fox News as a Satanism and Occult Expert

Person is of insufficient significance to merit an entire article. Person in question is a local radio DJ and relative of a more famous person but not a famous person herself. Lvthn13 07:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia policy on notability. This individual does not qualify under the Wikipedia standards as a notable person, and the article itself has never advanced beyond being a stub. Additionally, the article for her organization should be given the same consideration and is likewise a stub. -Lvthn13 08:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment You can only vote once.
    • I did not intend this to be a second vote, but only my vote as opposed to the official nomination. -Lvthn13 19:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Compare to other articles in this category for notability. User:Yy-bo 14:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm concerned that this nomination may not be being made entirely in good faith as the nominator is presently involved in the following dispute. However, if I'm misinterpreting this (I read it as a way to win the dispute about the use of the category by deleting the articles the editor does not wish it applied to) then I am happy to discuss Karla LaVey's notability. Dina 18:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I understand how it looks this way, but actually that discussion only drew my attention to this article in the first place. If this article is not deemed worthy of deletion, then so be it. -Lvthn13 19:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I'll grant you the good faith but I'll have to disagree with the nom. The correct spelling of her name gets 15,200 Ghits most of which seem to be about her. Variants get another bundle. There's apparently some dispute within Satanism over her fathers will and her splinter group church First Satanic Church. The article needs work, and the controversies need to be explored in the article. And I know as an outsider to this I find this information that is new to me utterly fascinating is not a criteria for a keep. But I think she passes WP:BIO with the various articles about her, her church founding, in addition to being Anton LaVey's daughter. Dina 22:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • • It would appear that a large number of the google search results are cursory mentions of her as a relative of Anton LaVey, though I will grant that there are a number that appear to be specific mentions of her. However, a google search for a college professor of mine got over 2,000,000 hits and the top 50 results which I browsed are almost all mentions of her specifically, but she hardly qualifies as a notable person by Wiki standards. So I can admit that there is public documentation on Karla LaVey, but whether this constitutes anything significant enough to merit an encyclopedic entry is another matter. I also feel like her organization is perhaps not of any realistic significance except as a minor footnote of the CoS, but I do not feel like I should discuss that for POV reasons. I am acting in good faith here, there are plenty of articles about people I do not like or agree with that I nevertheless think merit an article, but Karla is not one of them. -Lvthn13 01:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Karla LaVey is the head of First Satanic Church which holds numerous annual events in San Francisco. Ms. LaVey is a regular contributor to Fox News as well as MSNBC for Satanism/Occult/Paranormal topics. A LexisNexis search will reveal many interviews from Ms. LaVey in addition to a notable amount of attention given to her organization, events and speaking engagements. I think the notion of a deletion, on this topic, by this user, is questionable at best. Absinthe 02:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• • This user has said here that he/she is a personal acquaintance of Karla LaVey, leading to a possible conflict of POV and bias. The article considered for deletion does not link to or source any specific articles about Karla LaVey or by her, but only makes a broad unsourced statement that she has made public appearances (it does mention appearances on documentaries on Satanism, but in neither of those was she discussed, but only appeared onscreen briefly). If there is a notable amount of attention given to this person, it has not been borne out by sources and especially by the article as it stands. The burden is not to prove that someone is not notable but to prove that they are notable, which has not been done.

As for my own neutrality, I have written and contributed to Wikipedia articles for some time, and in that time I've been involved in disagreements, all of which were satisfactorily resolved by mutual understanding and discussion. I have never shown resistance to making appropriate concessions nor have I showed bias by consistently removing "unfavorable" comments when they are properly sourced, and I certainly have not endeavored to remove the name of any notable figure where relevant. My actions here are in good faith, and I am not nominating a well-written full length article for deletion, I am nominating an article with minimal content about a person of questionable notability. The best way to resolve this is clearly by having this discussion now, which is why I have brought this nomination. -Lvthn13 02:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment I disagree with your statement that The burden is not to prove that someone is not notable but to prove that they are notable. In Afd I believe the burden of proof is on the nominator. Dina 09:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment It is impossible to prove a negative. However, in the absence of good evidence that she is notable, we must believe that she is not and therefore the meaning of my statement should be clear. Yes, I believe I should justify the nomination, but I cannot prove it. It can be proven that a person meets Wikipedia notability standards, so there is where the proof has to lie. The best I can offer is to ask "Where is the proof?" So far, I really see none. -Lvthn13 04:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per absinthe. If all the information in the article is correct then she seems very notable Canadian-Bacon ^{t c e} 03:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The person doesn't have a notability that warrants its own Wikipedia entry. You could just as well add the few sentences about her to the Anton LaVey bio page. To make an analogy here, there's a man named Louis Osbourne who is also a DJ, has made media appearances, and is the first son of a famous male celebrity and his previous wife (namely Ozzy Osbourne and his first wife Thelma), but there's no need for a Louis Osbourne page when a sentence or two on the Ozzy Osbourne page will do. WillieBlues 21:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment I might agree with you if this person wasn't a.) the head of a religious organization and b.) a subject of interest in various documentaries, cable news segments, books and interviews for her own accomplishments. I don't think your analogy draws appropriate parallels with regard to notability. Absinthe 22:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment She didn't found any religion though, and was not the subject of any documentary, she merely got her face in. Being vaguely mentioned as a relative to a famous person again does not make you validly famous yourself, nor does a few television appearances (I've done television interviews, but I don't need a Wikipedia page). She's not authored any books, either. I believe the above analogy is excellent, and I likewise agree that Karla does merit mention on the Anton LaVey page but not particularly her own page. She is, to be very blunt, a footnote. -Lvthn13 03:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Nobody is claiming she founded a religion. Simply that she is certainly a person of interest within the media, the Satanic community, as well as the city of San Francisco. One has to ask themselves why you are so intent on seeing this entry deleted considering that you contribute so devoutly to an entry of a person of very similar background (read: Peter H. Gilmore). Could there perhaps be an issue of good faith here, considering that you are obviously affiliated with a rival organization?

My only point is that it is crystal clear that Ms. LaVey is a person of interest among various topics, and that having an entry would serve to quickly summarize who she is and what functions she serves in the public eye. This deletion nomination is somewhat disheartening with regard to the issue of good faith within the Wikipedia community. One only needs to look at the exchange here to see the motivation for your nomination. Absinthe 05:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment It seems to me a much greater issue of good faith that you're more intent on attacking my character than on improving the existing articles. You bring up articles that are not related and most of your comments here have included an ad hominem attack on me. This does not prove anything about Karla LaVey or her article and is a red herring. You're not making it crystal clear that Karla is notable because you're not providing sources or solid evidence that she meets the Wikipedia standards of notability, you only insist that she is. If this were such an obvious issue of good faith, why would the vote presently be split as to whether this article should remain? Were it so obvious that this article belongs I should not imagine this would be the case. Further, the very discussion you have linked to indicates, again, that you are a personal acquaintance of Karla LaVey. In all good faith, I should think that if you know her so well it should be an easy matter to provide ample real evidence that she is notable rather than merely saying so. I suggest that attempting to shoot down this nomination through me rather than refute it legitimately is a negative tactic. -Lvthn13 05:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The image from Fox News does not provide proof that Karla LaVey is a notable figure. For example, I've been interviewed by BBC, but I'm not notable. Also, see this http://afpf.sfproductions.net/uploads/Express2006/tim%20on%20fox%20news.jpg

Why do I bring up this link? Because the person in question is clearly visible on Fox News, is credited as president of an organization, and has web results that mention him, but probably none of us know who the fellow is and he doesn't have a Wikipedia article as a result. Just getting on the news doesn't make you notable.

Further evidence should be apparent in the fact that this very debate hasn't exactly generated a storm of interest. Were Karla LaVey an especially notable person, you'd think her page would generate enough traffic and be on enough watchlists that more people would be chiming in one way or another. Very few have, especially for the "head of a religious organization" of supposed notability, a topic you'd think would arouse considerable interest in her followers. I reiterate, Karla LaVey is a footnote to the life of Anton LaVey.

Also, the image of Karla LaVey does not contain a copyright tag. It must contain said tag to remain on Wikipedia. -Lvthn13 08:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Absinthe, notable as the head of an internationally reknown church. RFerreira 19:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Karla LaVey is a very recognizable person within the world of Satanism and the occult. 4.243.239.5 20:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Absinthe, head of the Satanic Church is most assuredly notable. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Absinthe. She is apparently the "go-to" quote source for a major news network as an expert in her area. Though as a comment, I don't think images in AfD is needed. If the image is in the article then we'll see when we review the article. Agne 18:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

I am unpersuaded by the unsupported claim that an encyclopedia article sourced to reliable, reputable publications may be written on the subject of the "Pizza Corner" of Halifax. Besides, surely such monikers exist for a thousand other little spots—alone reason enough to approach any such write-up with considerable caution. Hence, delete. Regards —Encephalon 10:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pizza Corner

0 for 2. Firstly, the intersection in Nova Scotia: there's little reference to it that can be found quickly, but even if there were, are intersections of streets inherently notable, unless there's a connotation of a neighborhood, like Dupont Circle. But no, I doubt anyone is saying "Oh, yeah, I live in Pizza Corner". Secondly, the pizza place in N. Dakota: I did see something of it on google, but I find it hard to believe it's notable outside of its neighborhood, as well. Kmaguir1 07:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete It's a brand label; probably not noteable; must be nationwide product, not local product. User:Yy-bo 17:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Pizza Corner is a well-known landmark in the Halifax area. A Google search for "pizza corner" +halifax turns up 1400 hits, more than Armdale Rotary (another famous local intersection). The city has even recognized the name: [17] The North Dakota product is too obscure to me, though if someone from North Dakota chimed in as to how well-known the brand name is there, I'll change my mind. And for what it's worth, the first Ghit for "Pizza Corner" is a 36-location restaurant chain in India. Kirjtc2 21:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Look, the search didn't pick up any substantial results for Pizza Corner as the one in Nova Scotia--the North Dakota one actually did better in term of google. Of course, we know that's not dispositive, but this is just not notable apart from this. An intersection has to actually be a landmark, or notable as a neighborhood, like Dupont Circle. The link you gave me shows the lack of notability--even they refer to it as "so-called pizza corner"--it's disingenous to call that "recognition", at least as qualifies on a global level. Look, it's just a corner in a city. That's not a notable. If it were a neighborhood, or an actual landmark, it'd be a different thing. In fact, your document states that the area is becoming an "eyesore", which argues strongly against your contention that it's a "landmark", as few intersections are--it could conceivably still be a notable neighborhood, but there's no evidence of that in any of the google searches, not on the page you gave me, really nowhere. I'd suggest you look at the Wikipedia notability guidelines, and reconsider your opinion.-Kmaguir1 22:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

First off, I point to the RFC currently against you for, among other things, incivility. Secondly, if you actually looked at the Google hits for "pizza corner" +halifax, you will notice many references to it that identify it as a local cultural reference point, more so than any other intersection in downtown Halifax, if not the whole city. There's no neighborhood called "pizza corner", but it is universally used as a reference point for other things in town. People would not say "it's in Pizza Corner" (unless it's actually on there), but would just as much say "it's near Pizza Corner". Just because it's an "eyesore" (which, I'll admit, it is) does not make it any less of a landmark. Kirjtc2 02:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Your definition of a landmark as that by which all other places are differentiated, like "It's near Pizza Corner", is not the proper definition of a landmark--it hasn't been designated as such, as a landmark, by anyone. When it does, you can recreate the article. Until then, there's not a scrap of information that gives this notability. It falls short on the roads criterion, falls short on the intersection notability criterion, and it's not a landmark, on its face. Reference points are not meant for wikipedia, either--should the "third stop sign after Mitchell St." be on Wikipedia? Also, on the RfC, address your comments to the item in question, Pizza Corner, and not on me--it's entirely irrelevant.-Kmaguir1 03:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - The article itself makes no claim to notability, and a street corner having three pizza shops on it certainly doesn't make that intersection notable. Now if an elephant had fallen from the sky and landed on the intersection.... that'd be a whole other story. Seriously though, so NN and unencyclopedic it's amazing. -- pm_shef 03:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Being locally famous does not automatically make the intersection notable. Resolute 04:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's no Portage and Main and not a notable or encyclopedic "place". Smacks of something made up in Halifax one day. Agent 86 23:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kirjtc2. --Usgnus 06:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per my nom.-Kmaguir1 20:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You cannot "vote" twice - your nomination is your delete "vote". Agent 86 17:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable, the term is often used in local newspapers. Well-known landmark. Sprocket 00:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Resolute; local landmark for directions do not a notable landmark make. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Explosive Delete I recommend explosive deletion per nom. Shazbot85^Talk 01:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Pizza Corner is a well-known landmark in the Halifax area.--Bill 19:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. —Encephalon 10:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Deleted: Part of vanity/astroturf spamming. —Centrx→talk • 00:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles D'Aprix Economic Development Innovator

Non-notable topic, the phrase "Charles D'Aprix" gets just over 100 results on Alexa and about 1000 results on Google. Also, every article edit made by this article's creator, Dohertydot (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log), has done nothing but advertise whoever this person is. Tuxide 07:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Also the article name is horrible. Tuxide 08:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V. Something very odd on the google search. Standard search gets 1,000 hits, 12 unique ([18]). When you click on "repeat the search with the omitted results included" ([19])it only gets 29, and 10 of them are Wikipedia, while 6 are genealogy entries. Of the remaining 13, I don't find a single, solitary entry in any news source, or anything that could be remotely considered a Reliable Source. This looks like astroturfing. Fan-1967 08:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above & nom Nigel ^(Talk) 10:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Editor has been link spamming Urban economics, Big-box store ... etc, also. Dlyons493 Talk 12:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, the nominator no longer recommends deletion. — CharlotteWebb 17:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Culture of Saint Lucia

The topic this article purports to address is in fact better addressed in the Saint Lucia page in a section entitled "culture". But as it is, there is very little that can stand alone, in that, it's all better covered on the previous page. Merge and delete. Kmaguir1 08:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC) I'll change to keep, and wait to see developments from people involved on both pages, to see if room for expansion would be needed.-Kmaguir1 22:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The article Saint Lucia may be getting long enough that splitting off a Culture of article isn't a bad idea. If the editors over there agree, I would say merge all the content to the new article. If not, then merge back and redirect. --Brianyoumans 08:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with that assessment, because the culture page is not significant enough as it is--they should create that new page when they have enough info to fork it. I left a message on the talk page bringing people to this discussion of deletion. It's a pretty small country, and I feel that while it has a rich culture, the actual Saint Lucia page gets to the heart of it, and not this page.-Kmaguir1 08:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Brianyoumans. This new culture article is prone to be expanded in the near future.--Húsönd 17:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as this is a standard "should exist" country sub-article that isn't complete. On Wikipedia, we call such articles "stubs". Deletion is not for incomplete articles. --Dhartung | Talk 18:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Dhartung and as no reason per WP:DP given. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Dhartung. --Metropolitan90 19:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Dhartung --Vivenot 15:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This page just needs more persons from Saint Lucia to properly fill out more about Saint Lucia's bilingual French/British hertigage and culture... CaribDigita 15:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baklunish Basin

Good technical argument here: the reference is basin, and we can't be expected to know if that's figurative or literal, but that it probably, most likely, refers to a basin, or topographical feature. None of the other links in the article do that. So I think we'd be fine with just "Baklunish", and not the basin--we don't really need fictional topographical features on Wikipedia, do we? I would err on the side of delete, because these gaming things really get out of control--let's at least try to set a limit on topography. Is there precedent as to that?-Kmaguir1 08:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Complicate argumentation, please refer clearly to a WP policy. User:Yy-bo 17:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Please note that there is already a Baklunish article (which is even linked in this acticle--perhaps you should read the entire thing before calling for deletion?), which refers to the Baklunish people & culture. Wikipedia is chock-full of fictional topography. I don't see how this is different, so long as such fictional items can't be mistaken for real things. As for "gaming things really get out of control"--please explain what you mean. I was not aware that gaming articles violated Wikipedia policies any more than other types of articles. Then again, if your statement was simply meant to show a bias against gaming, then you should probably do as the above poster suggested, and "refer clearly to a WP policy."--Robbstrd 16:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. No wikipedia policy has been cited here as an argument for deletion. There are many articles on fictional geography on Wikipedia (numbering in the hundreds, certainly). Here are just a few examples: High Forest, Elysium, River Sirion, Plains of Dust, Skaro. Why single out this one? Fairsing 18:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per Robbstrd. And unless there is a Baklunish washbasin article possibility somewhere, I don't believe that disambiguation is required either. - Jc37 19:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Flanaess or Baklunish, neither of which is very long, per WP:FICT point 2: "[n]on-notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged". "There are worse articles" or "You didn't nominate X" are bad reasons to keep an article at AFD. And outside of Greyhawk and its spawn, is there anything written about this ? If not, policies like WP:V and WP:OR might be applicable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. There is an active community of Wikipedians working on these World of Greyhawk references, and this article will continue to grow. There is little doubt that the term is used extensively in Greyhawk materials, and the effort to quash fictional locations seems ill-considered given the fact that the encyclopedia teems with them already (per Fairsing's observation above) and they will continue to be added long into the future.Iquander 07:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Closing comment: verifiability is not a problem, but unless the article documents something really important, it might be better to merge it. And by "important" I mean really important. Remember it's just a fictional place among many in a gaming system. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Route 309A (Florida)

This article is about a road that does not seem to exist and is of no notable importance. Just because there are other non-notable articles like this in Wikipedia should not be a justification. Those non-notable articles should also be deleted. It can be included in a list and this information can be merged into a list but it does not justify its own standalone article. The real question is: Was this particular road notable? --- Skapur 03:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a seemingly non-existant road. Current consensus on Wikipedia clearly maintains that any highwya that an American state has bothered to number as part of its state highway system is worthy of inclusion, but I'm not convinced that this road actually exists. There is a Route 309 that connects the cities mentioned in the article, but aparently no 309A. I will gladly switch to keep if I am shown to be wrong, however. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 12:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This road is now County Road 308B (as shown on a 1997 DeLorme atlas; I may also have a photo of the signage on southbound US 17); it was State Road 308B until the mass decommissioning of the 1980s. I have an FDOT Putnam County map that says it was renumbered in 1971, and a 1965 Rand McNally atlas that shows it as 309A. So it is verifiable.

On the other hand, this article is badly named and rather useless, and should be a redirect to one of State Road 308B (Florida), County Road 308B (Florida) or County Road 308B (Putnam County, Florida). So I have no opinion on whether this particular article should remain, but no precedent would be set by its deletion. --SPUI (T - C) 19:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep all state and provincial highways. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • But is it one? --- Skapur 22:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • We keep ones that are no longer. Example: California State Route 30. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
      • But there is real verifiable content on the California State Route 30 road and was obviously a notable road. The Florida Route 309A article has information for a list of routes, not for an article. It can always be created when there is real content. --- Skapur 23:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Also it is part of WP:FLSH. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia articles can not be used as a verifiable source --- Skapur 03:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
          • And yes, the article can be expanded too. With a routebox. Furthermore, I would disagree with the above statement. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm not convinced that former highways of limited statewide importance, especially when the number was removed 30 years ago (if it existed at all), are notable. However, all current state/provincial numbered highways are. Kirjtc2 03:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Copied from the talk page: "I disagree with the proposed deletion. Although the article needs to be cleaned up, expanded, and categorized, there is ample precedent that routes numbered on a statewide system are noteworthy, and there are other articles on routes by discontinued numbers. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to follow the AfD procedure. Thank you. Doctor Whom 16:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)" --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Shell ^babelfish 21:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Expand or speedy delete 1 line article (non-expandable) equals vanity. User:Yy-bo 14:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. Let's provide some history here on this road, shall we? --Dennis The TIger 16:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This article has been on AfD for over a week and no significant improvements to it have been made. --Metropolitan90 17:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, precedent seems to be there for discontinued roads (although as a style point maybe a state-by-state list article would be better). --Dhartung | Talk 18:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Name change, old name not notable.-Kmaguir1 20:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep based on SPUI's comments. Gazpacho 21:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per SPUI. — CharlotteWebb 17:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above for historical purposes. RFerreira 19:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per SPUI's comments. I'm surprised by the editors who said "keep per SPUI", since SPUI made no effort to keep, and if SPUI's comment were to be counted as a "vote", it would be as a redirect to an article that does not exist yet. Lacking that article, this one-liner should be deleted, as it has no historical purpose. -- NORTH ^talk 05:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Property investment clubs

Written in bad HTML by single-purpose account to hawk real estate in the UK. It has been abandoned and unedited since August 10. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 08:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Advertising pure and simple. BTLizard 11:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as spam. MER-C 11:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete check other articles (linked to), take them to afd as well if appreciate. User:Yy-bo 14:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep and cleanup. BaseballBaby 09:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elliott Kalan

Article apparently created with a speedy tag (recreated?); author added info which appears to claim notability; moving here for comments. NawlinWiki 16:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - needs a substantial rewrite, but there are quite a few independent mentions on Google about the subject. Blowski 17:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I stuck on the original speedy tag because the article was not very serious and contained clearly incorrect information. Right now the reecreated article is borderline notable but is sufficently encyclopedic that I wouldn't consider it for a speedy. Whether it now meets WP:BIO is for editors more aware of the subjet matter to determine. We certainly have many worse articles that have not been deleted. --Spartaz 20:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Shell ^babelfish 22:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep - borderline notable, has IMDb entry, needs major cleanup though — FireFox ^(talk) _{11:27, 03 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Performance-related pay

I don't see this getting much beyond being just a definition. SeizureDog 18:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Undecided - it could go much beyond a definition (summary of pros and cons of performance-related pay, how it relates to share options, use in public sector) but at the moment there's barely anything to delete! Blowski 18:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect? Merge? Maybe this could fit under piece work. There has been a pretty substantial history within that with relation to labour conflicts and unions. I'm not sure if the two topics necessarily belong together though. --Wafulz 18:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - lloks like a dicdef to me. -- Whpq 19:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Executive compensation. I have inserted a couple of lines in the section 'means of compenstion'. Ohconfucius 23:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Very strong keep Cringemakingly feeble article on an important topic about which whole books have been written. Both the redirects suggested are inaccurate as the other topics do not overlap with the entirity of this subject. Piccadilly 13:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Shell ^babelfish 22:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Wage or something similar, and then delete. — FireFox ^(talk) _{11:29, 03 September 2006}
• Keep and expand. Blowski makes some good points. As does Piccadilly re: the redirects. Marcus22 15:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and delete to Wage, then we might as well have articles on all types of pay. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 16:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, per Marcus22.-Kmaguir1 20:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Cynical 21:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This absolutely should not be merged to wage. Wage almost always referrs to pay regardless of performance, such as salary or hourly wages. Incentive or commission would be appropriate one word targets for most modern businesses, piece rate is in the developed countries only infrequently used today, but was quite common before the industrial era. Bonus schemes can be either for performance or not, and often are a combination. There is an specialty role within the Human Resources job family devoted to designing and managing pay schemes, we ought to have a general article on pay schemes, but I haven't found anything at any of the likely titles including pay and compensation. GRBerry 01:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it's a serious topic for any encyclopedia, like Piccadilly and others have said.Mereda 06:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, per above.

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

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

The result was redirect to Decentralized Model to Decentralized system. The curent article is an unreferenced personal essay. Federated Model stays for a separate deletion nomination, since it is generically bad. `'mikka (t) 22:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decentralized Model and Federated Model

This article was made by one user who also claims to be the creator of the very system that it talks about. Speedy was removed, as was prod twice, but I still have questions about this article's notability and other information related to it. I may add several other articles to this list if speedy tags are removed from them as well. Ryūlóng 06:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added the other article to this AFD, as the speedy was removed by the same editor who removed the prod. I am unsure as to whether or not this person is the author, though. Ryūlóng 06:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've been in discussion with the author about the concept of federated system models and decentralized models and everytime I refer back to the article, it has notice. The author does claim he invented the concept, but has willing remove any such claim to allow the article to stay. - reader —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.186.238.190 (talk • contribs).
  • But that is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not these articles should be included as part of Wikipedia based on actual notability and use of these things, despite the author being the creator of the concepts. Ryūlóng 06:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Point taken. The naming is similar to other articles in Wiki. The concept actually mainly refers to a decentralized software model. Whether it's notable, I'm not the expert, but being a software developer, the concept is intriguing. - reader —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.186.238.190 (talk • contribs).
      • The intriguing or naming is also not the issue either. It is an issue on the truth behind the content, as well as what appears to be vanispamcruftisement. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Ryūlóng 07:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
        • That's a interesting term. I'm not interested in enforcing anything, but the definition of vanispamcruftisement is highly subjective. I, we, thought that wikipedia was an all encompassing encyclopedia of all things, big or small to big or small groups. I agree, ownership should be removed, but notibity is also subjective. You do what you see fit, but I'd change the name to have it suit the concept better and leave it for the public to decide. I can't help mention that Open Space Technology started on a similar foot as a concept and is still considered unimportant on wikipedia, but it's there and I can say it's in practice where I work.206.186.238.190 07:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
          • It is an all encompassing encyclopedia, but there are issues that concern the notability, etc. of this/these computer system(s), particularly due to the fact that the original author created the program(s) in the first place. I realize that it is subjective, but when an author publishes his own work to Wikipedia, he has more to gain from that than anything else. Ryūlóng 07:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
            • I really don't want this disputed any further. Just delete the article. I don't understand why it is such an issue to publish a concept by the author or creator of that concept who of course would know it best, and I mean any concept by anyone. Anyone can dispute ownership, but I really don't care who claims ownership over this. It's a concept, not a product, to freely share amongst the public and wikipedia looked like a good medium for it. Again, just delete it, both Federated Model and Decentralized Model, which I agree should have been named Decentralized Software Model, though I still think Federated Model is as notible as Federated school which is really a type of federation, but I'm not disputing a thing at this point. Also, how do I delete my account? Robert Demelo 07:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
              • I don't understand why it is such an issue to publish a concept by the author or creator of that concept — Then please read our Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox policies. The ways to have new ideas published are books, journal articles, papers presented at conferences, and magazine articles. And the way to demonstrate that something is not original research is to cite sources. Uncle G 15:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Judging from Google, it seems to be a term commonly used: Dept. of Vet. Affairs (US), news about Dept. of Energy, and more. --TeaDrinker 07:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I still want my account deleted, but here are two more references off Google: [20] and [21] Robert Demelo 08:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Is there an update to this? 64.231.75.191 03:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I want to add more imformation to this article, but I don't want to waist my time. What is the official status of this article. I believe it's 100% legit because it's all over Google. 64.231.75.191 03:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete Original research. Mukadderat 17:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see at all how this is original research. It's all over the Internet, thus verifiable. 64.231.154.4 01:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Here is a verifiable source: Intranet Journal

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 08:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete OR. verify linked articles for afd as well. article does not include any external link. User:Yy-bo 14:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep.-Kmaguir1 20:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Redirect to Decentralized System and Move to a new Federated System article. The current titles are poor, I think, because they don't answer the question "Decentralized model of what?" The current titles sound unencyclopedic because of this. Doesn't seem like original research. Wishy-washy word choices in industry shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. Flying Jazz 23:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • "Wishy-washy word choices in industry shouldn't be in the encyclopedia" ?? OK, lets look at this for a sec. Encyclopedias are full of "Wishy-washy" industry words that are NOW considered non-"Wishy-washy". For example the Ether. What is the definition of "Wishy-washy" anyway and where does it say they can't be in an encyclopedia. Talk about irrational!!64.231.64.244 05:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The desire to redirect a rambling article about a model of a system to a concise article about the system itself seems utterly rational. I am certain that a sentence like: "Decentralized systems do not lose control of it’s internal processes, functionality or data, they communicate with external systems, decide whether to use external data or functionality and vise-versa." was never used to describe ether. Flying Jazz 04:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Decentralised system which says the same thing far better in about 3 sentences --Aim Here 01:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I've changed my opinion above. Flying Jazz 04:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep because a system is not a model. Definition: A physical model is used in various contexts to mean a physical representation of some thing. That thing may be a single item or object (for example, a bolt) or a large system (for example, the Solar System). In this case, the Decentralized Model or Federated Model refer to the physical enbodiment of decentrlized or federated things of which a system is a thing comprised of smaller things. We don't have to define the what of a Decentralized Model to merit validity to the context(s) of the decentralized physical representation of some thing.64.231.64.244 04:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The word "system" is sufficiently broad to encompass all "things" which a decentralized model could model. We could have an encyclopedia with one article for every notable concept or object in existence and a seperate article for a model of every notable concept or object in existence, but I think most people would find an encyclopedia like that to be rather silly. Another layer of modeling is also possible. One could create an article for a "Model of a Decentralized Model." Why not? Models also exist in the real world. When I was a kid I had a model of the human heart. Before building the model, I created a model of the model on paper. Should Wikipedia have a "Heart Model Model" article? Or just an article on the heart? Flying Jazz 04:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• The fact that this discussion has been going on for this long validates the reasoning to keep the article. It appears to me that no one has thoroughly verified the sources to this definition and the fact that a good portion of this encyclopedia is thinking that a system is a model in this case re-enforces the rationality in favour of this document though it's examples refer to systems directly, it is the context in which the system(s) is/are being referred to that matters. Let me remind you that it is NOT the definition that is relevant here, but the need for the subject and it's context of meaning to exist on Wikipedia so to develop the world's most comprehensive encyclopedia of world knowledge. The definition of what is non-encyclopedic is highly subjective and I strongly insist that the determination of what warrants representation in Wikipedia be scientifically rationalized. 64.231.64.244 05:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Your final sentence, when analyzed logically via syllogism, reaches the conclusion: "I strongly insist that the highly subjective be scientifically rationalized." Flying Jazz 04:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Let's apply Deductive reasoning which is much more detailed than syllogism, which is possibly a more analytical derivative of syllogism. Scientific method should be applied when determining article acceptance to Wikipedia. 64.231.112.181 01:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
      • "I strongly insist that the highly subjective be scientifically rationalized." YES, striving for objective perfection against the greatest odds. This is the reason why the sciences exist; to explain the why, when, what, where and how objectively. 64.231.112.181 01:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirecting this page without reason is not proper especially with the debate still not concluded! 64.231.71.162 06:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. I've discounted the votes based on parentage (irrelevant in itself), comparisons with Pokemon, and the existence of a portrait by a famous artist (which is even less relevant than having a famous son). —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edmund Nelson

The article doesn't assert any kind of notability, unless there's something I'm missing. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 18:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I think the parentage of Horatio Nelson is notable. --Cassavau 18:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete becase fame doesn't rub off on relatives. -- Whpq 19:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a useful research reference for Horatio Nelson. Having raised one of the towering figures of British history is itself a notable achievement. --Pagana 21:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Besides genealogical data, there is absolutely no useful biographical information in this article. The ODNB has no article on Horatio Nelson's parents but mention what we need to know about his family in the beginning of his article. No need to delete this, but merge and redirect either to Horatio Nelson or to Earl Nelson which is about the title awarded to the admiral's brother. The same thing should be done with the mother, Catherine Suckling. Tupsharru 05:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Xyrael / 08:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete He isn't notable. Such information as is useful should be included in the Horatio Nelson article. BTLizard 11:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Sufficiently notable for a paperless encyclopedia that includes an article for every Pokemon. Flying Jazz 19:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, the closest thing is his rectorate, and that's far off. The comparisons about Pokemon get annoying with respect to historical articles--just because it happened a long time ago, or a person lived a long time ago, does not mean notability. We should be careful to not make determinations so eruditically detached, yet at the same time, retain suspicion about that popular culture which attacks wikipedia. There's enough articles to be deleted in both category, nn historical, and nn popular culture.-Kmaguir1 20:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as a relevant article to Wikipedia's coverage of Horatio Nelson. The content in the article would be out of place if included in the main (FA status) Horatio article, however it works in the context as a wiki-link. Of course Edmund's notability is tied into his son and all serious collections about Horatio Nelson includes references to his father. The National Maritime Museum even includes a portrait (referenced in article) of Edmund done by the notable English painter William Beechy in their Horatio Nelson collection. I think the fact that a very prominent museum deems that there is value in including this portrait in connection with their work on Horatio Nelson is very pertinent. As a "paperless" Encyclopedia who obviously does not have the space or financial limitations that a Museum would have, doesn't it seems foolish to have higher standards then the National Maritime Museum for content inclusion? Agne 18:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ALL. Herostratus 19:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Hope & Faith episodes

Article and others listed appear to be candidates for deletion per WP:NOT, #7 plot summaries.  — MrDolomite | Talk 02:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:

• Pilot (Hope & Faith episode)
• Remembrance of Rings Past (Hope & Faith episode)
• About a Book Club (Hope & Faith episode)
• Category:Hope & Faith episodes (ok, know it doesn't strictly apply here, but the discussion is at least in the same spot)

• Merge bare-bones material back into Hope & Faith. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 04:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment A number of notable TV shows such as Stargate and Star Trek have hundreds of articles on Wikipedia about every episode, each with a plot summary. Are you implying these should also be deleted? — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 01:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If you are asking me, all those episode articles would be a redirect to Memory Alpha or the Stargate wiki. :) But, this AfD is not about all TV episode articles, it is about the ones listed above. In the context of this AfD, this is a current TV show which has not established its encyclopedic notability yet and as such, the episode detail information is not warranted. See also Samaster1991's comment below about another way to include this information without individual articles, but allows for future growth. — MrDolomite | Talk 13:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Wait If you look at the layout here there is a way to display episodes. Nearly all tv shows on wikipedia has an episode section so I will try to edit the episodes for hope and faith and then see what happens.Samaster1991 18:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 08:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Content belongs to a movie database; if it exists there then link it externally from the main article. User:Yy-bo 14:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A certain reasonable amount of episode information is encyclopedic, especially for major-network prime-time shows. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Starblind. I would like to see List of Hope & Faith episodes reworked into a format like this list and then merge the individual episodes in until there's more content for a seperate article, but that kind of discussion can take place outside AfD. BryanG^(talk) 22:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Either keep all or merge the list to Hope and Faith and keep the articles on the episodes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Ogunsoto

The player is not notable and not famous. He has played only for weak teams. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KRBN (talk • contribs) 09:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep as he's played for at least two teams in the top leagues of their respective nations (Cyprus and Belgium, which aren't exactly the Premier League but are top national leagues nonetheless). BigHaz 09:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep First team player for K.V.C. Westerlo who are playing in the top league in Belgium (Jupiler_League). Catchpole 09:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for the same reason than Catchpole. Julien Tuerlinckx 12:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, nom is not totally wrong but playing for K.V.C. Westerlo cuts it. Punkmorten 12:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep unsigned nomination. Marcus22 15:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable footballer, meets WP:BIO criteria. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 16:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I doubt if it meets WP:BIO criteria. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles. Was he playing usually with the team or he was reserve. And something else to keep in mind; The phrase on WP:BIO about notability of sportspeople may soon change. See Wikipedia:Notability (athletes) so phrase about "Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league" will be expanded and more restricted. So even if you achieve to keep this page, soon will be again under deletion. User:KRBN 21:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment if he's the top scorer for the team (as shown a couple of posts below me), then he's patently made a first team appearance. Further, if the criteria for sport notability change, then you're more than welcome to put this guy back up for deletion. There's no point in deleting him pre-emptively, particularly when there's no guarantee that that policy will change. BigHaz 22:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Scottmsg 21:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Plays for a top-division side, and is currently their top-scorer [22]. Oldelpaso 21:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, meets basic criteria for sportsplayers, not a speedy candidate at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete both. People and things must be notable before they get an article, and notable according to people other than the creator and/or fans. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genesis (MMORPG) and Gavan Woolery

NN project per WP:WEB, difficult to get a google hit (^{[Check Google hits]}) perspective because it shares terms with Sega Genesis and MMORPG, but a quick glance doesn't show promise. (|-- UlTiMuS 23:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Also consider Gavan Woolery, creator of the project. (|-- UlTiMuS 23:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the first google result using the above search terms is an article from Kotaku about the game. I fail to see how that was "difficult". As for showing promise, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to opine about the quality of independant games. The author, Gavan Woolery, has been working on the project for approximately two years, longer than many Linux distros which also have established Wikipedia pages. -Dorin

I suggest, as an alternative to total deletion, renaming it to "Genesis (Online World)" as that does lead to the main site.--n00b 21:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Xyrael / 09:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Gavan Woolery but not sure what to do with the first — FireFox ^(talk) _{11:32, 03 September 2006}
• Weak Delete Unpublished underground game, WP:NOTABILITY User:Yy-bo 15:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Definitely Delete Gavan Woolery, and probably best to delete this as well, unless anyone can prove evidence of its notability. Simply having taken a long time in production doesn't make it notable. Terraxos 17:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 10:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I would give this project some time before claiming that it "doesnt show promise". As soon as its homepage becomes a 404, then you can feel free to take down the wiki. As for it being noteable, how about this for starters: The engine is produced entirely by one person (unheard of for a MMORPG of this quality) The game is the first MMORPG to stray far from the norm, with dynamic content and story building The game is the first MMORPG to eliminate opponent AI...every person is player controlled The game is the first MMORPG to allow permanent death and reproduction The game is the first MMORPG to feature an open-content system with community contributions And much more...

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future Rock Hall

Non notable website, prod removed without improvement Nuttah68 17:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn. If they had a track record of accurate predictions, it'd be different, but I don't think they've been around long enough. SliceNYC 17:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per SliceNYC. Zaxem 05:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 09:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bitmicro

See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LUNETA and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EDSA. This part of a series of spammy articles placed on wikipedia for supporting this company, and this article is included in the mix. If you think it reads like a PR release, that's because it is a PR release. Its from here, and it was released as GFDL via OTRS. But where is the verifiablity? Google searches turn up pages and pages of syndicated "PR news" releases. The only news on news piece I've found so far is this, where Bitmicro is listed as one of companies that buys from ARC International. In the end, they fail WP:CORP (and by that, verifiability) --Kevin_b_er 09:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete corporate PR only Nigel ^(Talk) 09:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Total spam. Get rid. BTLizard 10:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as spam. MER-C 11:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spamalicious. Danny Lilithborne 21:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. Herostratus 23:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC) The raw comment total was 4-2 Delete prior to the final four Keep votes. All four of these are at least somewhat suspect, and one of them is that editor's only edit so far. Suspicion of puppetry, one point against. One of the Keep commentor's argument included the notion "If it's taken down, I'll just re-post the article in full." Two points against. So let's leave it at 67% Delete for a raw total. Now to the arguments. The arguments are simple: for Delete, that it fails WP:WEB. For Keep, Bill Oaf's assertion that, as an expert in the area, he finds it to be especially notable. He may be right. However, I think that a disinterested neutral Fair Witness would find that indeed the site achieves no critera listed in WP:WEB, if I read that page aright. Against that, the assertion of one editor. Again, he may be right, but we know that the fails-WP:WEB argument is right. And FWIW Delete has the numbers, if we discount the last four votes. So, Delete. Herostratus 23:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MetroFanatic.com

Vanity article for a site that fails WP:WEB Nuttah68 19:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep - I've made about 600 edits to Wikipedia on MLS topics, and this is a well-known site - the strongest, largest, and most important independent (that is, non-BigSoccer) site out there for a professional American club. It is historically important in the context of American soccer on the internet. There is no doubt in my mind that we need to keep this page. Bill Oaf 04:

44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

And, since no one seems to be interested in commenting on this AfD, can we close it so that it no longer hangs over this poor article? I'll rewrite the article myself to de-POV it, like I did with the BigSoccer article (which reminds me...that still needs some work). Bill Oaf 05:37, 1 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, Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 09:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete does not meet WP:Web ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 11:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment 3100 bbs members User:Yy-bo 15:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Dennis The TIger 16:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Húsönd 17:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Bill Oaf. DR31 _(talk) 13:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (originally at Talk:MetroFanatic.com): Metrofanatic.com is absolutely a notable website, one of the two best fansites for America's top soccer league. If it's taken down, I'll just re-post the article in full. User:Tadghostal
• Keep from Metro4LIFE. User:Metro4LIFE: This site is one of the most known sites in US Soccer, I cant beleive we even have to dispute it. If it wasnt for what this site did MLS wouldnt even have fans.
• Keep from Hexlub. User:Hexlub: I rely on this source for information on the New York Red Bulls as well as Major League Soccer. A site with independent views based on fact by fans, for fans. CNNSI.com has used Metrofanatic.com as a source for their online content. If it's good enough as a reference for Time Warner I feel it's good enough for an article on Wikipedia.
• Keep from LordGhoti User:LordGhoti: This is the best fan site of an MLS team I have come across and a highly detailed repository of team news (new and old) and the overall history of the team and league. It has been the first source to break a story about the MetroStars/New York Red Bulls on more than a few occasions and has been cited by other larger news sources (e.g. cnnsi.com). This site and its creators have meant a lot to the development of an MLS fanbase and I am confused as to why anyone would want to delete this article from wikipedia.

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Windian

Neologism, and a vaguely insulting one at that. Page was nominated for speedy deletion, but apparently neologisms don't qualify, so I brought it here. — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc|damage report} 09:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Urban Dictionary lists it with more or less the same usage given in the article. Transwiki to Wiktionary? BTLizard 10:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Fair call. — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc|damage report} 11:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, it's a bad call. Urban Dictionary contains and encourages protologisms. Wiktionary doesn't want protologisms. The only attested meaning for this word that I can find has nothing at all to do with the contents of this article. Uncle G 12:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
      • You're right, I'm not sure why I said that. Musta been tired. I stand by my nomination.— riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc|damage report} 13:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, you know it's bad when the first Ghit is Urban Dictionary. Wiktionary is not Urban Dictionary either. Punkmorten 12:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, why delete this when we have long articles over words like wigger? Brantley Reese 17:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe wigger should be nominated for deletion also. --- Skapur 17:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Because this article is unverifiable and original research. It cites no sources, and there are no sources discussing the purported concept of a windian. Uncle G 17:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Don't understand this word, simlar to wigger, they sound ill-fashioned to me. It requires Afd? Clearly slang,User:Yy-bo 17:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Actually the word WIndian has been around for a long time and means West Indian (i.e. Caribbean). The Windies cricket team is big in the Caribbean. --- Skapur 17:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I've already added "Windian" with that meaning to Wiktionary. ☺ Uncle G 17:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• The article is unverifiable and original research, as explained above. Delete. Uncle G 17:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This word has more than one meaning (as Skapur said above) and apparently the author decided to change it to reflect that. Scottmso 20:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Skapur didn't say that. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. And the purported concept of windians is still unverifiable and original research. Uncle G 21:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Ummm, so you're trying to say that Windians don't exist? Well, I live in Oklahoma which was full of Indians at one time. Because of this there are many Windians around here. I know many Windians who were marked by schools as Indian because they were 1/4, 1/8, 1/16 Indian or whatever. Brantley Reese 01:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm trying to say what I actually wrote, which is that this purported concept is unverifiable and original research. The way to counter that is to cite sources, not to present personal testimony. We explicitly don't work on the basis of accepting personal testimony from Wikipedia editors, here. It's one of our fundamental policies. Uncle G 02:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't matter about its meaning, that's dictionary material.-Kmaguir1 20:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, this is for the dictionary (if anything). Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 10:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Don't know if it is even a portmanteau. Ever heard of Bindian, Rindian, Yindian? Can't really be. User:Yy-bo 19:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Waverley, Surrey, nothing to merge. - Bobet 19:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Waverley Borough Council

This page has no information on it and never will have any that can't be put on the Waverley, Surrey page Aussie King Pin 23:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. There is no content on the page. Bradcis 23:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. Local governments are typically not notable unless they are for a very large city (See Toronto city council, for example). --Wafulz 15:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 09:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete may be notable, but emptiness is overwhelming. 82.28.47.133 17:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• This article has had a merge request notice on it for 3 months. Nominating the article for deletion is not the way to merge articles, and AFD is not the place to come when one sees duplicate articles covering the same topic. The notice was quite right. Merge. Uncle G 18:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy close and redirect - there is nothing to merge so this should be speedy closed then the closing admin should redirect as an ordinary editorial action. BlueValour 23:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge for now clearly needs a redirect entry, because of the election information. Rich Farmbrough, 09:38 11 September 2006 (GMT).

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sydney Walter Josland

The page fails WP:GOOGLE. I initially put it up for CSD, but quickly retracted it, because I wanted opinions from other people. --Nishkid64 23:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. Well-written, though. Note: page creator removed AfD notice. Powers ^T 00:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. The papers constitute an assertion of notability, and I no longer have an opinion on the actual notability. Powers ^T 13:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• As Josland's scientific work was published in the 1950s, the Google test isn't very useful. 'Josland & Salmonella' and various other possibilities come up with more hits, including a page with war poetry (http://www.iwvpa.net/joslandsw/index.php). Chief Bacteriologist at the National Health Institute, Department of Health, Wellington appears to be a claim of notability; perhaps NZ editors can assess how valid. Medline comes up with six papers on NZ Salmonella spp for SW Josland in 1950s, and I've also found multiple distinct veterinary papers on Google that aren't in the Medline listing. Google Ingenta records suggest some evidence of citation, though I don't have access to Ingenta to check. I'd tentatively suggest keep to avoid bias against older research; certainly the author should be given rather more time to come up with notability claims and refs. Espresso Addict 02:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Older page version has a partial paper listing, though it seems to exclude all the papers I found above. Espresso Addict 02:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Possible claim of notability, I suppose. It depends on how high up "Chief Bacteriologist" is, but on the surface of this article, I don't see it. If he indeed published a significant number of papers, I'm willing to revise my vote when they're added to the article. Powers ^T 14:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I've added back the papers listed in an earlier version plus the ones I found in Medline search for discussion purposes. Espresso Addict 17:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Now on the talk page as the page creator has deleted them from the article. Espresso Addict 02:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, his papers make him sufficiently notable.-gadfium 21:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC). Now a full keep, on reflection and with improvements to the article.-gadfium 08:58, 5 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, Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 09:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep He doesn't look all that exciting but the list of publications is respectable. BTLizard 10:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep a wide variety of activity that adds up to notability Dlyons493 Talk 12:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep — Clearly passes the professor test in WP:BIO, very well published and with the positions he's held rather well known. Peripitus (Talk) 12:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uklandscape

Delete: Clearly an advertisement. --*Kat* 09:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Article doesn't give the url, but I believe it's http://www.uklandscape.net/, which has an Alexa ranking of 2,141,153. --Xyzzyplugh 09:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as spam. MER-C 11:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ad Dlyons493 Talk 12:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Húsönd 17:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 16:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Master Poo Poo Platter

Internet flash cartoon, no real ascertion of notability outside of possibly being a short time meme --- Lid 11:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Dennis The TIger 16:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is a good song and flash cartoon. --ZFU738 19:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC) — ZFU738 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep. Some flash cartoons depicting stereotypes on Asian culture can be notable. --Clarenceville Trojan 19:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Not verifiable, no reliable sources. Wickethewok 20:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Entertainment making fun of turd can be noteworthy. --Grand Am 13:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC) — Grand Am (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Groupie Magazine

Contested prod about a non notable magazine. MER-C 11:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I prodded this originally. Still feel it's non-notable and advert. Dlyons493 Talk 11:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I deleted this as a {{db-empty}} candidate on August 29; this version doesn't contain any claims of notability for the subject. (aeropagitica) 12:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. alphaChimp^(talk) 19:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monkey Say

Prodded as Advertisement for non-notable online magazine. Prod removed without comment.

• Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as spam. MER-C 11:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Originated by the same person as Pages online. Surprise surprise. Get rid. BTLizard 13:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Dennis The TIger 16:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. alphaChimp^(talk) 19:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pages online

Contested prod which is, to quote the prodding reason, "blatant spam". MER-C 11:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete spam Dlyons493 Talk 12:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Spam. Bye bye. BTLizard 12:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. alphaChimp^(talk) 19:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zack Coburn

One of six winners of a prize in one year, appears to otherwise be unnotable. Intern, student, owns an ad server. Notable? I think not. kingboyk 11:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — Fails all of the criteria of WP:BIO. Lots of interesting things about him but none of them of worldwide significance. Peripitus (Talk) 12:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete even though his team made it to a gameshow final. Dlyons493 Talk 12:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. And is the prize itself notable? On the face of it it looks like the equivalent of a trip to Disneyland. BTLizard 13:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Low participation, but the claims of non-notability have had only very weak responses from mostly new users. Mangojuice^talk 14:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PROnetworks

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Bulletin board website with almost no Alexa presence. Most Google hits appear to be spam links. Likely does not meeting WP:WEB. StuffOfInterest 11:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Considering that other sites such as Neowin have such pages explaining the origin of the site and its creaters it is odd to suggest that this particular site shouldn't have a page here at Wikipedia. Wmgries 9:40, September 3, 2006
• Keep the listing. PROnetworks is a well established online community and like Neowin deserves its place on Wikipedia. Judging by the Wikipedia:Companies, corporations and economic information/Notability and inclusion guidelines PROnetworks has earned its listing on Wikipedia and is not subject for deletion. The first requirement is met in that multiple news articles have been published around the world discussing the services of PROnetworks, especially including its software applications. JCDerrick 13:01, September 3, 2006
  • Please cite them. Uncle G 18:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Citation of source providing information regarding PROnetworks as an Expert Zone XP/Vista Related Featured Community: Microsoft Website; Citation of articles regarding software released by PROnetworks: APC Start, Channel 19 MSDN, Start 64, Microsoft Vista 2006, MSGoodies @ Blogspot, Computer Active UK, Softpedia, Bink.nu/Watching Microsoft Like a Hawk Website, Planet AMD 64. JCDerrick 16:07, September 3, 2006 Comment Cleaned up format of links.
      • None of those are sources. The Channel 9, Start64, Microsoft Vista, MSGoodies, Softpedia, and bink articles mention the web site name, but contain zero information about the web site. They are all talking about a piece of software, VistaBootPRO, not about its developer. The APC Start, ComputerActive, and Planet AMD 64 articles don't even contain this web site's name anywhere on the entire page. Please cite sources that are about the web site, not about some other subject entirely. Uncle G 16:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Self-promotion; advert pop-up User:Yy-bo
• I am confused by this message, "Most Google hits appear to be spam links.". The article in question contains no spam links. Wmgries 12:34 September 3, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.206.227.253 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-03 17:35:20 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and per swarm of socks trying to spam the AfD. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 23:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it on Wikipedia Listing. I don't see any problems with PROnetworks. Like Neowin or any of the others, I think this page deserves its on Wikipedia. ODiaz86 3:51, September 7, 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep and rename. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of shopping malls in New Jersey

Another list of shopping malls. Since most malls are not themselves notable, it follows that lists of them are also not notable. Valrith 11:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - The article is primarily about the role of the Shopping Mall as it affects New Jersey. While the presence of the word "List" seems to be throwing people off, a simple reading of the article addresses all issues of notability. If anyone does read the article, please provide specific additional missing elements by which notability is not addressed. If not, PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE before voting. Alansohn 03:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This subject is adequately served with Category:Shopping malls in New Jersey. (aeropagitica) 12:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this article has a lot of information outside of the list that provides context (the "history" "role as public square" and "role as performance venue" sections) and could not be duplicated in category form. Andrew Levine 15:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The extra information you're speaking of applies to many malls, not just the ones in New Jersey. Therefore it would seem to be more appropriate to add that information to Shopping malls. Valrith 17:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The aspects specifically speak to Shopping Malls AND New Jersey. Alansohn 03:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not notable list of not notable malls. Marcus22 16:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The article clearly addresses why the Shopping Mall AND New Jersey is notable. What about the article does not speak to notability? Alansohn 03:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If you delete this, one should delete other lists as well. Has some relevance, I guess. --Dennis The TIger 16:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we should, and no, there appears to be no relevance, imo. Valrith 17:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete served by category (see above). Probably History of shopping malls in New Jersey? But i do not really believe this one can be. User:Yy-bo 17:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and rename vote changed. User:Yy-bo 19:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge the history section into shopping mall (it is notable within the context of the United States), merge any blue-linked mall into List of shopping malls in the United States and delete the rest. This article was previously deleted under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls by state: States: New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island. I have no idea if this is an exact recreation of the deleted article, though. Tinlinkin 01:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is not a recreation of any article. It goes directly to the significance and NOTABILITY of the Shopping Mall in New Jersey, above and beyond that of those in any other state or a generic article about shopping malls. This is a clearly defined list that cannot be met by a category, which can never include the many malls for which there are no articles. While a portion of this article is a list, the essential portion of the article is a thoroughly researched and documented article with appropriate sources and references. Is this really any worse than List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people or the thousands of other untouched list articles that don't provide any context or notability for the subject????? Alansohn 03:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment That is a common argument in AfD's, but the answer is: Two wrongs do not make a right. The argument should not be 'Keep a wrong because we have others'. Marcus22 14:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Please address the subject of notability. The article goes directly to the significance and NOTABILITY of the Shopping Mall in New Jersey, above and beyond that of those in any other state or a generic article about shopping malls. This article explicitly demonstrates far more notability for its topic not only than most lists, but than most articles. Perhaps the term List is throwing people off, but that does not excuse the failure to address the content of the article by any of the delete votes or by the nominator. Do people ever read these articles before they vote? Alansohn 17:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Oh dear, you appear rather UPSET. Well, speaking for myself, yes, I did read the article. I still vote delete. Marcus22 13:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and rename to Shopping malls in New Jersey or History of shopping malls in New Jersey. There are four sections in this article, excluding the references section. Only one is a list; the remaining three provide useful historical information and context specific to New Jersey. Merging these sections into the generic shopping mall article does not seem appropriate. Accurizer 14:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to Shopping malls in New Jersey, as it is more than just a list. Kirjtc2 12:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - ZeWrestler ^Talk 14:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep an rename to Shopping malls in New Jersey. It is far more than a list, providing history and a start at cultural impact. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename. Shopping malls are to New Jersey culture what freeways are to Southern California. Daniel Case 02:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basementalism

Local radio show, blatant advertisement. Punkmorten 12:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy close - copyvio from [23]. Tagged as such. MER-C 12:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Spam spam spam. BTLizard 12:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom; NN, advert. Steve Sanbeg 16:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DJ Kerry Collins

Article for non-notable local radio disc jockey. Does not meet requirements of WP:BIO. No reliable, reputable sources per WP:V. Was {PROD} but removed by anon editor with no comment or changes so come here for deletion. --Satori Son 12:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete No large fanbase. User:Yy-bo 17:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Prolog 19:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —freak(talk) 14:30, Sep. 6, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failure

Completing unfinished AFD nomination. Nominated by User:Steverapaport — ERcheck (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: There may be abstract nouns out there that have enough cultural weight or history to require an encyclopedia page describing them. I contend that "Failure" is not one of these. The article is essentially empty, as it pretty much should be entirely. It belongs only in Wiktionary.

  I was at first shocked to see that there are groups of Wikipedians who spend time deleting pages they feel are unencyclopedic; it wasn't until I saw this article that I understood the need for them. Steve Rapaport 20:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep it: "Failure" is used in enough contexts and disciplines to deserve a page. Someday someone will expand nicely on the "Criteria" section, and the "See also" is itself worth keeping the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lunsford2000 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It belongs in Wiktionary, without the lists of lists. BTLizard 13:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep agree with Lunsford, at very least this should be a disambig page. I could see these statements expanded and sourced. I think there might be a place here for the failure googlebomb as well. Borisblue 15:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Looks useful User:Yy-bo 15:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, valid encyclopedic article, ridiculous AFD nomination. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 16:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it, because failure is not one of the words in which a wikipedia should have a page for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.47.168.92 (talk • contribs).
• Keep This article discusses far more than the dictionary definition of the word. (aeropagitica) 20:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article is about the concept of failure and its application in culture, it's not merely a defintion. Dina 21:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Danny Lilithborne 21:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Dina and (aeropagitica). ... discospinster _talk 22:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Might need cleanup, but definitely keep. Linguofreak 01:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. See also: this nomination. RFerreira 19:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HFC134

Article is written about HFC134a, not HFC134. Article contains numerous factual errors, is poorly written, and is innapropriately named and categorised. EdwardShelley 13:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• All of which problems can be solved by an ordinary editor doing ordinary editing. Getting an administrator to hit the delete button does not solve any of those problems. AFD is not the only tool in the toolbox. Uncle G 18:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If, as the article suggests, HFC134 and HFC134a are the same thing, then it should just redirect to 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane like HFC134a does. But given that I'm no expert in propellants, I'm not going to "vote" that way. BryanG^(talk) 22:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• HFC134 and HFC134a are not the same thing, just one of the errors on the article. The page is titled "HFC134", HFC134 is not used as an airsoft propellant, is not the same as HFC134a. The only entry on this page should be the list of chemical properties of the compound, such as on the HFC134a page. The reason I nominated for deletion rather than editing is because there is nothing of worth to edit:

"HFC134 (aka HFC134a) is the weaker of two commonly used propellants used in Airsoft gas guns."

HFC134 is not the same as HFC134a. HFC134 is not used as a propellant in airsoft guns.

"The other, HFC22, is considerably more powerful. A particularly confusing aspect of this is that both are known as "Green Gas", though HFC22 is more commonly know by that name."

HFC22 is not one of the two common propellants. The two common propellants are HFC134a and Green Gas (Propane). HFC22 is not called Green Gas, it is called Red Gas, and is not one of the two common propellants.

"Many beginning airsofters confuse the two types of gasses, and use HFC22 gas in a gun meant for HFC134. The rule of thumb is if your gun has a metal slide, you can use HFC22. Typically, Taiwanese GBB airsoft guns (such as KWC and KJW) use HFC22, while the Japanese (Tokyo Marui, Western Arms) use HFC134. Using HFC22 in an airsoft gun meant for HFC134 will significantly lower its lifespan."

This could refer to HFC22 and HFC134a but is far more likely to refer to Green Gas (propane) instead of HFC22, as Green Gas is more common. Also should read KSC not KWC.

"Other gasses that can be used in airsoft guns are Carbon Dioxide or Black Gas (CO2) and Red Gas, however, these gasses are more powerful than Green Gas or HFC134a and may cause damage to your gun. Do not use them unless your gun is meant to take the pressure."

Carbon dioxide is rarely referred to as Black Gas. Red Gas as mentioned before is HFC22, not another propellant. Though Red Gas should not be used in certain guns as recommended, the recommendation not to use carbon dioxide is bizarre. Not only is carbon dioxide not readily available in the same kind of dispenser as is used to fill the magazine resevoirs on airsoft guns, but it is supplied in specialised cartridges that will only fit in guns that are designed to use carbon dioxide. EdwardShelley

Fair enough, then delete or rewrite since this article is garbage as is. BryanG^(talk) 15:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide to refilling airguns. Besides, since HFC134 and HFC134a are different (see this table), the entire article would have to be rewritten. --Huon 15:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, start one about 1,1,2,2-Tetrafluoroethane (if it is worth an article), then recreate HFC134 as a redirect. Michael Kinyon 07:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Content belongs at 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane (HFC134a), but I find nothing salvagable to merge. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RedFlagDeals

spammy vanity page that reads like an advertisementST47 21:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Explain how this site lacks the legitimacy that FatWallet's wiki has? jeremy.howell 25 August 2006

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deville (Talk) 13:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Rewrite or Delete forum has 56,130 registred users. Check WP:WEB. User:Yy-bo 15:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic. --DrTorstenHenning 17:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Districts of the Unitarian Universalist Association

vanity, listcruft. Delete sub-articles as well, most likely one-liners, including one website link. WP:NOT. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Metro New York District Young Religious Unitarian Universalists Yy-bo 17:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Definately Keep It's a central springboard for all the various districts, the history and details of which are also present on Wikipedia. This is a fairly sizeable and notable religious domination, as are Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, etc. It is by no means vanity, nor are the sub-articles, as it is listed as one of the top 20 major religious groups by population (800,000) on Wikipedia's Major religious groups entry. Getting rid of this would require getting rid of the entries for most of those, as well, yet all are very notable religious groups. Finally, each of the entries in the subarticles provides useful information, such as the link to the home page of that district. Mugaliens 14:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikipedia is not a webhosting service, not a link directory. User:Yy-bo 15:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Mugaliens. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for the reasons given by Mugaliens. –Shoaler (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, otherwise we must delete all Catholic diocese and parish articles. --Dhartung | Talk 18:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • No, we mustn't. "If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument. Please give a rationale that is based upon this article and our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Uncle G 19:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Smerge or merge to Unitarian Universalist Association#Organization. That is the appropriate place to cover this material unless/until both 1) that article is big enough to need sub-articles broken out and 2) this has enough content to be worth breaking out. GRBerry 01:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe they must use external webhosting for their directories. Nothing against merge something into the main article. User:Yy-bo 18:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Mugaliens brings up some real good points. It doesn't help the deletionist's case that he/she/xe uses unclear terminology like "listcruft," which I have no understanding of. Sub articles are stubs, to be expanded upon. They're noted as such, with UU stub templates. I made all these, and this page. They're all valid articles; it's not their own fault that they haven't been expanded upon yet. HellaNorCal 03:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment 1 Instead of he/she/xe just use User. Without the image (which is all the same), and the template, the district articles are just one-liners containing an external link. I do not see information above spelling the long form of an abbreviation. In this case, it is not a dictionary definition, but a webdirectory entry. And wikipedia is not a website directory. Hope this is more clear. See WP:NOT WP:VANITY User:Yy-bo 14:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment 2 Displaying your userpage, it looks you use wikipedia to promote Unitarian information. You can not write articles about an organisation which employs you. This is also common exclude for lottery draws (this is not a wikipedia policy) User:Yy-bo 14:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Question. I don't see where you find that HellaNorCal is employed by the UU. --Dhartung | Talk 16:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Answer I assume it because of the style of the user page. If not so, the user has vacany to elaborate, see above. Afd is not immediate deletion itself, just nomination and discussion of it (if it is appreciate or not). User:Yy-bo 17:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, this is merely a list leading to pages that say New York branch is based in New York - here is the external link. Unless both this and the individual pages can offer some notability reason this is nothing more than a web directory. Nuttah68 17:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep every Roman Catholic bishopric has its own article, so a list of a large notable denomination's equivalents seems a keeper to me. Carlossuarez46 18:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice of recreation. As is, the article violates Wikipedia policy: the content is not verifiable due to lack of reliable (or any) sources. -AED 06:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment All of this information is verifiable. I have added a Resources section with a link to sources in the Unitarian Universalist denomination website. –Shoaler (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or merge to Unitarian Universalist Association. (Thank you, Shoaler.) -AED 18:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete A7. —Mets501 (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Emmett Hughes

fails WP:BIO. Non notable vanity about a group of schoolfriends Fiddle Faddle 13:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. I've added the db-bio template to the article. This is obvious garbage. ju66l3r 14:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Happy with speedy. Fiddle Faddle 15:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wintermaul Wars

A custom map for Warcraft III; crufty and non-notable. Crystallina 14:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete Refer to webhosting, WP:NOT User:Yy-bo 17:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 10:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not a notable map (is there such a thing?). Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 20:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete per the well-reasoned nomination. (Actually it was just an ad for a product with no encyclopedic information and no claim of notability.) - Bobet 13:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] K-CMS

entirely NN Blood red sandman 14:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• That's a terrible nomination. Please read User:Uncle G/On notability#Giving_rationales_at_AFD and then write a better one. Uncle G 18:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I would have done, but by the time I saw that User:Yy-bo had made some comments (below) that put it as well as I ever could - Blood red sandman 00:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity WP:VANITY WP:WEB - http://www.kcms.zeeblo.com/forums/ 9 members. Can not be on W - WP:NOTABILITY User:Yy-bo 22:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Masguts

• Speedy delete

The user who created this article (barefact) is commiting original reasearch as he did here [24]. He already has also tried his hand in ossetic where he went against all scholarly sources and flatly claimed Ossetic is non-Iranic. Now he is trying to claim Turkic origin for Massagate's using unverifiable quotes and sources and folk etymology.

In this article he is cut & pasting materials from his site [www.turkicworld.org] which is a site full of Original Research and non-encyclopedia materials.

First and most improtant reason for deletion is that there is already an article about Massagetes [25]

Secondly again faulty folk etymology trying to connecti meshketian to Massagate is not shown by any scholarly sources.

Thirdly the author names a lot of ancient historians but does not provide the actual references, publications, publication date, pg number, edition and etc.

Fourth he even claims chorasmian and tocharians as Turkic people, which they were not!

Fifth the Massagetes are not related to Turks, Meshketian Turks, Huns and etc. I will just list several academic sources here on Scythians:

“… Scythians and Sarmatians were of Iranian origin” [John Channon & Robert Hudson, Penguin Historical Atlas of Russia, 1995, p.18] , “…Indo-European in appearance and spoke an Iranian tongue which bought them more closely to the Medes and Persians” [Tim Newark, Barbarians, 1998, London: Concord Publications Company, p.6], “The Sarmatians…spoke an Iranian language similar to that of the Scythians and closely related to Persian” [Brzezinski, R., & Mielczarek, M. (2002), The Sarmatians: 600 BC- AD 450. Oxford, United Kingdom: Osprey Publishing Men at Arms Series, p.3]. ,“…of Indo-European stock belonging to…the Iranian group, often called the Scythian group of peoples…they were akin to the ancient Medes, Parthians and Persians. Their language was related to that of the Avesta…” [Tadesuz Sulimirski, The Sarmatians, London: Thames & Hudson, 1970, p.22]. "

other verifable sources that mention them as Iranians: The Cambridge History of Iran edited by I. Gershevitch (1980): Massagate were Iranians[26]

Rome's Enemies: Parthians and Sassanids By Peter Wilcox [27]

Mounted Archers Of The Steppe 600 Bc-ad 1300, 2004 [28]

Note google books did not come up with one mention of Masguts!

Unfortunately the originator of this article has not contributed anything to wikipedia except claiming Turkic origin for dozens of ancient people that are not considered Turkic by standard references and reliable scholars. --alidoostzadeh 09:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Khosrow II 14:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Massagetae. We do not need a POV fork here. Obviously, there are many differnces between the articles (e.g. one claims the people are Iranians the other claims them to be Turks) we need to check which data is supported by WP:RS and which are not abakharev 09:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

comment: The article seems to be just a cut & paste from a polemic book on tatar nationalism or something. To claim Tocharians, Chorasmians as Turks is also false (see the wikipedia enteries). I am not sure how many times a user has to be caught with original research ... --alidoostzadeh 09:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong and Speedy Delete- This is another one of Barefacts POV and OR articles from his website, which claims absurd things. As per Ali, I vote delete. Barefact does not even show his sources at all. He has attempted historical revisionism before with Ossetians and Scythians, and has failed. Ali once proved that Barefact "rewrites" quotes by scholars to fit his interpretation.Khosrow II 14:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• POV fork, Redirect to Massagetae. (Merge whatever should turn out to be verifiable, probably not much). Note to !voters: please familiarize yourself with the technical meaning of "speedy"; it definitely doesn't apply here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Okay another suggestion could be to merge everything to the talk page (and not the actual page) of the Massagetae article and then work through the quotes and sentences one by one and once they are verified, then move it into the Massagetae page. But there is no way an original research article should be just inserted into the Massagetae page that contradicts the Massagetae page. --alidoostzadeh 18:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

  Yep, could work too. But why bloat the talk page with it? Isn't in the history behind the redirect a "safer" place to hide the B**t? Plus, we are left with the question of whether the redirect as such wouldn't be useful on its own merits. How common is the term "Masguts" as a synonym of "Massagetae"? If there's any likelihood that people might actually search for it, then a redirect would be in order in any case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per Alidoostzadeh. Khorshid 15:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Sources quoted cannot be verified. Merging therefore imppractible. --Pan Gerwazy 16:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: Well, a lot of the article has citations of primary sources, which in fact are perfectly verifiable (e.g. "[Herodotus 4.11]" easily resolves to: [29].) The problem is not so much with WP:V than with WP:OR (and general issues of relevance of detail). If we could find out what the secondary source was that the article author has worked from, then an editor using careful judgment could well find interesting material in the article to be merged with the real one. Therefore: don't delete, preserve in history. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The problem is that the word Masgut is not used in herodotus. The author is trying to attempt folk etymology going from Massagetae to Masgut (which is not found in any google book) to Meshkat Turks. Or check this one out from the article: At around 950 Al Masudi (died in 956) describes 4 Turkic peoples: Ydjni, Badjkurt (Maskurts, Masguts, Massagetae Scythians), Badjanak (Besenyos, Russ. Pecheneg), Nukardi. Doing away with the terrible grammer (which is throughout the article), the author goes from Badjkurt to Maskurts to Masguts to Massagetae Scythians, all to claim some sort of Turkish affinity! Masudi is an Arabic source and I have it available, yet the author does not give the source. Or check out this invalud quote: In antiquity in the Central Asia the Sako-Massagets were closely connected with the Tochars, who in the 5th-7th cc. AD are known as Türkic nations among the Türkic[citation needed] Ephtalites[citation needed] and other Türks. M.Kashgari lists the Togars (Tochars) as Türks. [citation needed] There is no source for thist, but the tochars or tocharians are indo-european and not Turkic. Furthermore the word Togar (if such a word exists in Kashgari) is not necessarily related to takharians (Tocharians). Please take a look at the standard article [[30]]. In it there are sources verified by major scholars in the field. In this article there is not one major recent university scholar mentioned and the author feels like he can just make up theories. Also note google books never uses the term Masgut and this is probably the authors attempt to connection them to meshketian turks and so he goes from Massagetae to Masgut to Mashkut to Meshkat.. (all folk etymology)--alidoostzadeh 18:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

  Reply: Don't worry, I absolutely agree the article as a whole is a mess. :-) I'm only advocating leaving it in the history as a quarry for those bits that might turn out to be useful for Massagetae. Such as the Herodot cites and stuff. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

  Any useful facts (real facts, not disinfo) can be "userfied" like I did with the "Misconceptions about Iran" article and can be moved to the other article or they can be moved now. Khorshid 20:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• delete, if substantiated as a variant spelling in English redirect to Massagetae. (ᛎ) qɐp 16:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: as per norm --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: No reliable sources to support the article. (Marmoulak 03:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)).

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irish property bubble

OR (WP:OR), bbs-style argumentation lists, not encyclopedic. group of articles. Yy-bo 14:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It is in the interest of the property market bulls that this article is deleted, instead of edited.--User:anonymous 22:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The bubble issue is worthwhile and the article - like so many - needs editing.--Mereda 07:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Just needs a clean up, the issue is much debated in Ireland, at present. This is not oringal research, as the issue is much reported in the Irish media and other publications. ant_ie 08:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mereda and ant_ie. This topic is constantly on TV, radio and newspapers. Bláthnaid 09:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete As it stands, this does contain a lot of original research. If it is not to do so, it needs to be cleaned up by including references, as currently the article is full of "citation needed" with little or no real references (compare to main article Real estate bubble which includes many). The tone is also too much in an essay/OR style ("that raises the question...") It could also be argued that the article is very crystal ballish, as a bubble is as much defined by the "pop" as the growth beforehand, so a bubble can only be confirmed in hindsight. The article may be salavageable, if good references are found to say "sources A+B thinks it's a bubble because of reason X,Y and Z", although caution must be applied, as introducing new analysis that are not in the sources would be original research. This article currently contains quite a lot of this type of OR, for example, one of the references is the daft report saying that the yield is ~3%. The yield figure is cited information, yes, but implying that it a bearish argument is OR, as no such implication to that effect was contained in the source. If OR like this can be removed, and good references found, ensuring that the information used is cited correctly and not given a new synthysis, then it may be kept, but until those problems are addressed the article fails WP:V, WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball and WP:NOR#What_is_excluded.3F, all of which are valid grounds for deletion unless fixed. Regards, MartinRe 09:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Updating qualifier after further investigation. If this topic is worth keeping, there should be an excess of reliable sources to back this up instead of a multitude of {{fact}} tags. If by the end of the afd discusssion there are no sources forthcoming, to me that would seem to be a good indication that the topic is not as notable as others are suggesting. Also consider that these sources have been requested for over eight months. Adding {{fact}} is only ever a temporary measure, in the end it always comes do to a simple choice - cite information or remove it, and after the length of time the unverified information was retained in this case, it is weighing very heavily for the latter option. (as once uncited info is removed there is nothing worthwhile left to support the article) Regards, MartinRe 15:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Please see my comment (bottom). Article not meaningless. User:Yy-bo 19:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep important article that simply needs some work. Pathlessdesert 13:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the article belongs to a series of articles on the same subject. Even in its current ugly state the article seems clear that the subject is a theory, and WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball couldn't be applied without applying to all of the others. Agree that extent of {{fact}} tags is pathetic, but unfortunately Wikipedia has many articles littered with these, for example the article on Margaret Thatcher. I don't think that this warrants the scrapping of the entire article in either case. Pathlessdesert 16:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and supply with citations. Evertype 16:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Question - how long is a reasonable time to wait for these citations to be supplied, considering they have been requested for eight months? Regards, MartinRe 18:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment (unspecific) Consider an own wiki for this article, move to own wiki. Article looks like can improve from being edited in wiki style, however it is not encyclopedic. See Comparison_of_wiki_farms User:Yy-bo 19:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — original research, crystal ball as above. Some of its content could be salvaged for a Property market in the Republic of Ireland article that does not presuppose one of the POVs it describes. Demiurge 22:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have now found citations for some of the information on this article. Take a look. Pathlessdesert 12:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • comment I've done some work in trying to clean it up, with some attempt at NPOV, removing the worst OR, tagging facts that need to be referenced, and putting bull/bear arguments in one facts/figures section so as to start to address some of the other OR concerns. However, it is still in quite a state, and even if citations are found for all the figures given, the article itself would comprise of a paragraph saying that some say there is a bubble, followed by a list of figures which could be taken either way, which seems against NPOV in my view. I think it would be better for those interested to add a neutral paragraph to Economy of the Republic of Ireland about house prices/bubble/mortgage fraud (which are mentioned briefly in the lead) than to try and salvage this. (In which case I'd also suggest adding to that article afresh based on the references, and not a merge, as the latter would run the risk of the uncited OR being transferred as well) Regards, MartinRe 14:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Impossible for the article to be NPOV. Putting a headiong of 'Opinions' isn't enough for me. A list of stats doesn't add much without context. Nothing here that can't be found on any Irish news site Dodge 19:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. May need some cleaning but is undoubtedly a very important topic for those living in Ireland. Page has been slowly improving with citations being inserted over time. Criticism of reference to Daft.ie report is pretty unwarranted as a yield rate approx equal to current ECB rate is obviously a Bearish argument. I have inserted this for clarity in the article.--19:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Panzraam
• Definitely Delete: Combination of unsupported statistics and opinion. These views have been expressed over and over again through the last ten years and proved to be unfounded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.71.68.208 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roxy Blue

It's a glam metal band from the early 90s I believe. Anyway, no major hits and one released album, which does not meet criteria in WP:MUSIC. I couldn't find any reliable sources, so I believe the article isn't verifiable. --Wafulz 14:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Also nominating Want Some?, the band's sole album. --Wafulz 14:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete unless there's a link. The Coffee Shop That Smiles Upon The River 14:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete both - Blood red sandman 15:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Deletion discussion has been removed/replaced with copy of content from article; reverted; User:Yy-bo 06:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep and enough with the procedural nominations already. --Tony Sidaway 04:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philip H. Farber

This article was previously deleted at this AfD. A DRV consensus overturned this closure as improper, citing (among other things) a substantial rewrite near the end of the first AfD. Please consult the DRV before commenting here. This matter is resubmitted to AfD for new consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - I voted for keep before per arguments of 999 and Geoffspear in the previous AfD. The article has seen significant expansion since then and is now fully cited. Plus I think that the confirmed use of sockpuppets by Mattisse, the nominator in the previous AfD, establishes that the original nom was made in bad faith. —Hanuman Das 15:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough for me. Paul August ☎ 15:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Week keep, borderline notability, good to see it-relisted. --Salix alba (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Absolutely. This listing has gotten far better than the original version that was questioned. I just added to it myself. Rosencomet 23:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but not a speedy candidate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - glad to see this article back, I did a lot of work to bring it up to WP standards, only to see it deleted. -999 (Talk) 15:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep please author of new york time best seller and other contributions are very notable not borderline at all Yuckfoo 18:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep bestselling crackpot.  ALKIVAR™ 00:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The consensus is clear, unfortunately, because this sets a bad precedent. Wikipedia is not, and should not become, a sports almanac. Mangojuice^talk 14:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking more carefully, there seems to be consensus to delete FA Premier League Results - August 2001, so for that article, the result was delete. Mangojuice^talk 01:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FA Premier League fixtures and results

Nomination of all of the following:

• FA Premier League Results - August 2001
• FA Premier League results August 2006
• FA Premier League results September 2006

The view of most correspondents at WikiProject Football is that while articles summarising seasons are OK, detailed month-by-month results of every fixture played are not. Therefore I propose deletion of all the above under WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Qwghlm 15:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fußball-Bundesliga - September 2006 for a similar discussion at the moment.

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Qwghlm 15:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Is it that time to reopen Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Sports results? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. – Elisson • Talk 15:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:V. This is not "indiscriminate" - there's a clear limit (Premier League), the results were significant media events in their time, and the detail helps to write articles about players later on. Sam Vimes | Address me 16:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Sam Vimes. Budgiekiller 16:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly heading to a No consensus. Leave the existing results pages, avoid the fixtures pages (they're copyright liable) and move on to something more important. Budgiekiller 21:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. - Pal 16:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete everything per nom - Refer author(s) to webhosting. User:Yy-bo 17:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Season summaries are fine, monthly result articles are overkill and unnecessary. –NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 17:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per NeoChaosX and the same reasoning at the Bundesliga page mentioned above. - fchd 18:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per Sam Vimes. Bigdottawa 18:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even if it's verifiable. Punkmorten 19:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Aug/Sep 2006; Delete Aug 2001. I have no objection to these. I don't see any point in just keeping 1 month in 2001 though. I don't buy the indiscriminate bit - there are clear parameters to these lists and they will prove a useful resource if they are kept going all season.. BlueValour 01:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per BlueValour. Forbsey 17:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. HornetMike 21:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Sam Vines// Lowg ^.talk. 01:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per BlueValour. --Jaysscholar 18:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per BlueValour. DJLean 19:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per BlueValour. Warpfactor 23:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and tidy. It's disorganised and crufty (Wikipedia is not RSSSF), and the intermingled listing of red and yellow cards looks horrible, but this is useful information; and, as I understand it, ultimately intended as a useful aid to building season-by-season summaries. Once that's done, transfer it out to Wikibooks or something; in the meantime, it should stay. Kinitawowi 00:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep There is nothing wrong with the month by month thing. Kingjeff 01:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - This appears to be heading to no consensus, but it seems that almost everyone agrees that the random month from 2001 should go, right? It would help if everyone could be clear about this so it doesn't have to run through another AfD process. - Pal 13:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Fair enough - but if someone starts to recreate it and does the whole season in that kind of detail, THEN it should have to be run through AfD again. Sam Vimes | Address me 13:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Extremely useful. Kingfisherswift 16:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - *What does "no consensus" mean? The vote is 12-7 for keeping it. Jaysscholar 17:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Short version; AFD is not a vote. It's an attempt to build a consensus agreement as to what to do. Granted, that normally turns out to be a vote, but Wikipedia has long had a policy of trying to avoid votes of this form (to prevent ballot stuffing, mostly). If there is "no consensus" as to what to do, precedent usually suggests maintaining the status quo (i.e. keep, in this case). Kinitawowi 19:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• It's been longer then the 5 days, What is the verdict? Jaysscholar 15:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• There's a backlog - some September 1 AfDs have not been closed. I think the admins are struggling to cope. BlueValour 15:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per BlueValour. Bababoum 21:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep at least until we have a consensus on what to do with sports results. Batmanand | Talk 22:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - What I was hoping to do with the Bundesliga articles was a table for the months and a table for cummulative totals for up to the end of the month. Which would make the articles more useful. Kingjeff 00:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. We don't want to relist again, we've got a minimal quorum, we've got 3-1 Delete (I have no idea what Punkmorten's stance is). The article is not great, and not sourced. Williamborg (Bill)'s link argument is well taken, though. I think the article could be recreated as a reasonable article if a proper third-party source can be found, but, for now, Delete. Herostratus 04:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Growling (singing)

aside from death grunts, typically used in death metal and associated genres, this is a non-notable singing style. Delete it. Spearhead 21:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep— I certainly don't think this is music, but my children don't think my generations material was music either. Any page with a significant number of Wiki-links has merit. If it is good enough for Captain Beefheart, DragonForce, & The Blessed Hellride articles mention it, then it is good enough to remain on Wikipedia. Williamborg (Bill) 23:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deville (Talk) 15:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The proper denomination for this is death grunt. I just added death grunt to the disambiguation page for Growling, so I believe that there's no need to keep this Growling (singing) anymore.--Húsönd 18:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• How can none of the articles mention black metal? Punkmorten 12:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced, unnecessary nonsense. Prolog 22:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I am boldly going to then move this to Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations and remove the list of redlinks: even the orgs that HAVE articles probably shouldn't. Mangojuice^talk 15:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations

not sure if this is listcruft, use of wikipedia as a directory/repository of links. Definetively wikipedia is not a directory/webhosting service. To me, this page does not look encyclopedic (see WP:NOT Yy-bo 15:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
See Districts of the Unitarian Universalist Association, also under afd.
Refer author(s) to webhosting. User:Yy-bo 17:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, maybe speedy as db-empty. Just a list of links, mostly red. Fan-1967 15:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per CSD A3. This is better served by a category, really. --Dennis The TIger 16:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: tagged with db-empty. --Dennis The TIger 16:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, list of organizations of a major religion, many of which have their own articles, seems encyclopedic (and useful) to me. –Shoaler (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Shoaler. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and explain The article doesn't give enough explanation to know what an affiliate is, which should be the first thing added. Lists of redlinks are ok, lists of external links would not be. This is redlinks. GRBerry 01:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - a better job is done by a category. BlueValour 02:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: In response to some of these concerns, I have added a description of a UU Independent Affiliate to the article along with examples of more closely affiliated organizations. Some of these organizations, even though technically "independent", are the heart and soul of the denomination, are therefore quite notable even though they do not have articles yet. For this reason, I do not believe a category, which does not support red-letter links, is the best way to develop this portion of the encyclopedia. I would also encourage persons who are interested in Unitarian Universalism to start creating articles for some of these organizations. –Shoaler (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. The raw comment total is 9-5 Delete (discounting one Delete vote that is that editor's only edit so far). One of the Keeps is Weak. So looking at the arguments. It's clear he's not notable as a professor or as a book author. I think I vaguely remember the email incident. I don't consider that as establishing significant notability. Lots of people get their 15 minutes on O'Reilly etc.

The Keep argument come down to two: first, he's a columnist on townhall.com. townhall.com is a notable site, and many of its columnists are clearly notable. This raises the question: does that mean that all columnists on townhall.com become notable by association (and by the presumably large readership of townhall.com). It's a hard question, but my answer is: no, not necessarily. We don't know how many townhall.com readers read his column. It's just not quite the same as being syndicated in a newspaper. In Adams's case I don't see enough proof of notability as a commentator.

The second argument is that his career as a gadfly is notable. Again, I don't see enough involvement in high-profile lawsuits, protest demonstrations, publications, and the like. I'm not seeing a strong enough Keep argument to overcome the arguments (and greater numbers) of the Delete commentors. Herostratus 21:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Adams (criminology professor)

The article doesn't say why he is really notable and does not meet the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) standards. His book is #417,264 at Amazon [31] and is published by a rather obscure non-mainstream publisher founded in 1997 and may possibly be a vanity press.[32] He also seems to write on some sort of political blog [33] as well, but seems to not have written any scholarly articles that I could find. CEIF 18:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete , fails the professor test. Just zis Guy you know? 00:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Townhall.com columnists are fairly well-known, especially amongst American conservatives. Adams was also involved in an incident a few years back that made national headlines, and as a result of the incident, he appeared on big shows like Scarborough Country, The O'Reilly Factor, and Hannity and Colmes, defending himself and his values. I don't know where to begin to look for sources about that on the Internet, but those facts would obviously improve the article. Chicken Wing 17:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  10:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The article poses the subject from the title as a professor, but the keep nom so far only tries to show Adams' status as a pundit. As an academic, fails WP:PROF guidelines for lacking academic awards, being recognized as a significant expert in his field by independent sources, lacking significant and well-known academic work. As a political figure, fails WP:BIO for lacking multiple non-trivial third-party articles. I find one story from a campus newspaper. No documentation for claims that townhall.com columnists are "fairly well-known", but I can say he has only 204 distinct ghits out of a possible 4,040 ("mike adams" "criminology professor"), and Alexa shows his website's traffic somewhere about 831,000th. Tychocat 11:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Notable enough. -Kmaguir1 17:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: not notable. FairHair 23:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: not notable, nor academic. Seems to be vanity ad for pundit.54edo

Comment. This user has only one contribution as far as I can tell, and that contribution was to vote to delete this article. Chicken Wing 03:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable, per nomination and above. TV Newser 02:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, Lost Knob 05:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Adams is certainly non-notable as an academic, criminologist, or critic of homosexuality. However, as a persistent and active critic of public universities' speech codes and selective funding of student groups (as violative of the 1st Amendment), Adams is a notable gadfly. This notability should be emphasized in the article. I would give the articles' proponents a week or so to put that material in. Pan Dan 21:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Update. For example, a federal judge recently ordered Georgia Tech to change its speech code which had been alleged vague and unconstitutional. See Andrea Jones, "Insults allowed at Georgia Tech; Conservative students' suit alters speech code in dorms," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Aug. 16, 2006, p. 1D. Adams was active in finding plaintiffs to file the lawsuit. See Mike S. Adams, "The Fruits of Wrath," Townhall.com, June 30, 2006, and other columns by Adams describing his role in the lawsuit. I think activism like this makes Adams notable. Pan Dan 12:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Do you have an independent source for this, ie. not this guy's blog entry? Bloggers tend not to be notable, and I really don't think that this makes this guy any more notable if it is actually true. TV Newser 00:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Response: The use of the word "blogger" mischaracterizes (negatively, for the purpose of notability) the nature of Dr. Adams' columns. Townhall.com is a high-traffic website, one of the top websites among American conservatives, and many of the columnists there such as Thomas Sowell, Ann Coulter, David Limbaugh, Walter Williams, Star Parker, Michelle Malkin, Mike Gallagher, Bruce Bartlett, Bill O'Reilly, Ben Shapiro, Larry Elder, Brent Bozell, George Will, Pat Buchanan and so forth are very notable, have their columns syndicated in newspapers, host their own radio and TV shows, or have prominently run for political office. I should point out also that a Yahoo! search for "Mike S. Adams" returns 991,000 hits, the overwhelming majority of which appear to refer specifically to the Mike Adams in question. Chicken Wing 04:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC):::

Ditto to Chicken Wing as to blogger vs. columnist. Townhall.com makes a distinction between its bloggers, who can be anybody, and its columnists, who (1) are invited to write and (2) do write columns, not blogs. Adams is a columnist, not a blogger. Pan Dan 13:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That said, I agree w/ TV Newser that would be best to find sources other than Adams himself that talk about his role in the lawsuit. I am sure such sources can be found. Pan Dan 13:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Running out of bold comment intros: I don't know how important his role in the Georgia Tech situation was. I didn't bring that issue up. So I don't know if any sources exist w/r/t his contribution. Still, the fact remains, I'm not sure how a professor with a column on Townhall.com and hundreds of thousands of search engine hits could possibly be non-notable. How many inferior personalities have articles on Wikipedia? Chicken Wing 20:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deville (Talk) 16:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, I'm relisting this as the debate has evolved but not yet been resolved. I think that User:Pan Dan's rationale is compelling for keeping, and I would have closed it as a keep if there were any third-party evidence to substantiate the theory. That being said, I can't find any independent evidence. So, I'm relisting it and hopefully this issue can be resolved. --- Deville (Talk) 16:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I have to take back what I said about being "sure" about sources on Adams other than Adams himself. Using Lexis, I couldn't find anything on him in major newspapers or magazines, except that he was an expert source for The Christian Science Monitor in its coverage of the Duke lacrosse rape case.

However, using google, I did find this: "In his columns, books and public appearances, Professor Mike Adams has become something of a crusader for the first amendment rights of students," in Malcolm Kline, "The Bias of Blind Reviews," campusreportonline.net, Oct. 14, 2005, and other write-ups about Adams on campusreportonline.net. And, I think User:Chicken Wing's arguments as to why Adams is notable, are good ones. Pan Dan 17:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Seems notable to me. Flying Jazz 22:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Pan Dan, some fair claims to notability are made. RFerreira 19:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. Moland Spring 04:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Tychocrat. Lazybum 07:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Peta 09:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Birati Natun Jagat

The page reads like an advert for a non notable charity company from India. The article suggests that the company name is Birati Natun Jagat, which gets 28 hits on google, 6 on MSN. Natun Jagat gets a few more, 408, but these are not to do with this company. Fails WP:CORP. Thε Halo ^Θ 10:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The main topic had been changed and edited.

How to prevent the deletion?

• If you're the author of the article, you would first have to showcase its notability. Start by rerencing reports of the organisation in local newspapers and magazines. Without this, the article will be deleted. Then expand the article on its history, programmes undertaken (in prose), successes, failures, notable people involved, and end with future goals. It has to be well written, well referenced, and have encyclopedic content (as opposed to agendas and proposals) =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deville (Talk) 16:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of notability or relevance outside a very small community. --DrTorstenHenning 17:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete usage of wikipedia for webhosting, WP:NOT User:Yy-bo 17:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There's really not enough to see any notability here. I think it's fair enough that articles start small and imperfectly formed (I started one on the Vigil India Movement last week), but there always needs to be a sense of showing why the organisation matters beyond its own backyard.Mereda 07:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Odin Sphere

Crystal balling for a computer game. AfD since prod was removed without explanation. --DrTorstenHenning 16:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete vanity User:Yy-bo 17:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as it fails the crystal ball portion of what Wikipedia is not.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 18:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 10:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just Fred and Todd

Prod removed. Non-notable comic book, probably vanity too seeing as the creator is Jacob S. Google search brought up zero reliable sources, no independent third party coverage, so the article is not verifiable. Most likely original research too. --Wafulz 17:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, no evidence of existence. User:Yy-bo 18:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete zero unique Google hits, wow! now that is notable. --RMHED 18:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was CANCELLED. Sock. -Splash - tk 23:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kathy Orr