Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
< August 21 August 23 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Contents

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

The result was delete. Dakota 02:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Javed Malik

non-notable journalist, fails WP:BIO. Article has been tagged with {{verify}} for over 6 months. Tag is repeatedly removed by anons/new users w/o any attempt to add verification. Fails WP:V. --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment The second link pretty much only mentions because he is the moderator of a seminar. The only thing it says about him personally is that he is a "prominent television and print journalist". This alone isn't exactly something that could serve as the foundation for an entire Wikipedia article. The first link is broken; could you check it? Thanks --AbsolutDan (talk) 12:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The only link in the article is at the bottom and goes to a "Site under construction." The article has no reference citations, something that is required by WP:V which every article must meet. AbsolutDan has explained the problems with the links posted above. Internal links to other Wikipedia articles do not count for purposes of verification. GBYork 17:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator, fails verifiability tests. RFerreira 19:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm also nominating Insight with Javed Malik; delete both per nom. Bigtop 19:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Most of the info is unverified. Heimstern Läufer 20:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shield of Arrav

Created by new user Zatan130 (talk • contribs • count). Andeh 22:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — per nom American Patriot 1776 02:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete, per nom. Rogue subpage. We do not need an article for a minor quest that is forgotten within five minutes of finishing. CaptainVindaloo t c e 02:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — per above, nuke it Crossmr 03:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Heimstern Läufer 03:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Alvin6226 talk 04:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Runescapecruft. --Terence Ong (T | C) 04:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (chat/patch) 07:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Nothing to keep. RandyWang (chat/patch) 08:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Isn't there some list of Runescape quests this can be merged into/redirected to to avoid recreation yet keep relevant info included? - Mgm|(talk) 08:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Burninate Delete as an RS rogue. RuneScape's quests do not lend themselves well to the wikipedia. There are over a hundred of them, virtually all involve take item X to NPC Y then fetch item Z for NPC Y etc. Once the dialogue/history present in the quest is explained (like in this case), there's nothing else to add except game guide - the RuneScape Gods article is as close as RS gets to an expanding storyline. 81.157.18.156 10:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment The above vote is mine, thought I was signed in. QuagmireDog 10:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Shield of Arrav quest is not so wonderful that it deserves a Wikipedia article of its own. I say this as a former Runescape player who rather liked the game. It just hasn't had an impact on human affairs. Captainktainer * Talk 10:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not exactly the most remarkable quest out of them all. Dinosaur puppy 15:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Fails WP:NOT and WP:V. On top of that, there's no basis to make one wiki about one quest in one game. Makoto
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citizen Cain

obscure band with equally obscure leader. "Xitizen Cain" scores 422 Ghits, and "Cyrus Scott" scores 599Ghits. 2 albums per Amazon Ohconfucius 06:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, nonnotable band. NawlinWiki 14:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep "Citizen Cain" scores 62.900, and the 422 ghits from "Xitizen Cain" link to the same albums, so the text seems to be accurate 23:53, 15 August 2006 (GMT+1) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.82.175.86 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It tends to corroborate that Xitizen Cain once was Citizen Cain, but that's all. Who are you?????? Ohconfucius
 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 00:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 1ne 20:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clementina Cantoni

Minor news from 2005, not otherwise notable and with the amount of information given here doesn't meet WP:BIO. --Peta 04:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Article should be about an abduction not the victim of an abduction. Probably belongs in a list of kidnappings article. StuffOfInterest 14:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to Cantoni abduction. Individual is not notable outside of the abduction story. Rohirok 17:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Move In Iraq as well two Italian relief agency workers were kidnapped. This resulted in a rescue, whereby a Italian spy was killed by US forces. Maybe a new article could be created where all the kidnappings and killing of foreigners in Iraq/Afghanistan are listed, instead of having a separate article for each of them. --Ageo020 00:42, 22 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 00:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - Merge with either CARE (relief) or with a new article on the broader subject of Iraq kidnappings that provides some perspective. Otherwise fairly minor and nn news. Williamborg (Bill) 01:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge — per Williamborg American Patriot 1776 02:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect and turn Cantoni abduction into a redirect too. - Mgm|(talk) 08:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as above, but please note that this incident took place in Afghanistan. -- Visviva 04:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm not convinced that this is notable at all. It was an unremarkable kidnapping and it ended in the best way possible. I hope there isn't a list somewhere of everyone who's ever been kidnapped. Mallanox 18:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appletalker

  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 majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages 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 votes.

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]}}

Hugely biased, purely for self promotion, orphan article Hejog 00:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Considering by past AFD's standards, forum websites have always been deleted. --Ageo020 00:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The "If article X then article Y." argument is fallacious, for obvious reasons. Please look to see whether the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied by this forum. Uncle G 01:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but modify wording to make it impartial.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by FireWire (talk • contribs).
  • Delete This is a couple month old forum that is not currently notable. Wikipedia is not a place to promote or advertise a new forum. Once it becomes notable an article can be created around it. DrunkenSmurf 02:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — per DrunkenSmurf American Patriot 1776 02:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — non notable per Drunkensmurf Crossmr 03:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It could use some modification to be made impartial, but there is no good reason for it to be totally removed IMHO. Nv2u 03:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no evidence provided that subject meets WP:WEB. --Kinu t/c 04:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It is a short description of an existing forum. It is not made up, fake, or harassing. Not one single reason has been presented why this article shouldn't exist.
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB, non-notable forum. --Terence Ong (T | C) 05:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Self Promotion, Not notable. OwlBoy 05:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails the three pillars of Wikipedia: WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV. Those are three valid reasons this article should not exist. Fails to cite independent third-party reliable non-trival sources. Does not follow the WP:WEB guideline. --Brian (How am I doing?) 05:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The vote for deletion was obviously started for personal reasons. If the page needs improvement, please be so kind and contribute. It's a shame Wikipedia is being misused for a vendetta between immature individuals. 129.129.128.84 08:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Though it is small, it is an active and notable site if at least for it's stance on democratic principles and is not defamatory to any other forum. I am willing to help edit it to make it more NPOV. I would also like to note that I suspect the initiator of the deletion request is acting dishonestly, because he perceives AppleTalker as a threat and feels he needs to take "revenge" for the addition I made to the MacNN article mentioning AppleTalker, which is factual in nature.--Tuxley 07:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB and WP:V. We are not saying it is not factual. We're saying that it is not notable yet (or if it is, that there's no reliable third party sources to back it up). It breaks basic Wikipedia policy. - Mgm|(talk) 08:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I want to point out that that I included the AppleTalker info and link on the MacNN article in order to introduce valid links to the AppleTalker article. Also, though there have only been a few editors, many members of AppleTalker contributed to the article before it was created on Wikipedia, so if you see a few new heads here, understand that its not a disingenuous attempt at "tipping the balance" of opinion, but rather the genuine opinion of other people who have contributed to the article before-hand.

    As for noteworthy-ness and "non-trivial published works", AppleTalker has a few thousand posts, some of which are rather substantial, from technical issues to philosophy. I just wonder what kind of standard can judge MacNN to be "noteworthy" and yet have no place for AppleTalker. Also, AppleTalker differentiates itself from most forums on its policies, lack of moderators and system of governance. I think that is substantial, because it makes it rather unique.--Tuxley 08:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

    • As for noteworthy-ness and "non-trivial published works", AppleTalker has a few thousand posts — The posts on the discussion forum itself are not non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the discussion forum.

      I just wonder what kind of standard can judge MacNN to be "noteworthy" and yet have no place for AppleTalker. — What makes you think that Macintosh News Network satisfies the WP:WEB criteria either? That article cites no non-trivial published works sourced independently of the subject, either. In fact, it cites no sources at all.

      If you want to make a case for keeping this article, please stop using fallacious arguments such as "If article X then article Y." and please cite sources to show that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. If you cite such sources, you may well change editors' minds. If you simply continue with the fallacious arguments, you certainly won't. Please cite sources. Uncle G 09:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

      • Fine, if you want to be really stubborn about this, go ahead. The moment this page gets deleted, MacNN's page will be put up for deletion as well. How about we stick to one set of rules rather than just bully the small guys? 129.129.128.84 09:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
        • We are sticking to one set of rules. They've been linked to several times in this discussion, and you've been told how you can make an argument that this discussion forum satisfies the criteria. Uncle G 10:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
          • You're being a hypocrite. You come and here and lecture about Wikipedia policies, but you fail to put up the MacNN page for deletion even though it obviously violates the same rules you quote here. Until I see you apply these rules to the MacNN entry, I will assume you are just here to troll and insult. 129.129.128.84 11:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB. SWAdair 09:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Uncle G, exactly what sources pertaining to what do you want cited? AppleTalker is a board. Everything leading to its creation and all that has gone on within it have been recorded and stored. Also, AppleTalker is on Apple's site as a widget. There you go, a source. No "fallacious" or "phallic" arguments here.--Tuxley 09:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Some examples: Histories of this discussion forum, created and published independently of the discussion forum itself; non-trivial news coverage in a reliable source; independent guides to the discussion forum. If you can find and cite such things, you can change the minds of the editors whose rationales are that the WP:WEB criteria are not satisfied. That web page that you hyperlinked is not a source. It says nothing at all about the discussion forum. Uncle G 10:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I believe AppleTalker is notable in itself. Just some browsing around the board will verify that this is indeed a different kind of board. Also, I cannot provide many links because AppleTalker is a young board. However it has been mentioned on numerous other sites and blogs. Here is an example of AppleTalker being referenced for a technical article. Also, it is listed on Woz.com (of Apple's co-founder) under "Cool Mac Sites".--Tuxley 11:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Notability is not subjective. A review of the board by Wozniak would count, and you're looking along the right lines now; but that simple list of bookmarks, which merely says "Mac Discussion Group", is not it. Wikipedia is not the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. We need more than "mostly harmless". Uncle G 12:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article might be taken as a simple advertisement for the site it references, and that is damning enough in and of itself. However, the entire article is basically written as a series of statements that reduce to "we are not like our rivals" and "our rivals are evil." The result is that it feels more like an attack on the rival than a genuine advertisement. Attack articles, last I checked, were not kosher here. MillenniumX 13:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:V - I can't find any reliable, third party sources. The article cites no reliable, third party sources. WilyD 13:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not enough info provided to pass WP:V, WP:WEB -- Whpq 14:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Whilst people obviously feel this board has a great deal of potential, at the current time is certainly does not meet WP:WEB Orchid Righteous 15:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Cite Sources or Delete. Please cite information from independent sources, especially media reports. If it is in fact the primary forum spinoff of macnn, it probably had a mention in one of the various Apple-related magazines. The article is written in the tone of an advertisement. Please Rewrite, if kept.  Cdcon  15:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — WPWEB Betacommand 15:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Because an anon was complaining about the MacNN article, I reviewed it and found it also lacked sources and verfication. It has been also given an AfD spot Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macintosh News Network--Brian (How am I doing?) 17:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per DrunkenSmurf. I don't believe that V is very relevant here; by and large most website histories aren't recorded. WP:WEB is the greater factor; NPOV and OR should be grounds for cleanup, not for deletion. And on WP:WEB see DS' comment above. --Firien § 17:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Sorry Firien, but WP:V applies to ALL articles. That is not negotiable, and can not be ignored because of editor concensus. --Brian (How am I doing?) 18:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Not only that, but failing WP:V is the best reason to delete an article - If we only deleted articles that failed WP:V and/or WP:SPAM, we'd still kill all the articles that need to be killed WilyD 22:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I should rephrase. Verifying the history of pages is generally difficult to verify (perhaps crawling through archive.org, etc, but admittedly that tast would be vast and horrible for a forum) because the history is generally also not something that is widely published. OTOH, that leads to the agreeable point that the history of a website is simple not useful or suitable for WP; if there is something newsworthy, then it will have been recorded elsewhere. However just because the history of the site fails V I don't believe the article is up for deletion; V simply states that the information there that isn't verifiable needs to be removed. Sure, for many pages V covers the whole thing; but here if you strip the unverifiable bits you're still left over with information such as the existence of the site, what it's for. Those then fail WP:WEB; I think the distinction between a blanket V delete and combination of V/WEB is an important one; V should strip down the information, and what's left over is what should be judged for deletion. Compare the existence of some unV information in some random otherwise great article; the article should not fall because one part of it is outside our rules. Here a far greater section is unV - but it's still a section. Does that make more sense? --Firien § 09:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If we strip the page of the content that fails WP:V, then it's blank, which is a criterion for speedy, I believe. WP:WEB is just a guideline, we can ignore it, WP:V is a policy we cannot ignore. WP:WEB is essentially just a polite way of saying Axe articles that fail WP:SPAM, WP:OR and/or WP:V - I think it's preferable to skip the middle man, and stick to how it violates policy. WilyD 11:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per failing WP:V. As stated above, this is not negotiable. GBYork 18:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ageo020 and WP:V. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete How is this not spam? --Xrblsnggt 01:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It reads like an advertisement for the forum and nothing else. TJ Spyke 02:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 07:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Potato Hermits

non-notable band Dancarney 13:35, 14 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 00:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:BAND. Article provides no sources whatsoever. --Satori Son 01:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — just another garage band... American Patriot 1776 02:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non-notable and none of the members have articles. Clay4president 06:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 festival, redirect Adele Hartley (nothing to merge). - Bobet 09:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adele Hartley

15 August 2006 (UTC) the subject and co-nominee Dead by Dawn horror film festival do not appear to be notable. Subject (1060 Ghits) is editor of a 'Red by Dawn' (Amazon Rank: #1,000,142) and founder of "Dead By Dawn Festival" (186Ghits).

  • Don't , delete. Raisethirty 12:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I tried to improve both articles, so they are now better than the versions nominated by Ohconfucius. I think that they are both notable. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, per nom. Eusebeus 13:36, 14 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 00:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Adele Hartley to Dead by Dawn. The festival has enough coverage to meet notability requirements but she doesn't. Yomanganitalk 00:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge—not notable by itself. Williamborg (Bill) 01:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Founder of notable film-festival ("Dead by Dawn" festival gets 75,000+ Ghits). Barring that merge to Dead by Dawn. Failing that, I have transwikied to Film-Flam and also transwikied Dead by Dawn. (P.S. Where is the AfD entry for Dead by Dawn? The AfD link on that page leads here.) dryguy 01:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge — per Yomangani American Patriot 1776 02:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete — I understand that the subject is somewhat notable due to the relationship to the Dead by Dawn festival, but I feel a simple mention in the Dead by Dawn would suffice. -- tariqabjotu 04:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Dead by Dawn. Annual film festival for the past 13 years which has received sufficient media attention and is even covered in a city guide. No opinion on Adele. - Mgm|(talk) 08:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Dead by Dawn, per MacGyverMagic; also meets the "I heard of it before seeing the article here" test. Redirect Adele Hartley to the page on the festival. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Dead by Dawn. Hartley is notability-dependent on Dead by Dawn.  Cdcon  15:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge — per Yomangani Betacommand 15:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Yomangani. Mallanox 18:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Electric Human Project

Article originally consisted of just the company name, and was tagged for speedy delete for being empty by Anthony.bradbury. Tag removed by author Mikehaley without comment, though discography was added. I've been trying to open dialog with the author in the talk page Talk:Electric Human Project for a couple of days now without success, trying to get article to meet WP:CORP. At this point I'm looking at an article about a company that gets only 373 distinct Ghits with no multiple non-trivial third-party stories, or major awards, or charted hits. Some of the albums appear to have gotten outside reviews, but I'm finding nothing about the company itself. Tychocat 12:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - As WP:CORP does not have specific guidelines for record labels, I would suggest that a label can only be as notable as the acts it has signed/worked with. The "multiple non-trivial published works" Wikipedia seeks would have to relate to their releases for those acts rather than just for the acts where the artist works or has worked with multiple labels. I have no opinion as to whether this label passes or otherwise. Ac@osr 20:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't expect it's a stretch that WP:CORP applies to a company that is a record label, as opposed to a company that produces software, runs a hotel, or any of the other companies it's been applied to. As far as the individual acts the label has produced, I did a preliminary check of individual notability there for each band and found nothing of remark. I submit it would unreasonable for an editor to apply WP:BAND and WP:MUSIC to each and every band in order to possibly find notability to justify the article on the record label, and suggest the onus is on the contributor to show why the label should have an article. Tychocat 12:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I would say that if a label has worked successfully with a sufficient number of notable acts, they would become notable of themselves; it would demonstrate a degree of success within their field that would be of remark. An exact dividing line would be virtually impossible to draw however. The majority of major label acts flop.... Ac@osr 13:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, I'd agree with you, but it requires the writer to show the notable acts the label has produced. In this case, Mikehaley has continued to edit the article, refuses to communicate any questions to me, and yet continues to fail to show notability of either the label or the associated bands per this, or any, discussion. The article is also vanity per the disclosure at this site. Tychocat 11:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - i'm not really sure how to use the "talk" thing, so i am posting this here. sorry for deleting the "quick delete notice", i'm kind of new at all this... i've been adding more information to the page, not sure exactly what i need to keep it up. i guess the label is not really all that notible, but it is associated with bands/labels that are also on wikipedia so i thought it might be helpful to have this page up. i guess if its not meeting standards then it should be taken down...


 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 00:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — I really see no notability here American Patriot 1776 02:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The article cites no reliable sources. WilyD 13:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep "Underground" labels can't be discounted simply because they don't have mainstream/radio success (such a precedent would wipe out many very influential aspects of an important subculture through the past few decades). This label seems to have notability in the underground music world, due to the number of releases and cross references with bands that are listed in wikipedia. Suggest having the article conform with all Wikipedia standards but keep it in terms of content. robotcaptain 14:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • We can't even confirm this band exists - WP:MUSIC may be negiotiable, but WP:V is not. WilyD 14:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
      • This is not a band, it is a record label. As far as confirming that the bands on the label exist, do a little bit of research and you will find that they all do. for example: la quiete (http://www.laquiete.org/), hot cross (http://www.level-plane.com/hotcross), isis (http://www.sgnl05.com/), daughters (http://www.wearedaughters.com/). and, all bands i have just mentioned (along with many others on the label) have multiple US, Japanese, and European tours under their belt, multiple full length albums, and widespread popularity in the independent and underground music community. Again, this information is all quite relevant to a large and important topic: underground music. robotcaptain 18:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable company as it fails WP:CORP with no significant third-party coverage. Fairsing 04:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mainstream Records

Non-notable re-issue label. Just a catalog listing. Andrew Levine 09:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Andrew Levine 09:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is a stub now, but I'm glad that someone is re-issuing these recordings. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 10:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a stub to expand. Nickieee 07:31, 20 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 00:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep—It is indeed just a catalog listing—that it is short does not make it non-notable—a quick review of google indicates it has sufficient "throw" to make it a valid entry. But the author (or some other kind soul) needs to beef this article up. Williamborg (Bill) 01:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — I see no notablility here. A Google search reveals almost no info about the subject, spare an inactive address American Patriot 1776 02:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Per Toronto. Vice President In Charge Of Office Supplies 03:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Alvin6226 talk 04:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but it needs expanding. Korinkami 11:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Williamborg, record labels don't reissue recording from the likes of Billie Holiday willy-nilly. RFerreira 19:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Certain Billie Holiday recordings are public domain in certain jurisdictions, so you do in fact see them being re-issued often. Andrew Levine 20:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The link at the bottom just allows you to send an email. How do you know that this label "reissues recordings from the likes of Billie Holiday" in any meaningful way? Lots of those budget CD labels do issue "willy-nilly" old radio broadcasts (or other poor quality stuff that is easy and cheap for them to get) of famous people. How is WP:V met for any of this information? GBYork 20:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Wait.... you're angry about an email link and a lack of references? That doesn't sound much like deletion criteria.... The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 05:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sharon Weinberger

Contested prod. Original concern was "Marketing and promotional campaign." No opinion from me; this is to alleviate a de-prod/re-prod situation. Kuru talk 00:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Revised to Delete Keep—The source of the material doesn't invalidate the material unless it is intentionally distortional or misleading. Probably promotional . But not egregiously so; the individual is notable (not strongly, but notable). Williamborg (Bill) 01:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC) Reviewed comments by Drac2000 and must admit I find them compelling; especially after reviewing the article history. Ah well, perhaps it's time for a break. Williamborg (Bill) 01:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete— My judgment is that this Author stub for Sharon Weinberger is a marketing and promotional campaign for a new Op-Ed Blog that she introduced this month. If so it has no place in this namespace of Wikipedia. My concerns follow:

The first external link takes one to the Blog, that incidentally has a very political content.

This person has very little achievement or even visibility in the world of literature. For a baseline I searched the New York Times list of current "Best Sellers" and found the top ten as follows: New York Times (hardback best sellers, week of August 13, 2006)

1. Nora Roberts 2. Terry Goodkind 3. Daniel Silva * 4. Janet Evanovich 5. Scott Smith 6. Danielle Steel 7. Fannie Flagg 8. J. A. Jance 9. Sara Gruen 10. James Lee Burke

Only number 3 marked with the * has an Author page or stub in Wikipedia. He wrote 9 books since 1996 and that suggests some sort of baseline. Ms. Sharon Weinberger has written one book which sold fewer than 500 copies and raised very serious charges about the provenance of the events she described, as can be seen at the second external link to the critique of that one book.

The history section of this entry shows considerable contention that could indicate troubled matters.

Let's discuss and see if there are some extenuating circumstances for what otherwise will be a sharp lowering of standards caused by retaining this Author. --Drac2000 01:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong use of Data Please realize that basically ALL of the names you listed in your so-called NYT bestsellers list are authors of novels, i.e., FICTION. Weinberger's book doesn't belong in the same category; it's not "literature" in the fiction sense. It's non-fiction. I'm sure you know what the difference is. (Moreover, most authors know that the New York Times Bestsellers list is really just a jacked-up publicity stunt; it's definitely not a reliable meter for gauging the popularity of a book.) When attempting to cite data in the future, please get to know the list of names you blindly fling around. But, getting back to my point: other than groundless speculation, what is your judgment based on? Yosofun 04:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, I've just checked, and it appears that almost ALL of the authors on your so-called list have non-trivial non-stubby W pages. (BTW, are you illiterate? How can Terry Goodkind NOT have a W page, when Robert Jordan and J.R.R. Tolkien both do?) Yosofun 04:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Nora Roberts and Danielle Steel both have wikipedia articles, and I would wager most of the rest do too. I have no idea what your point is. Catchpole 08:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete -- Sharon Weinberger is "notable" for what? It does not say anything significant on her page. Best here is to continue to see if anyone of the supporters of this page can articulate what makes it worth having in Wikipedia. --GoodElfNo3 01:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete — I just dont see any notablishness... um... yeah... notablishness here American Patriot 1776 02:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. I would encourage everyone to review the article's history before casting their 'vote' on this article. What I see there is an edit war, which User:Drac2000 and User:GoodElfNo3 now appear to be trying to win through the nuclear option, including re-PRODing the article four times after other editors contested the deletion. If the consensus is that promotional material has crept in, then revert to the initial stub and start over. But allowing one side of an edit war to 'win' by deleting the page would set a terrible precedent. Kickaha Ota 02:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep — Only the barest level of notability established. Keep a close eye on marketing creep. Check out the edit warring, perhaps protect the page hand out warnings and bans where appropriate. Crossmr 03:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Published author. Catchpole 08:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks to Catchpole for finding the entries for 2 of the top 10 under Bios and not Authors. At that time Sharon Weinberger was under Authors, but now is under Bios as well. So time to rethink. If you give it a few minutes I am trying to clean up the entry for Sharon Weinberger as a person. We can see what can be done there, but please give it a minute.

--Drac2000 14:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I am finished for this attempt. Can we consider this form or do you want to revise or revert before we continue to try to reach a decision?
--Drac2000 14:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep But should revert to original stub, which would prevent vadalism and self-promotion. Published author. Please check out that certain people have attempted to use the entry to wage a personal vandetta against the author, including links to their critique website. Note whole source of conlict is they didn't like the book--that's not a reason to delete. Very bad precedent for wikipedia. Ohiotam 17:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Since no one but Ohiotam has objected to the attempt to converge a bio more nearly acceptable to the community, I am going to revert the Sharon_Weinberger page back to the form that I had offered for comment before Ohiotam trashed it. I will add the grammar Ohiotam proposed because it is an improvement. Please leave it long enough so I can get it back and then maybe wait until several people get to comment or revise besides Ohiotam.
--Drac2000 17:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Finished proposed bio form. Please notice that since Weinberger removed her own page www.imaginaryweapons.com there is nowhere to point a link about the book. That's why I did not make it a link. The link to Op-Ed now goes where the link Ohiotam called "Imaginary Weapons." It is the link to the Op-Ed blog within which there is some mention of the book reached by links therein. Could we get a few more diverse coments on this Bio version before Ohiotam trashes it again?
--Drac2000 17:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe Ohiotam's way will work. I have refined it since his/her last undiscussed revision. Can we have some comments on the current version from someone other than Ohiotam?
--Drac2000 18:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Seems the revisions have converged, or is that being too optimistic? Anyway, in the quiescent form at this UTC and date, I would rank it as being tolerable.
--Drac2000 22:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Just barely passes WP:Bio as published author with multiple independent reviews of her book. Some media coverage, including an interview on NPR [1]. Fairsing 05:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see a reason not to Assume Good Faith on the part of Brat32 in creating the article in the first place. Unless there is evidence that it was created in violation of the Vanity Guidelines, we should assume that it is not. If there is an interested editor who will maintain a page in good faith, why should we delete it? It's been over 24 hours since the article has been edited, and it appears to have Consensus. Vir4030 07:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 06:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Angel (suspected spontaneous human combustion victim)

Delete. Fails WP:BIO - the couple of references are trivial. It's most likely bullshit, anyway, and it does not befit us to re-report what the Reader's Digest is not sure about. It fails WP:RS a lot. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
You can certainly withdraw you nomination. But it would be appreciated if you'd note what changed your opinion. Williamborg (Bill) 01:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This appears to be a hoax with multiple non-trivial sources about it. After the AfD closes, I will solicit consensus on merging this into the spontaneous human combustion article, since the subject here is the hoax, not the person. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Maybe even speedy. rootology (T) 01:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete—Agree that it fails reliable sources. Even if sourced, it is hard to imagnie a context in which this would be a useful entry—perhaps as an example of the material around which pseudoscience is built. Williamborg (Bill) 01:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with scalding water or by spontaneous combustion (whichever is more likely) per nom. Yomanganitalk 01:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sources are reliable enough. It seems like an interesting story, I wouldn't mind learning more about it. Aren't we allowed to have interesting off-beat articles? Nlsanand 01:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I mean, R.D. is reporting this under "Facts and Fallacies". I am not suggesting that R.D. is itself unreliable (perish the thought!) - but at least its uh... "Facts and Fallacies" section is not something that we should be relying upon. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
      • You'll find that Facts and Fallacies is the name of the book. Uncle G 12:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — I think I saw this in a tabloid once... American Patriot 1776 02:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no assertion of notability. --Terence Ong (T | C) 05:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep He is notable among Forteans as one of the few people to allegedly survive an episode of SHC. Reader's Digest is not the only available source; for example, he's been mentioned in Skeptical Inquirer [3] and multiple books (eg, The Entrancing Flame). Granted, his story could very well be a lot of "bullshit," but the veracity of his claims is totally irrelevant. We have plenty of articles on known hoaxes, like the Alien autopsy. All that matters is that the article presents the facts of his case in an objective matter. Zagalejo 05:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I would squarely call this a radical reading of our encyclopedia's puposes and rules. - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What, specifically? I might not have been entirely clear in my above comments, since I wrote them rather quickly. Zagalejo 19:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Keep Multiple non-trivial sources per above. Catchpole 06:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and please add the additional sources. Side note: can we do something about that outrageous bracketed modifier? It's far too long to be remembered. - Mgm|(talk) 08:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Added. Uncle G 12:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Move to Jack Angel (spontaneous combustion)? It's shorter, NPOV (which I guess what the other title was aiming for) and unlikely to clash with that other Jack Angel who caught fire. Yomanganitalk 15:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Well known quack-science. It was even mentioned on a CSI episode. 205.157.110.11 09:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per above. Agree with Mgm that the modifier ought to be shortened, but it may take some thought as to what. Are there other Jack Angels that we need to disambiguate? - Smerdis of Tlön 13:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Quite interesting. Do not delete. - Doxent 18:14 22 August 2006 (CEST)
  • Delete. Anecdotal and entertaining in it's futility, but otherwise non-notable. / Peter Isotalo 12:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per reamrks by Zagalejo - it is one of the few cases cited where the alleged victim survived. the article can be worded in such a way as to indicate there is doubt about the SHC aspect of the case. If we held all the cryptid articles up to the same standard of proof we'd not have articles on Bigfoot or the Waheela or other articles I've been working on. Perhaps instead of having it as a separate article it could be merged with a more general article on SHC.Lisapollison 14:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Enough sources and notability to justify the article Averisk 17:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KDA Kitchens

Fails WP:SPAM and WP:CORP DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 01:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Millennium (webcomic)

Yet another webcomic, found here. Is it notable? No. Are there reliable third party sources? No. Is this article written by a User:Senshuu which also happens to be the domain name? Yes. An Alexa rank of 4 million for those interested. But this is just another nn-webcomic wanting Wikipedia as a link source. - Hahnchen 01:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete — per nom, the image should be deleted too American Patriot 1776 02:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — as per nom. Yet another internet based article on some obscure item. Crossmr 03:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. RobJ1981 04:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong (T | C) 05:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't neccesarily expect third party sources for webcomics (I would accept primary sources too), but to compensate it would need a pretty good Alexa ranking in return, which this one hasn't. Just advertising. - Mgm|(talk) 08:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's possible for webcomics to have third party sources attributed to them - the example on WP:WEB is When I Am King. It's also possible for webcomics to win industry awards, too, see PvP and Derek Kirk Kim. ColourBurst 06:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Quite true, but there's probably relevant comics without awards or sources attributed to them. I've applied the rule that something that's known for being on the web needs a web presence (as in lots of visitors), a rule this comic obviously fails. - Mgm|(talk) 08:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flat Life

Webcomics are probably the most overrepresented thing on Wikipedia. Every fan seems to think that their favourite comic should have an entry or their authors just love the visits that Wikipedia gives them. This webcomic can be seen here, and the article was started by a User:Parabolee which also seems to be the contact for the domain name given by it's 1,000,000 ranking Alexa stats. Yet another non notable webcomic. - Hahnchen 01:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete — im getting sick of all these webcomics... cant people be happy with Garfield? American Patriot 1776 02:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — Non-notable. As always if you gain fame, come back and see us. Crossmr 03:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. C56C 02:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well it's subjective to what you consider notable. Flat Life is read 13,000 times a month. If by Wikipedia's standards that is not good enough then I can not defend it against deletion. But I always thought the best thing about Wikipedia was the fact I could find information on even the most obscure things (and websites). And why the hell does the "e" in "Hahnchen direct to the listing for "evil"? - Parabolee 11:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Soup Mines

In today's third webcomic nomination for an article written by the webcomic author (notice a theme?), I present to you The Soup Mines, found here by User:Bobrost. No Alexa data here, and an amazingly bad 30 Google hits for "soup mines". - Hahnchen 01:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. No Alexa ranking, no press, no awards. -- Vary | Talk 02:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete — cute, but not notable American Patriot 1776 02:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete — yet another example of why CSD needs to cover things like this. When you get famous, gives us a ring. Crossmr 03:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Webcomics without webpresence. - Mgm|(talk) 08:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Phillips Vincent

At the very least this is WP:VAIN and when reading through you get the impression that it is a WP:HOAX DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 01:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - The nomination is compelling. And Google seems to come up dry. Probably hoax, but if not vanity. Williamborg (Bill) 01:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable, appears to be a hoax. -- Vary | Talk 01:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete — reeks of hoax American Patriot 1776 02:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a really bad hoax or a really bad joke. I can't really tell. The author did go all out, though - s/he even uploaded an image. Srose (talk) 02:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — This fails a lot of things. If there is such fame it should be verifiable. Crossmr 03:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Obvious vanity article. Possibly other flaws, but I'm going to stick with the one I know. Heimstern Läufer 04:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete For nine months, Vincent practiced relentlessly for the prize he so dearly desired, and frankly, deserved. Danny Lilithborne 04:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Blatant hoax. Mr Stephen 08:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete blatant hoax. David Phillips Vincent gave me 1 Ghit which was actually about David Phillips and Vincent someone and thus unrelated. I suggest speedy now we know the claims to notablity are fake. - Mgm|(talk) 08:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Had me for a while, it was only when I looked up Silo Amalgamated, which scored precisely 0Ghits then it hit me.Deleteper nom. Ohconfucius 15:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DS 12:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maizy

De-prod by creator. Hoax, may be speedyable as nonsense. Irongargoyle 01:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, hoax. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 01:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, at best this fails WP:V; suspected WP:HOAX, WP:NOT a crystal ball, WP:NFT made up while trying to be funny one day. WP:SNOW probably applies. --Kinu t/c 01:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Yeah, I definitely considered WP:SNOW and I see your point. I just figured since I prodded it to begin with I'd seem a bit hypocritical to respond to the de-prod with a speedy. Irongargoyle 01:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kinu. -- Vary | Talk 01:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — per above American Patriot 1776 02:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — WP:NOT a crystal ball. Dionyseus 04:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 04:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:V, WP:NOT a crystal ball, hoax. --Terence Ong (T | C) 05:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as {{db-band}}. bikeable (talk) 05:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable crystal ballery. - Mgm|(talk) 08:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BareNakedChicken Industries

A webcomic, here, on geocities, with the article written by a User:BareNakedChicken. This is the fourth webcomic article I've nominated today which seems to have been written by the webcomic author, please take a look at the other three if you have the time. - Hahnchen 01:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete — completly non notable American Patriot 1776 02:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — Almost zero search engine prescence. For a webcomic that spells non-notable. Unfortunately speedy doesn't have a criteria to address this. Crossmr 03:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Seems to be essentially a vanity article with all the hallmarks of one ("New comic strips are currently posted every whenever Aaron Burgess feels like it.) Heimstern Läufer 04:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 04:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Didn't we used to have web comic guidelines. Minimum number of issues and certain age and web presence needed? None of this seems to be fit this comic. - Mgm|(talk) 08:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • They've been merged into WP:WEB and generalized. Uncle G 09:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — WP:WEB Betacommand 15:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caliber Motors

I'm finishing this nomination for someone else. For some reason the AfD page is missing.--Crossmr 03:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete This is a spam article regarding a car dealership that is not notable outside of the specific community it is located in. It's doubtful this could ever be made into a meaningful entry. 12.72.78.133 04:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is a car dealership in suburban California. There are no third party sources listed (despite requests), and Google mostly brings up simple business listings or the occasionl charity sponsorship. This link shows it's the fastest growing Mercedes Benz dealership in the U.S., but it also indicates that it's only the 3rd largest in Orange County.[4]. All in all it does not qualify for Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). -Will Beback 05:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The dealership's only claim to fame is selling lots of Mercedes-Benz cars. For that matter, I can't think of any car dealerships that would rate a Wikipedia article. There might be a few dealership owners, such as Cal Worthington who rate an article. BlankVerse 13:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above.--Lord Kinbote 15:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dealerships aren't notable. C56C 02:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Brooks

Creater of the page is the subject, after a protracted discussion (see the talk page) with another user, he requested the page be deleted. However, the listing was not carried out properly therefore i'm completing it per his wishes. Looks like it could fail WP:BIO. I'm abstaining. Rockpocket 02:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete — Unless sources can be procured, delete American Patriot 1776 02:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Because someone who claims to be the subject of the article requests it to be deleted IS NOT a reason to delete the article. If the subject is notable and reliable sources can be found to support that then the article should be kept, regardless of the subjects request. DrunkenSmurf 02:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am aware of that. I did not begin the AfD, another editor did, but did so incorrectly. I simply rescued the malformed listing. I would suggest you read the talk page and address your comments to the editors there. Rockpocket 05:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Actually since it is in Afd now the correct place for comments regarding this is here. If you were aware that him requesting his page be deleted was not a valid deletion reason then why didn't you tell him originally? That would have been a good thing to put on the talk page. DrunkenSmurf 13:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - HE had already been told and because, again if you read the talk page, you will notice that the editor he was in dispute with clearly did have notability issues and had discussed listing here. Since their dispute became personal (at least in the opinion of the subject), the other editor no longer felt comfortable listing, lest it seen to be in bad faith and further escalate the situation. The subject of the article then offered to list it himself, to settle the dispute. It was this abortive attempt that i rescued. My role was simply one of assisting a new editor complete what i believe to be, at its root, a good faith nom. The fact there is not (yet) a consensus suggests to me it was not an extraordinarily bad listing. Thats my role, no more, not less. I hope thats clear. Rockpocket 06:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply to comment Rockpocket has been nothing but HELPFULL in this process and trying to keep cool heads and has been a voice of reason. Also, Historymike tried to delete this article but went about it in the wrong way since he is new to WIki policy and procedures. I just pointed out to him that you can't blank a page if other people have edited that page. I didn't want to AFD the article myself as per above so Rockpocket HELPED out...In the scope of things, this has just been some minor back and forth banter and imho not a big deal..chalk it up to the Wiki learning curve :)...anyways...--Tom 13:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep award-winning historian and journalist, with publications. Appears notable to me. If vandalism is a problem I recommend semi-protection, or protection of that doesn't stop the problem. - Mgm|(talk) 08:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Hi, I am the "another user" mention at the top. Just to recap incase you came in late. 1)Michael Brooks created his own biography. 2) I questioned his notability and deleted blog reference(his own blog). 3) Michael and I have been going "nah na na nah nah" at each other back and forth ever since.4)Michael blanked the page to delete it.5)It came here instead. Got it? Anyways, I have no idea if this meets criteria for inclusion into the project but I will obviously abstain from voting. Good luck...--Tom 13:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, article is encyclopedic although it could use some indepedent sources. Subject has won several prizes, so notability does not seem to be an issue here. Deleting an article is not the way to deal content disputes or vandalism anyway. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I am the original author, ackowledge that I violated vanity guideleines, and wish to end this dispute with user Tom. I tried to blank page it after the user complained, and then Tom reverted back. This is waaaay more headaches than it is worth, and I have much better things to do than waste my time getting into silly arguments about blog-vs.-traditional media debates or fixing reckless deletions. I am trying to be the bigger party and voluntarily delete this page so that Wikipedians can get back to more important work than the biography of a marginally important journalist and academic. Had I realized how political and petty these debates can get, I would have never written the article; this has soured me on Wikipedia, and I don't want it to completely turn me away from Wiki edits in the future.Historymike 16:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Michael you say above you are "a marginally important journalist", yet in your first post to my talk page you describe yourself as "a national journalist". I then question that and you call me rude? I reverted your page per policy and you call me a vandal. I have tried to link many useful WP: since you are new. I am sorry you are soured but calling me rude, a vandal, and agenda driven doesn't help it would seem. Anyways, if this article remians, I would encourage you to monitor it and use the talk page to improve the article as you see fit. I really meant it when I said Wiki can always use improvement. Cheers. --Tom 18:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment(takes deep breath) One can be both "national" and "marginal," Tom. I have been published in numerous national; periodicals, and my work has been featured on MSNBC, Slate, and CBS.com (among others), but I am hardly in the class of, say, an Anderson Cooper; hence, "marginal" is a relative term. Anyone can read your snide comments on various talk pages questioning my work as a journalist and decide for themselves what you really meant. Besides, when one self-describes as "marginal," it should be seen as humility or self-deprecation; when one describes another that way, it could be interpreted as an attack. I am trying, by initiating the AfD process, to appease you, but you seem to want to keep the argument going. BTW - my comments about vadalizing refer to pages where, in your zeal to delete my edits, you deleted the work of other people. Stop trying to twist my words, sir.Historymike 18:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply Michael, I never said I wanted your bio nuked. I did question wheather you were notable. You say you want to appease me but you make posts like this just because I created that article? Then you accuse me of some type of affilliation and that I think policy only applies to other people?. Also, please don't back pedal on calling me a vandal. Do I really need to pull up all of those too? As I mentioned, some people can take that the wrong way. Also, don't call me sir :P....--Tom 19:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply to comment Tom, Tom, Tom...1) Yes, you are right about Exum. If, as you claim, you have no link to Exum, then please accept my apologies. 2) Re: vandalism: My comments about vandalism are, in the main, directed against your reckless edits that erased other peoples' work in your effort to erase mine. I did get peeved when you demanded a citation on the Michael Brooks bio, and then kept deleting the citation because it came from a blog (never mind that it is from an award-winning author, David Neiwert, whose area of expertise is watching the racist right. You just assumed the citation link was to my blog). You are obviously a person who is not willing to consider that some blogs are now go-to media sites unto themselves, and I do not wish to waste time on the blogs-vs-traditional media debate here. 3)For someone who professes to just want to get along, you sure do spend an awful lot of time coming back here to keep stirring things up. Toodles...Historymike 00:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply Hi Michael, 1) Apology accepted, no biggie. 2) I don't think my edits were "reckless" or erased others work. The only ONE I think was this and I did add that material back in. All the other edits were removing blogs as referrences. I never "demanded" anything, I just placed a fact tag on some material on your bio. 3) Not really stirring things up, just trying to respond to defend myself.--Tom 14:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's no shame in articles that start out as autobiography when a person is notable -- though it is best when others work on an article and improve it. I agree that the article is encyclopaedic enough, though it could use some work. Evertype 17:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, well for starters this appears to be a content dispute, and should be resolved as such. Second... the article currently cites no sources to back up any claims towards WP:BIO and is in fact completely unverified. This to me is absolutely grounds for deletion; but WP:AGF sourcing exists. Could someone opining keep add some sources? (and not the "blog"... that is not a reliable source)--Isotope23 18:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I added a source for one of the awards, it is currently in the article DrunkenSmurf 20:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep' per MacGyverMagic. Although WP:AUTObiographies are frowned upon, that is not a reason for deletion if the subject is notable and reliable outside sources can be provided for the text. RFerreira 19:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't mind the autobio, but he's not notable. I need more compelling evidence. C56C 02:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Prizes themselves seem non-notable, so for me don't help to establish notability of the subject. Therefore fails WP:BIO. Fairsing 05:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great Liberal Backlash of 2003

  • First Deletion Reason -- Non-notable neologism, violating WP:NEO. To the extent that it had notability, that time has passed. Morton devonshire 02:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Additional Comment-- also violates Wikipedia policy against "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position". See WP:NOR. Morton devonshire 20:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: 2nd AfD. First AfD. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — per nom American Patriot 1776 02:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • strong keep: Just more evidence of ongoing efforts to whitewash the Wiki's version of history. In fact, the backlash noted by Ivins has escalated exponentially, not least because the Republicans were reduced to perpetrating massive voter fraud in Ohio, and elsewhere, the very next year in order to keep the candidate initially selected for the White House in 2000 by the Supreme Court. Attempts at pretending the backlash hasn't continued unabated are misleading, at best. Ombudsman 03:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete — I see no references, and I see a lot of conjecture. Also WP:SOAPBOX. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place to push an agenda. This doesn't appear remotely notable. Crossmr 03:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would hardly call this a "great backlash" worthy of an encyclopedia article. Political books usually increase in number as the presidential election nears, and this wave seems non-notable -- like it says, the books didn't do much come election time. Perhaps a "books critical of George W. Bush" list/category would be a better way to show this information, as would paragraphs in various articles commenting on the US political climate around that time. SliceNYC 04:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ridiculous. Danny Lilithborne 04:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is an idea coined by a single author; no evidence has been provided to indicate that there was a greater liberal backlash in 2003 than in 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, or 2006. --Metropolitan90 04:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, made up in the newsroom one day. Gazpacho 05:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A perfectly legitimate topic for an article and this nomination is merely the latest in MD's series of AfD nominations on liberal topics he disapproves of. Gamaliel 05:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The term is cited to exactly one published author, yet it is presented like established history. You'll notice that The Death of the West, which describes a whole book about which reviews have been published, isn't written that way. Gazpacho 06:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Please WP:AGF. Questioning the motives of the nominator does not encourage participation or help the community.--Tbeatty 18:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Pretending trolling isn't trolling does not encourage participation or help the community. Gamaliel 19:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
        • If you think it's trolling, take it to RfC or ArbCom. Attacking, taunting, stalking and/or questioning editors motives on every article they edit is not acceptable by any user including admins. --Tbeatty 00:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Voting on a series of five or so AfD nominations from the same editor is not "stalking". If you actually think I'm doing that then you should be the one to take it to RfC or Arbcom. Until then take your nonsense somewhere else. Gamaliel 01:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
            • The "nonsense" is the accusation of trolling. Please take it elsewhere. --Tbeatty 01:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- per nom. Ramsquire 16:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- this neologism does not appear to be particularly widely used. Google search for the term brought back a mass of mirror sites and very little else. Robotforaday 17:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete violates the policies pertaining to no original research & verifiablity. Appears to be a neologism as well.--Isotope23 18:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Tbeatty 18:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Article appears to have been created solely to push the author's POV. That would be fine if it were referenced with other sources, but it doesn't appear to be notable enough for that. --Cswrye 22:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete lie - it was hardy great, Bush got reelected... Dev920 22:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If those drunken hippies put their bongs down and voted, it might have come true. --Xrblsnggt 02:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obvious and clearly exaggerated POV. / Peter Isotalo 12:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Every pronouncement by Molly Ivins is now notable? Santorum is a neologism that has caught on. This is not. Captainktainer * Talk 18:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete In addition to being original research and a non-notable neologism, this is more of an essay than an encyclopedic article. The title itself is fairly subjective - was this "movement" (for lack of a better name) really "great" or a "backlash"? Agent 86 18:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is being attacked (in a biased campaign for deletion against anti-bush topics) for the POV of the subject matter, independently from the POV within the article. Note that this campaign is being done in the name of NPOV, while clearly attacking a specific POV is POV in itself. PizzaMargherita 05:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment What you're saying may or may not be the case for some of the people saying delete, but certainly not for all. I dislike the insinuation that I am acting in the interests of pro-bush apologetics. I simply say delete because the phrase is a non-notable neologism. There is no conspiracy. Robotforaday 16:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Like MLA below, a lot of editors here are not American; in fact, "liberal" is construed differently outside the USA. The POV of the article itself is at issue, not some political agenda. Agent 86 16:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Inherently a POV dump.--MONGO 05:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Inherently POV. Original research. Non-notable phrase. Not sure whether this is supposed to be an anti-liberal piece of humour but being European, I don't get it if it is. MLA 12:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete agree with MONGO. Rmt2m 00:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EMC Monkeys

Delete NN group. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gregory Joseph Gould I

Delete. Prod removed. Probable hoax. Gregory Joseph Gould has 0 hits on google. Note additional page also being AfDed appears to be hoax vanity, or hoax anyway. Linking of these pages to real pages like Science fiction has been removed already. cmh 06:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I am also nominating the following related page because its part of the same hoax: Gregory Joseph Gould II -- cmh 06:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Oops. Wondered why no-one was voting :) -- cmh 04:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — hoax American Patriot 1776 02:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both as hoaxes. Author has had plenty of time by now to argue otherwise. Melchoir 04:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both, and anything else created by the same author that references "Family History of the Gould Family (2003) Private collection". BlankVerse 05:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Andrews

(Contested PROD). Fails every criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). The short list of publications does not assert importance in relation to our criteria about academics (#3,4,5 ?): i.e. significance, or advancing an "important new concept". Criteria #1,2, 6, 7 not mentioned/asserted at all. No references to verifiable sources: notably no "independent sources" regarding him as a "significant expert in their area." The JPStalk to me 02:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment: This article was in much poorer state than it is now at the time it was nominated. [5]. The JPStalk to me 10:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
In the pre-AfD state it was clearly a poor article. Luckily we now have the best result - an AfD discussion resulting in a better article - Peripitus (Talk) 10:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — per nom American Patriot 1776 02:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — His most recent book, the ANZAC Illusion advances new theories about the popular view of Australian's experiences in war. It is a controversial position for an academic to take and it adds significantly to the reinterpretation of Australian war and social history. It was published by a major publisher Cambridge University Press. I can't comment on his other books because I don't know them. Certainly the article is weak, but it is simply a stub and over time it will be improved. I think it would be a shame to consider that Eric Andrew's material is not notable when we accept every footballer and sportsperson as notable just because they have played in a few first grade matches. In one hundred year's Andrews contribution to Australian history will remain more important than John Markovski's contribution to Australia. Further, I think it meets the requirement of WP:Bio, even if it fails the academic notability test. Maustrauser 03:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete: per WP:V, no references -> no loss. I say "weak" only because this is an old article, and I'd feel better if it had had a cleanup tag before being considered for deletion.
    • Keep per rewriting: the external link that mentions a paper writen on the man most convinces me. Melchoir 04:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. He has had a number of books published by reputable publishers. Seems notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 05:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 06:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. One of his books has been quoted at least twice in the Australian House of Representatives. Another was translated into Chinese. Another academic (Wayne Reynolds of the University of Newcastle) considered Andrews significant enough to present a paper about him, "A Scholar of Australian War and Diplomacy: The Views and Methods of Eric Andrews" at the Newcastle War Society and Culture Symposium, November 2, 2001. This article should not have been nominated for deletion. TruthbringerToronto

(Talk | contribs) 08:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment: Regarding "This article should not have been nominated for deletion," I have now noted above the weak state this article was in at the time it was nominated for deletion. The JPStalk to me 10:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - perhaps as an academic he does not make the grade but the evidence in the article ( and some web searching ) shows him making it as an author. Multiple works with at least some reviews. A stub article to expand not delete Peripitus (Talk) 08:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - the version I read had a fairly extensive bibliography of serious books he's published. Some of his works have been translated into Chinese, apparently. Seems noteworthy to me. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten per Maustrauser and Capitalistroadster. Looks like an open-and-shut case to me now. RFerreira 19:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rhodell Brewery

adSPAMverCRUFTisement; weak or no claims to notability; has only been around 8 years Rklawton 02:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete — maybe if it grows, it will make it, but for now, delete American Patriot 1776 02:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — Unless some notability and importance could be established per WP:CORP. Crossmr 03:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; it sounds cool, but it would need independent sources to stay. Melchoir 04:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: (Note: I'm the author of this) This is a verifiable commercial brewery. If we keep towns, no matter how small, why not keep commercial breweries? There are far fewer of them in the world than there are towns. I realize sources are lacking in the current version, yet google results seem to reveal multiple independant mentions of this topic. Why not give it time to develop? Friday (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Keep. Please refer to the list of references in the article. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge. Appears on the BeerAdvocate index and RateBeer index, fulfilling criterion (2) of WP:CORP. 8 years is not an "only" in the modern world of brewing. If it's too short to be an independent article, merge it into Illinois_beer_and_breweries. --Stlemur 07:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Criterion 2 of WP:CORP is for stock market indexes, not for web sites that give quality ratings to breweries. Criterion 1 is what you are looking for. You'll need something more substantial than an article that just gives the address of the brewery and a list of the beers that it produces. An independent history of the brewery would satisfy the criterion, for example. There are books about breweries. Uncle G 09:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well sourced and "Rhodell's is the only brewery in Illinois to offer brew on premises, in which customers brew their own beer, under supervision of the brewmaster." makes it a unique and thus notable brewery in my opinion. - Mgm|(talk) 08:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Just about anything or anyone as hyper-qualified as you note in your analysis will end up being unique. Mine is the only house on the corner of the south side of my street. So what? Rklawton 17:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - if it gave some references other than rating sites and an alumni magazine it could establish notability. When (as already stated) there are far fewer breweries than towns, being the only brewery in Illinois to offer brew on premises doesn't make it notable (only one in the world may be notable, but this isn't). Yomanganitalk 10:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, breweries are notable. BoojiBoy 13:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No vote yet. It is unclear from the linked sites I visited whether this is a local (micro)brewery (i.e. its beers are available off premises) or just a brewpub/restaurant that offers brew-on-premises. Would be inclined to keep it if it is a local brewery. Not sure that an individual brewpub/restaurant meets the grade, though. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It'd be better if we had a source for that rather than my own tasty but original research, but yes, this beer is distributed as well. Not sure how MUCH they distribute, if that matters, but it can be found at other bars and restaurants. The brewery itself is a brewpub (i.e. their products are available packaged but are also served on the premises.) They do not have a kitchen. I'll admit I was a bit questionable about making this- I wouldn't be in favor of articles on every corner bar in the world. But since they're a licensed commercial brewery, I figured this put them in a different category. There'd been discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beer and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beer/Notability Criteria on notability of individual breweries, but nothing I'd call a clear consensus. If you're inclined to say (as some did in the discussion) that any licensed commercial brewery is significant, this one clearly counts. If you want some level of third-party sources, well, they are some, but I don't know if there's enough to clearly show the significance of this. Friday (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Inclined to keep in that case. Good to know that notability is being discussed in the beer project, and tend to agree: the garden variety brewpub-restaurant is common enough to require further indicia of notability, but local breweries that distribute ought to make the cut. (For a fact like this, the menu or beer list of another restaurant serving this brewery's beer would be an independent, non-self-published source reliable enough to establish this fact, I think.) - Smerdis of Tlön 15:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Works for me. Successful breweries have it in their nature to tend to notability. - Corporal Tunnel 16:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Question, and so I don't muddy AfD's up with more brewery articles. Are all commercial breweries notable? And if not, what would disqualify a commercial brewery from notability? Rklawton 00:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
      • That very question has been kicked around a bit at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beer/Notability Criteria. Guidelines that try to say "all things of type X are automatically notable" are rather silly, even tho we do that in cases of towns as a convenience. We could make up rules based on how many barrels per year they produce, but I don't think we need to- isn't what we're looking for really just proper sources? I've remember reading a newpaper article about this place, but I believe it was from several years ago and I'm unable to turn it up online, but I suppose I don't expect people to just take my word for it that there are better sources available. The main reason I don't see a need for a specific standard for breweries is that I don't see vanity brewery articles usually clogging up Afd. I'll admit the closest thing we have to a relevant guideline is WP:CORP which this almost certainly fails, but I'm admittedly biased on favor of things that are delicious. Friday (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm a beer fan myself. Given the lack of clarity, then it seems like WP:CORP is our best guideline. If not, then there's nothing to stop Wikipedia from becoming a brew pub directory - and from lots of other similar sized restaurants, etc. claiming "equal" notability. As far as brew-pubs go, any city with a pub is going to get a local newspaper write-up, so that's hardly notable. To prevent that, I'd like to suggest that the brew or the pub should first win at least one major award before meeting Wikipedia's notability requirements. "X-city's best" by some newspaper award, probably wouldn't count (at least not for a Peoria sized city). Other ideas? Rklawton 01:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I could try to assert that breweries are of particular cultural significance but that's just my own opinion which shouldn't count for much. My general standard for all articles involve the subject being covered in an appropriate number of independant sources. I don't personally see a need for specific standards for breweries, altho expecting some significant award doesn't seem unreasonable to me either. Please do pop in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beer/Notability Criteria if you wish. So far this Afd seems to confirm what I'd suspected- that articles on commercial breweries and unlikely to be deleted via Afd, but this is the first practical test of brwery notability that I'm aware of. Friday (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, it looks fine to me, and verifiable. RFerreira 19:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per discussion above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: for those who like having our own standards for significance rather than relying on expert opinion, there's one factor that might make this brewery somewhat unique, at least in its locale: they serve cask ale, which, as far as I have seen, isn't available at places like Goose Island Brewery. It's probably quite common in England tho, so maybe this doesn't count for much. Friday (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a small business of no notability. That it makes beer seems to be the only reason why people are voting to keep it. I am a beer advocate. But I see no sense in listing every corner shop, bus stop, milk farm and brewery on the planet. The rules of Wiki are that an entry must be verifiable - that is the item must have been written about in an approved source. A listing in a phone book or collectors directory does not count. If RateBeer had an article on the brewery that would be of interest. But they merely list the brewery - along with every brewery on the planet! BalfourCentre 23:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beer Balls

Delete. Fails WP:NN and WP:NFT. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Email 03:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  04:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Billal Jaber

Article does not demonstrate notability of subject. Ataricodfish 03:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete — It fails to assert any notability here. This should be speedied. Crossmr 03:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Vanity article. Just because he acted in some local TV show is not notable enough. Also the creator of this article has just created one article. --Ageo020 03:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — I'm not sure this can be speedied because it claims that Billal starred in a tv show. Dionyseus 03:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy: Appeared in local access != starred in TV. Melchoir 04:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merged/redirected. Melchoir 04:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PurVIEW

This is the same thing as Purview. It's almost as eerie as a copyvio, and the Purview article seems to be wikified, unlike the article up for AfD. I want to move Purview here to PurVIEW, but this exists. Could this fall under G6? TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 03:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I've been bold and put in a redirect and removed the AfD. I've just close this now. Melchoir 04:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starbucks Workers Union

Importance and notability has not been established Luke 04:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete without prejudice to future articles. The current is a copy-paste job of http://www.starbucksunion.org/about, so I can't agonize over it: easy come, easy go. Melchoir 04:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep per JChap2007's rewriting. Melchoir 16:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, its not an official union by Starbucks itself, and notability is not established. --Terence Ong (T | C) 05:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep, after JChap2007's rewrite. Rewrite includes verifiability and notability. --Terence Ong (T | C) 08:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's not certified, but it was an object of curiosity in the media and has actually received coverage in multiple articles. See [6], [7] and [8]. Thus, it meets WP:ORG. JChap2007 08:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per JChap2007 if someone can bother to kill the copy-paste job and write a real article. - Mgm|(talk) 08:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    And I rewrote it. JChap2007 12:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Version I read establishes news coverage and at least historical interest; some people may not suspect that the Wobblies even still exist. Suggest AfD is moot, in that the article has been rewritten by JChap2007. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, current version is okish. Addhoc 15:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep BEcause Luke is a starbucks manager!!! just kidding, keep because its notability has been established through the sources provided of media coverage. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the rewrite by JChap2007, notability looks to be firmly established now. RFerreira 19:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems very notable. JASpencer 22:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the very good rewrite. :) There's apparently a good deal of third party (historic and media) interest and it's verified. Srose (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Richardcavell 22:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly an aritcle that was useful as it explains a point about labour relations at a major company (this is valuable information). Afd was unwarranted in the first place, a rewrite should have been requested instead. Nlsanand 01:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Nlsanand. CindyLooWho 06:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Legitimate article about legitimate union organisation Athryn 15:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Assembly Required

See also Luca Mele (AfD discussion).

Delete. Does not meet WP:MUS. Small Canadian band that has never had a nationally charted hit. No major awards. No notable members. CindyLooWho 04:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete — Delete per CindyLooWho talk to JD wants e-mail 17:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • NN, delete. Bearcat 00:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN local band. BlueValour 19:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of top WWE World Heavyweight Champions by combined length

  • Delete. It's simply listcruft, not needed. RobJ1981 04:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete. The article was under construction when it was tagged to be deleted. The list is perfectly valid and of interest to wrestling fans.Pretzolio@yahoo.com 05:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Useless info. Clay4president 05:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. This could be interesting to wrestling fans as something akin to baseball stats, but it needs sources and removal of self-reference quickly. Author appears willing, so I won't vote delete just yet. If the fixing is not done soon, though, I wouldn't oppose a renomination. - Mgm|(talk) 08:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, although it desperately needs some sourcing. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but it needs a lot of work. Article name is confusing, and no sourcing. If not fixed soon will support renomination and deletion. Ramsquire 19:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge into other WWE Champion lists: per Mgm. Give at least sometime for the author to give some claims of notability and add citations. This article was tagged for deletion on the same day it was created. --Mitaphane talk 01:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I suggest changing it to include all world champions and not just WWE, use the page List of professional wrestling World Title reigns by length. TJ Spyke 02:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Listcruft. Vegaswikian 19:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - in general I think that highest, biggest, longest lists are encyclopaedic. I agree that the scope of this list needs to be widened and deepened but the nomination was a bit quick off the mark. I suggest that the nominator sets up a reminder in Outlook and brings it back in a month or so if the suggestions on here haven't been adopted. BlueValour 19:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Vegaswikian and Clay4president. -- bulletproof 3:16 20:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of neologisms on Family Guy

I love this show to death, but the list is positively miniscule. I don't believe there is an amount of memorable neologisms (ones that are repeated/enjoy significant cult status) to list that would justify this article. Sunscar 04:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Seems non-notable to me. RobJ1981 04:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non-notable. Clay4president 06:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why delete this one and not List of neologisms on The Simpsons? Surely there was a time when that one would've been small too. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The Simpsons page has MUCH MUCH more than the Family Guy page has. Clay4president 03:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Not to mention that The Simpsons has established prominence and a way of working itself into everyday cultural lexicon repeatedly for 17 years. FG is wildly popular, but not the way the Simpsons is. SliceNYC 21:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete great show but the list is rather unmaintainable. And Cromulent Kwyjibo your always welcome to nominate the Simpson's article for deletion if you wish. Whispering(talk/c) 22:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep When someone creates an article titled "fastizio" you'll regret not having this one. ShutterBugTrekker 23:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
That article would be in violation of WP:NEO and would likely be deleted anyway. So why keep around a list that just amounts to a listing of WP:NEO violations? (and for what its worth, as somebody who is obsessed with the Simpsons to a very unhealthy level, I think that list should go too. Fancruft like this belongs on the fan sites, like [9]) - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Simpsons is different in that the show has been around for 17 years(with the family themselves being around for 19 years) and much bigger than Family Guy. The Simpsons even managed to get a word into the Oxford English Dictionary(D'Oh). TJ Spyke 02:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
That may be so, but The Simpsons are stale now. Family Guy is fresh and already showing itself to be way more inventive. Michiganotaku 22:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Give Family Guy a couple of more seasons, and the list will get more flesh on it (more for some letters than others, to be sure). Even now I bet the list is not complete. Michiganotaku 22:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Nobody's saying the list can't be recreated. The question is whether it should be deleted now. Unlike some articles where we allow time for a user to clean up a page, there's a finite amount of neologisms that won't change within the next couple of days. SliceNYC 03:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I love Family Guy, but this list has almost no information, where List of neologisms on The Simpsons has way more imformation
  • Delete, neologism, neologism, .... Pavel Vozenilek 19:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. These words have become of extreme importance to lexicons of teenagers and 20-somethings. Robert Happelberg 20:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Those would be catchphrases and quotes, not neologisms. Big difference. What's listed in this article is fancruft. Sunscar 04:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. As per nom. In spite of my frequent edits to improve grammar and links in List of characters from Family Guy, this one is just NN listcruft. --Dennette 23:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Bob. Anton Mravcek 23:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Worth it for "giggidy" alone. Plinth molecular gathered 18:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's only a matter of time before "giggity" is added to the OED. Del arte 19:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Giggity/giggidy can and should be made into its own article, since that is more wide-used than, say, slappywag. The question is whether or not a list of all FG neologisms belongs. SliceNYC 19:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luca Mele

Delete. As an unelected city council candidate and member of a small band that does not meet WP:MUS, this person does not at all meet WP:BIO. The rest of this page is just vastly excessive, improperly formatted text that amounts to nothing more than off-topic nonsense. CindyLooWho 04:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Violates WP:V, WP:OR, probably a lot more, and a new one I'm making up. WP:NOT#Prophesies "When the exhausted Sun takes up his cycle then my prophecy and threats will be accomplished.". Utter nonsense. --Daniel Olsen 05:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree.Delete. Completely inappropriate tone and formatting and no assertion of notability. Natalie 08:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Please note that the article says "Wriiten By Alan Dein for Luca Mele's official website www.etparty.com" at the bottom. This is just a straight copy and paste of someone's self-promotional blurb. Even presuming that the person satisfies WP:BIO, I cannot see a reason for retaining this whilst we wait for an encyclopaedia article to appear. I've had a look for sources, in the hope of doing a rewrite, but I couldn't find any. This is a completely unsourced (auto)biography of a 22-year-old. If Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/2 had gained consensus this would be speedily deletable. Strong Delete. Uncle G 11:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete utter tripe. Atrian 13:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I just tagged it with {{copyvio}}. --Usgnus 14:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Tripe, copyvio, unelected candidate for political office. In the (kind of unlikely, sez I, but that's just my opinion) event that he wins election, he can come back; in the meantime, delete. Bearcat 00:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for all of the reasons given above. Skeezix1000 20:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn/redirected. Further discussion should of course be on the appopriate article talk page. Wickethewok 16:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BLACK BILLIONAIRES

Article basically refers to two people, Robert L. Johnson and Oprah Winfrey. Info here is better put in their articles or Billionaire. NawlinWiki 15:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Withdrawing nom -- Sorry, didn't realize this had already survived AFD as African Americans whose net worth is equivalent to at least $1 billion. Will redirect. NawlinWiki 15:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Move, ev. delete. I don't like all upercase title. Anyway I'm neutral, not interesting article, but probably enought encyclopedic. -- Cate 15:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Please do not change the title. The article survived deletion nomination titled "Black Billionaires" and it's about black billionaires worldwide not America only.--Whatdoyou 15:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • But it secretly isn't about black billionaires worldwide, given the arbitrary choice of USD for "$1 Billion" - a Black Canadian with $979 million USD is a Black Billionaire, but is excluded from the article (I have no idea if such a person exists). WilyD 15:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protectedpdf

Contested prod. Author attempted to flesh it out a bit but it's still just an ad. "Protectedpdf" gets a grand total of 286 Google hits. Opabinia regalis 05:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - The info about the software fails WP:SOFTWARE, and the rest is just about Document protection in general. --Daniel Olsen 06:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom (although an article on document protection in general wouldn't go amiss). Not sure the Vitrium Systems article meets WP:CORP either - it certainly hasn't got any references. Yomanganitalk 10:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - too much unsourced POV for my liking. BlueValour 19:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Mastroianni

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Macarron Chacarron

Originally {{prod}}'d, but the template was removed by SuperDT. I believe we should delete this article, because I'd like for Wikipedia to go with a little consistency. Why should we keep an article on this song when we delete the article about its creator?—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 05:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete According to Wikipedia:Notability (songs) guidelines, it does not appear to be notable. IceCreamAntisocial 06:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete although I think the deletion on El Mudo was premature, if it got deleted then this article can't be here, either. Hopefully though, it's on the Spanish Wikipedia, because it's definitely notable in the Spanish-speaking world (for better or for worse). Danny Lilithborne 06:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If it was created by El Mudo then why does the article state El Chombo as the artist? Anyway, if it's notable in Spain it's notable here. We're an international encyclopedia that just happens to be in the English language. And if memory serves me correctly, the song also sparked a Dutch language parody. - Mgm|(talk) 09:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - it isn't notable enough in Spanish to have an article on the es wikipedia (ditto El Mudo and El Chombo), and it doesn't pass the notability criteria here either. Yomanganitalk 10:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm pretty sure that "el mudo" doesn't actually exist, since I've found the song credited to "andy val gourmet" and listed in the Juno Records catalog. Since it's a single that's achieved a notable level of popularity and has a video made for it, I'm going to say keep and cleanup. If you want to verify for yourself, see the cover here Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep First off, the song wasn't created by "El Mudo," but rather El Chombo feat. Andy's Val Gourmet, and thus the artist wasn't deleted. Second, this song is becoming much more popular on the internet every day, in my opinion much more than dog poop girl! If we can get more info on this song, and the artists, it may become a good article. SuperDT 04:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If we keep it, it should propably be moved to Chacarron (Shark Around) since that appears to be its english title. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 99 Degrees of Freemasonry

New user User:Nork Evolk created an article about a book by Henning Klovekorn. I'll go out on a limb and suggest that it's a self-promotion.

  • Delete as vanity advertisement. Gazpacho 05:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not enough info and needs organized. Clay4president 06:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no reliable sources to show notability. I agree its likely also vanity. Gwernol 06:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Several modifications have been made to change perception that the page is a self promotion excercise. The page now includes several points which the publication discusses (quite topical issues) and uses references. As for precedence in the matter, see Wikipedia entries for books such as the Hiram Key, they are not different to what has been placed here. Its a work in progress.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.135.6.24 (talk • contribs) .
  • Thank you for the additions. However they still don't address the basic issue of whether the book is notable or not. If the book had been reviewed by some independent and reliable source for example, then it would show notability. As it stands the references you added show notability for Freemasonry, but not for the book "99 Degrees of Freemasonry". Thanks, Gwernol 07:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No indication of notability, and the recent additions don't change that. (Nork Evolk's work is most likely also ytinav.) —Celithemis 07:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note most of the text of the article is copied directly from the author's website at [10]. The website is copyrighted, so this article is a copyright violation. I'm going to tag it as such. Gwernol 07:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    The copyright problem has now been resolved by the author of the article. However I still believe the notability, vanity and verifiability issues remain. Gwernol 11:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — Only 5 ghits - two on wikipedia, two on the author's website and one on myspace. The article itself, as it was, didn't assert any form of notability, and the burden of proof is on the article to prove for itself that the subject is notable. Seems like vanity and is definately nn. Martinp23 12:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — Appears to be vanity/Copyvio Betacommand 15:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Copyvio... WP:VAIN, verifiabilty and sourcing problems, and general lack of notability for a book. kudos to Gazpacho for "cracking the code".--Isotope23 19:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Search Toppers

Fails WP:CORP. No Google hits except its own home page. IceCreamAntisocial 06:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - fails WP:CORP and even WP:SOFTWARE. --Daniel Olsen 06:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Useless article. Clay4president 06:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Gwernol 06:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Searchtoppers has developed a way for non 3G phones to recieve streaming HD video, no other company can do this, period. This means we can bridge the 3 year gap between the inferior us networks and counties like japan in a matter of months not years. that is why I wrote the article on searchtoppers and that is why they are note worthy. I think it would be a mistake to remove.
  • If someone can verify that, I would certainly agree. - Mgm|(talk) 09:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem is this is a claim about the impact their technology will have in the future, not a claim about its actual impact now. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Until their technology has a recognized impact, it shouldn't be covered in an article. Gwernol 09:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Assuming [11] is the website for the company, I can't find anything regarding the new method for compressing and sending HD video to cell phones. In fact, nothing about the web site even infers that they have expertise in anything but advancing a web page rank in the popular search engines. At the very least these claims are unverifable, at the most, they're an outright WP:HOAX. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
According to the creator it's searchtoppers.tv; not .com. - Mgm|(talk) 07:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete seems like a promotion and therefore not appropriate for Wikipedia. Cedars 10:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

''PLEASE READ'': for those of you who are doubters, please notice no back link to the website wich would be the case if one was self promotion, and further more if you have a phone with a web brouser go to searchtoppers.tv and view a demo of the search toppers mobile streaming technology in action. the mobile streaming transfer rate is greater than 24 frames per second (HD). It works on all carriers except verizon who has not lowered their "wall garden". search and lear about carrier wall gardens then you can look up H.264 technology without disclosing patent pending information you can easily see searctoppers is who they claim to be. Thank you in advance for the time it will take you to confirm. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dhurowitz (talk • contribs).

  • The problem appears to be verification. We need a source that has written about this technology. Trying using a mobile phone would be original research. Besides, not everyone lives whereever this service is available. - Mgm|(talk) 07:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep as the nominator provided no reasons as to why this person would be non-notable, while voters have provided several reasons as to why he is. - Mgm|(talk) 08:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cris Alexander

Non-notable. Clay4president 06:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep a starring role in the original cast of a Broadway show establishes notability for me. Gwernol 06:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — per Gwernol. Dionyseus 07:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Gwernol's reasoning. - Mgm|(talk) 09:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable in several ways. NawlinWiki 11:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, He pioneered the role on Broadway that Frank Sinatra played in the film of On The Town, and he was a published photographer in several best-selling books. SteveHopson 15:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Suggest withdrawal of nomination and speedy closure. RFerreira 19:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per RFerreira. I agree with the idea of a speedy close. The only argument for deletion has been fully refuted. --Edgelord 19:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rewrite makes the reason the article was nominated for moot. - Mgm|(talk) 08:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Nygård

Seems like a perfectly notable Finnish-Canadian businessman, but the article has an entirely negative slant. In accordance with the principles of WP:BLP, I would suggest a deletion unless someone is willing to rewrite it to give a balanced view of the person. up+l+and 06:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is not a correct use of AfD. If the articles needs to be rewritten, do so, rather than initiating an AfD. I have rewritten the article to remove the attacks. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I have absolutely no wish to write about Peter Nygård, nor am I under any obligation to do so just because I happen to stumble over a hatchet job on the person. As far as I understand WP:BLP, it is better to have no article at all on a living person rather than one which is defamatory. up+l+and 08:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
      • You are under no obligation to write an article about Peter Nygård, true. But you should consider that initiating an AfD rather than attempting to fix an existing article is asking other editors to spend time evaluating the article, time which could better be spent creating and revising other articles. In any event, there is a substantially revised article in place now, and there is no justification for deleting it. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
        • That is the position I would usually take where the article is in need of a minor cleanup but basically harmless, but with attack articles, I think it is reasonable to delete unless someone actually rewrites the thing (and in some cases deletion and rewrite from scratch may even be needed). Thus, in a case where I'm not interested in making the rewrite, my alternatives are a) to ignore the article and pretend I never saw it, or b) to turn to the larger Wikipedia community. Since I have no idea where else to report an article that seems to be on a notable subject but should be deleted unless rewritten, I took it here. There seems to be no other way, or should we have a special place for reporting pages like this? (BTW, the rewrite is fine, and I suppose the discussion can be closed.) up+l+and 20:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the rewrite works for me. About this discussion. Based on precedent I think getting rid of defamation is a fair use of deletion policy. In fact he was cautious and brought it to people's attention when there was in fact an speedy deletion criterion for deletion of attack pags he could have used. - Mgm|(talk) 09:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the rewrite works for me. --Wafulz 18:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten and close the discussion; nomination is now moot. RFerreira 19:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:BIO says to delete the unacceptable information immediately but does not say to delete the article. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 23:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Running Rhythm International

Non notable, advertising Chuq 06:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:CORP. -- Mikeblas 10:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, only Ghit for "Running Rhythm International" is the Wikipedia article. NawlinWiki 16:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 the material except the lyrics had already been merged into the main article. I added an external link to the lyrics in the main article, and made this article a Redirect. This seems the best compromise. Herostratus 04:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Honestas Ante Honores

Article concerning a non-notable secondary school song. Sufficient reference to the song is already included in the parent article[12]; this one simply adds the lyrics. Article was tagged with {{citations missing}}, then CSD, both removed by original author with no comment and no changes. Request Delete. --Satori Son 07:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect. I don't think the mention in the parent article is sufficient, but clearly there's a lot to excise, starting with the lyrics. A redirect would not only help give attribution after merging, but would avoid recreation and send people to the school article if they were looking for the song. - Mgm|(talk) 09:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I have updated the parent article with all info from this one except the lyrics. --Satori Son 11:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per Mgm. Yomanganitalk 10:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That's fine if you want to merge this content with King George V School. But you should include the lyrics. Along alumni this is often debated, and I pulled these words directly from the hymn book. Talking to other previous students, we felt it was important to add these lyrics. I felt that it may be inappropriate to include this in the main King George V School section, as it would dilute the value of that page. So I created this page. I am new to wikipedia, so I apologize if this was inappropriate. But like I stated previously, I think it is very important to either include the lyrics in the main page, or keep this one. Dpatri 13:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way, in reference to Satori Son above. He is correct that I removed the deletion. But I DID make signficant changes to the content, indicating its value Dpatri 13:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the misstatement, which I have corrected above. What I meant to say was that no references or sources had been provided. Again, sorry. --Satori Son 13:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No problem. Thanks for the correction. In terms of value -- it is only important to previous students -- However, it is oldest and most respected (debatable) English secondary school in Hong Kong and is often identified by its school song... not to repeat myself, but I just want the lyrics included somewhere. Dpatri 15:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • strong keep The merge target, King George V School is already a huge article and the school is notable, contrary to the nominator. And this article is not a stub. Splitting separate topics from big articles is a correct approach. Mukadderat 18:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I didn't know the nominator had to be notable... ;-) Seriously, I am not asserting that the parent school is non-notable, just its song. And I realize the King George V School article is long, but the only additional info in this article is the lyrics. How are you going to find "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" to confirm the lyrics to a high school song? Even the original author above admits there is debate as to the exact lyrics. It can't possibly pass WP:V, which is why we have notability requirements in the first place. --Satori Son 19:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • You may completely remove it from main article and put into "see also" section. This is a completely independent piece that may be safely removed from the main narration about the school. By the way, if the issue is verifiablity, the text xas no right to be in the main article either. As for "theird-party sources", in this case the school itself is a valid source, you don't need "third party": Lyrics is not an opinion or description, it is bare fact. Just like basic items about person's bio may be taken from his website. Mukadderat 19:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
        • You're right, the specific lyrics should probably not be included in the parent article. I appreciate what Dpatri, the original author, is trying to do, but WP:Verifiability is one of the few Wikipedia policies that is completely and totally non-negotiable. --Satori Son 18:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Ok, if verifiability is the only issue preventing this from being approved (from Satori Son's pov) then I found the song on the kgv.edu.hk page. I have cited this page in the wiki (If I have cited it incorrectly, please correct). I hope we can now say that this song is verifiable. BTW, I disagree with the words that are on the kgv.edu site, and can prove I am correct. For one, it is using the american english spelling of "Honour". This is a british school and is still using british english. Secondly there is a typo, saying "Honetas" when it should be "Honestas". I don't think anyone would dispute that, so my version is the corrected version. The whole reason I created this as separate is because the KGV main page is too long, and I feel the lyrics are important - and now verfiable from a trusted source (the school website) Dpatri 22:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
        • BTW, I am going to try to get the version on the kgv.edu.hk site corrected as well --Dpatri 22:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  08:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mondai and Poccha

NN one-episode comedic villians from Naruto. Article is mostly a summary of the (single) episode they appeared in, and the only source is to the biographies section of a Naruto fansite. Delete no jutsu on this one. NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 07:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BodyRelief

Blatant advertisement for some product. I couldn't find where it was copied from, but I think this is pretty obvious. It was deprodded by the article creator. Of interest to those reading, "BodyRelief foot pads, when put up against the skin, begin to emit a far infrared energy that stimulates blood and lymph circulation." Infrared radiation to the body is pretty much heat. Thus, they're pretty much heating pads. Kevin_b_er 07:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:VSCA, apply directly to the forehead. Danny Lilithborne 07:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Clear spam. Should be deleted and the page protected to prevent recreation. Gwernol 08:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Spamgasmic 205.157.110.11 08:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam. And just look at all those redirects that need to go too. Yomanganitalk 10:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, spamvertising, and delete all the redirects. NawlinWiki 11:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, spamvertising. -- The Anome 12:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I've just speedy-deleted all the redirects, on the basis of WP:SNOW.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under speedy A7. Article made no attempt to claim notability.. Shell babelfish 07:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Ann Mangano

Vanity, etc. Speedy tag removed by author. Danny Lilithborne 07:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Merged and deleted.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  08:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Team 696

It is a school club. Proded but removedDelete -Doc 07:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete School-cruft but those kids make some pretty neat robots. 205.157.110.11 08:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree that the robots are cool, but school clubs aren't notable. NawlinWiki 11:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Clark Magnet High School In the school page itself it seems something like this might be worth mentioning. DrunkenSmurf 14:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not delete this article. This is a very interesting organization, and from what the article says it seems as if they're affiliated with Clark Magnet High School... not a school club. But a school team. Does USC Trojans have its own wiki? --67.94.18.38
  • Do not delete this article. This is not a school club, it is a team composed of students from Clark Magnet High School that compete in the FIRST Robotics competition representing our city and school. We are sponsored and supported by Glendale Community College (CA) and various other organizations throughout the Los Angeles area. Also, as I've stated in the discussion on the page, I am aware that it is not of any encyclopedic value - well, neither are any of the other school-related pages. Wikipedia users would not just browse around for this kind of information (or at least I hope not...). Reaching the pages for the Glendale Unified School District and Clark Magnet High School is probably only done through direct searches. Users interested in these two pages would definitely also be interested in the most defining aspect of the school, the robotics team. --rappo 17:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Clark Magnet High School, per DrunkenSmurf. This is simply not a notable enough organization to support a separate article (and indeed, no school club or team is).--Isotope23 19:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - with no merge, no reliable sources. Wickethewok 19:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Clark Magnet High School This team is part of the school, so it should be included in the school's article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.190.208.154 (talk • contribs).
  • Merge to Clark Magnet High School - per DrunkenSmurf. Clay4president 03:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Clark Magnet High School Rappo, there is no reason we can't put more of this in the Clark article, but thia is not noteworthy enough. Until the answer to 1 of the next 2\ questions is yes, this is my opinion.

1. Is there a page for CV robotics (or any otherr similar team? 2. Did teqm 696 do anything re: robotics that makers their contribution significant? 3. is the Clark article too full?

You probably know me, I graduated from Clark in June,

jj 13:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stathis

Greek family supposed to be famous. No sources, seems unverifiable. Google gives not a single famous Stathis, neither does Wikipedia (nor a famous Mouratis but Andreas Mouratis). Wikipedia articles are not genealogical entries. Prodded, prod removed by anon. Delete --Huon 08:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete The article, to me, seems like a complete hoax. Even if it's somehow not a hoax, it's unverifiable. -- Kicking222 13:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep article Probably,as you are from the states, you are unaware of the greek social and political life. Some members of the Stathis family are Spyros Stathis - former General secretary of the Ministry of Finance, Lieut. Gen. Theolgos Stathis - Chief of Police Special Ops, Georgios Stathis - awarded writer and many others. It is difficult to find some info on the net as internet was not widely spread in greece until recently.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.75.60.172 (talk • contribs).
  • Comment Well, WP:V is an official policy of Wikipedia. The lack of sources here is a major concern. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't appear to be verifiable, basically per above.--Andeh 20:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per my comments above. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Meaning of Night

The fact that this novel will not be published until 2006 September has been removed from the article. Not (yet) notable. Probable vanity article. (Note that the large number of Google hits include a different book called Touba and the Meaning of Night and a painting by Renee Magritte.) -- RHaworth 09:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Article claims that "The book's purchase by London publishers, John Murray, caused a stir in the publishing world for winning the largest ever British auction for a debut novel. The deal was followed closely by industry magazines like The Bookseller." If that's true, the book has already received media attention and set a fairly significant record, which is certainly grounds for notability. It also was mentioned in a New York Times article, although I don't know the context as I don't subscribe to their website. -Elmer Clark 10:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Largest advance for a debut novel according to this - [13]. Also a mention in The Observer as 'exciting British debut'. [14] Catchpole 11:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constance Jean Duquette

non-notable, fails WP:BIO, delete. --Dave Null 09:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete None of her achievements seem very notable, and 25 Google hits just serves to seal the deal against her. -Elmer Clark 10:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Elmer. NawlinWiki 11:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for now, if someone introduces references that justify notability, then maybe, if you can find me, I'll change my vote. Addhoc 15:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Elmer. -999 (Talk) 16:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom and Elmer. Clay4president 03:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Klute Game

Listed as speedy but was removed by a new user account whose sole edit was to remove the speedy note [15]. Non-notable topic with little to no context. Sounds like some small game or meme that doesn't even reach the smallest requirements for being on wikipedia. Lid 10:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Well what exactly is the point of Wikipedia then if we can't add things that are big, locally? Just because you've never heard of it, doesn't mean its not notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stone443 (talk • contribs).
    • The point of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopaedia whose articles readers can double-check for themselves, that doesn't promote new syntheses, analyses, or ideas that have yet to become a part of the corpus of human knowledge, and that does not endorse any particular point of view in a discussion. If you've come here thinking that Wikipedia is a publisher of first instance, you've come to the wrong place. The places for documenting new things are academic journals, books, and the inventors' own web sites. Uncle G 10:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete at zero Google hits, I wouldn't say this was of even local interest. Probably a WP:NFT case, if anything. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is supposed to be as reliable as we can get it. Articles need to be verifiable through reputable third party sources. You're supposed to prove it actually exists and is not a case of WP:NFT. - Mgm|(talk) 10:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable, no reliable sources so verifiable. Highly likely made up if not an outright hoax. Gwernol 10:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, just as I did with the last attempt to create this stupid article. violet/riga (t) 11:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a hosting service for game ideas. Wimstead 11:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and protect since this is the second attempt at creating the article. NawlinWiki 11:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable, unverifiable. --Terence Ong (T | C) 13:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the article has no reliable, third party sources. WilyD 14:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Reminder to nominator - please mention "CSD", "db" or similar text in your edit summary when you stick a speedy delete tag on any article. Also, non-notability is not a criteria for speedy deletion. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 04:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Under A7 non-notability is a criteria for speedy deltion and this article falls under G4 as previously deleted content. I realise that A7 doesn't apply here but non-notability is a speedy criteria at least in A7. --- Lid 04:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
A7 is not about non-notability, it is about the lack of assertion of notability. These are not the same. Whether the assertion(s) of notability is valid grounds for keeping an article is for an AfD to decide. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 06:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drakulian Empire

An alien race in a non-notable game. Totally needless. Dancarney 10:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Question. Do Zealot Trivia, Transgolian League, and Zsiverian Collective need to go, too? -- Mikeblas 10:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and I'd also vote to delete the game itself. Seems like a trivia game played on forums and/or chat rooms. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd also like to see the other three marked for deletion since they're part of a small game that lasted just four years. --Wafulz 13:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:OR and WP:V --Wafulz 13:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Delete the others, too. Clay4president 03:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign Beggars

Nonnotable rap group. 549 unique Ghits (not all about them, either). Article barely asserts notability (two awards in 2005), so not speediable. Also nominating their album Asylum Speakers. NawlinWiki 11:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Update I appreciate MGM's note, and apparently they are now signed to a label, "Dented Records" (no Wikipedia listing) -- but they have only the one self-released album out plus a few EPs. Their page on the Dented Records site [16] still says they are "working on their second album to be released April 2006." I don't think I want to withdraw the nom just yet - can someone with knowledge of the UK hip hop scene comment further? NawlinWiki 13:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Apparently the BBC found the awards notable enough to cover them (you might need to hit next a few times to see the relevant image), which makes them winners of a non-trivial award, fulfilling WP:MUSIC. - Mgm|(talk) 12:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, have won prizes as well. And please remind that WP:MUSIC is just a guideline, so in bordeline cases its better to not delete. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tha Corner

Article about a sidewalk where Highschool kids smoke. I've been there, and it really does exist. It just isn't notable. Staecker 12:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Definitally not that notable. Ive been there too. Could maybe be merged into the Lexington High article but probably not. Lyo 12:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC) this comment reformatted by Staecker
  • Strong delete This is absolutely needless- every single high school I've attended or visited has a "smoker's corner" or some variation of it. --Wafulz 13:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this article cites zero reliable sources, which just isn't enough WilyD 14:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Teacher, don't fill me up with your rules -- everybody knows that smoking ain't allowed in school. NawlinWiki 15:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete do I really have to say why? Danny Lilithborne 21:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • ...Delete -Elmer Clark 10:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Uncle G as copyvio.--Andeh 14:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jessica white

Originally prod'd but prod moved by creator with no explanation or article fixing. Does not adhere to WP:NPOV and also may not meet notability requirements. Lid 12:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable bio, advertisement. --TheM62Manchester 12:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete With comments such as Given White's youth and quick rise to fame, there is little doubt that she will accomplish much more in the future. If her sexy photo shoots ever slow down, tabloids and fans can always rely on her aggressive spark and freaky attitude for entertainment. Clearly, White is a natural star., it's OBVIOUS this is a vanity article. Wildthing61476 12:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It was a puff piece in AskMen. Uncle G 14:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Clearly vanity, and not particularly notable. But she is hot. -- Kicking222 13:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bramerz

Blatent spam, non noteable company -- Monotonehell 12:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment/Delete While I agree this is clearly spam, please don't blank articles when you mark them for AfD- it's hard for us to determine the validity of your argument when we can't even see the article. --Wafulz 12:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the spam from the article as it was the same spam text that vandalized Talk:Main page which led me to the page in question. The AfD was an afterthought. I normally wouldn't blank pages for AfD but if Google spiders this in the mean time they get the publicity they wanted. Have a look at their webpage. --Monotonehell 15:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the article gets improved soon. There is little third-party information available for this company, apart from messages on job boards and some connection with http://mozilla.pk I tried to cut the text down to the essentials, which resulted in a stub. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 14:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, spam for a company that sells spam. NawlinWiki 16:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete See bramerz.com to find out they're a company for people who want "Broadcast / Bulk Email Newsletter System". Company that sells spam is spamming the wiki. Kevin_b_er 21:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Regards Deletion of Article

Dear Reviewers,

I started out by experimenting with content on wiki. I realize now that it is purely for encyclopedic purposes, and agree to take back my content as not suited for the purposes of this medium.

However, let me also clarify that under NO circumstance is any stereotyping or typecasting justifiable for any concern regards this company.

It is only honorable and fair to reserve and stop such blatant exuberance immediately. For any further queries, please contact me.


--Bramerz cm 07:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Delete about as spectacular a failure of WP:CORP as is possible to get.

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia

I created this article, and I notice it has been PROD'ed. However, I believe that this article is still a valid one, but I'm taking to the community to decide. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep I thought it was too, so I was surprised that it got prod and prod2. Wikipedia is a notable web site, and vandalism incidents have generated significant media attention. Andjam 13:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's verifiable and interesting. Does it qualify as vanity? Maybe we could give it a humour tag. --Wafulz 13:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm with everyone above. Every member of the list is sourced, and it's a genuinely interesting list. I also think, in response to Wafulz's comment, that it doesn't need any tagging, as it works completely fine as an encyclopedic article. -- Kicking222 13:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep encyclopaedic, sourced content - I'm not sure what else one can want. WilyD 14:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable self-reference. It's not as interesting a list as I was anticipating. MLA 14:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - everything here is sourced, and it's a valid list subject. Aren't there more instances though? Crystallina 14:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to meta and delete per MLA and per WP:SELF. The actions even of notable people editing Wikipedia aren't really encyclopedic topics. (Surprised that no note is yet taken of Penny Arcade and He-Man). - Smerdis of Tlön 14:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Penny Arcade aren't "media personalities". Must strongly disagree with moving to meta, this is a valid article in its own right. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
      • In WP:SELF it is written: In particular, do not refer to the fact that the page can be edited, do not refer to any Wikipedia project page or process, . . . on the grounds that this would be confusing or irrelevant in the derivative works whose creation we invite. This page is ultimately an article about editing Wikipedia pages. It would appear to fall within the letter of the guideline. Since I hate to delete anything, I am open to persuasion that this should be kept despite them, and that's why I proposed instead that this move to meta. It is an interesting conundrum. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Keep, (changed vote) because WP:IAR trumps a style guideline. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Self-references are acceptable in certain cases, where we have third party sources - as we do in this case. WilyD 15:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I see no reason for deletion. BabuBhatt 15:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This isn't Wikipedia writing about itself: it's a valid article about external events (which, granted, involve WP). It's a bit of a vogue thing to do at the moment and I expect that the list will grow. Besides, it's interesting. --Moonraker88 15:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems fine to me. I'd correct the spelling in "vandalized" though. --DieHard2k5 16:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The word can be spelled two different ways: with an "s" in Great Britain and with a "z" in America. Just one of those funny things. Srose (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well from the official Wikipedia {{test4}}This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I'd suggest using a Z, wouldn't you? --DieHard2k5 00:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It actually doesn't matter. If someone moves it, then I'll protect the page from being moved, and I'm an Australian! (we use English English, if you know what I mean). - Ta bu shi da yu 14:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Well, we could always use a redirect for the other spelling if needed. --DieHard2k5 01:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Moonraker. Aye-Aye 17:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Moonraker. RFerreira 19:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the list is accurate and well sourced. I see nothing wrong with it. --Edgelord 19:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see where this this page would be considered notable were it about any site other than Wikipedia. A move to the Wikipedia namespace as a humor page or some such might not be out of line, though. --Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it's just me, but I don't find it very humorous.- Mgm|(talk) 08:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - No importance outside of the WP community (eg. us). Wickethewok 19:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, WP is notable, it gets media attention, vandalism and inaccuracies is a very notable problem for WP and wikis in general, and the article is sourced. hateless 21:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as above, and there's nothing wrong with "vandalised". It's YOU that spells it wrong! Dev920 22:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think it's interesting, well-referenced, and notable — more so every day, it seems, as more and more personalities go out of their way to be bothersome. And it's zpellz, Dev. God Bless America, JDoorjam Talk 00:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but move into Wikispace as Wikipedia:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia. Useful and interesting, but also overly self-referential. Grutness...wha? 02:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Move into Wikispace as per Grutness. It seems a bit too self-referential as a mainspace article. Capitalistroadster 02:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It's well sourced from independant third parties - the "self-referential" comments make no sense in the context of policies and guidelines on self-reference. WilyD 03:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Who cares? Clay4president 03:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a subject which has been verifiably noted by the mass media on multiple occassions. "Who cares" is not a valid reason for deletion and should be disregarded with prejudice. Silensor 07:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have articles on Wikipedia and the famous Siegenthaler incident too. They do refer to Wikipedia itself, but the self-reference rules don't say we can't write articles about Wikipedia. Wikipedia gets press attention, so cases of vandalism to the project by well-known people (who are notable on their own) is certainly a valid topic to write an article about. - Mgm|(talk) 08:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Or move to Wikispace I suppose. I like lists, but this is just a small list of names in a self-referential topic. Only one of them is really a celebrity in the normal sense. (By that I mean if you took a random poll in least 1 out of 1000 people would know who the person is)--T. Anthony 09:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah yes, but they all had their exploits published and (it would appear) endorsed by media organisations. Curious, no? That in itself is pretty notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to project space; this is totally self-referential, but useful inside the project. Do not keep in article space. We wouldn't have List of media personalities who have submitted false information to Britannica or List of Hollywood celebrities who have cussed out George W. Bush, eevn though they'd probably be more noteworthy. -- nae'blis 14:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Move per nae'blis. Interesting stuff for Wikipedians, but doesn't deserve its own article space. Rohirok 17:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikipedia:, which is already a home to quite a bit of our self-referential stuff. Though keep the sources and stuff. At this point, I'm not sure if this is a notable enough a phenomenon to discuss in article space. We have a lil' bit of self reference problem as it is. If we keep this in article space, we need to rethink the title scope: exactly what is a "media personality" (and does this need a bigger scope? Or smaller?) and what qualifies as "vandalism" (does this only include WP:-( stuff, or other kinds of misuses as well). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or move to wp:. No value here. Pavel Vozenilek 19:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid, sourced information. If nothing else, this should me moved to WP space as a last resort. --Myles Long 23:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Move as suggested by Nae'blis: Too self-referential to be an article, but very interesting nonetheless. Belongs in the 'Kipedia namespace. Heimstern Läufer 23:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep content sourced and will unfortunately grow over time.  Funky Monkey  (talk)  03:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and spell with a "z". It is often mentioned that WP's servers are in the US, so US copyright law is the governing authority on matters here...so by default, shouldn't the "Z" have governing authority over the "S"? Akradecki 07:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't believe that U.S. copyright law enforces inaccurate spelling. Kidding :-) Ta bu shi da yu 15:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 an unsourced and non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  08:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cole Tucker

Tagged speedy db-bio but notability is asserted. Just not very convincingly. Unsourced, of course. Just zis Guy you know? 13:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. --- Lid 13:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Look at the external links, including The New York Times, which amply demonstrate notability. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 13:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Did you look at the NY Times link? It's a one-paragraph synopsis for a German documentary which mentioned Cole Tucker once. That doesn't really confirm notability. -- Kicking222 14:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete for now, if someone introduces some more references that further justify notability, then maybe, if you can find me, I'll change my vote. Addhoc 14:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The article can be re-posted when it's been better written. This is a blurb; all the references are to the same information at different sites. This was one of several very short articles (some were one sentence long) posted within an hour by the same person. While the editor is new at this, talkspace is not a sandbox.—Chidom talk  18:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep Delete He won two Probe/Men in Video Awards, in 1997 (Best Top) and 1998 (Best Actor); a Best Performer award ("Grabby") from the Adult Erotic Gay Video Awards of 1998; and was placed on the Grabby Wall of Fame in 1999. He received the 1998 GayVN Gay Performer of the Year and Best Supporting Actor - Gay Video awards and the 2000 GayVN Special Achievement Award for Aids Causes. He also has an extensive videography (including The Best of Cole Tucker), so he's probably worth an article. I'm the one who nominated it for a speedy delete; if the notability was asserted but unsourced, it should have gone. I still don't think that articles that someone has spent less than 5 minutes composing belong in the namespace, no matter what they assert. My weak "Keep" is because I'd be much more in favor of deleting this version and starting over with a version on which a little more time and research has been spent; I've certainly done part of that research.—Chidom talk  07:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC) (Additional references, comments)—Chidom talk  01:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Cole Tucker is one of the most well known porn performers of the past decade. There is something such as a "Cole Tucker type" which anyone in the industry will know instantly what that is. He is also referred to as a legend on this site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seeksreal (talk • contribs).
    • Comment Above editor is the article's creator, and has less 15 total WP edits. -- Kicking222 23:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see the notability from reliable sources. We definitely have inadequate evidence that he meets the renown/notoriety test of WP:BIO. I see no evidence that he meets the more specific WP:PORN BIO standards or meets WP:BIO for any reason other than the porn acting. GRBerry 01:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - Per nom. Clay4president 03:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it - he's a legend. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.232.205.18 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vonland

Delete. Non-notable band. Not found on Allmusic.com. First relevant item in a Google search for "Vonland" is on page four. Prod removed by anon. ... discospinster talk 13:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 14:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for now, if someone introduces references that justify notability, then maybe, if you can find me, I'll change my vote. Addhoc 14:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, MySpace/school band. Claims of notability are unverified. NawlinWiki 15:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as per nom. Not on Napster, Amazon, and 'Vonland music' returns 31 results. Blowski 17:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • don't delete Well they have a myspace. Vonlandx. They were delted. You could check that out if you want although i don't think they put their music up yet. They are also added on the epitaph wikipedia and on the offical site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.166.70.185 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC).
Being on myspace is no justification for being on Wikipedia - otherwise anybody and everybody would have an article about themselves. Blowski 21:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per norm. Also, check out the contribs for the user that voted "keep" :-) --Jim (Talk) 18:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable; no references; there's almost no information on this band on all of the Internet. Appears to be a local/school band. Most importantly, it is not listed under "Artists" (or anywhere else I can find) on the Epitaph Records official site. --Muéro 18:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Vogel

Non-notable basketball player with no ascertion of notability beyond he plays on a notable team. Attempted to speedy but speedy notice removed. Lid 13:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. A member of a national basketball team is by definition notable. Note the descriptions of Vogel's contributions in the articles cited as external links. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 13:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. So he scores 24 points in one game and has a bio page on a basketball website that doesn't list anything else? I don't see how that meets WP:BIO. --- Lid 13:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. 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.
I would interpret the national basketball team as the highest level in Lebanon, which makes it notable. The article also lists him as the starting center for Lebanon, which is a fairly non-trivial position, and he was drafted to the NBA in 1996. --Wafulz 13:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep passes WP:BIO with flying colours, whatever else you want. WilyD 14:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I see now I was 100% wrong, consider this Deletion AFD withdrawn. --- Lid 14:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as this person meets the very defintion of the WP:BIO guideline. RFerreira 19:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per nom. Clay4president 03:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wafulz. I suggest we close this now the nominator has withdrawn. - Mgm|(talk) 08:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heehler, C. Thomas

NN vanity ccwaters 13:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Computerjoe's talk 13:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for now, if someone introduces references that justify notability, then maybe, if you can find me, I'll change my vote. Addhoc 14:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonnotable not-yet-published author and college undergrad. NawlinWiki 15:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - no articles can be found to establish that this person meets WP:BIO. DrunkenSmurf 15:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity page of nn subject. Pathlessdesert 16:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per NawlinWiki. The Bearded One 16:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - no supproting sources or verifiability -- Whpq 16:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Completely useless article. Clay4president 03:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy per assertion of notability absent. Ohconfucius 15:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Burger Geldenhuys

Contested prod by the original author of article, so I'm taking it here for debate. Abstain --Arnzy (whats up?) 13:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. There was a speedy tag (not a prod) on the article, and I was afraid that the article would be speedily deleted, so I tried to fix it. I think the player's team, the Northern Transvaal Blue Bulls, were notable. I wish the original author had put together a more complete article so that other editors with little knowledge of the sport wouldn't have to improve it. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 14:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - so far you only have one reference, could you find some more? Addhoc 14:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep "most capped player ever for a professional rugby team" is an assertion of notability. As an aside, the article needs cleanup and I'll work on it in the coming days hoopydinkConas tá tú? 14:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As above, he was the most capped player for one of South Africa's top provincial teams, which would suggest notability. There seem to be plenty of online references that could be used for an interim cleanup, I'll also put something together in the next few days. -- Mako 00:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep! Not only is he notable, but this is not the first time I have seen a rugby bio up for deletion. Going through the categories, it seems that rugby has a better quality of people bios that other sports. Looking at some soccer players, and rugby league players, it seems people have created them purely so there is not a red link on the team page. So if you want to nominate things, look there first, where people create player articles just so the squad is complete! Rugby has far less player pages, because MOST of them are at least a paragraph or two, soccer and rugby league have articles which are no more than a sentance or a pasted player profile! Burger is famous and notable. Wkto guy 13:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Apeedy Keep very important person, passes WP:BIO easily - Blood red sandman 13:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Omlettesoft

Contested prod. WP:WEB, Alexa rank is nonexistent, no notability, author's only contrib VoiceOfReason 14:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. NawlinWiki 14:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for now, if someone adds the appropriate references, then I'll change my vote. Addhoc 14:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as a simple housekeeping measure in order to fix a bogus copy and paste "move" by User:Whatsupwez. The article had no significant edits beyond the original copy and paste and edits made by Oosoom, the nominator below. Wikipedia:Requested moves is the place for this sort of thing, by the way. Uncle G 18:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Visa Debit

This article seems to have been erroneously created with the intention of merging in an older article Visa Delta with a long edit history. I believe Visa Debit should be deleted so that Visa Delta can be moved (renamed) to it, leaving a redirect. Oosoom Talk to me 14:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete as a procedural deletion to fix a cut and paste move. JPD (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sandun Dasanayake

NN vanity ccwaters 14:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete for now, if someone adds the appropriate references, then I'll change my vote. Addhoc 14:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as per A7, it doesn't even say why the individual has the notability for an article and a quick google shows the person is simply a research assistant. --- Lid 14:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy to User:Sandundasa, the article creator. NawlinWiki 15:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as per above Pathlessdesert 16:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Kukini 16:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless the creator shows more interest in working on the project, in which case I would agree with a userfication. - Mgm|(talk) 08:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merged and deleted.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  08:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sitka High School Auditorium

High schools may be notable; specific sections of a high school are not (except in extraordinary cases). Specific sections of a high school that haven't even been built yet are even less notable - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Crystallina 14:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --- Lid 14:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Sitka High School - There is already an article for the school itself, this does not warrant it's own article. DrunkenSmurf 14:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Sitka High School as per DrunkenSmurf. Addhoc 14:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. Neat picture too. --Wafulz 15:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. Jarfingle 15:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree with all of the above, Merge.--Lord Kinbote 15:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as per above -- Whpq 16:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. CindyLooWho 16:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (do not merge) per nom. Cedars 10:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Naconkantari 17:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The danks

  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 majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages 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 votes.

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]}}

Band does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC, self-confessedly "up and coming", unsigned, no entries on Amazon or Allmusic. Nominated for AfD as db-band tag keeps getting removed. ~Matticus TC 15:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Update Adding duplicate article The Danks to this AFD. NawlinWiki 16:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


  • Keep. 304.66.123.6. 15:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC) (user's only edit)
  • Delete per nom. -- Szvest 15:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, no notability asserted. NawlinWiki 15:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why delete a page just because you don't know about it? Give it time and maybe the correct details will be added.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.250.145.62 (talk • contribs) . (user's only edits are to the article (including blanking the AFD tag) and this discussion)
  • Speedy delete. I see no justification in the removal of the db-band tag- this article is precisely why we have it. --Wafulz 15:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per comments above. Metrocard. 15:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC) (user's only contributions are to this AFD discussion)
  • Delete per nom. Pathlessdesert 16:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Michael Greiner 16:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per NawlinWiki and Wafulz. Note to the anon who continues to blank opinions s/he doesn't like: the closing admin will look at the page history and see all the comments made despite your attempts to remove them. Please make legitimate arguments rather than removing others' arguments. Srose (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 16:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Kukini 16:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per 71.250.145.62, even if it's an IP.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TD82206 (talk • contribs) .This is user's first contribution. His other contribution matches an article of one of the IPs also posting here.
  • Speedy delete Is there any assertion of notability aside from (I'm paraphrasing here) "If you listen to this band, you'll really, really like them!"? -- Kicking222 16:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete No assertion of notability. Also, keep an eye on this page; an anon just tried to close it "per WP:SNOW." --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 16:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom --Geneb1955Talk/CVU 17:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 reposted non notable. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nicholas Shivambu

No assertion of notability. Delete. Green caterpillar 15:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pirate copy

A total POV page. Delete. Green caterpillar 15:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Doxent 18:28, 22 August 2006 (CEST)
  • Keep I removed text and fixed the double redirect. May as well keep it if people are going to search for that term. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep after Zero's edits. hateless 16:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep the redirect. - Mgm|(talk) 08:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big_Three_(Canadian_Universities)

Delete. This article contains vanity. It is a mere showcase of bias editors boosting the image of the three universities. The "Big Three" maybe heard by speech, but is rarely recognised on paper and therefore unencyclopedic. The article is not notable and does not fit the critera like the "G-10" article. The information can also be misleading, especially on "Rankings". This year, 10 universities withdrew from the "credible" Macleans ranking of universities. These universities questioned the validity of the surveys conducted. (University of Toronto included) Hence, it is safe to reason the surveys by Macleans are unreliable. Also, the statement In international university rankings such as the Academic Ranking of World Universities (conducted by Shanghai Jiao Tong University), the University of Toronto and McGill University generally alternate for the first and second highest ranked Canadian university. Queen's is generally third or fourth is untrue. Queens University does not fall in the third or fourth rank. It is not even in the top 100 universities according to Shanghai Jiao Tong University. I would like to add "Harvard of the North" statement is a personal opinion. The sources used to justify that statement is not credible at all. Dvb 15:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as vanity and under WP:V. From what I can find, the term has never been used by the media (or anyone in particular). Also, "Harvard of the North" or "Harvard of Canada" has also been used to describe the University of Waterloo and University of British Columbia and is highly subjective and often ignored. UofT was also one of the universities to withdraw from Maclean's due to cited inaccuracy in the survey, so that ranking is pretty clearly not reliable. --Wafulz 16:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, compare this statement in the article:
All three universities are very well-known inside Canada, and are often familiar to people in other countries. They are all public universities, funded in part by the government (as are the majority of Canadian universities). All were founded before Canadian confederation, making them some of the oldest universities in Canada.
The University of Toronto, Queen's University and McGill University have been careful to preserve many parts of their proud history, retaining a number of traditions that can seem archaic and bizarre to outsiders, and even to insiders. Students at both institutions have variously been stereotyped as very intelligent, resourceful, and ambitious, but also as pretentious, arrogant, and elitist. The institutions themselves, while often seen as quaint and charming, are sometimes criticized as slow to change.
To this statement in Queen's-McGill rivalry:
Queen's and McGill are very well-known inside Canada, and are often familiar to people in other countries. Both are public universities, funded in part by the government. Both were founded before Canadian confederation, making them two of the oldest universities in Canada. They both have Scottish origins and were founded under Royal Charter from the Canadian Royal Family.
Queen's and McGill have been careful to preserve many parts of their proud history, retaining a number of traditions that can seem archaic and bizarre to outsiders, and even to insiders. Students at both institutions have variously been stereotyped as very intelligent, resourceful, and ambitious, but also as pretentious, arrogant, and elitist. The institutions themselves, while often seen as quaint and charming, are sometimes criticized as slow to change. There are sometimes accusations, often overstated, in Canada that students from less affluent backgrounds are at a disadvantage when applying, and that both institutions lack socio-economic diversity within their student body.
Another comparison between articles:
Over the last few years, Canadian universities have been subjected to the increasing popularity of national and international university rankings, which rank different schools based on the inspected quality of their teaching and research, as well as other criteria, such as spending on facilities and dropout rates. The University of Toronto, Queen's and McGill have been a constant presence at the top end of the ranking, never appearing outside the overall top five, although their dominance in individual subjects is often challenged by other institutions.
In international university rankings such as the Academic Ranking of World Universities[5] (conducted by Shanghai Jiao Tong University), the University of Toronto and McGill University generally alternate for the first and second highest ranked Canadian university. Queen's is generally third or fourth, contending with the research-intensive University of British Columbia (Queen's suffers in international rankings due to it's focus on undergraduate education vs. research).
Maclean's magazine rates Canadian universities each year based on factors such as the student-to-faculty ratio, the number of library holdings per student, the number of scholarships available per student, class sizes, number of tenured faculty, etc. In the 2005 overall rankings, McGill and the University of Toronto tied for first, while Queen's took the fifth spot [6].

From the Queen's-McGill article:

Over the last few years, Canadian universities have been subjected to the increasing popularity of national and international university rankings, which rank different schools based on the inspected quality of their teaching and research, as well as other criteria, such as spending on facilities and dropout rates. Queen's and McGill have been a constant presence at the top end of the ranking, never appearing outside the overall top five, but their dominance in individual subjects is often challenged by other institutions.
The older and larger McGill typically places higher in international university rankings such as the Academic Ranking of World Universities (conducted by Shanghai Jiao Tong University), although this can sometimes be attributed to McGill's greater emphasis on research and the natural sciences. Queen's has traditionally put more of a focus on undergraduate education, electing to keep a smaller undergraduate population and maintain a higher professor/student ratio.
Maclean's magazine rates Canadian universities each year based on factors such as the student-to-faculty ratio, the number of library holdings per student, the number of scholarships available per student, class sizes, number of tenured faculty, etc. McGill consistently places higher than Queen's. In 2006, however, Maclean's surveyed undergraduates at universities across Canada, creating "the most complete university student assessment results that have ever been made public". [citation needed] In this set of surveys, overall, Queen's was ranked the number one university in Canada [citation needed].
This article is basically a copy of the Queens-McGill rivalry with UofT thrown in. --Wafulz
  • Delete. Doesn't meet WP:V. Is POV, total vanity and the phrase is not part of popular culture. I've lived in Ontario, Canada my entire life and attended university in the province and I've never once heard the phrase "Big Three Universities" or "Harvard of the North". Maybe it's used by a few admissions officers or fundraisers on the campuses of these so-called "Big Three", but nowhere else. Any useful information on this page is better suited on the individual school pages. CindyLooWho 16:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per above. I am a graduate of one of these schools, and this is the first time I have heard the term 'Big Three' used this way. Eron 17:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I've also never heard of this term to refer to these schools, despite having attended one of them, and having spent time at all three. It also seems like an arbitrary grouping of schools. (eg Why Queen's and not, say, UBC instead?) Unless the author (or someone else) can comes up with at least one reference that this term actually exists, the issue seems pretty clear... Chartreuse green 17:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a Canadian who grew up in Toronto, I've never heard this tterm used, and cannot find a good refernce through googling. It's vanity. -- Whpq 18:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The G-10 is notable, this is vanity. BoojiBoy 00:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I never heard of this before. Measured by international and national rankings, you'd have to say the BIG 3 are: Toronto, McGill, and UBC, with the University of Alberta usually in the mix.
  • Delete. I have also never heard this term used in Canada. Deet 17:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. per above. Bucketsofg✐ 04:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of price comparison services

Fails: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links. And this is a repository of the worst kind -- the one that attracts linkspammers like flies and almost any e-commerce site could quality for this. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  15:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong keep - I created this article, and the Price comparison service article. I was advised to create the list as a pragmatic means both of protecting the main article from spam, and to stop it becoming a long list of links. I need to work on the formatting, and turn it into something more than just a repository of links, but please give me some time to do this. In the short term, I have been keeping a very close eye on who has been adding links to both pages, and removed any that could be considered unnotable. I do need some international help on knowing notable price comparison sites outside the UK, and have requested that on the main article page. Any further advice would be welcome, but please don't delete as price comparison is pretty important as a topic.Blowski 16:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
A little more explanation, to try to explain the encyclopaedic relevance. Price comparison is definitely of relevance (see main article for justification on that point). There are around 30 notable price comparison companies - some operate internationally (Kelkoo, Froogle), some are focussed on Europe, others on the US. In addition, some focus on a specific product area, some on a much wider range. My idea was to build two articles similar to Comparison of content management systems, one focusing on countries of operation, the other on services offered. That then keeps a long complicated grid out of the main article on price comparison. Please suggest any alternatives that will offer a visual comparison/explanation of the companies in this market. There must be other examples of this kind of list on Wikipedia?Blowski 16:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Netsnipe. I don't see the encyclopedic relevance of a comprehensive list of pricing services. —Michael Hays 16:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT policy, as properly cited by Netsnipe. The external links in the list make it a flagrant violation of a basic policy. If it included only internal links to notable articles, this might be debatable, but as a repository of external links it has to go away. If you find other examples of lists of external links, please bring them here for deletion! I assume there are some, and that the annti-spam patrols will find them sooner or later. GRBerry 02:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, so please forgive me if I misunderstand the policy... I always bow to experience. So if I rebuild the page to include only internal links to price comparison sites featured on Wikipedia? That way, I can still provide a visual explanation of geographical areas covered and features offered, but only for the most notable sites. If that were the case, would you still vote for deletion?Blowski 05:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would change my vote. For example, I've always voted to delete lists of fictional thing here since they're often just pointless and offer the reader nothing to compare and contrast. We already have Wikipedia:Category for that. The only list of fictional things that has ever impressed me so far is List of fictional United States Presidents because it offers usuable cross-referenced information at a glance, not just a list. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  08:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, then please hold off deleting the article for about a week while I rebuild the content. Is that possible? Blowski 10:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roi Sorezki

Vanity page, nonencyclopedic tone Grzond 16:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Adding Eradox to this nom, another page created by Sorezki to promote one of his websites. NawlinWiki 16:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It's an autobiography! --Sorezki 16:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity, a creator of non-notable websites. "Pizuz", his long-running youth portal, is nowhere to be found on Google, so its a possible hoax article as well. Article creator has removed afd tag. Also WP is not the place for autobiographies.hateless 16:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Hateless, see also MoviesPlanet.com, below. NawlinWiki 16:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete every bit the picture of non-notable company. --Geneb1955Talk/CVU 17:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Search archive.org - Pizuz was of the 3 leading Israeli portals between 1998 and 2001. The reason I created an additional page for MoviesPlanet.com is because I don't wanna have links to the sites so that it won't be considered as spam by you, just as it is. I was hoping to link only to internal pages. If you will look at MoviesPlanet.com you will see that the page is linking nowhere. --Sorezki 17:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Haakon 17:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Netsnipe. -- Whpq 18:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No, Wikipedia is not a place for you to write "Autobiography". -- AQu01rius 18:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If you're planning to become a productive member of the Wikipedia community, you are allowed to write one on your own Wikipedia:User page -- as long as you follow the rules that come with it. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  19:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Netsnipe (I'm saying that a lot recently). Sorezki, it's much more flattering when someone else writes about you, anyway - and I'm sure that when you and your websites are notable, someone certainly will. Srose (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator, pretty obvious vanity page here. RFerreira 19:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanispamcruftisement --- Deville (Talk) 03:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Adam Bishop. BryanG(talk) 18:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GE Records

Obscure group with obscure members. Non-notable. —Michael Hays 16:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete Absolutely no assertion of notability aside from "The group is the youngest rap group in the USA", a statement which is completely unverified and, considering that they look about 14-16 from their MySpace photos, completely wrong. -- Kicking222 16:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, so tagged, positive assertions of nonnotability (unsigned, one self-produced record) NawlinWiki 16:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MoviesPlanet.com

Spam Gjjjj 16:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • How can it be spam if I didn't even put a link in there? :) --Sorezki 16:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It's spam because it is an article created solely to promote the website (whose URL is the article title). It should be deleted because the site is not notable (Alexa rank below 5.3 million). NawlinWiki 16:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It's only the name of the site. How would you call this page: Matchmaker.com ? --Sorezki 17:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Managment: Roi Sorezki (Sorezki) Founder & CEO" [17]. That's a blatant breach of our Wikipedia:Spam policy and Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines on commerical self-promotion. You are only notable when someone else in the press is writing about you and not when you decide to write about yourself. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  17:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Commercial content for obvious reasons. -- AQu01rius 18:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, spam for a remarkably non-notable site --- Deville (Talk) 03:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - AfD does not govern merges and it is up to those supporting a merge to actually carry it out. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 10th Kingdom character articles

Each of these articles about characters from a television movie is written almost completely from an in-universe perspective with no citations. Each has one or more sections devoted to trivia, "facts", speculation, and extraordinarily banal quotes. Attempts to remove such sections are reverted by the articles' author. One of the articles is a duplicate. These articles should all be deleted and merged into the main article, The 10th Kingdom, which could use some work itself. Chris Griswold 22:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Neutral. These aren't high-quality articles, but I know for a fact that 10th Kingdom has a fanbase. I'm not sure how big it is, though. In any sense, "merge and delete" is not a valid vote because it doesn't comply with the GNU Free Documentation License. Though AFD is unnecessary if the goal is just to merge the articles, I support keeping the AFD live to develop consensus on 10th Kingdom's notability and the suitability of keeping the individual articles, because a consensus to delete could very well emerge. szyslak (t, c, e) 00:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Stubify, merge and redirect per Vary and MacGyverMagic. szyslak (t, c, e) 09:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all There needs to be a compelling reason to extend daughter articles for material that is, in and of itself, rather obscure. Review of these articles does not provide that kind of substantiation, making this essentially fancruft. Eusebeus 04:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (See addendum below) Too long to merge into one article (except the duplicates for Virginia, of course). Add {{unsourced}} and cleanup templates as necessary, and try to establish communication with the chronic reverter on talk pages to discuss removing trivialities, but use Wikipedia:Resolving disputes if said reverter refuses to cooporate. Deletion at this point in time would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If they're ultimately pruned enough to be merged without excessive length, go ahead. Otherwise, no big deal. Plenty of major characters in fictional stories have their own articles. --Icarus (Hi!) 04:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Addendum: Keep or merge. They're long enough that I'd prefer for them to be cleaned up and then re-evaluated to see if they've become short enough for a merge, but I'd rather see them shortened and merged (prematurely, in my opinion) per Vary than than deleted altogether. --Icarus (Hi!) 16:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all Shorten, merge and redirect. I loved "The 10th Kingdom". I actually applauded at the end of the final installment. The performances were superb. But Wikipedia has no articles on Natasha Rostova, Andrey Bolkonsky and Pierre Bezukhov. No way should there be individual articles on the characters from "The 10th Kingdom". Gildir 23:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not familiar with War and Peace, but if those are main characters then they certainly could have articles here. Plenty of main characters from classic works have their own aricles (e.g. Winston Smith, John the Savage), so why not them? More applicable to the 10th Kingdom, many contemporary characters have articles too. I don't see why certain characters not having articles (yet, at least) means that other characters shouldn't, either. --Icarus (Hi!) 19:40, 22 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, Vary | Talk 16:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Relisting: two deletes, one neutral, one keep, one merge (the nominator). -- Vary | Talk 16:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge intros only Stubify and merge into 10th Kingdom characters, and Redirect; merge and delete violates GFDL. The 'Official Bios' which take up most of the pages are copyvio from the official web site for the series, which now appears to be offline. Character info from The 10th Kingdom should be merged there, too - that'll go a long way towards cleaning up that page. -- Vary | Talk 16:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Do you know where there's an archived version of the official website so we can know exactly which parts have to be removed/re-written? --Icarus (Hi!) 19:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Calling it a "TV movie" is a bit of a stretch, as it's like 12 hours long or something (I have the DVD and it takes up 3 discs). It's at least a miniseries or a "limited series". I'd say the character articles are reasonable, as they're too big to be merged. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - Only basic character info, no "trivia". The fact that these articles are long is just bceause they're filled with a re-hash of the plot and worthless trivia about the characters. Wickethewok 19:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Stubify and merge, and redirect per Vary. For characters that have only been in one work of fiction there does not need to be an entire article dedicated to them unless there are substantial claims to their importance. These articles do not have that. --Mitaphane talk 01:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Wikipedia is not a paper dictionary, and can easily accomodate having these entries. Having specific character entries for a story can often help aid the reader in understanding the story better. The Virginia Lewis page should be redirected to the Virginia Lewis (10th Kingdom) page, and the Huntsman (The 10th Kingdom) should be restored (somebody deleted most of the content from it), though. -Todd 03:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment the content removed from Huntsman (The 10th Kingdom) was copyvio, taken from NBC's official site. -- Vary | Talk 03:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, then I think we should keep these articles iff the author can write versions that don't violate copyrights. Is there any way to vote accordingly?
  • Delete all. First of all, we don't know what is and what is not copyvio. Second of all, re-writing all these articles into short paragraphs for a merge takes time. It just ain't worth it. Neither is working with the ostreperous editor through dispute resolution etc, which a couple of commenters have suggested but not volunteered to do. Finally, IT IS CRUFT. Smashy. Herostratus 03:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Slaps Herostratus with a wet fish. Not everything fictional is cruft you know. Besides, most cruft can be dealt with by excising extranuous info. - Mgm|(talk) 09:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
      • No, but this is cruft. This is not a great work of literature we are talking about, here. It's a TV miniseries that will presumably be utterly forgotten in five years or less, except by people fishing the bottom of the $0.99 bargain bin. Herostratus 16:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Shorten, merge and redirect into a List of 10th Kingdom characters per WP:FICT. While they may not warrant separate entries, there's no reason to delete them instead of merging them into a collective article. - Mgm|(talk) 09:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I haven't changed my mind, and I'm not really keen on being asked to change my vote. --Chris Griswold 09:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SWANsat

SWANsat does not and will never exist. This page is poor advertising for SWANsat and William P. Welty, and at the very least its claims should be treated with extreme skepticism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lloyd Wood (talk • contribs) .


  • Keep

CONCERNING THE CRYSTAL BALL, NOTABILITY AND CORP STANDARDS:

(a) The SWANsat pre-launch subscription exists today. The page has nothing to do with advertising. (Just to let you know, the phrase "become a pre-launch subscriber today" would be considered poor advertising.)

(b) The published work, Shareware Telecommunications, has been discussed/presented within the UN system, through the UN ICT Task Force.

(c) At least one military school website has published briefings concerning the technology.

(d) It is appropriate to discuss the prospects for success of future projects, provided that discussion is properly referenced and (I might add) using fairness of tone - eg. "SWANSAT IS IMPOSSIBLE" or "DOES NOT AND WILL NOT EXIST" is not fair.

(e) Patent holder's credible research is being used. Experts at the forefront of space communications are being used (check the corporate capabilities of the spacecraft vendor's directors and management, for example)

(f) Exceptional products that include certain "future-tech" items are acceptable. SWANsat's power payload, delivered by IOSTAR, is a commercial space nuclear system, built & technically owned by Sandia Labs/USG, overseen by the US Inter-agency Nuclear Safety Review Panel (INSRP), utlizing the "Commercial Reusable In-Space Transportation Act of 2002. A Redacted Portion of The Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2003." From any reasonable, unbiased, point of view, there are exceptional technology advancements directly impacting on SWANsat, RIGHT NOW, as we debate the existence/deletion of this WP site.

(g) IOSTAR has received notable, independent press coverage for its "SPACE TUG BOAT" in which its power payload (after its space tug boat missions are complete) are to be sold/transfered to SWANsat's communication payload.

(h) SWANsat is a holder of a satellite licence from a UN-member state. Notability criterion should include Government licencees, shouldn't it?

(comment was added by Wmt)

Sundry space scientists familiar with other satellite systems are not convinced that SWANsat can create a system in the order of magnitude that it claims. Without divulging proprietary technological secrets, more technical information on the WP page would assist the space skeptics among us to at least consider the implications of such a project. Giving SWANsat Marketing that opportunity is fair. Err on the side of caution, yet also offer due respect to the engineers of IOSTAR & ORBITAL & SANDIA LABS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wmt, believed to be William P. Welty of SWANsat (talk • contribs) .


  • Delete Note that Wmt is William P. Welty himself. Note that the two 'Keep' votes above were inserted by Welty. Welty claims involvement of engineers at IOSTAR and Sandia; this claim has not been substantiated by IOSTAR, as the only material I can find on this is from SWANsat, ergo Welty. Experts are claimed to be involved by Welty; let's see non-Welty-sourced, non-SWANsat-sourced, citations supporting this claim. There may well be patents involved, but these have not been cited. (William - if you claim something that can be disputed, you must either provide direct proof or cite supporting material as a reference to show that your claim is factual and supported by others. Supporting material that has been published and gone through peer review is considered good. I realise that this is unfamiliar territory for you - your claimed 'PhD' dissertation on SWANsat contains no citations or references to prior or related work, and is largely unsubstantiated.) Presenting slides to an audience cannot be considered publication or peer review. Neither can appearing on a miltary website. Obviously, since I created this deletion page and raised the deletion question, I'm for deletion, since that's less work than constantly keeping Welty's claims in check.

Lloyd Wood 11:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


Wmt is not William P Welty. I AM ABSOLUTELY NOT WILLIAM WELTY. BUT, in one of his public presentations, he provided an online hidden document folder. It includes a PDF document of an IOSTAR/SWANsat agreement, early IOSTAR engineering studies concerning the powerplant & communications payload. As a layman, I personally found them difficult to read and I am not sure they directly addressed Dr Wood's key issue: high-frequency/low distance ultilization. Ask William P Welty for access, if you wish. Or call IOSTAR to settle this matter once and for all. Dr Wood, just because you have not (yet) read the documents in the presentation binder (the terms of viewing the page does not permit me to re-publish the documents) it does not mean they do not exist or are untrue.

Here's a challenge for you Dr Wood: will you commit to removing the deletion petition IF it is proved that IOSTAR is involved with SWANsat?

In the meantime, I have changed my "KEEP" vote back to one. I apologize for any inadvertant confusion. (perhaps you should do the same). It was an easy visible mistake that the volunteer administrator would quickly work out. I actually agree with you, Dr Wood, in that more IOSTAR technical information in the public domain would be nice. However, I am unsure if the physics/mathematic proof you are probably seeking is critical to the existence of the whole WP page. Remember that your bias towards new information regarding new satellite technology advancements will always be highly demanding & rigorous (not a critism) and therefore your level of satisfation and demand for proof is much higher than the rest. The SWANsat WP article is not a scholarly debate forum, that is why I hope you will accept my challenge above.


Also, kindly remove your snide comments of mistaken identity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wmt, believed to be William P. Welty of SWANsat (talk • contribs) .


  • William P. Welty would obviously have a vested interest in SwanSat. William is often written Wm. WelT? The inference that can be drawn is obvious. If you're not William P. Welty, just who are you, then? His twin brother Charles Welty? Encyclopaedic veracity should not have to reply on hidden documents. My request for deletion stands; SWANsat is largely one man's dream, will not be built for a large number of reasons not limited to available power/frequencies/distances, and, despite the many claims made by Welty for it, it doesn't exist. Will Welty use the existence of a Wikipedia page on SWANsat as evidence of support for SWANsat? Likely - he'll probably list it as another milestone.

Lloyd Wood 14:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

—————

Dr Wood, I will not ask Huon to identify her/himself! Again, for clarification: I'm not William Welty or Charles Welty. Your barking up the wrong identity tree and you are looking desperate each time you bark, which is frightfully often. Here is a response to Huon's concerns:


Reliable Source: Issue#1: "What are the credentials and expertise of the people taking responsibility for a website?"


Response: SWANsat is a holder of a satellite licence. William Welty has expertise in this area. He held an FCC satellite licence previously (after a number of transfers, it is now known as Direct TV). SWANsat corporate partners are of impecable note. Please note that (a) Dr Wood does not discredit IOSTAR, Orbital, Sandia Labs - just the licence holder - and (b) that he is not willing to contact Government of Nauru, SWANsat or IOSTAR for confirmation - he just wants to Google the net.


Reliable Source: Issue#2. Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.


Response: I think SWANsat might fail this test to some degree - especially in terms of it being widely known. I guess that is what SWANsat Marketing is trying to achieve through the United Nations System & their website. Having said that, here is Dr. Jim Stewart, President of IOSTAR Corp: 'Revolutionary Space Systems of the Horizon: Disruptive Technologies can Change Industries' and Technology Review and Update (A short course designed for military, government and civilian technical personnel and decision makers interested in refreshing and updating their knowledge in important technical areas). IF SWANsat's partners are connected to the US military establishment, then I guess it makes common sense that its research and development would not be as widely known as Dr Wood would like. For example, we know that the Chairman of IOSTAR has been involved with DARPA projects in the past. This would enhance the source reliability, not diminish it.


Reliable Source: Issue#3. Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.


Response: A system that can provide 600 million broadband connections is always going to be controversial. Yet if the power & spectrum problems are dealt with, with (a) an ion-propelled power-plant (ie. not solar panels - with 250,000 - 500,000 watts of power) and (b) 10 GHz of spectrum (3G auctions were in the tens of megahertz), the handset might seem the biggest hurdle - impossible? no, difficult? yes. Dr Wood supports 'elegant' systems like Iridium & Teledesic, yet is now against the architects who designed Iridium & Teledesic. Despite this 'flip-flop', I consider Dr Wood a reliable source, albeit, a little in the dark at this present time.


Reliable Source: Issue #4. Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community.


Response: The licence that SWANsat has involves the W-Band. Dr Wood believes it cannot be used. The Italian Space Agency would beg to differ with him on that - 6 years ago they published this academic report that discusses Project DAVID (Data And Video Interaction Distribution) and the feasibility of using the W-band for broadband telecommunications via satellite.: Exploiting the W-Band for High Capacity Satellite Communication. This link is from the IEEE. Subscription needed to access the PDF. Ironically, it is hidden from the public. Also Inspec Alerts references Satellite Communications & Project DAVID, Issue 2003-002. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wmt, believed to be William P. Welty of SWANsat (talk • contribs) .

  • The public is free to purchase access to the IEEExplore archive. The Project DAVID proposal (then WAVE) hasn't been constructed or launched. As of 2006, the principal authors (who do not speak for the Italian Space Agency, by the way) are still proposing that the properties of the W-band channel first be characterised from low Earth orbit:
Early Experiments with W-Band Satellite Links, Perrotta et al., IEEE Aerospace conference, 2006.
  • That is, the W-band channel has not yet been used from orbit; its channel characteristics have not yet been measured or understood, and the authors have built up expertise in that area and would still like to pursue that work further with practical tests in orbit. Meanwhile and entirely separately, SWANsat is proposing building a commercial service based around using the not-yet-characterised not-yet-understood W-band with untested technology, and claims that this technology (along with untested unproven unused-in-orbit power technology) will be operational from geostationary orbit only five years from now. That's not what I'd call likely, and not what I'd call a solid workable business case based on items entirely under SWANsat's direct control - especially since SWANsat is said to require ten billion US dollars for construction, itself an unlikely sum, and unlikely to be recouped by any business case. Unlike the DAVID proposal (or even Teledesic, which had patents and peer-reviewed papers to build early credibility and state its proposals clearly - Iridium and Teledesic remain elegant in conception from a networking viewpoint), SWANsat does not have its proposals described in academic literature.
  • Is SWANsat credible and real? Well, there's no available material around on SWANsat to convince anyone of this - saying you've been in the same room as people at a UN ICT summit and that SWANsat is associated with people who may be credible in entirely different spheres of expertise doesn't count; their credibility is not SWANsat's credibility, and it's clearly only SWANsat's credibility I'm questioning. (William Welty's credibility is not in question here: Welty's "PhD" is bogus, from a bogus non-accredited university, and was signed off by the entirely bogus and up-for-deletion Chuck Missler.) "Patent holder's credible research is being used?" Where is this "credible research"? Where are these patents?
  • The real question this discussion is for is: "Is SWANsat real enough to be worthy of mention in Wikipedia?" Claiming SWANsat is in some way associated with other people or organisations and that that makes SWANsat credible by association is not convincing, and not sufficient to answer that question satisfactorily. I can't even find press coverage of SWANsat. The Wikipedia article should not be the first definitive description of SWANsat; encyclopaedias are not meant to be primary sources.
  • Are you associated with SWANsat? Are you also sending me anonymous feedback via my website? You can say everything here instead.
  • Most of the links on Welty's milestone page are file: links likely accessible only to Welty when he uses his computer.
  • Oh, and to clarify my previous delete request: Delete as it fails WP:CORP and WP:RS.

Lloyd Wood 14:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


——

Thank you Dr Wood for your comments - the ones that stay on track. I will tell you about my interest in SWANsat when you remove your snide comments that YOU wrongly attached to my user id. I'm afraid, however, it's not as conspiratorial as you would hope or imagine.


Dr Wood, I am especially glad to to see that your statements have moved from "impossible" and "will never exist" to "unlikely" & W-Band characteristics are "unknown" by one group specializing in W-Band. That is a much better professional/academic position to take, especially as I gather you do not want to know or request the design specifications of the SWANsat:IOSTAR power/communications payloads. (Have you emailed or called them yet?)


re: WP:CORP

If the WP Corporate Notabilty test for companies requires (point 1) the publishing of non-trivial independent works, then SWANsat fails this test - just as it fails Point 2 & 3 (stock indices & the like). In a project of this magnitude/notability, multiple groups are assigned responsibilities. SWANsat claims to be responsible for licensing, marketing & financing. If SWANsat is the satellite licence holder with a sovereign state and has orbital slot assignment filings at the UN's ITU and has contractual ties to the space establishment, then its notability is surely confirmed. The likelihood/unlikelihood of financing is in the "Crystal Ball" realm, a realm that Dr Wood objects to. He is happy, however, to refer us to the Wikipedia article of failed venture Teledesic. The example is a lucid/relevant reminder that "success probability" does not fall into the WP:CORP criteria. (It is interesting to see how some academics are very quick to pass judgment on the academic-practitioners - rather than take a more moderate, side-line, 'wait & see' attitude). My point is this: please refer back to point "f" above, regarding WP:CORP admissibility of "exceptional products and services".BTW, early editions of the article provided a feasible way to finance the project, but I think Dr Wood deleted it.


re:WP:RS

As a pertinent aside, the development of XMax technology could prove an illustrative precedent in terms of Reliable Sourcing. Many were (and still are) suspect of Xg and its technolgy claims. It was always under wraps, with commercial non-disclosure agreements slapped on everyone involved in the project. The academics were furious they were not allowed to verify it. They didn't believe it could be, so they threw it in the "must be a scam" category. Why? Because they personally couldn't be involved in the buzz. Only one University Professor was chosen to confirm, verify & then publically endorse it. It now is being deployed throughout the US as real VOIP-alternative. One man's "brain-child" ... BINGO ... a new breakthrough. So as we turn to the topic of W-band space communications, we might be looking down the barrel of a similar breakthrough, perhaps with similar commercial sensitivities and Dr Wood voicing the concerns of the 'outsiders'. The brain child of the W-Band technology is obviously not William Welty, but perhaps one or both of the gentlemen introduced below.


Ok, back to the issue. Dr Wood argues that the IEEE article is proof that W-Band LEO communication is in the experiential & premature stage. It mentions that the design parameters of the experient were Commercial-off-the-shelf equipment, with 15-20 watts of power, on a lightweight satellite, in LEO. I just read the article and I really hope that the volunteer Wikipedia administrator does so too. Dr Wood just confirmed that W-Band space communication is likely in the future! Now that Dr Wood has reviewed some of the research that is been conducted, he has changed his expert opinion from NEVER EVER to NOT LIKELY. Facinating! Imagine what Moore's Law and five years could do if academics can change their minds in just a matter of days.


3 claimed aspects of the SWANsat/IOSTAR design parameters that are publically known are (a) 250,000-500,000 watts of power from (b) GEO using (c) the W-Band. To my & Dr Wood's knowledge the SWANsat Satellite has not been tested - no sats have blasted into GEO for testing. I ask, so what? A large piece of vacant land in the CBD/Downtown does not mean that it will remain so in the future. You have the unused land (w-band), you have the building permit (licence), you have world class architects (iostar) & world-class building contractors (Orbital & Sandia). This a serious project.


It is also a NON-PROFIT service that if/when switched on, will revolutionarily change the world. It will help world leaders conform their written promises (to their citizens and to the whole world) into a substantial reality. (eg. Millenium Development Goal #2: Universal Primary Education for every child on the planet, by 2015.)


Back to the IEEE article. In essence, Dr Wood just gave the whole SWANsat/IOSTAR project additional credibility and provided source reliability by showing that the overall W-band discussion is that: W-Band communication from space will be POSSIBLE. Now, we know that in Dr Wood's view, is that it is UNLIKELY, yet he now acknowledges that it could be possible in the future. I am of the view, based on the public documents that: given more time, with the right design and the right people, it could. Again, I will refer you back to point "f" above, regarding WP:CORP admissibility of "exceptional products and services". It will be carried out by exceptional specialists and leaders in the nuclear and space communication industries. The US Government is a significant stake-holder, providing both capital and labour. They are providing financing of up to $1.5 billion through new legislation (see news report) and also providing nuclear scientists at Sandia Labs (see news report). Someone has to be the first to do it, just like the man on the moon. Despite the NAY-SAYERS, why not let the people in the best position to do it, who believe they can do it, with the licence to do it, AT LEAST attempt to do it. The SWANsat/IOSTAR project is noteworthy and credible. Wikipedia should not delete the article.


Dr Wood admits to the (source?, at least industry) credibility of IOSTAR. This is an extremely important fact because the most disturbing claim is by IOSTAR President, Dr Jim Stewart himself, when he notes that 100Ghz [W-Band] communications from GEO is within IOSTAR's capabilities (see heading). Maybe the details are in HIS text books? Maybe they are military secrets? Maybe they are commercial secrets? Maybe IOSTAR would need to weigh into this discussion with some sort of proof, verification, clarification (a note of recommendation for the volunteer wiki administrator, reviewing this page)


The patent holders I mentioned are found on IOSTAR's website and are detailed here:


Dr. James Stuart. Dr. Stuart has vast experience in design, development, procurement and business development of advanced space system designs and program development of commercial systems. He has served as an Independent Consultant; Vice President and Chief Architect, Teledesic Corporation; Chief Engineer and Chief Scientist,Ball Aerospace, founding Chief Engineer of Orbital Sciences Corp and Mission Director, Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Dr. Stuart received a B.S. Physics, University of Washington; M.S., Electrical Engineering, University of Southern California; M.S., Operations Research, University of Southern California; and Ph.D, Systems Engineering, University of Southern California. He holds 9 patents, was the author of two textbooks and has published over 150 professional papers on space systems.


Robert F. D'Ausilio. Mr. D'Ausilio has wide and unique experience in design, development, engineering and management of space and satellite systems. He is founder, president and CEO of Intraspace Corporation that specializes in aerospace technology and development of satellite technology for commercial applications. Mr. D'Ausilio has held positions as: Assistance Vice President of Space Communications Company (Partnership of Fairchild Industries and Continental Telecom, Inc.) and Program Manager of the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS); Program Manager, Space Operations and Satellite System Division, Rockwell International; NAVSTAR-7 (GPS) Program Manger, Rockwell International; Lead Engineer and Supervisor of the Apollo Test and Engineering Evaluation Lab, Rockwell International Corp. Mr. D'Ausilio holds a B.S., Electrical Engineering, University of Bridgeport, and M.S., Business Administration, Pepperdine University. He is a Air Force veteran, holder of five (5) patents and author of several technical articles.


Then finally we come to the discrediting of Chuck Missler: Dr Wood's attempt to discredit Chuck Missler flies in the face of his notable background.

During the past 30 years, Chuck has served on the Board of Directors of over a dozen public companies, and was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of five of them. Chuck Missler received a Congressional appointment to the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. Upon graduating with honors, he received his commission in the U.S. Air Force. By the time he completed his military obligations, he had become Branch Chief of the Department of Guided Missiles at Lowry Air Force Base. Chuck completed a Masters Degree in engineering at UCLA with additional post-graduate studies in applied mathematics, advanced statistics and information sciences, and completed his PhD at Louisiana Baptist University. His civilian career began as a systems engineer at TRW, followed by a Senior Analyst position in a "think tank" serving both the intelligence community and the Department of Defense.

Recruited by the Ford Motor Company into a Senior Management position, Chuck established the first international industrial computer network in 1966. Leaving Ford to start his own company, he founded a computer networking organization later acquired by Automatic Data Processing (NYSE) to became its Network Services Division. He subsequently served as a consultant to the Board of Directors of Rockwell International for corporate acquisitions (which included Collins Radio, American Data Systems, and others); and has also participated in over 100 business ventures as a principal, strategic advisor, or turnaround specialist.

Directorships of Publicly Traded Corporations Cypernetics Corporation

Founder, President, CEO, Director (Startup: Computer network company, acquired by ADP, NYSE) Dec 68, $0.05/share June 70, $62.00/share

Pertec Computer Corporation (NYSE) Director (Computer peripherals, personal computers; ultimately acquired by Triumph-Adler, Germany) Oct 73, $1.375/share Jan 80, $16.50/share

Applied Devices Corporation (ASE) Director (Conglomerate: data processing support services for international oil industry, state lotteries, etc.) Mar 75, $1.375/share June 79, $12.00/share

Precision Instrument Co. (OTC) Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer (Advanced laser memory development for the National Security Agency, Department of Defense, et al. Extracted from Chapter 11 for Chase Manhattan Bank.) May 75, $0.05/share May 77, $6.50/share

Hadron, Inc. (OTC) Director (Advanced developments, Defense industry) Jan 79, $0.12/share Jan 81, $5.25/share

Western Digital Corporation (ASE, NYSE) Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer (Semiconductors; disk controllers, etc. Extracted from Chapter 11 for First Interstate Bank; presently a Fortune 500 company.) June 77, $0.27/share Oct 83, $13.00/share

Datum Inc (OTC) Director (Computer peripherals; cesium clocks of the Global Positioning Satellite systems, etc.) May 80, $2.25/share July 85, $12.00/share

Helionetics (ASE) Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer (William E. Simon, former Secretary of Treasury, asked me to join him on this strategically sensitive ultraviolet laser project; we both resigned after a futile 13 month boardroom struggle.) Nov 83, $17.00/share Dec 84, $7.00/share

Ducommun Inc (ASE) Director (Asset reallocations of the oldest corporation in California; aerospace metals processing; electronic distribution; et al.) Dec 80, $23.75/share July 88, $3.78/share, after splits and divestitures

Resdel Industries (OTC) Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer (Advanced developments for Department of Defense and other deeply classified customers; partnered with Boeing on P-3 upgrade; with Northrup on the Stealth Bomber; etc. Ultimately acquired by Dowty PLC of U.K.) Dec 84, $0.10/share July 88, $3.50/share


Each of these was a troubled turnaround situation. These directorships are only intended to imply participation; not personal credit for the results. Each was a learning experience. In 1989, The Phoenix Group, Inc., Chuck Missler's publicly traded development company, entered into an $8 billion joint venture to supply personal computers to the 143,000 public schools of the Soviet Union.

Technical Projects Dr. Missler has served as a consultant, principal, or a director, participating in over 100 high technology investments, acquisitions, or divestitures over his 30 year career. Some specific projects have included:

System Engineer, Subsystem I of the SAMOS Program (highly classified reconnaissance satellite program); principal contributor to major developments in the gathering of ELINT (electronic intelligence) information via satellite.

While on the staff of an Air Force think-tank, participated in the programming of one of the first solid-state command/control computers (AN/FSQ-27) exploiting error-correcting coding.

Chief Systems Engineer for arms control simulations for the early negotiations for U.S. Arms Control And Disarmament Agency (USACADA) in the Geneva negotiations;

Optical processing of digital information with laser memories (as President of Precision Instrument Company); early exploitation of Fourier Transforms in search and retrieval of optically stored digital information for the National Security Agency at Fort Meade;

Application of advanced statistical coding methods for highly sensitive industrial applications, including adaptive filtering and exponential smoothing models.

Personally funded and directed the first microchip implementation of the Data Encryption Standard (DES) of the National Bureau of Standards, in concert with Carnegie Mellon Institute of Research.

Served on the Board of Directors with William E. Simon (former Secretary of Treasury), General David C. Jones (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), Admiral Tom Hayward (Chief of Naval Operations) and Dr. Edward Teller, (Scientific Advisor to the President), involved in highly sensitive advanced technology projects.

Served on the Board of Directors of the Computer and Communications Industry Association in Washington D.C.

Former member: Association for Computing Machinery, The Institute for Management Sciences, Operations Research Society of America, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Order of Old Crows (Electronic Warfare Specialists).

- (comment was added by Wmt)

  • Comment This 30KB discussion is ridiculous. The relevant question is not whether SWANsat will ever work, not even wether it can work at all (see, for example, Huemul Project for a failed project, probably impossible). The question is whether SWANsat is notable by Wikipedia's standards (and to me, a license from Nauru or Tuvalu does not imply notability), and whether we have enough reliable sources to write a verifiable article, and that also looks bleak - for example, even searching for "SWANsat" on the Sandia National Laboratories website produced no results. If half the effort invested in this discussion were aimed at correcting these issues and improving the article, I might be persuaded to change my vote... --Huon 07:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Wmt, I said: That's not what I'd call likely. In fact, it's what I'd call impossible from SWANsat. No contradiction or change of position there. I did not state that, to quote you, W-Band communication from space will be POSSIBLE. I stated that it hasn't been done. Again, you are attempting to build up SWANsat's credibility by drawing on the credibility of others - SWANsat does not hold the patents others hold. You're also selective with the facts, e.g. In 1989, The Phoenix Group, Inc., Chuck Missler's publicly traded development company, entered into an $8 billion joint venture to supply personal computers to the 143,000 public schools of the Soviet Union. - neglecting to mention that that venture failed, despite the price tag that you're presumably intended to impress people with. Shouldn't your defence of Missler, such as completed his "PhD" at the unaccredited LBU, which you have copied and pasted from http://www.swansat.com/AboutUs/, go on the Missler deletion page? Lloyd Wood 08:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:CORP (as well as WP:ORG for non-profits). No major media discussion, not notable, probably fails WP:V too. Fairsing 05:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails on its face WP is not a crystal ball, since the website gives a start date of 2011. Is advertising, poor or not. This is not the place to determine whether the project is feasible. I can say the article fails WP:ORG and WP:CORP for lacking multiple non-trivial articles by third parties; question of notability arises from only 244 distinct Ghits for "swansat". Holding a satellite satellite license does not meet WP:NOT, either. Tychocat 16:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as insufficiently notable. No reliable, third-party sources per WP:V. --Satori Son 00:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

__

The power payload via the "IOSTAR:SANDIA" link is established. The communications payload load via the "ORBITAL:IOSTAR" link is obvious (see Dr Stewart's bio). I personally possess SWANsat Satellite blueprints by IOSTAR (the IOSTAR:SWANSAT link). I am unable to redistribute them due to the terms of use from the page from which I obtained them.


Outside of Dr Woods scientific objections, the number of delete votes on this page are consistent & persistent in saying that the IOSTAR:SWANsat link is NOT (a) publicly explicit/verified by IOSTAR and (B) not publicly verified by third party investigations (journalists).


If (a) IOSTAR issues a press release concerning its involvement in the SWANsat Project, as the spacecraft vendor and (b) a number journalists write up the story, the WP article would then meet the stardards of WP:CORP, WP:ORG; WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:RS -- is that correct?


The objection pertaining to 'advertising' would still need to be addressed. The "exceptional future product or service" would/could/should eliminate that concern. Reality Check: No-one would ever fund a $10B project because of a Wikipedia page. The global implications of a notable, verified company/project claiming 600 million broadband connections inherently deserves public awareness, observation & scepticism. -- (comment was added by Wmt)

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

The result was to delete the article. --  Denelson83  21:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Macintosh News Network

  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 majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages 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 votes.

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

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

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

This article was mentioned on the Appletalk AFD and after reviewing the article, it also fails WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV. It fails to follow the guidelines of WP:WEB, WP:CITE, and WP:RS. --Brian (How am I doing?) 16:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep Bear in mind that NPOV and OR are intended to change the form of an article, not outright delete them. That's what {{NPOV}} and {{OR}} are for. Notability? I've come across MacNN before several times... No comment on V, but in general this is an article that needs to be either improved or deleted for V+WEB; I suspect it might be a well enough mac news site, and is certainly linked to a fair amount. Clean it up, make it neutral. If it's deleted it'll simply be recreated again fairly fast, because it /is/ a big site. --Firien § 17:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment That isn't a valid reason Firien. It fails WP:V an no matter what you believe, WP:V is not negotiable. All articles must follow it. WP:OR and WP:NPOV are not guidelines either. They MUST be followed just like WP:V. As for being deleted, if it is recreated then the page will be removed because of a repost, and most likely protected from recreation. However please explain why you believe that there should be an exception from WP:V for this article. Remember:

      1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
      2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
      3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

      and Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policies. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these three policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. --Brian (How am I doing?) 17:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

        • Comment As noted on the appletalker AFD, you have to make a distinction between an entire article failing V and a part of an article failing V. This article can be heavily cut down by V, that I agree with - but there remains some verifiable information, such as the existence of the site, what it's there for. It's apparently the second biggest mac forum; when it's been heavily strimmed by removal of unverifiable (and arguably useless) information, then it should be considered on its remaining merits. Again I give the example that if some small section of a random major article is unverifiable, the major article should not be outright deleted - but edited to remove the unverifiable information. In this case and the Appletalker case, a lot is cut out, sure. The articles were both written POV and littered gently with groupvanity, and they'll be heavily cut down by V criteria. But the distinction needs to be made between an entire article failing V and parts of an article failing V. --Firien § 09:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
      • COMMENT While there are now some 'references' in the article, they still are not about MacNN. Articles must be full-length, featured articles about MacNN itself to satisfy WP:V. --Brian (How am I doing?) 17:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
      • He's right Brian: OR and NPOV aren't designed as grounds for deletion. Note that they're content policies. They can be grounds for deletion but only because of practical considerations, such as when an article would be empty after applying those policies. In fact, the Verifiable policy isn't grounds for deletion either except in the same special case: when the sum total of verifiable information is nothing ("unverifiable"), the article gets deleted. They're non-negotiable, yes, but what they address non-negotiably is what we write about things, not what things we write about. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. WP:V & WP:OR are absolutely non-negotiable.--Isotope23 18:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Seems to be notable just by the amount it's referenced and its stories are carried by others news sites. However, I haven't been able to find any sources that actually discuss the site. This might be a strange artefact of it being "obviously" notable such that no-one has bothered to write anything about it. However, for lack of independent coverage, there is nothing that can be written about it that will pass both WP:V and WP:OR. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm afraid it fails WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:WEB.--Tuxley 23:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete SPAM news network --Xrblsnggt 02:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It reads like one big advertisement for a business nobody knows or cares about, i.e. SPAM. 84.73.138.207 04:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • IP opinions are discarded, mind. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
      • It's not an opinion, it's a fact. Facts are facts regardless if they come from an IP or not. 84.73.138.207 19:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It doesn't follow WP:WEB, WP:CITE, and WP:RS. It clearly fails WP:V. These requirements are not negotiable and apply to all articles. Therefore this article has to be deleted. 129.129.128.84 06:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • That's actually not how those policies work. Besides, IP opinions are discarded. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
      • You can discard "IP opinions" all you want. The violation of five WP polices however remains proven. And that's why this article should be deleted. 129.129.128.84 06:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Saxifrage: failing WP:V is the best reason to delete an article - If we only deleted articles that failed WP:V and/or WP:SPAM, we'd still kill all the articles that need to be killed. If we strip the page of the content that fails WP:V, then it's blank, which is a criterion for speedy, basically. WP:WEB is just a guideline, we can ignore it at will basically, WP:V is a policy we cannot ignore. WP:WEB is essentially just a polite way of saying Axe articles that fail WP:SPAM, WP:OR and/or WP:V - I think it's preferable to skip the middle man, and stick to how it violates policy. text Quoted from WilyD--Brian (How am I doing?) 06:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    Notice I voted delete because applying WP:V would leave it empty. It's a subtle and academic point, granted, but I still think the distinction is important for a good understanding of the nuances and appplication of policy. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails to satisfy the requirements for WP:WEB--Auger Martel 12:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anger Man

Article appears to be a hoax about a Mongolian Tv show. Prod removed by author as well as hoax tag. In the article discussion page, the suthor makes a comment in which they know it is a hoax as well. Wildthing61476 16:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Yanksox 17:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax -- Whpq 17:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Heimstern Läufer 19:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 21:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax --- Deville (Talk) 03:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 09:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paghman saadat

There appears to be no independent corroboration of the existence of the Paghman Saadat. Biographical material on Ikbal Ali Shah and his offspring and their offspring should be moved to their respective pages. The article appears to have been written mainly to promote Idries Shah, while avoiding the dispute about his claims. Jedermann 15:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Why not merge the articles. If not a very large amount of accurate information (which is what an encyclopedia is about) will be lost, which amounts to vandalising. (Lunarian 17:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC))
  • Already suggested on the discussion page. No response.

    BTW, how is Wikipedia to determine whether the information on a trickster figure is accurate and not deliberate misinformation repeated by uncritical hagiographers? Idries Shah's statements about his origins, early years and activities were notoriously inaccurate. He grew up in England from 1927, but allowed his follower Elizabeth Hall to repeat his myth that he first went there in 1960. And so on... Jedermann 09:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • And so on, and so on. But I doubt Wikipedia is going to determine.

    You are, by refinening your studious judgement. "Jedermann" means "Everybody" (Elckerlyke), no? So do not worry. (Lunarian 09:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC))

  • I must apologize for budding in again. I had to verify something that may be to the point about the article under discussion. When the links are carefully examined it follows that Idries Shah was accepted as an advisor for the Institute for the Study of Human Knowledge (ISHK) alongside James Burke, William C. Dement, Edward T. Hall, Rene Dubos, Paul Ralph Ehrlich, Jonas Salk, Hans Selye, Roger Sperry. I have ommitted Doris Lessing for reasons of sensitivity among critics. It is not up to me to judge who among them are the real "posers". I hope my remark may help to take the same care for other details mentioned.

    Always willing to bend an elbow, yours sincerly (Lunarian 18:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC))

  • The Institute for the Study of Human Knowledge (ISHK = ishq) was set up by Bob Ornstein, Shah's deputy in the USA. Is it surprising that IS was 'accepted as an advisor', or that they invited him to speak there, or that they gave him an 'award' for so doing? This article should be deleted. Ridding it of promotional material would leave next to nothing, IMO. Jedermann 14:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you privy also to Robert Ornsteins tenure at Stanford University or was that a bum ride ? I doubt that promotion is going to be of much avail to IS in the position he reclined to. The ideas he proposed deserve attention. But ideas you should be generous to. Have you noticed the article integrates ideas on Max Müller, Thomas Merton, on Viktor Frankl? Did you know about Reza Arasteh?

    If I am not mistaken the bibliography refers to the biography of Robert Graves that carries all the criticism you need, if you really want to balance your opinion.(Lunarian 18:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC))

  • For the last time, the place for presenting I. Shah's ideas is on his own page - not in a manufactured POV-fork. On a point of English, 'mentioning' Mueller and Frankl does not amount to 'integrating' them. The first sentence really sets the intellectual tone, since Muhammad had no male line of descent. Jedermann 14:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You are right of course. The english is not perfect. And, "...males accepted as descendants..." it ought to have been (Sayyid).

    What is a man to say about this ? Delete and get it over with, I guess. But since I cheer for the weasel I still say: do not delete. And since you promise to stay out of the picture, I will too. It's oblivion for both of us anyway.(Lunarian 23:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC))

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable based on the number of hits on google most of which are from wikipedia. Maybe a merge into something? The article is so confusing I have no idea what it could be merged into. If kept, it needs a total cleanup. Vegaswikian 22:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Incoherent text. Mukadderat 19:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was

[edit] Lauren Howard

Very few google hits, almost no external verifiability, reads like advertising, I was tempted to speedy it--172.130.227.58 17:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete. per CSD A8, it's a blantant copy and paste from her page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blubbit

Procederial nomination, contest PROD. Yanksox 17:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Ugh. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 17:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. As well as not clearly distinguishing fact from fiction, this article gives absolutely no indication where this fictional story comes from, or why it should be considered notable. JPD (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No outside references. Fictional, as in made up for the Wiki? That's policy violation, and I don't see where this exists outside of a username in a forum or two. - Corporal Tunnel 17:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete looks like WP:HOAX to me - no google hits other than one username. Tag already removed. --Geneb1955Talk/CVU 18:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I echo that "ugh". I'm never pressing "Random article" again. :P This definitely seems like a hoax. Srose (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. wikipediatrix 00:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless blubbits are actually real animals.--Taida 01:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverse SEO

When I first saw this article I thought it was for the term "reverse SEO". This didn't hold up as there isn't any article linking to this one, so it isn't enough of a wide spread term to warrant an article. Further, noting the "(C)" behind some references to the name make me think this is actually for the company "Reverse SEO". Under that banner, I don't believe it meets notability requirements. The alexa rank is so low as to be unrecordable at this time. StuffOfInterest 16:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Almost patent nonsense, and the cleanup tag had no effect. Hard to tell what it is about. Yomanganitalk 16:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not that hard. It appears that someone has had the idea of promoting ethical behaviour on World Wide Web sites by coining the term "reverse search engine optimization" to denote doing the reverse of what the search engine optimizers do, with a web site. Given the aforementioned link with a single company, this is probably original research, a new concept being promoted by a single entity that has yet to be acknowledged by others and become a part of the corpus of human knowledge. So notability isn't the issue. Whether and what sources exist for the purported concept is. Uncle G 19:35, 14 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 17:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. Basically it's about promoting a web site through customer relationships rather than search engine trickery. Gazpacho 21:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VSpring Capital

Advert for "early-stage" verture capital company. GBYork 19:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[18] [19] [20], though the last may be a press release.--Kchase T 21:00, 14 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 17:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep meets WP:CORP for multiple non-trivial works independent of the company -- Whpq 20:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted as patent nonsense. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iscariot de portelo

wrong language Ben-w 17:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. Ordinarily, I'd suggest that this be taken to Wikipedia:Pages needing translation, but this would appear to be either fiction or a goofy attack page. We learn that they were married on Mar. 21, 10205, with Skeletor officiating, and that their wedding night involved a menage à trois. It would appear not to be worth the bother. Patent nonsense. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] End of silence

fails WP:MUSIC ccwaters 17:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Doesn't look notable to me. Wickethewok 19:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:MUS. Unnotable Brazialian band that has released 1 EP and 0 full-length albums, has never had a major hit, and who's 'web site' only gives a contact email/tel number. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CindyLooWho (talk • contribs). Sorry...forgot to sign. CindyLooWho 01:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Human Imprinting

Article violates WP:NOR, and serves as vanity page for user's thesis concept. -- Merope 17:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete, pretty obvious WP:VAIN violation, but most importantly, the fact that this is wholly "verified" by the originator's would strongly suggest that this is a neologism.--Isotope23 18:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The critics need to attack the argument not the messenger. Is the world still flat? Elsiemobbs

  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 20:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"It is well known that young beavers often fall asleeep while sucking on the mother's teat. This hand reared beaver, Fritz, also liked to fall asleep holding a teat, in this case that of his nursing bottle" Konrad Lorenz et al, The Year of the Greylag Goose, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, NY 1979. Fritz is shown in the photo as sucking itself to sleep on a teat detached from its bottle. Konrad Lorenz was searching for visual mammalian (and human) imprinting but he overlooked the more important function of mammals, many of whom are born blind, to survive by finding and maintaining a physical oral and tactile sense connection to the teat. Human Imprinting should not be deleted from Wikipedia. Elsie Mobbs—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.168.24.85 (talk • contribs).

The evidence for human imprinting has been circulated for the last two decades and also accepted by one of the world's major universities. An intellectual criticism of it would be appreciated but not just a mindless delete request. Human Imprinting should not be deleted from Wikipedia. Elsie Mobbs

Comment Wikipedia is not a peer review journal. -- Whpq 11:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"Human Imprinting", "Mammalian Imprinting" and "teat preference" can be found on Google, Yahoo and MSN searches (other authors use these terms too) and "Human Imprinting" has already been presented in a peer review journal. It was first presented to a Nursing Mothers Assoc of Australia (La Leche League, USA equivalent) meeting in the 1970's with a request that it not be referenced until the peer review journal publication and thesis submission, which eventually took place. "Human Imprinting" is referenced in the leading medical textbook on lactation. It has been presented at a number of medical conferences over the last couple of decades. It is hardly a case of WP:OR or WP:VAIN! Human Imprinting should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'll be off the internet for a couple of days so I'm looking forward to other discussion contributions when I return. Elsie Mobbs

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - let's close this and get on with something more important. Richardcavell 01:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lora DeMark

Prosecutor in West Virginia and former production assistant in a band. Notable? —Scott5114↗ 17:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. She's received no real press coverage of her own and her involvment with the Vans Warped tour is not large enough to warrant her own article. Non-notable and the article also has a hint of vanity about it. —Michael Hays 20:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:BIO ST47 23:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - apart from being an utterly boring article, fails WP:BIO by light-years. Camillus (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, CSD A7. wikipediatrix 00:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete non-notable lawyer and production assistant. The article currently cites multiple statements as being "rumored" which creates verifiability problems. I've added {{fact}} templates to call attention to that issue. --Metropolitan90 06:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The sentence "She is, perhaps, best known for her involvement in the music industry between the years of 1999-2004" asserts notability, so technically it can't be speedied, under A7 at least.—Scott5114↗ 14:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted by Mailer diablo.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  08:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holiday Inn Express Hotel & Suites - Detroit Downtown

No indication of significance. Buildings could have good articles if they're of historical or architectural interest, but I don't see an indication of that. We already have Holiday Inn which clearly meets WP:CORP standards, but we don't need articles of individual hotels- that's a directory function, not an encyclopedia function. I'd speedied this originally but restored it upon request. I don't see that it's improved since that time, thus the deletion nomination. Friday (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete... one of a chain of hotels and as nom stated... there is no historical or architectural interest here. It's sort of sad that there is an article about the "Holiday Inn Express Hotel & Suites" in downtown Detroit, but nothing about the GAR building.--Isotope23 18:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and per Isotope23. As far as the GAR building goes, it's on the National Register of Historic Places, so it deserves an entry. I'll get right on it. (Well, maybe.) --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 19:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I just did... well, at least something positive came out of this.--Isotope23 19:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per above. Wickethewok 19:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - as per nom - Whpq 20:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per that excellent nomination - quite exemplary. :) Srose (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom ST47 23:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above; company as a whole meets WP:CORP obviously, but WP:NOT the Yellow Pages for individual locations and otherwise non-notable buildings. --Kinu t/c 05:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep as the Renaissance Center is a hotel as well? Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk 02:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, The Ren Center is more than just a hotel... and has a lot more architectural and general significance to Detroit than the Holiday Inn Express does.--Isotope23 05:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As a Metro-Detroiter (or is that Wikipedians who hail from the area around the locale called Detroit? :) this is not notable enough to be its own article. — MrDolomite | Talk 06:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 07:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Show Gunnz

Individuals are notable, but not notable as a tag team Dsreyn 15:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. hateless 22:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. I had no tag team to give a profile on that date, so I chose them. I'm suprised I remembered them anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Supershow (talk • contribs) . 12:59, 17 August 2006
 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 18:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and WP:V. --Satori Son 18:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and SS ST47 23:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cab Assassin

fails WP:MUSIC ccwaters 18:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There are far too many music critics and not enough musicians around here. It seems that Wikipedia is becoming more and more influenced by the perils of mass consumption and popular trends not only in music, but in many other categories of articles. The fact that Cab Assassin article has been nominated for deletion is discouraging to me, as I have been a user for quite some time. My opinion of this resource has been greatly diminished.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.84.45.180 (talk • contribs).

  • Delete Most of the article describes recording EPs and LPs, but precious little about releasing them. No indications that they're performing anywhere, either. Google can't find most of the recordings at all. Based on the article, sounds like a group of guys who get together and record themselves. Fan-1967 22:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom ST47 23:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 00:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete yet another NN band - Blood red sandman 13:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alivan's Master Wandmakers

This site should be deleted because it is virtually an advertisement for a company. mcwiggin 18:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - doesn't pass WP:CORP, and the whole thing reads as an advertisement. -- Whpq 20:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — No evidence of passing WP:CORP, looks like WP:SPAM. Just zis Guy you know? 22:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per JzG ST47 23:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Idol contestants' album sales

DO NOT Delete this article. Even if the information is on each of the artists' pages, a combined article made it extremely easy for me to find the exact information that I was looking for.

All of this information is already on the articles for each individual contestant, so having a separate page is unnecessary. Extraordinary Machine 18:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom; this article is completely superfluous. Srose (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and as information not needing it's own page, also there is a serious fairuse problem with these images. Yanksox 19:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per above. Wickethewok 19:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete RobJ1981 20:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that the article should't be deleted, it is by far one of the best pages in this site. It is well organized and it helps other users that might be interested to see all of the contestants album sales, and might not have time to go article by article looking for contestants album sales. Estraordinary Machine, I never really saw you around before, I've been visiting and contributing to make Wikipedia better, but you keep making it worse, in every other article, you find something and make a dispute over it. I'm getting bored of this encyclopedia. What a bad administrator. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.44.16.135 (talk • contribs).

I've already explained on your talk page why I reverted your edits on other articles. Please post your concerns about my allegedly "bad" behaviour at Wikipedia:Requests for comment or one of the other dispute resolution pages, not here. Extraordinary Machine 21:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:NOT a collection of lists ST47 23:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 00:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 07:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Birketts

Non-notable - only one web source, and no printed sources, not even the original book, acknowledge the existence of "the Birketts". See Talk:List of Birketts for further discussion. Blisco 17:48, 15 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 18:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not accepted in the UK walking community, as far as I'm aware, and the separate article on Bill Birkett already mentions the book. Espresso Addict 22:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable (not the information itself, but the name "Birketts"). --Huon 22:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ST47 23:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 00:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casey Michelson

Myspace.com isn't a source, an article must have external verifiability. Author keeps removing {{unsourced}} and doesn't seem able to provide any sources for the article in question. Also, a grand total of 8 google hits--172.130.227.58 18:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Note Tagged by anon - nomination text moved from Talk page. Fan-1967 18:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I can find no sources to verify this individual meets WP:BIO. DrunkenSmurf 19:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, subject does not meet WP:BIO and the article is unverified.--Isotope23 19:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I can find no reliable sources to verify this individual even exists. Fan-1967 19:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This pretty much says it all: He has also made many films and distributed them around his high school. -- Whpq 21:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per DS and as per WP:VANITY ST47 23:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - utterly non-notable 14-year-old, who thinks that spending hours playing with playdoh is a claim to fame. Doh! Camillus (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Richardcavell 00:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think that this is a fine article and I have actually seen him perform and he definitely has a career ahead of him. My friend knows Casey Michelson and all of this is very much so true.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.218.13.107 (talk • contribs).
  • Delete. Your friend does not count as a reliable source, which is needed for verifiability. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and this fails WP:MUSIC. --Kinu t/c 05:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable bio Brian 18:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)btball
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was inappropriate or something... Wickethewok 19:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:German_userbox_solution/Userbox

Speedy Delete (?) Userboxes should not be allowed as subpages of articles. --NThurston 18:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bobbie Jean Carter

Relative of several famous people but not notable in her own right. Speedied once then recreated; taking to AfD rather than continuing the speedy-recreate-speedy dance. Thatcher131 (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. If non-famous relatives of famous people are considered notable, where does it end? My father's brother's daughter's husband's sister's husband is Kid Rock; should I get an article? VoiceOfReason 18:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Is your cousin-in-law's sister actually Pam Anderson? Because that would be awesome. -- Kicking222 19:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment on comment Actually, I got it wrong... I think it's actually my father's brother's daughter's husband's brother's wife's brother who is Kid Rock. Hmm... that doesn't sound right either. I know my folks attended the wedding, and the Kid sang a song or two there. I can check with dear ol' Dad to find out the exact relationship again. I do know we didn't get invited to Kid and Pam's wedding. VoiceOfReason 20:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per VoiceOfReason and WP:BIO. Family relations don't make one notable.--Isotope23 18:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -- Kicking222 19:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom ST47 23:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless we want to see WP filled with people whose only claim to fame is that they are related to someone "notable". Camillus (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Connections to notable people do not confer notability. wikipediatrix 00:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, with any relevant information being added to other Carter family pages. SliceNYC 21:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 07:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robertson Frizero Barros

Vanity article created by User:Frizero, thus possibly also an auto-biography. No evidence of independent reviews to establish notability per WP:BIO. Article is unreferenced and an orphan, and cleanup tags have been removed twice with no substantitve change to content. Article does have an assertion of notability, in that he supposedly won writing contests at the Brazilian Naval Academy. GRBerry 16:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - under 20 independent Google hits here. Literary awards from the Brazilian Naval College doesn't constitute notability. BlueValour 20:06, 19 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 18:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because. Danny Lilithborne 21:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom ST47 23:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - note that many of the (20!) Ghits cited above are just to comments/reviews on open forums by Barros - if he was notable, other people would be writing about him. Camillus (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 00:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kushcash, Mwallet, M-Wallet

Prod'ed and de-prod'ed, so let the community decide. Looks like spam for new product. Basically the same ad under multiple names. -- Fan-1967 19:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete all per WP:SPAM. Plus, I'm pretty sure that M-Wallet is a registered trademark of Motorola. VoiceOfReason 19:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, spam. Naconkantari 19:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per VOR and as per WP:VAIN ST47 23:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all as above. wikipediatrix 00:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Found this [21]. They seem to be a start up; its dated July 24th. They've got a chance, but all the news about them I can find is self-generated PR news. WP:CORP needs multiple reliable sources. Best to delete now(esspecially given the spammy nature of this) since wikipedia's not a cyrstal ball to future possiblity of this company warrenting an article. Kevin_b_er 03:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • In a note to the author, I offered the opinion that this may be comparable to VOIP. It's a new technology, with a lot of people jumping into it (or announcing plans to do so) but nobody seems to be leading the charge and dominating it, or even dominating the press on it. Wouldn't surprise me if I'm paying for my groceries with my cell phone in five years, but I have no idea what company will be managing that transaction. Fan-1967 03:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah except VOIP is a type of service whereas this is an actual product. Its as Vonage is to VOIP, Kushcash is to ?. There is no comparator, which makes me lean more toward delete. Kevin_b_er 04:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That's part of the problem. There isn't even a good term for it yet. Compared to VOIP, it's an immature technology, not even out there yet. These articles call it "Secure Wireless Transfers" but it's going to need a better name than that. Definitely not ready for prime time yet, and the people selling it are not yet notable. Fan-1967 04:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Even if the technology is significant, the company isn't yet (there are other companies working on this type of thing); WP:ADS applies here. ColourBurst 15:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The funny thing about KushCash and the reason I believe that they should stay in Wikipedia, is that they managed to develop this system in what would be considered light speed (8 months) furthermore as per some information I am getting through the CMO council they have already reached massive numbers for a new tehcnology with rather high learning curve. They are currenlty teaming up with both Boost Mobile, Amp'd mobile and Virgin Mobile in the US. They also just hired Frank Angrissani as CEO (former Sr. VP of Western Union, and Peter Hewitt former GM of Leapfrog, and funny enough former interim CEO and VP of Communications of DialPad (first VOIP company to reach 10 mil users. They are also teaming up with Qualcomm for R&D. I honestly think that they have a real chance of becoming great. I saw them at the US open in California, and I tell you guys, this company is not a one hit wonder.Dorff

-

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

The result was USERFY. The article can't be kept, it's original research - the title term doesn't exist on Goggle outside of this article. Moving it to userspace will give all the benefits of a Delete without destroying it altogether. Herostratus 04:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ground rules relationships

Delete: An interesting, high-quality essay, but nevertheless an OR essay which should be published elsewhere and not on Wikipedia. The title itself does not even seem to have common currency, or be derived from any of the cited sources. mgekelly 19:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Userify (or conditional delete if userify does not happen). There is a bunch of useful referenced material, and I believe reducing it to the referenced material might make a good article (or articles) that isn't OR, but I'm not sure what it would be about exactly. The reference section is a wealth of information that might be applicable to other articles. Therefore, I don't think it should remain as an article, but the work shouldn't be discarded either as it can be of benefit elsewhere. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Cut sharply, but keep There's enough referenced, NPOV material here to form an article, the problem is that it has a bunch of essay surrounding it. Slap a {{POV}} tag on it and prune it down. This doesn't need to be entirely deleted. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I can't understand how it is justifiable, even if it has non-OR content, for there to be an article which has a title which is itself OR, i.e. not a widely-recognised concept. As other editors suggest below, userification and/or integration of the factual elements into other articles seem to me to be the only appropriate course of action. mgekelly 01:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to userspace ST47 23:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into interpersonal_relationship. There is a lot of cited stuff here but I don't know that this deserves its own article. Spoom - Talk 00:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • That sounds like a very complicated, vaguely specified merge you're proposing. It's inappropriate for an admin to have to do that much work to close an AfD. Mangojuicetalk 15:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree, and I am not suggesting that one admin do that as Wikipedia is collaborative by its nature. Putting Template:Merging would suffice. I apologize if I'm being unclear though; to clarify, I would recommend cutting the article sharply as above for original research material, then merging the rest. Spoom - Talk 20:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is Wikipedia not How to Live Your Life. Mallanox 18:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, don't userfy, unless the author requests it after deletion. Don't merge either. WP:NOT a soapbox. Mangojuicetalk 15:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research -- Whpq 21:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, userfy on request. The original editor has made various contributions of high quality to Wikipedia, so clearly this is not a run-of-the-mill low-quality, low-notability article. I share the concerns about OR though. So while we can't keep this article in the article space Kc62301 (and those who want to participate) should get every chance to make this a NOR article when she returns from wikibreak. I don't see the alternative solutions offered above as feasible. ~ trialsanderrors 07:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment: if the author is on a wikibreak, I don't think it's too much to ask the admin concerened to copy it to her namespace and leave a note on her talk page if, as I hope, it is deleted, IMHO. mgekelly 07:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll leave that to the closing admin on how to handle it. ~ trialsanderrors 17:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The raw totals are 7-6 Delete, and neither side has a significantly stronger argument, therefore no consensus. Herostratus 04:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Herostratus 04:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Belgians

There are a few problems with this article. It is very long, and pretty much unmaintainable (since it's potentially a list of every single person who ever lived or worked in Belgium); it includes contentious criteria (Flemish / Walloon / Belgian); it is a bare list of links; it is doing a job which would be better served (with less miantenance) by the extant category hierarchy; it contains a mix of real and fictional. Other than allowing for people to be claimed as Balgian when their article editors would reject the category, I do not see the purpose here (and I speak as a fan and player of the game Famous Belgians). Just zis Guy you know? 19:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep: while I agree that there are problems with the current form of the list (like the inclusion of fictional characters made by a Belgian), I don't think the list as such is superfluous, as it is a handy tool to see which Belgians have an article (your argument that it is "potentially a list of every single person who ever lived or worked in Belgium" is incorrect, as those people would be deleted immediately as not encyclopedic: it is a list of bluelinks), just like many other lists. Almost every country seems to have one (Category:Lists of people by nationality), and even though the existence of other articles is usually not an argument to keep one up for AfD, it is an indication that this list is not some anomaly, but a quite regular list. I don't see the contentious criteria Flemish/Walloon you mention, it only speaks about Belgium. Work on better rules, exclude errors and redlinks, but don't delete this list, it perfectly fits Wikipedia:List guideline, namely the second reason: navigation. Fram 20:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Categorize and Delete Danny Lilithborne 21:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete in favor of categorization ST47 23:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Better suited for category. wikipediatrix 00:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The argument that "every person from X-group will end up being listed" is usually a red-herring or fallacious. As I recall lists are accepted when they list things important to the topic or where the topic is important to them. A list of people important to Belgium or where being Belgian is important to them will not be a list of every Belgian. It won't even be a list of every Belgian who considers their Belgian identity important as most of those people aren't notable enough to have an article. If the list can be pared down to notable people important to Belgium than it'll be maintainable. IOW fix it, don't kill it.--T. Anthony 01:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is the canonical example of what categories are for --- Deville (Talk) 03:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: No, to the contrary. This list has redlinks (wanted/needed articles), which a category can't have. It has subdivisions, which you otherwise have to do with subcategories but can't do in one category. It has a short explanation after some of the names, which you, again, can't do in categories. I wouldn't call it the canonical example of what lists are for ;-) , but it is potentially very useful and interesting and can't be replaced by a category while keeping all the information. Fram 07:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, absurd nomination. Lists and categories serve very different purposes. If the list needs to be expanded and improved -- well , that's not a matter for AfD. -- Visviva 04:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Fram. This list can clearly do things a category couldn't. - Mgm|(talk) 09:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • supprime (delete). we have a category Category:Belgian people by occupation with many sub-categories, so we definitely don't need this list which just mulitplies the red ink. Ohconfucius 15:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Fram. The list definitely complies with WP:LIST. It provides a valuable information source (Information), it can be used as a table of contents (Naviguation) and is useful for Wikipedia development purposes (Development). The list is perfectly maintainable since it only comprises notable Belgians. --Edcolins 22:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: whether such lists should be used or whether categories are enough should make into separate discussion. Almost every nationality has such list. Personally, I would recomend to delete them all as they are /very/ hard to maintain (people are constantly adding everyone with article there). Pavel Vozenilek 19:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - duplicates exisiting categories. Cats are easier to keep up to date and do a better job. <POV> These lists only serve to give WP space to people who otherwise would not be notable enough</POV>. BlueValour 20:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I have used this in my daily work and find it useful! Mallanox 18:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black reality television participants

per discussion on talk page, plus it's hard to define what reality television even is, and it's just an overall pointless article --Macarion 19:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Defining who is considered black is hard enough, let alone a consistent definition for reality TV. --RMHED 20:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, being black and on television in the present day is not notable. Gazpacho 20:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as stated above, not a notable subject. Also, unoffically, I think it is a pointless list. Ramsquire 21:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does there really need to be a list made? Is it rare to have a black person on reality TV...? I would think not. --Nishkid64 21:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Even if this were not blantently unnecessary and discriminatory, it would be betetr done as a category. Dev920 22:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Nonomy 22:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:NOT a collection of lists ST47 23:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. wikipediatrix 00:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, unless someone really thinks "White Sitcom Characters With Brown Eyes" should be a notable article --Mitaphane talk 02:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I get so tired of lables in life and this page does nothing but perpetuate lables. Is there a "White Participants in reality TV" wikipage? I'll bet there's not. Why do some people feel like there needs to be the prefix "Black" on everything?Gamer83 22:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per nom - pointless list. --TheM62Manchester 22:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per nom - pointless list. 130.76.96.19 18:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, a category is all that's really required. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 09:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seth Benardete

Was prodded, but he IS a college professor, so I'm giving it the full AfD it deserves. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 20:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Doesn't seem any more notable than the professors I have every day. No reliable sources right now also. Wickethewok 20:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Wickethewok. ReverendG 20:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The intent in creating this short article is to memorialize a great classical scholar whose work is perhaps less well known among wider audiences but nevertheless highly regarded among experts in Platonic studies. Benardete's seminars were legendary, not only for their "standing-room-only" attendance, but for their protraction (6PM to 8PM sessions would routinely last to 10 or 12 midnight); his courses were attended not merely by undergraduate and graduate students but by professors from local colleges and universities. The author hopes that philosophers will actively edit and amplify this article so that it will accurately reflect in detail the enormous influence Benardete's thought has had on recent philosophy(the author). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Agini191 (talk • contribs).
  • This looks like a very, very obvious keep. Clearly a very notable classical scholar. Add an {{unreferenced}} tag and give it some time. Finding good references (obituaries and reviews of his work) and confirmation of his many publications is not hard, even with simple and easily available tools such as Google and Google Books. I would like to encourage the nominator and delete-voters to read WP:OSTRICH. up+l+and 08:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep... you have seriously got to be kidding me. He is a very important figure in the field. Visviva 20:44, 15 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 19:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I rarely say keep in AFD, but this professor is obviously notable and deserving of an article. Having read the article, I second Uppland's comments. Picaroon9288|ta co 20:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. An extensively published and respected scholar, certainly worthy of an article. —Michael Hays 20:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep in addition to all of the above, a google search gets many articles about him, obituaries, books, and reviews of his books. All on the first page. He passes WP:BIO with flying colors. --Daniel Olsen 20:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, multiply published scholar/author. NawlinWiki 21:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Passes WP:BIO and is a very notably and distinguished professor in his field. --Nishkid64 21:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Bloke's wrote a hell of a lot of books. Dev920 22:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per all ST47 23:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Clear keep, notable by any standard --- Deville (Talk) 03:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • ""Must keep"", Benardete is one of the most important thinkers about Plato and classical literature in general. He was not some ordinary professor - he was a genius! - August 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 07:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Legendary Acoustic blues Club

Non-notable musical collective. So legendary that they throw up 8 ghits. Dancarney 19:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, obscure band with obscure members. —Michael Hays 20:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a vanity page. Aplomado talk 20:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nn. --Nishkid64 21:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:VANITY and WP:NN ST47 23:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of WP:V indicating that subjects meet WP:MUSIC, possibly WP:ORG, or even WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 05:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pulmonary Hypertension Association

Advocacy group for a rare disease, article states that the membership was small in 1990 (100) and is unlikely to have grown to notable levels over 16 years. Delete or maximally merge with pulmonary hypertension. JFW | T@lk 19:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep - Googling "Pulmonary Hypertension" brings up the website for PHA as the first hit. Googling Pulminary Hypertension Association gets 3,600,000 hits.[22]. It's obviously the leading athoity on this disease. --Daniel Olsen 20:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Daniel Olsen, although the number is actually about 45,000 once you put it in quote marks. The fact that its membership is small doesn't mean it isn't notable. Possibly merge and redirect to pulmonary hypertension, but I still say it's notable enough for at least a stub. Aplomado talk 20:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Per their website, they now have 3400 members[23], a 2004 budget of over $2 million[24], and affiliations with other international PH societies. A lot can happen in 16 years! NawlinWiki 21:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per all ST47 23:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per reasoning above. - Mgm|(talk) 09:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  08:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Police State 3

No assertion of notability. Many other videos on the same topic are listed on IMDB and available on Amazon. This isn't listed on IMDB or on Amazon. --Aude (talk contribs) 20:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, I don't believe Alex Jones's notoriety makes all of his videos encyclopedic. Gazpacho 21:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Although the author has been very active on 9/11 revisionism topics, I don't see anything that points to him being Alex Jones. Gazpacho
      • Striver = Alex Jones? not at all. he's just admires Alex Jones. --Aude (talk contribs) 21:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Like Gazpacho said, just because it's made by a notable person doesn't make the video notable. --Nishkid64 21:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as self-promotion. Aplomado talk 21:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Gazpacho and Aude; unlike Aplomado, I don't think the creator is Alex Jones (although I did have suspicions at first). Nonetheless, this video doesn't merit its own article. Srose (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:VANITY and WP:SPAM ST47 23:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 00:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Freddy 20:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.250.145.62 (talk • contribs).
Why did you say "AfD Closed, keep" as your edit summary? wikipediatrix 20:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Big deal SkeenaR 08:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is by Alex Jones, one of the most controversial figures in America today. I'll grant that this isn't one of his better known films, but every two-bit director and their dog has a movie article and bio on here, it seems a bit biased to call this up for deletion. SkeenaR 08:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, "Police State 3" jones gives 45k, 5 full uploads on Google video, far more notable than most films in Category:Pornographic films. And yes, a notbale creator gives notability to the film itself.--Striver 15:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- per nom and ST47. Can you say Youtube? Morton DevonshireYo
  • Delete per nom. Rmt2m 00:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salon Iris

Nonnotable commercial software; 446 unique Ghits. NawlinWiki 21:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete assuming notability is not established soon. Natalie 21:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, and it's basic databasing software. There are tons of those out there. --Nishkid64 21:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Nishkid64 ST47 23:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Yes, there numerous database software companies out there, but this one seems to be catching on in a lot businesses. There was even an article about it in Nails Magazine. They've also had some decent show booths at the Chicago Midwest Beauty Show and the Orlanda Beauty Show. — Possible single purpose account: 24.172.186.90 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Apology This was my first post. I have contributed on other items.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Myrmica tschekanovskii

What in the world is this? TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 21:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - it's an ant. It needs filling out that's all. Yomanganitalk 21:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Well, it exists, but there is zero content other than that it is an ant, and judging by the Google hits that's not likely to change anytime soon. Aplomado talk 21:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep ST47 22:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Ghits are not reliable for everything. There are Wikipedians with knowledge of insects who will fill this out in time. Camillus (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - this is an encyclopedia. Species are notable, even if it will take us a century to categorise and describe them all in here. - Richardcavell 00:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep obviously. Punkmorten 07:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. - Mgm|(talk) 09:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Midlans

orphan, advert Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 21:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete A3: No content at all. --Huon 21:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC) Still delete as advertisement. --Huon 15:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - advert for nn party. AlexTiefling 23:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - unsourced POV and probably fails WP:V. BlueValour 20:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 1ne 09:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freeline Skates

Advertisement, probably no reliable sources to be found. Prodded, prod removed by anon. Delete --Huon 21:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and as per WP:SPAM ST47 22:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I feel that this should stay up as these skates are becoming very highly sought after regarding information, it would be impossible to say this is advertising, the skates are sold out right now and sell oput as soon as they are made, I have been waiting 3 months to get one (well two). This is a legitimate spport and deserves to be defended —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.176.128.253 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Mallanox 18:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clone Trooper Designation

Star Wars fancruft. If we can, copy to Star Wars wiki. If not, it's not a notable part of Star Wars to have it's own article here. Someone should alert the Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars too. -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 21:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cardiff (film)

I think I made up the existence of this film. Can't be sure though. --Dangherous 21:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I can't find anything on IMDB. Dev920 22:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete You think you made it up? A past vandalizer trying to clean up his own work almost a year later? Glad you've gone clean, but shouldn't someone have caught this eight months ago? └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 22:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • True, it should've been caught. Wikipedia's nihilartikel-catching net has somewhat large holes in it though. There's a few more of my old articles comin up for AFD. --Dangherous 22:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as per WP:CSD GC7 -- you think?? ST47 22:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment According to this the movie exists. It's a question of notability now. --Wafulz 23:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah yeah! - It does exist after all. Hurrah. I wouldn't've thought it was a very good film. Being in Welsh n'all. --Dangherous 23:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I've found it on IMDB[25] - I just didn't check it in Welsh before. Still, I think we should delete it anyway - who wants to hear about anything Welsh? Dev920 23:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Good point. Being Welsh should be a criteria for speedy deletion anyway. --Dangherous 23:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Wales: the new Belgium. At least they're looking after Dr. Who. Grutness...wha? 02:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as it doesn't show any evidence of the sources needed to write a verifiable article. GRBerry 02:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Aloisi

Nonnotable grad student-author with one self-published book, Fifty Handfuls (Amazon ranking below 1.5 million), also nominated here; both created by User:AuthorMike. NawlinWiki 21:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Penny football/penny rugby

We played this in school. I wonder if it is notable enough to stay in English Wikipedia. --Dangherous 21:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep--as do I, notability is not a concern ST47 22:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I see issues with WP:V and WP:OR, but the game is pretty widespread. For what it's worth, as a kid I played the Canadian variation (penny hockey) which is the exact same as penny football. --Wafulz 23:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but source and cleanup. wikipediatrix 00:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. This is a very widespread game and yes, it is called Penny Hockey in Canada, so that should be added. Could use a source and some cleaning - but definitely should stay. CindyLooWho 01:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - At my school we always called it "Quarter Hockey" (not from Canada btw). Seems like there should be some decent sources for something like this, but Googling various terms has yielded no reliable resources so far for me. Wickethewok 04:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lene Hefner

Article as it stands right now does not make a valid argument for Lene to be considered notable as per WP:BIO guidelines and the WP:PORN BIO proposed guidelines. Tabercil 22:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom ST47 22:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. On the face of it, she does not appear to fulfill WP:PORN BIO. Although it is possible she could marginally pass, the article is imprecise and lacking in sources, thus problematic per WP:V. Ohconfucius 15:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lillian Lee

Article as it stands right now does not make a valid argument for Lillian to be considered notable as per WP:BIO guidelines and the WP:PORN BIO proposed guidelines. Tabercil 22:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom ST47 22:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • delete as falling somewhat short of WP:PORN BIO Ohconfucius 15:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darth maul's lightsaber

Incredibly minor detail about Star Wars. Someone has suggested it be merged into Darth Maul, but there's nothing worthwhile to merge. EVula 22:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom ST47 22:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's nothing to be merged here- the Darth Maul article has a much more comprehensive bit on his weapon. --Wafulz 22:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing worth merging.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  22:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete along with Geraldo Rivera's moustache. Gazpacho 23:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 00:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, watching nervously for Indiana Jones's whip. NawlinWiki 00:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. That would be awesome! Nawlin, I'll be waiting eagerly. --maru (talk) contribs 01:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete don't forget Morpheus' sunglasses. Danny Lilithborne 01:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with nothing to merge per Wafulz. And don't forget Spock's beard... oh wait. --Kinu t/c 04:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Darth Maul which already has a good description of the weapon. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article has bad capitalization and anyone looking for his weapon should search for Darth Maul to start with. Rename to Darth Maul's lightsaber and redirect in case something was merged which needs attribution per GFDL. - Mgm|(talk) 09:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment About the merge. I found it on the page, and I finished up the nomination for the editor (who forgot to add the template to the Darth Maul article). If you check the edit history, you'll see I wasn't the one who requested it. Other than that, I have no opinion. -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 02:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wet Screams

Even though the band has put out 2 albums, the label Panknraz Records turns upno Google hits. I also listed this band's two albums on the AfD, quoting one "The band toured ruthlessly behind the album, promoting it. It did not, however, land on the Billboard "Top 200" chart." The band does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC Wildthing61476 22:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I added the AfD tag to Only in Your Wildest Screams and Angry Salamander Wildthing61476 22:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom ST47 22:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete all The band was formed in "Winter 2006" and has only released one album which is entirely full of joke/attack songs. --Wafulz 22:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like either a {{hoax}} or a bad joke. Either way, fails WP:Music by a country mile.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  23:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all as above. wikipediatrix 00:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. The band was formed in "late Winter 2006"?? That would be 4 months from now. One album with nothing close to a billboard hit and no notable band members. Clearly does not meet WP:MUS. CindyLooWho 01:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I interpreted that to mean this past February or March; in other words, six months ago. Fan-1967 01:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, even though, according to the article talk page, we'll all have to "live with the guilt of crushing 3 young high-schoolers hopes and dreams." -- Fan-1967 01:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. Natalie 02:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nigeria Jefferson

Article does not demonstrate notabiliity, no related hits after quick look on Yahoo!,[[26]] --Ataricodfish 20:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per WP:NN ST47 23:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it's a hoax, but if we give it benefit of the doubt and consider it real, then Speedy Delete as per CSD A7. wikipediatrix 00:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per wikipediatrix. Even if real this is an A7 --- Deville (Talk) 03:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, at the least this fails WP:V; suspected WP:HOAX. Speedy A7 if possible. --Kinu t/c 04:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Probably a speedy. Fairsing 05:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wii. - Mailer Diablo 07:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] !!M

While the statements in the article are independantly verifiable, the very basis of the article is speculation, implying the existence of an instant messaging service for Wii named !!M with the features described in a registered patent. While nothing in the article explicitly states this, it still constitutes de facto original research. Until there is something more substantive, there shouldn't be an article on this. Dancter 22:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Wii as was attempted earlier (before the creator of the article changed it back into an article). SNS 22:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'll just like to mention that I was wrong about the creator of the article being the one that changed it back (I guess I remembered incorrectly). SNS 23:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per SNS ST47 23:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect for the moment. When more than speculation can be provided, someone can try again. --DocSigma 23:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per SNS. Maxamegalon2000 23:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect for now. It's also bascially just copying IGN's article on it. TJ Spyke 05:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect, rewrite when it needs to be remade. AKismet 19:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, there is no reason in my mind to delete this article. FLaRN (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miquel Rodriguez

Non-notable who briefly was on Ken Starr's staff. The article asserts no reason why he should be included in wikipedia. More arlaming, it is full of conspiracy theories with links to conspiracy websites asserting Clinton had Vincent Foster killed. This article not only fails WP:BIO, but the article is about a conspiracy and nothing about Rodriguez's life. If he is notable, it is not in the article. C56C 22:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom ST47 23:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable staff attorney. Get this conspiracycruft magnet out of here as fast as possible. JChap2007 23:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7: "non-notable biography / vanity about a person or persons that does not assert the notability of the subject". wikipediatrix 00:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, definitely conspiracycruft --- Deville (Talk) 03:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ciara (Bratz character)

One of a series of daughter pages about a doll in a set (already covered in detail in the main Bratz article), which differ from each other only in trivial, non-encyclopedic details. The originator of the set of daughter articles has requested that they should not be remerged into the main Bratz article. While the set of dolls may meet WP:CORP 'Criteria for products and services', the individual dolls do not appear to. Bringing this to AfD as a test case for the whole series of daughter pages, and in an attempt to establish a precedent for similar sets of consumer items. Espresso Addict 23:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete and related per nom ST47 23:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete we have absoloutely no need for these pages, keep it in the main article. ViridaeTalk 23:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete From WP:CORP, For instance, if a company has twenty different models of cell phone, and there is little difference between them, then compiling a single article for all of them would help readers in spotting the differences and similarities. The same should apply to different types of dolls with trivial differences. JChap2007 23:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and WP:CORP. wikipediatrix 00:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per JChap2007. Yomanganitalk 00:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm the one who started those pages. The big problem with this whole thing is the main article was being cluttered with descriptions which weren't even completely accurate (and in some cases, downright false). Some of the characters, such as Ciara here, are certainly less significant - but it would be inconsistant to make pages for some characters and not others. Maybe a better solution would be to make the article List of Bratz characters? I've seen similar character list pages in regards to other topics. It would allow more information space (and subsequently more accuracy) per character, while keeping the clutter out of the main article. What do you guys think? Alcy 00:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I have to admit, I'm unfamiliar with this area, but I'm not sure why a simple list of the characters' major features couldn't be squeezed back into the main Bratz article; a lot of the material in the subpages (eg which characters could swap shoes) seems to me to be essentially unimportant for an encyclopedia, and the Bratz article itself might benefit from a bit of a prune to focus on the cultural/societal significance of the dolls rather than just facts about their characteristics. Someone familiar with the area could patrol the resulting section to make sure it remained accurate. However, one big list containing all the characters would certainly seem preferable to the current plethora of mini-articles. Espresso Addict 00:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There are so many names that it might be beneficial to move them all to a separate page anyway. The main article is just getting so long. Yeah, it probably isn't necessary to have every edition listed, and I'm surprised someone added in the official character biographies. I don't know though, I think the shoe information is pretty useful. Since the dolls don't have feet (besides snap-on pairs), if a shoe is lost, the doll is missing a foot. These listings could be helpful to kids or casual collectors who might only have one doll and be unsure what shoes will match. At any rate, I think descriptions of each character (not too extensive, but long enough to include some detail and allow for a mention of variations) is a good idea - people might look to Wikipedia when they want help identifying what they have. It might even work in the main article with a simple format change (make it more like the character list on the Nana page, for example). Right now, it's really disorganized.Alcy 01:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, do you think characters which have been the specific subject of controversy merit their own articles (such as May Lin, which was deemed racially offensive, or Kiana, discontinued due to a trademark Mattel held on a similar name)?Alcy 00:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Such information seems more interesting to a general audience, but would still seem to me to fit better within the main article to allow casual readers, who probably wouldn't think to look up the individual dolls' names, easy access to the controversial information. Espresso Addict 00:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I spotted one of these articles during a Special:Recentchanges run, and wondered why they had not been prod'ded yet. They appeared to have standing, but I knew I'd vote delete if an AfD came up. And it did, and here I am. Danny Lilithborne 01:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Bratz dolls are one of the most popular dolls. Believe it or not some people do need to know information about different Bratz dolls
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sixteen Days of Action

Probably a much lower-key event than I previously had thought it. I think I was trying to publicize a festival in my cinema (which I never even worked in - I just pretended I did to sound more interesting). Either way, this probably has a non-notable thang goin' on. --Dangherous 23:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Since you seems to be the primary author of the article and want it deleted, you can just mark this article for speedy deletion with the {{db-author}} tag. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 23:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as per WP:CSD GC7 ST47 23:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Cool - So anything that I create I can have deleted? Wicked! I might get loads of my pages deleted then. --Dangherous 23:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Yes, but only if you created the article and are the only one who has made substantial edits to it, which your nominated article certainly looks to be. The AfD process is meant for more controversial articles, where multiple editors may have an opinion on whether to remove or keep an article. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 23:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --- Glen 01:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of transgender-support organizations

Indiscriminate list of external links. See WP:NOT. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, no web directory. Gazpacho 23:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This one's easy. WP:NOT a directory. JChap2007 23:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above and delete List of transgender-rights organizations along with it. wikipediatrix 23:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. This is not an article. I've put an afd on the one mentioned above also. Friday (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • comment nominee of a related AfD detailed below. LinaMishima 02:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's just a bunch of links. Listcruft, WP:NOT. --Nishkid64 00:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep orMerge identical verdict to AfD for List of transgender-rights organizations, a highly related article. Note the points about the purpose of a list. Yes, the article could do with cleanup and redefinition to prevent endless expansion, but AfD is not the place to debate such things. LinaMishima 02:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Added Merge to my main input (AfD is not a vote) - As I suspect that it may be more sensible to merge this and the -rights article into List of transgender organizations (I thought we used the 's' spelling variants according to MoS?) LinaMishima 14:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Ahh, we use organization with a 'z'. I'll have to dig out and have another read of the WP:MOS, I think LinaMishima 14:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete giant linkfarm. Opabinia regalis 03:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The lobbying organisations have a public profile, and deserve a list; these organisations will never have articles, and can be just as easily located on Google. Rebecca 04:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT NeoFreak 06:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete linkcruft ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT and delete comments above.--24.20.69.240 09:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom ST47 14:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Rebecca. —Khoikhoi 22:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. --Icarus (Hi!) 00:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Well meaning, but this should be placed on somebody's own web page. --Dennis The TIger 01:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Michael 07:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It meets all the criteria of Wikipedia:List guideline. It's identical in both purpose and structure to the List of transgender-rights organizations, and it's AfD page provides voluminous reasons to keep both. Mugaliens 14:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see the harm in it, and it is not dissimilar to over 100 articles in the Lists of organizations category, such as List of veterans' organizations. ntennis 02:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Note that in the example cited, the majority of items on the list have Wikipedia articles, unlike this list of external links. --Icarus (Hi!) 06:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Would you prefer another example? How about List of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies? What about lists of things with NO wikipedia articles, such as List of Proto-Indo-European roots? I think there is a real divergence of viewpoints here about the purpose of lists. ntennis 06:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment I think there is a real divergence of viewpoints here about the purpose of lists. Agreed, I see this happen all the time with list AfDs. In the case of the two lists involved here (as this is the same as the aforementioned other AfD), most of the groups featured actually warrant their own articles. Yes, the list is fairly raw, but I see nothing which intrinsically prevents it from being enhanced. A notariety requirement, as foul as notariety is as a concept, is a much-needed addition. These are not "List of cool websites", these are "List of established organisations", many of which are national bodies deserving of their own articles (and indeed have them, but are often not linked). LinaMishima 11:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT a directory, nor is at a social support framework. Noting the comment suggesting arguments about a similar article support this list, but it's not concluded, and I sense that most respondents have an agenda. Cain Mosni 13:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above comments. RFerreira 19:21, 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. NawlinWiki 20:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quasi-Christian

I'd normally have just speedied this, but it was already a disputed prod. It's just a Dictionary def, possibly neologism, and tells us nothing we don't already know from the prefix and the word "Christian". Seems to be little hope of becoming an encyclopedia article, see talk. Friday (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Transwiki this to Wiktionary if they will have it. As it stands it is a dicdef, and I cannot imagine this article ever being anything but. --- Deville (Talk) 02:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    Admittedly I'm not up on what wiktionary likes, but it doesn't seem like a good dictionary entry to me. You can put "quasi" in front of many many words, and surely the resultant words do not usually need their own dictionary entry. I'm thinking this is a quasi-word, but I bet the word "quasi-word" isn't in wikitionary either. Friday (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is clearly a compound word, so I don't think Wiktionary would want it. There is no evidence of secondary sources discussing the word, as required by WP:NEO to have an article on neologisms. We see only sources using the word. GRBerry 02:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a collection of neologisms. Cedars 10:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not sure it even worth adding to Wiktionary. Mallanox 18:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Article appears to have already been deleted. NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 23:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marion Cohen

Vanity page about an academic, full of stuff like "Cohen describes herself as "math prof / mathematician / poet / writer / classical pianist /thrift-shopper / mother / grandmother / scrabbler extraordinaire". Sure, a sucessfull career as an academic, but unless having a job euqals notability, there's not much of substance here. Sometimes I'd speedy stuff like this, but there's already been some talk page discussion so I figure it's best to give this one some discussion in case there's disagreement. Friday (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: contributed by User:MathStatWoman, as were Roberta Wenocur and Daniel Wagner Associates. I had nothing to do with nominating this article. Gazpacho 00:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't know enough about her area to comment on whether Cohen is a notable mathematician, but references cited in women in science suggest that women mathematicians/physicists working prior to the mid-1970s are pretty unusual. The article could certainly do with a clean up. Espresso Addict 01:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 20:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erik Crosier

Author of two books, both self-published/vanity press. --Calton | Talk 00:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Google also shows that "In Times of Trouble" was once available at BN.com as this Stepen King reviewer recommended it jan, 2001 [27]. joebob4 20:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: What exactly is wrong with this article??? There is more references and info than any stub I see. Huh?? 19:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Google searche showing existence of both books: [28]. The only thing I did differently than 'deville' is spell the author's name correctly joebob4 04:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: According to its web site Dead End Books screens works for publication and pays its own publishing costs. It doesn't seem to be a vanity press. Gazpacho 01:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, it is true that Dead End Books is a non-vanity publishing house. But as far as I can tell, they don't publish anything called "In Times of Trouble", or "Long Nights". Moreover, this Gsearch or this one leaves me with little confidence that such books exist. Finally, although this article does link to amazon.com and bn.com, searching on those sites for "long nights" doesn't return anything either. In short, I cannot verify the existence of the two books mentioned in the article at all. Deville (Talk) 02:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment what?! here they are: [29], [30], [31]. The name has to be spelled correctly for search results to come up. joebob4
  • Delete. Long Nights does exist. However the article is a bit fluffy, with no sources for the claims made about Crosier or his writing. Gazpacho 08:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Also iUniverse, which publishes Long Nights, is a vanity press. Gazpacho 17:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • joebob4, don't alter people's comments in this discussion. Gazpacho 20:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not appear to qualify per WP:BIO. He only has 1 book listed in Amazon, and it ranks in amongst the 4.3millionth in sales. No evidence of multiple independent reviews of or awards. Ohconfucius 05:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - as per Ohconfucius. No evidence of meeting WP:BIO. BlueValour 20:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I bet he thinks that song was about him... Mallanox 19:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Log_2006_August_22_0712.html"