Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
< August 2 August 4 >
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. - Mailer Diablo 00:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Mark Hoffman

disputed prod, nn bio, with crystalballism for future art exhibition Carlossuarez46 17:58, 3 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 00:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of successful automobiles

The shameful course the previous discussion took notwithstanding, I would like to renominate this article as I believe it is inherently and incurably not belonging to an encyclopedia and Wikipedia in particular. Please see the reasoning below:

  1. As was noted before, "successful" cannot be objectively defined, therefore this article in its present form will always be an expression of the authors' POV. Even citing sources, which some seem to believe fixes the problem, will not help, as any source claiming an automobile to be successful is POV (just like any piece of text proclaiming some woman a "great actress" etc.)
  2. This could theoretically be fixed by renaming the article, but given its present form (see header - "A list of automobile models that have achieved a cult-like following.") it would also bring about the need for actually completely rewriting it, and I mean starting from scratch - therefore, it would be equivalent to deleting and starting a new article. By deleting, we ensure this will happen.
  3. Please note that this article is called a list. There are specific rules governing lists in WP, described by Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). The current form of the article does not conform with the adopted standard for such lists. An example of a featured list quite similar to the proposed "List of automobiles / automobile nameplates produced for over 20 years" can be found here. See how different it is from the present state of the article.
  4. As a sidenote, I would like to remark that creating "Guinness Book of Records"-style lists does not really help the encyclopedic character of Wikipedia, but rather is often a thinly veiled attempt to promote a given group of items, especially if the criterium chosen makes them seem superior than some other of a given kind. As such, they are prone to generate edit wars and conflicts, as seen before in this very example.
  5. The notion that an automobile model or a nameplate has been selling exceptionally well or running exceptionally long belongs first and foremost in the article, there is little need to repeat that in another article. Also, a well-defined category can be much easier to maintain than a list.

The bottom line is - even if this list can be rectified by turning it into a proper WP list, it would require actually starting it over. Therefore I suggest users defending this list for the reason that it can be rectified (and I actually see no other reason for defending it from deletion) could start the new, rectified list now and let the deletion process do the other part. Thanks, Bravada, talk - 09:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete This article has no coherent thesis. It contains only abstruse and arbitrary POV selections of undefinedly "successful" automobiles, consisting of one individual's pet makes and models—straight POV, as it seems. It might be marginally appropriate as a "top ten" blog même, but it is most unencyclopædic. An article specifically and narrowly listing longest-running vehicle models or longest-running vehicle model names might be debatably less inappropriate. Either is arguably just as trivial and unworthy of Wikispace as the present article. NOTE TO KARMANN: Your unnecessarily strident language ("I want it gone", etc.) is not helping your case or winning you allies. Please tone it down now. Scheinwerfermann 17:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The fact that it doesn't conform to the standard is irrelevant; what matters is whether the title & topic combination in any form would belong. And I reckon it doesn't. The Literate Engineer 09:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As I stated in the last nomination for deletion. This article is impossible to judge. Any car that has sold enough to make back money for Research and Development can be considered a success. Defining what is a success and what is not is always going to be biased. ren0talk 11:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete yea, can't be done per above. AdamBiswanger1 13:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This article was never needed or relevant, and lately all it has become is a spot for wairthu to push his POV. After geting into tons of arguments with Wairthu over this article, I want it gone. Karrmann 14:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As inherently POV Marcus22 15:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's no article on Successful automobiles. It's always questionable when there's a "list of X" but no article on X itself. If "successful automobiles" were a legitimate encyclopedic topic, there would be an article on it, and this list should have begun as a section within that article. In fact, I don't think you could write an article on successful automobiles that could be anything but a personal essay and original research. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The criteria for inclusion are inherently subjective, and the list could conceivably continue ad infinitum (ad nauseum?). WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. -- stubblyhead | T/c 15:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The definition of 'success' is too vague. What should readers of this article learn from it? If this was a 'List of marques that sold more than 1,000,000 cars' or 'Car designs that made more than $10M profit' - then maybe (but still probably not). But can a car that made a loss for it's manufacturer be a 'success'? Yes - the Mini for example. Can a car who's production run was cut short be a 'success'? Arguably - the DeLorian - it's a cultural icon - it's fantastically collectible. If we don't have a definition for 'success', the criteria for inclusion or exclusion must be inherently POV - and this ends up just being a place for people to argue endlessly about the cars they love (or hate). SteveBaker 16:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no definition of success. WP should cover vague concepts but this is just too vague. The netire article is too OR, POV with a completely subjective subject matter. An article on the world's most sold vehicles might be appropriate but success is an undefined term and this article could hurt the credibility of WP. Signaturebrendel 16:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Extremely POV with original non verifiable research. dposse 17:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - What use is this? It isn't encyclopaedic, nobody will search for it. Extreme POV Mdcollins1984 17:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Research may not be verifiable. Also, if the list was completed, it would be long! --Bigtop 17:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia still is not MotorWeek. Gazpacho 17:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Saying "successful" instead of giving set standards is POV. --Gray Porpoise 18:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 'nuff said. --Cassavau 21:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Article may be better named "List of automobiles successful in the US". Very biased but in any case rather pointless. Mallanox 00:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with Dpbsmith. Criteria ill defined. List too general and subjective to serve any purpose.
  • Delete per Wikipedia not being MotorWeek, and per above. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:39, 4 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, notability not asserted by verifiable sources. - Mailer Diablo 22:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minal Nygårds

appears NN -- Zondor 05:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete 91 exact matches-this is the only one in English-lacks notability. Michael 08:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Michael, although if someone can make a case for notability I'm certainly open to consideration. AdamBiswanger1 14:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete claims of notability are made, but not verified. Themindset 17:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - no real information, essentially an orphan anyway. Mdcollins1984 17:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as a non-notable person. --Bigtop 17:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, no really! To have two cartoons published in national newspapers is pretty notable in my book. Her article on the sv.wikipedia.org has been there for nearly three months without anyone suggesting it is non-notable which says to me that for someone wishing to find out more about Swedish culture/journalism who couldn't speak Swedish, the article would be useful. Just because it isn't in English doesn't make it less valid for inclusion. Mallanox 01:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Comic strip artists are notable. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as she appears to be notable in Sweden, based on the article itself. 64.26.68.82 17:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please publishing cartoons in major newspapers is notable really Yuckfoo 04:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete A search for Jippo Domis Slottis creates six unique hits (two of which are WP). She's pretty though. ~ trialsanderrors 18:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
comment search for her by name and there are many more results reflecting her other contributions such as stand-up comedy. Mallanox 23:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
How about adding some reviews? The main problem is that this article is wholly unsourced. Was she the subject of newspaper articles, either as cartoonist or comedian? ~ trialsanderrors 01:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -AMK152 15:24, 12 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 10:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Liebrecht

Nonnotable voice actor who has done one anime series and a couple episodes of another. Scattered throughout the internet are links to "info" pages about him (probably taken from the credits of the anime series) but without any other information. Acyso 00:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Will change to keep if article gets sourced properly (contact me via talk page). SynergeticMaggot 00:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. nn, unfortunately rootology (T) 00:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep looking at his IMDB entry, in addition to the voice work he has parts in several feature films, including a leading role in an indie picture called "Home" which got a decent amount of press here's a review from Philadelphia City Paper and [here http://www.filmthreat.com/index.php?section=reviews&Id=7371 is one from Film Threat. It was also reviewed in NYT and the Village Voice. Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I just feel like adding for those not from Philadelphia, that the CityPaper is one of those free, ad-filled pieces of Junk (capital J) that has like 3 writers and takes the rest from Reuters. No one reads it, and most of them are on trampled underfoot in subway cars. AdamBiswanger1 14:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment I can't really see how he passes on notability - he clearly fails on the guidelines for actors. The review from Philadelphia City Paper is the only one that mentions him by name - hardly Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers Yomangani 01:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I've started some work on it, but I don't think it passes WP:BIO. Yomangani 00:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Starblind. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Same as CanadianCaesar. *~Daniel~* ☎ 01:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep slightly notable actor, per Andrew Lenahan AdamBiswanger1 02:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable enough for me, given the data presented above InvictaHOG 02:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep mild notability, he has the potential to eventually become more important. Themindset 05:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, just barely meets WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep No real reason to delete. Michael 08:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. He ain't Marlon Brando but he's notable enough. BoojiBoy 13:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. I don't see any reason to delete, but doesn't really contain an biographical material. So doesn't really collate much information. Mdcollins1984 17:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - The article's not very informative, and most of the substance comes from hyperlinks. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Cheers, RelentlessRouge 17:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Starblind. Danny Lilithborne 20:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Nom. Ted87 01:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep taken as a whole, I think his contribution to film/anime is notable. There is no benefit in deletion. Mallanox 01:11, 4 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 killed.--SB | T 04:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cosby-Pokémon

Blatant ad for a site less than a week old. Prod was removed by page creator without comment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Aaaaand now it's an equally unencyclopedic stub about a YTMND meme. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete per nom. Ryūlóng 01:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Super strong delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB. SynergeticMaggot 01:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom and SynergeticMaggot. Acyso 01:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Per nominations. *~Daniel~* ☎ 01:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't know if it's a speedy, but should be deleted anyway. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 01:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB -- Alias Flood 01:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unfortunately, there is no speedy criteria satisfied by this article. It's obviously vanity, obviously a failure of WP:WEB. alphaChimp laudare 01:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete speedily if at all possible. A week-old web fansite cannot possibly be considered notable. The author didn't even include a link, and it isn't in Google yet, so I can't even look at the site to comment on its tiny userbase and lack of Alexa rating. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not quite a speedy candidate unless it gets crammed into criteria A1, but I don't think that fits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 02:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above abakharev 04:14, 3 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 super radioactive spider speedy delete as a short article with no context. Didn't say what it was or whether its storyline was fictional. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spiderman: Origins

No sources, no context. A bit of Google searching reveals nothing that would appear to match. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete This article is absolutely not notable and looks like he was creating strange article. Anyways, This article must be deleted anyways. *~Daniel~* ☎ 01:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong (but not necessarily speedy) Delete This could be speedily deleted as WP:CSD A1, (very short article providing little or no context), but I think the interpretation could vary from admin to admin. If it isn't A1, it should be deleted for no assertion of notability per WP:NN. alphaChimp laudare 01:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy d per above. SynergeticMaggot 01:39, 3 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 Genetic sexual attraction.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 08:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual desire between siblings

Original Research abakharev 01:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Incest. The article, as it is, smacks of WP:OR, but it seems like it could be reasonably replaced by a simple redirect. The title is logical enough. alphaChimp laudare 01:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect. SynergeticMaggot 02:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Genetic sexual attraction TheronJ 02:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Genetic sexual attraction. Oh yea: Ewww..... AdamBiswanger1 02:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per User:TheronJ and User:Adambiswanger1. Penelope D 02:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Please note that this action does not require an AFD. Themindset 05:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per User:TheronJ and User:Adambiswanger1. --BrownHairedGirl 06:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Genetic sexual attraction. Probably a better choice than just redirecting to incest. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the title is OR as well. Just zis Guy you know? 12:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are two points of redirecting. So people searching for one thing can be automatically forwarded to the relevant article, and so that existing wikilinks don't break. I'd be pretty surprised if someone were to search for exactly this term (incest being far more likely, IMO), and the article is essentially an orphan (only links outside the AfD realm are a vandalism warning and some user page with already a lot of nonexistant article links). I don't see any reason to keep it at all. -- stubblyhead | T/c 15:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    Eh, it can't hurt. AdamBiswanger1 21:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to either Incest or Genetic sexual attraction. --Bigtop 17:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect - The article isn't up to Wikipedia standards, and is more like an essay. However, it seems quasi-useful, and I believe it merits a redirect. Cheers, RelentlessRouge 17:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Stubblyhead. wikipediatrix 20:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete OREdison 22:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete smacks of OR. --Ezratrumpet 05:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete smells strongly of WP:OR.--Dakota 05:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. Naconkantari 14:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect Per above. *~Daniel~* ☎ 18:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete due to this being original research, no prejudice against creating a valid redirect afterwards. Yamaguchi先生 22:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect I don't think it's original research (just unsourced). I remember seeing calculations like this in an evolutionary statistics class many moons ago, so it might be worthwhile keeping the edit history in case someone more competent than me wants to include them in the GenSexAtt article. ~ trialsanderrors 18:50, 10 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 by popular demand. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Running of the Fools

Fictional content is apparently not speedy-worthy! Oh well, take your pick: hoax article, unverifiable (no sources listed or found on Google), OR. Ziggurat 01:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Nope, WP:HOAX is not a CSD, but it sure is a great point for this AfD. Transwiki to Uncyclopedia? alphaChimp laudare 01:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Alphachimp. SynergeticMaggot 02:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete — I hate saying to delete long well written articles, but this article presents this "fiction" as a truth. I am going to forget putting up search counts as this got at maximun 57 hits (yahoo). No valid references. WP:V applies here. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Unverifiable by definition. It is kind of well written, though. TheronJ 02:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. *~Daniel~* ☎ 03:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - nonsense abakharev 04:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I would have suggested so, but WP:SPEEDY specifically notes that "This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes." This is either fictional material, or a hoax, but in either case we can't really legitimately call it patent nonsense. Ziggurat 04:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Themindset 05:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete The best argument for this is the fact that the author personally added a link to The Running of the Fools in WP's Hoax article. --Pagana 05:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. It's not patent nonsense, but it's pretty damn close. Blatantly fails WP:HOAX. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as bollocks. It reads like a piece of Scientology scripture. Byrgenwulf 06:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as per Pagana. --BrownHairedGirl 07:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I liked the section on "The Battle", though. I think that the Wiki project on WWII could learn a thing or two from this article. --Kuzaar-T-C- 13:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above reasons. --Gray Porpoise 18:25, 3 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. Sango123 02:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holy Shit Wrestling

Good article, but WP:V and WP:NN seem to be fighting in here. This was listed as a red link on the 2 August noms by someone else. It was incomplete. TrackerTV is completing the nomination for 3 August. TrackerTV 01:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. If it weren't for the line "has grown into a cult phenomenon among local college kids and teenagers alike", I'd say it was a CSD A7 (aka {{Db-bio}}). Still, it fails both WP:V and WP:NN, per nom. alphaChimp laudare 01:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. SynergeticMaggot 02:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Can't find much of anything on it, seems like a non-notable local phenomenon. InvictaHOG 02:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Holy shit, this is not notable. "Ninja Pete is not in fact a ninja. Instead, he chose the name because he thought it sounded cool" C'mon this is a bunch of kids rolling on the ground with each other in the basement, not WWE.AdamBiswanger1 02:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Shultz IV 02:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and perhaps stick somewhere in the users space, someone went to a lot of trouble to type that all out. Themindset 05:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. I'm not sure if this is worth userfying. Non-notable organization unverifiable with reliable sources. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:V and WP:NN. --BrownHairedGirl 07:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:V. Michael 08:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Computerjoe's talk 20:25, 3 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 00:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kaisuan

This performer fails WP:MUSIC. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. He also happens to fail WP:CSD A7 (db-bio), for a failure to assert notability in article. alphaChimp laudare 02:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    Per SynergeticMaggot's comment, I am downgrading my vote to delete. He fails WP:BIO, and WP:MUSIC. alphaChimp laudare 02:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article states that there have been many hit singles reach #1 on various charts. This meets WP:MUSIC. I'm asking for nom to withdraw. SynergeticMaggot 02:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per argument with others. I was sure this met WP:MUSIC but oh well, I'm a deletionist in the end :) SynergeticMaggot 02:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Also, artist won awards. SynergeticMaggot 02:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. Check out the results of this google search and his incredible artist page at his record label [1]. Refering to your comment about winning awards, the following text is from WP:MUSIC: "Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury Music Award." alphaChimp laudare 02:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Response. Yes but the artist only needs to meet one of the requirements of WP:MUSIC. And you just proved it wasnt a hoax by giving the bio page/band page. Whichever. Point is, it exists. SynergeticMaggot 02:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment. I'm not attempting to say it's a hoax. The simple evidence that someone exists is not sufficient merit to have an article on Wikipedia. Awards must be notable, well known awards. Any charts must be national in a medium to large sized country. Any charts? alphaChimp laudare 02:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Comment. No, not anymore. You changed your mind for some reason, the diff is right here. SynergeticMaggot 02:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, although he IS "trying to to do his thing in the music biz". I doubt the validity of the pieces of evidence cited by SynergeticMaggot. AdamBiswanger1 02:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I didnt give any evidence. Its in the article. It looks more like the nom didnt read it before slapping the AfD tag on. SynergeticMaggot 02:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Your assumption is obviously false. I wouldn't have nominated the page if I hadn't read the article. Because of the claims of notability, I didn't speedy it, which it deserves, but brought it here instead. You have yet to show that he qualifies at WP:MUSIC. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Well if you are willing to use WP:MUSIC you might want to read it. WP:MUSIC#Musicians_and_ensembles states:
        • Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country.
        • And it wasnt an assumption. SynergeticMaggot 02:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Which national music chart has he had a hit on? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Comment. Apparently, three of them: Mp3unsigned R&B Charts, AudioStreetR&B Charts, Betarecords R&B charts. Remember, WP:MUSIC is a guideline, and these charts simply are not notable. alphaChimp laudare 02:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
              • Seconded. As a side note, the article itself is absolute junk AdamBiswanger1 03:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The charts that this artist has topped are for unsigned artists. There are problems with verifiability and notability of such charts. There seems be little if any verifiable evidence that this artist meets WP:MUSIC. Capitalistroadster 02:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. per capitalistroadster's summary of the above. --Quiddity 02:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete CSD-G3 - Article created through move vandalism - Wikipedia:Searching (see moves on searching) then the user (who coincidentally has the same name as the article subject) contributed all of the article text. Delete immediately as to not encourage this behaviour - No evidence artist meets WP:MUSIC --Trödel 03:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per CSD-G3, per Trödel. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I'm uncomfortable with the notion that only the big business recording industry and the ralted commercialised chart structure makes an artist notable, and I think that I may detect a little of that in the references to other charts. Nonetheless, WP:MUSIC stands as the best guideline we have, and it does allow for notability through touring, which Kaisuan does not appear to hav done ... but I think that with the musicbiz gong through so many changes, WP:MUSIC may need revisiting. --BrownHairedGirl 07:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Capitalistroadster's summary. Mr Stephen 10:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. the article's author, who shares the name of this article, just blanked this AfD page. Be ready for any similar vandalism and consider adding this page to your watchlist. alphaChimp laudare 14:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete.--studerby 16:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC) There are a plethora of charts for small and indy musicians outside the "big business" arena; I seriously question the significance of appearing on the cited charts. Even so, I reviewed the available info on the 4 cited charts:
    • betarecords - currently #2 on the Rhthym/Blues chart, 53 downloads last week, 456 total
    • soundclick - currently #267 on the R&B/Soul/Pop sub-chart (no stats)
    • audiostreet - current rank #455, highest rank #112, song plays 53, pages views 271
    • mp3unsigned - nothing found, artist apparently has no music on this site
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Themindset 17:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Ignorant query. Why is this page (Kaisuan) on my watchlist? I am pretty certain I had never before visited the page, let alone set it to "watch". I do have Wikipedia:Searching on my watchlist; did the merge/unmerge lead the watchlists for the two pages to get munged somehow? Kestenbaum 21:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    Comment. Page move vandalism. The author has been warned, and the changes have been reverted. alphaChimp laudare 22:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    Comment. Yes, the page move of Searching dragged all the watchers along to watching Kaisuan. --studerby 00:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. —Ruud 01:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I dealt with this when he moved WP:Search. Now the same user is back again (And I saw on his contribs he blanked this page.) This thing is disrupting wikipedia. While it is debatable if it is appropriate to speedy delete this under WP:BIO or MUSIC, I feel it is safe to say that until certain criteria are met (IE:His album actually comes out, and the article is writable from a NPOV, which doesn't seem likely atm), this should be deleted. Logical2u 01:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. User:MotykI think that he is did the things he was supposed to do and he is working on fixing them. He did not want this article to be deleted and he did not know what he was doing so i took the time to fix his problem for him so his page would not get deleted.And yes his Album is supposed to be coming out late December early January so look for the album to be in stores real soon.I feel this kid is tryin to let people know where he is coming from. Yeah he made a couple mistakes , but they are real easy to fix. Instead of bringing the boy down try to help make it right. But overall the article is well put together and is good. For a first time article. I did my facts on the charts and everything is all cool now so it shouldn't be a problem about this article anymore i done the job for him.
    • The votes to delete are because he doesn't yet meet the requirements under WP:MUSIC - althought I originally voted to delete because of the move vandalism - I can see it was a mistake by a new user, and I wish him well. Just remember what wikipedia is not --Trödel 15:27, 5 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dick Crippen

Article tagged as nn-bio for speedy delete. Contested on basis of sufficient notability. Bringing to AFD for consensus. — ERcheck (talk) 02:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Local news anchors are not notable enough AdamBiswanger1 02:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep based on previous AfD consensus on local news anchors. --CFIF (talk to me) 02:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you please provide a link? Even so, should this not be merged to WFLA-TV? AdamBiswanger1 03:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[2] [3]--CFIF (talk to me) 12:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Not notable. Most local television anchors are not notable as a rule, unless they have done something that has brought them national or international note. Buckner 1986 03:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I disagree that local news anchors are "not notable as a rule," since they appear every day in the living rooms of hundreds of thousands of people. But I also think that when there's this little content, it should be merged into an article on the station. -- Mwalcoff 04:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm wary of accepting the notion that all TV presenters merit a wikipedia article: I think that there is a risk of confusing notability with visibility. There are precedents for keeping them, but this one doesn't seem to me to be as notable as the other barley-notable anchors listed. --BrownHairedGirl 07:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The article now has some external links added. Matise 16:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as notability seems to be established and verified in the article. Themindset 17:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Local cable show is not notability. Local newsanchors may be borderline notable but former ones are definitely not unless they achieved some national award. Ifnord 18:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per precedent. Regional notability. On-air personality for over 40 years. Medtopic 20:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep seems mildly important. --Ted87 01:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep in addition to the regional notability precedent as mention above, Dick Crippen also has national notability as part of The Water Channel's powerboat racing coverage (part of the DirectTV package among others). The Water Channel bio also mention works with ESPN and Nascar. I'm going to merge those details into the article. Agne 03:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Notable enough in his own market. This is established criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Bastique▼parler voir 14:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above.User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 15:23, 4 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 10:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ion Storm (Command & Conquer)

Fictional weather in one single game. Far too much detail, unsourced and unsourcable, better suited to a game guide.

This was prodded, but deprodded without comment by an anon. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete or merge to something AdamBiswanger1 02:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 04:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't deserve its own article. --SevereTireDamage 04:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. --BrownHairedGirl 07:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Michael 08:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per AMIB. Game guide material, at best. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 09:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Just make it descriptive if you think it is a strategy guide —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.213.68.0 (talk • contribs).
  • Merge into Command and Conquer. -TrackerTV 18:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Any info about this should belong in the "Command and Conquer" article --Ted87 01:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Do not merge. The information is in the nature of a game guide and would detract from an encyclopedic article. --Stellmach 13:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Peephole 15:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)--
  • Strong Keep To refute, it is not fictional weather, the ion storm is a documented astronomical anomaly and just because I know no one believes me, I brought proof from the NOAA website <http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:5gIHqXJCIxIJ:sxi.ngdc.noaa.gov/sxi_greatest.html+%22ion+storm%22+%22anomaly%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1> Click there, scroll down a bit, and you'll find documented proof of observed Ion Storms. Second, when is too much detail ever bad? Seems like a rather conceptual rather than analytical attack to make, espacially considering there is no real argument to be made. Third, sourcing is not always the root of an intellectual community. I can tell you a hundred thousand times that the moon is made of green cheeze, or that we never went to the moon, or that the Earth is flat, and I can even find sources to back the claim, but one way or another it adds neither fact nor fiction to the general postulation. So why the big stink about sources? Moreover, addressing the final point, how is this better suited to a game guide? It provides no actual information on how to play the game, just that the occurence appears in the game. Since there exists an ion storm which causes similar effects to happen to high level technology in the real world I find it easy to draw the parallel between the ion storm's game application as a figuritive adaptation of modern day astrological occurrences, a fitting conclusion I dare say given that the plot of the game is to describe a society in which the earth is slowly being rotted from both outside and in. Behold the destructive powers of mother nature.ChiRoGuardian06 08:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete and Comment To refute your refutation...neither the existence nor notability of the Solar_wind (the redirect for the astronomical phenomenon) is being disputed in this AFD. Nor is the existence of the ion storm in the game - rather, I think it's really just the notability of the C&C ion storm. There's not really a huge problem with including too much detail, except when that detail turns into a new article. Since every article on Wikipedia is expected to eventually (through good editing) be good enough to become a featured article on the main page, there comes a point where a full article on a minor topic is not warranted, and should instead be shrunk down enough to be merged into another article. I'd rather not address the "big stink about sources" and will simply direct you to WP:V. That's one of Wikipedia's three big policies - don't take it lightly. As far as the "game guide argument"...I actually agree with you. Probably the reason that argument was tacked on was because of User:Proto/gc...any attempt to label something a "game guide" has been a golden argument lately. And while I hate that argument because it seems to be a blatant attempt at making a WP:POINT, I still vote delete, for the previous arguments laid out. JoshWook 15:10, 7 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 00:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of unrelated vehicles with identical nameplates

Snow-pure OR in contravention of WP:OR policy. Non-encyclopaedic. Article admits this list can never be complete. BlueValour 02:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as unencyclopedic listcruft. WegianWarrior 03:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as listcruft AdamBiswanger1 03:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This one is unencyclopedic, unright source which means unnecessary article. *~Daniel~* ☎ 04:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as listcruft. JIP | Talk 06:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. --BrownHairedGirl 07:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unencyclopedic, WP:NOT.--Dakota 07:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 14:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:OR. Although apparently accurate, the list is somewhat pointless. Any automaker could use a number for a model name, and the duplicate alphabetic model names exist because the listed companies are related (Zephyr -> Ford/Lincoln/Mercury... good grief) — otherwise I think we'd have seen some patent or copyright infringement lawsuits. And Mazda has a B-series in two parts of the world? Earth-shaking stuff. -- Slowmover 14:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I must say, I'm amazed at some of the articles people pour their energy into. Themindset 17:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as blatent listcruft. Thε Halo Θ 17:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Pathlessdesert 18:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Nintendude list. Danny Lilithborne 20:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see who or how this harms anyone, it's surely useful to somebody. Keep, don't delete, no bullies/gangs --matador300 22:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - simply, it breaches WP policy. This is not a guideline, it is mandatory. There is no point in having policies if they are ignored. Talk of gangs/bullies is simply daft - folks who edit on here know they have to fit in with clear policies. BlueValour 22:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Commment - putting things into an order is hardly original research. Taking that view would mean that the categorisation process could be seen as original research. Mallanox 01:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - They haven't put things in order; they have identified vehicles with common nameplates - it is unsourced so where did the information come from? The editors'own research of course. BlueValour 01:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - This article could be useful as a clear example of OR - even inclusionists are against OR - How can u vote keep? BlueValour 01:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I am absolutely against OR. I don't think this is anything like research. Arraging things isn't research, nothing is presented here that couldn't be easily done by anyone else with an interest in cars. If the article said "I've been out on the streets and noticed that all Ford Probes are blue", that would be research. Mallanox 08:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is the exact opposite of original research. Every statement is subject to factual verification. WP:OR states "An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is, if it does any of the following: It introduces a theory or method of solution; It introduces original ideas; It defines new terms; It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms; It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source." (I reformatted the list but did not change the words.) Which of these proscriptions does the article violate? None. There is no original research in this article. User:Mallanox is precisely right that this is a "super-disambiguation" page. It's an index to other articles in Wikipedia. It's a useful way for a reader who knows the name of an automobile to get to the right article. It's a useful part of Wikipedia. Also, "listcruft" is not a criterion for deletion, but even if it were, it would not be applicable because this article is list gold. Keep. Fg2 04:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dab as needed. Vegaswikian 18:30, 6 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) 04:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colton peltier

Article alleges notablity, but I don't see it. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:54, 3 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 00:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Felix Eldridge

This was speedily deleted by User:Zoe as nn, undone by User:Rebecca, and redeleted by Zoe. I have started this AfD to see what everybody thinks of the article. The subject is a former National Union of Students head, and this qualifies for a non-trivial assertion of notability at the least, and although there is widespread speedy deletion of biographies with bogus/unfeasible assertions of notability, this assertion here is real and not without a claim to a debate. Abstain.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blnguyen (talk • contribs) 3 August 2006.

Nothing in this article alleges notability. Being the head of the National Union of Students fails notability. Speedy delete. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment - failing notability is not a grounds for speedy deletion. Blnguyen | rant-line 03:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. And this is, by the way, a vanity page/autobiography. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Question for our Australian friends: In the US, a national student political party organization head is absolutely nobody. He'd get to go to the convention and shake a few hands, but that's it. Is it different there? Fan-1967 03:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Until July 1 this year, Student Unionism was compulsory and students were forced to pay roughly 250-450 USD per annum to these guys depending on the university that they went to. This guy did get a few 10s stints on radio and television complaining about John Howard at student rallies and stuff, the prime minister wrecking universities and stuff like that, although he was probably also likely upset that the students wouldn't have to give him money any more.....Blnguyen | rant-line 03:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. He was president of the National Union of Students, not a student political party organisation. JPD (talk) 10:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Anon IP contributed only to create the article...ooh...could this be WP:VAIN? TrackerTV 03:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment possible campaign by his organistation, yes. Blnguyen | rant-line 03:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy d as db-repost. SynergeticMaggot 03:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • 'Comment - it's not a repost. I restored it for a proper debate.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - from what I understand from my much-more-switched-on-to-Aussie-student-politics friends, some of this bloke's achievements (the factional merge much more so than the campaign) were pretty significant in terms of the mechanics of the movement. I can try to get some references if that's what's making life difficult, but the operative word is going to be try for the moment. BigHaz 03:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd also add that the NUS is far from being non-notable as a group where the present Australian government is concerned... BigHaz 03:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. He may be a prat, but he passes my bar for notability. Rebecca 06:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep this appears to be a stubby article about a very effective student politician who operated at national level, which seems to me to clearly meets notability criteria. The meritrs or otherwise of his political position are irrelevant. --BrownHairedGirl 07:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. He was a significant player in the Voluntary Student Unionism legislation debate last year. There are 43 stories listed at an Australian media database where he features. Macquarie.net lists 14 ABC News stories referring to him and 15 Australian Associated Press stories. He is verifiable and notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 10:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 10:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster. JPD (talk) 10:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable. VSU is still being hotly debated here at RMIT. -- Synapse
    • After reading this coming straight after the discussion in the (second!) NUS Office Bearer AfD, I'm forced to conclude Speedy Keep as Bad Faith Nomination. -- Synapse 12:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Please explain why you think this is bad faith. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Zoe. Being president of an organization isn't notable in itself. The article on the NUS itself doesn't even bother to list current or past officers. Perhaps his name belongs there along with others who have held the post, but there's nothing particularly notable asserted about him individually to justify his own article. -- Slowmover 14:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Changing my vote to keep, after some further thought, per Capitalistroadster. -- Slowmover 15:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per Capitalistroadster. I'd defer to an Australian about the notability of Australian political figures. Smerdis of Tlön 14:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Capitalistroadster did not say speedy keep, because he is not so rude as to assume bad faith. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
      • And I did? No, just noting the emergence of a strong consensus suggesting that early closure might be appropriate. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Over 1000 hits on google [4], and the quality of the hits are high, descriptive on this person and their role, as well as media coverage. Themindset 17:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:53, 4 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 00:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of MR Cars

OR in clear breach of WP:OR policy. Article states list can never be complete. Better as a category. Delete then categorise. BlueValour 02:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree, should be categorized. -TrackerTV 03:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, should be categorised. JIP | Talk 06:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and categorise as above. --BrownHairedGirl 07:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete a category would undoubtedly do this better. Just zis Guy you know? 12:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and cat. Themindset 17:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and create category per above. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Categorize; request that the article isn't deleted until I finish placing category tags on all the bluelinks shown in it. --ais523 08:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I've added most of the list to the new Category:MR layout cars. A few haven't been added; redlinks (obviously), and cases where the article contradicts the fact that the car was MR (for instance, if the article talks about a rear engine). In cases where the article doesn't give information on engine or drive layout, there's a <!-- --> comment in the edit summary and article asking for sources. I've done it like this to hopefully remove much of the OR whilst not making the situation any worse than it is now. --ais523 10:01, 4 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 blatant advertising. JIP | Talk 06:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yard Smart

Contested prod. Software ad pretending to be an article. Opabinia regalis 03:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete! The references are the company website and a personal interview. Copyvio, possibly? -TrackerTV 03:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know, but if so, they need to fire their writer. "Microsoft Window's"? Opabinia regalis 03:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - spam, vanity, nn-org abakharev 04:20, 3 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. SynergeticMaggot 05:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wallace_Breen

Not a notable fictional character. Less notable than Aloysha Karamazov, who is noted to be not notable enough for own article in notability guide. Ltbarcly 03:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep This article is about the main villian from one of the top selling first person video games of all time. It is also a article of high quality. If this is not notable, then so is almost every other Half-Life character except for Alyx Vance, Gordon Freeman, and G-Man. In my opinion, this character is the fourth most notable in the Half-Life series. Knowitall 04:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Presumably that was a vote to keep?--Kchase T 04:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed it was. I've changed it now to say keep. Knowitall 04:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As Knowitall says, this is a hugely popular game that has won lots of awards, so breaking things out to cover the topic is not unreasonable. There are dozens of things linked from Template:Half-Life_series that probably ought to be handled similarly for consistency's sake.--Kchase T 04:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Appears to be much more notable than plenty of the other articls in Category:Computer and video game characters, but I'd favour a big purge of them! However, if they stay (and there appears to be no sign of anything remotely resembling a consensus for a purge), this article certainly should, both for relative notability and for quality. --BrownHairedGirl 07:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as per first keep vote. Macktheknifeau 07:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 09:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per Knowitall. Main antagonist of a blockbuster game - no justification for deletion. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 09:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. AMHR285 (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a notable character in a notable game. Themindset 17:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, unless you want to delete the likes of Darth Vader. CaptainVindaloo t c e 22:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Knowitall --IU2002 04:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above, notable character in a notable game, satisfies WP:FICT. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep no other Half-Life 2 characters nominated for deletion—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jason Jones (talk • contribs).
  • Keep, villian of a very notable computer game. --NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 07:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This article about one of the key villains in the one of the Most Popular games of all time. It is informative and complete. 4 August 2006—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.40.193.10 (talk • contribs).
  • I think this debate has snowballed.--Kchase T 09:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per above --Peephole 15:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)--
    • SUPER DUPER DELETE Alyosha Karamazov is the main character in what many if not most consider the most important russian novel of all time. The notability guide specifically says that this character does not warrant an entry. Nobody can possibly argue that the sequel to a PC video game is more notable than The Brothers Karamazov. Clearly does not satisfy the notability guide, should be rolled into the half life 2 article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ltbarcly (talk • contribs).
      • No, that's exactly the opposite of what the notability guideline says. First, it says that Karamazov is covered in the main article because it is short enough to do so. Major and even notable minor characters have their own articles when the main article becomes too long to contain all the information. This is "good practice." Read the guideline, again.--Kchase T 00:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • SUPER DUPER KEEP How could you delete an article about the main villain in Half-Life 2? Why not delete Gordon Freeman while you're at it? - RPharazon 03:38, 5 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 00:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Digimon Online

Advertisement, copyright violation dealing with Digimon World 3. KL 00:06, 3 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 10:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charlie Wohlberg

A candidate for state assembly is not inherently notable. Does not appear to meet WP:BIO at all. Only two relevant Google hits, neither of which asserts any importance. Delete as non-notable politician/civil servant. Wickethewok 04:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per above, not to mention that this page reads like a campaign website, and we all know what Wikipedia isn't. -- H·G (words/works) 07:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as per above. --BrownHairedGirl 07:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete The Article is not specifically about a campaign, although it is true that it mentions Charlie's current occupation as working for a campaign. The main purpose of the article is to publicize one of the FIRST American Jewish Students to visit Germany Post-WWII. This is a big deal. YUHSB (Charlie's school)sent a diplomatic mission, entirely sponsored by the German Government, the FIRST OF ITS KIND by a High School with its goal being to rebuild connections between Jews and Germans. Not meaning to sound Melodramatic, but Charlie and the rest of the delegation "made history" so to speak, by acting as Ambassadors of Jewish Youth to a nation struggling to deal with its past in the holocaust. This was never done before - it is therefore noteworthy. It does not deserve to be deleted. This is not an article of self-praise, it is an article dealing with an individual who functioned as a leader on a barrier-breaking mission. --YonkersRepublican 08:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Matt Stern
  • Delete per admitted violation of WP:VAIN and WP:SPAM WilyD 13:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete According to the article, he's not even running for office, just working for a guy who is. this is just vanity. --Xrblsnggt 16:58, 3 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 00:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Psychology Wiki

It fails the google test. It does not assert notability. I suspect it is vanity. WaterUrn 03:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I don't know about failing the google test (14,000 hits), but it does fail WP:WEB.--Kchase T 04:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB, only 99 of the Ghits are unique. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB, and anyway mostly seems to be reposted wikipedia articles (althiugh I'm not sure whether that has any relevance in AFD). --BrownHairedGirl 07:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:WEB. I also support WaterUrn's theory of this article violating WP:VAIN. Thε Halo Θ 11:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above and also per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. "This site aims to..." "This site is intended to slowly develop..." "is is envisaged that..." "as the intended users are..." "much greater potential for... " "is intended to eventually have link[s] to every..." "will have extensive indexing..." The article can be re-created without prejudice when the site has achieved some of its "aims," has developed as "intended", has realized some of what now is only "envisaged," has achieved some of what is now only "potential", and actually has extensive indexing. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Peephole 16:36, 7 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 00:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decadeology

Neologism, google returns a few forum posts and suggests that it might be a mispelling. Created by User:Decadeologist. JoshuaZ 03:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Whopping two Ghits.--Kchase T 04:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Fabricationary 04:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. JianLi 04:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable neologism. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as per nom and Kchase. Two ghits makes it very NN. --BrownHairedGirl 07:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete apparent protologism. Just zis Guy you know? 12:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fake entry/joke. --DLX 12:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 20:43, 3 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 00:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Waste of time

fails WP:MUS young band which has never charted in Bulgaria or elsewhere Ohconfucius 04:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as they fail WP:MUSIC. I like the reference to the "official" myspace profile.--Kchase T 04:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Fabricationary 04:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. fuzzy510 07:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. They clearly fail WP:MUSIC, but I'm not sure whether that guide takes sufficient account of the structures of musical careers outside of major develped nations, and they do appear to have some notability in their own area (besides which, they don't sound too bad!). I'd welcome input from any Bulgarians who can give us more info. --BrownHairedGirl 07:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete changing vote in view of JoshuaZ's info below. --BrownHairedGirl 15:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC, no prejudice against coverage in another language's Wikipedia, but significance unverifiable for an en: audience. Just zis Guy you know? 12:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC and their official site is on MySpace? Delete it with all due prejudice (which is a lot!) WilyD 13:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 14:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable, this is not an encyclopedia of garage bands. --Svartalf 15:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete In regard to Brownhaired's comment- I talked to a friend with some familarity with Bulgarian music. They agreed that having the official page of a band be in myspace meant about as much as it would for an English speaking band. No opinion on whether this is true for small countries in general. Should probably be discussed at WP:MUSIC, but in this case it is a clear decision. JoshuaZ 15:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom Pathlessdesert 18:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The only external link/source is a myspace link definatly indicates it's not notable --Ted87 01:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment So apparently the situation is more complicated than I initially realized. After talking to another person who familiar with Bulgarian music, it is weakly plausible that a notable band would work off of a myspace page so it isn't by itself a death strike to notability. However, the use of a myspace page together with other details (the lack of google hits for the band itself, certain musical aspects, the individual's knowledge of Bulgarian music in general) confirm that the band would not meet "any reasonable notability criteria." This friend is going to talk to another person tommorow who has better knowledge of the current Bulgarian scene and will report back however he strongly suspects this won't change matters. He also confirmed that in general our conditions for WP:MUSIC have serious cultural assumptions and would likely rule out genuinely notable bands. JoshuaZ 01:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not even popular in Bulgaria? What shred of notability does it claim here? --Xrblsnggt 03:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom -- Reaper X 23:54, 5 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 00:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confruition

Delete - neologism. A Google search led to 138 hits, all coming from the same four sites. Fabricationary 04:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, the site which apparently coined the phrase has been up since 7/30/06, according to its news page. Only 3 unique Ghits too, leading me to suspect this is an indirect spam article. -- H·G (words/works) 07:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, neologism, WP:WEB, etc. --BrownHairedGirl 07:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As per above Mdcollins1984 17:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete another vain attempt to use Wikipedia to give protologisms validity. Danny Lilithborne 20:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, confessed neologism per the article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:41, 4 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 00:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Argumentum ad Google

Original research. Ironic as it may be, a Google search turns up minimal results that mostly reference the Wikipedia article in some way. No sources given, no sources found. Delete as such. Wickethewok 04:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Deletechanged to transwiki below per nom. Lexis and google turn up nothing. Google results. Neat idea. Not encyclopedic yet.--Kchase T 04:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Subprotoneologism. (Just like the word subprotoneologism, which I just made up.) It is a nice idea though. --tjstrf 05:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:NEO in the worst way. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, although I note the delightful strange loop in using the very concept to disprove itself (I wonder if its inventor planned that?)...incidentally, as a message for the inventor, I think the correct grammar would be "argumentum ad Googlem", but anyway. Byrgenwulf 06:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom and Cordesat. --BrownHairedGirl 07:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Michael 08:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, although since this appears to be an "argument from Google", the correct Latin would be "argumentum ex Google" or perhaps "argumentum ab Google", supposing that Google is a 3rd declension noun. Just sayin'. SnurksTC 08:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The irony here abounds.

    Looking at Talk:Argumentum ad Google I find the link to the French Wikipedia article fr:Argumentum ad Google. Reading that article's talk page, fr:Discuter:Argumentum ad Google, I see that the same concerns have been raised there as here, and that the response has been to cite sources such as Why Getting a Million Hits on Google Doesn't Prove Anything and this. (this also discusses the argument, but cites Wikipedia as its source.) Those all call it Argumentum ad Googlum, which explains why Wickethewok's Google Web search for Argumentum ad Google didn't find anything. However, the discussion on the French Wikipedia talk page focuses more on the validity of the argument rather than upon citing sources, the sources are sparse, and the sources certainly don't support the contents of either the French or English Wikipedia articles. It does appear that this is mostly original research that began on the French Wikipedia and that has metastasized onto the English and Serbian ones over the years. This does not belong in the main article namespace.

    On the gripping hand, it might be worth moving this into the project namespace and incorporating it into Wikipedia:Search engine test, which discusses the various failings of the Google Test. Uncle G 10:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete to protect the Universe from Strange Loops and Gödelian Implosion. Anville 14:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. While I would delete this from encyclopedia space as OR, this strikes me as meta material more than encyclopedia material, and would be perfectly at home among the several essays explaining editing philosophies. FWIW, the name was apparently coined by analogy with argumentum ad populum, but there an appeal is made to mass popularity. Smerdis of Tlön 15:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Meta per Smerdis of Tlon.--Kchase T 23:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Nice concept and it does have a point, but seems too original research-ish. --Ted87 01:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Meta. Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 13:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • delete, unsourced probably made up. BrokenSegue
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, leaning to merge. - Mailer Diablo 22:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Seven Great Demon Lords

Delete Non-notable group of Digimon. It might be something to do with the card game, but there's no references or much of anything. I suspect that most, if not all, of the article is original research. Fancruft, in any case. Ned Scott 04:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom unless it can be proven that they are an official group. For example, if can be shown that the group and their attributes are from the card game etc that would be helpful in dealing with an original research cliam. As it stand now however, the article needs work. --Edgelord 06:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Digimon? Maybe? Honestly, I have no idea about anything Digimon-related, but it makes sense that if someone thought it would be worth creating an article for it, it'd be worth including in the main article. fuzzy510 07:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, there's List of Digimon and the articles listed at WP:DIGI#Related content. A lot of this stuff is just taken from fansites, too. Not that I doubt the effort, just that it's a bit misplaced. -- Ned Scott 07:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 10:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure what to do with this. The digimon section contains individual articles for each of hundreds of digimon. Each of the 7 digimon discussed in this article have individual articles. It seems that it all needs some bigtime merging, but I have no idea where to begin. It may be better to merge the individual articles into this, instead of deleting this one and leaving the others. - Wickning1 14:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The only problem with that is the "group" isn't notable. It might be from the card game, but no one has been able to even confirm that. While I think the majority of Digimon articles don't meet the guidelines for WP:FICT and need to be removed/merged/transwikied/something, there are a few that are major characters from the anime (and the animes have no connection to this "group" at all). The best I can see is a merge to Digimon (card game), but only if it can be verified. -- Ned Scott 22:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - with digimon dposse 17:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: This article should be helpful. fractyl

Digimon research

  • Merge into whatever works (probably not the main Digimon article, though - perhaps one of the series season/movie articles, as applicable). I wouldn't consider it notable on its own, and though I'm not an expert on digimon, there seems to be some useful content here. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 08:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The only problem is there still isn't any verification. It's unknown how much of this information is actually true or just something a fan made up. -- Ned Scott 08:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I can confirm that this is an official group in the Japanese Digimon card game (nana dai ma ou in Japanese), so I'd say either keep or merge. —Nightstallion (?) 09:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
A merge would suggest keeping content form the article, not just saying the group existed. Can you confirm any of the content and/or provide sources? -- Ned Scott 10:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I haven't been active in the Digimon fan community for quite some time, but I'm absolutely positive that newer cards of the stated Digimon do in fact contain the mentioned group name. I'm afraid I can't currently access the Digimon Card Album from work due to domain blockers, but the cards are up there, and if you can read Japanese, you can verify it. I'm sorry I can't give you much more than this currently. —Nightstallion (?) 10:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep: NS (Y HALO THAR, IT'S BEEN A WHILE) is absolutely right -- it is an official group, it's been mentioned in the cards and in the V-Jump publication, from whence the information about their relationship with the Seven Deadly Sins comes. Groups like this aren't common, and they're generally fairly notable, the Three Great Angels, the Four Holy Beasts, and the Royal Knights being some other fine examples. The information on the this page is pretty much all correct, although their collective goal, if one is extant, is unknown, not necessarily conquest and destruction, as its been edited to say (The Demon in the show seemed perfectly content to reside in the Dark World, and Lucemon's purpose was at least ostenibly to create a paradise). If this is going to be merged, then it should be merged onto a Digimon Groups page and listed with the Three Great Angels, Four Holy Beasts, Royal Knights, Four Great Dragons, etc, but it's been my observation that the Demon Lords are generally the subject of much interest and discussion in the Digimon fandom and thus notable at least in that context (and individuals from the group have been important characters in the show and manga), and thus, deserve their own article. At any rate, it most certainly not be merged with the Digimon article. Shining Celebi 17:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd be all for it if we had some sources.. -- Ned Scott 19:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you can't read Japanese, all I can really show you is the Mythos page and the Groups page in my encylopedia; of course, most other fansites have some mention too, like Digital Starlight, The Digi Port, and others. If you can read Japanese, then you can check out the cards of the members on the card album -- several show up in Booster 24. After multiple harddrive failures, I don't have the original V-Jump scan, but DVR has the information on its Research Page. On a side note, Bandai of America has referred to them on its website as the "Dark Lords," and some people have taken to calling them "Great Lords," so if one were looking for further mentions, it'd probably be a good idea to use those as search terms too. Shining Celebi 20:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
It's a start, thanks! -- Ned Scott 06:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Still unverified, and seemingly no one cares to enough to verify. Googling Nanadaimaou gives WP's and mirrors and a smattering of discussion groups. ~ trialsanderrors 18:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you elaborate on what further verification you require? I wouldn't have expected Nanadaimaou to turn up much, since it's the transliterated Japanese name, as opposed to the translated name or the actual Japanese name. I've provided links from reputable fansites (err, one of which is my own), as well as to a page with card scans that mention them. Check out the WP hiragana page and use WWWJDIC to translate it yourself, if you don't believe anyone else. Josh Wasta, when he was a Bandai of American employee, referred to them as the Dark Lords on the official forums, but since they're not yet officially dubbed, all I can provide in the way of official pages is Japanese links, and you don't seem to think that's enough. Shining Celebi 21:51, 12 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 10:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Todd Ouellette

Non-notable activist. The sources given are unreliable at best. 470 Google hits and most aren't for him. Related to this article is Talk:Brit_Hume#China.2C_Terror_and_Todd_Ouellette a section about the article's subject that was aggressively added to the Brit Hume page that suggests that Mr. Ouellette is non-notable. Delete as non-notable and for no reliable sources (the two close to reliable ones describe his public access TV show and the second one gives him half a sentence mention.) Metros232 04:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable, apparently fails WP:BIO. Has had at least one verifiable interaction with Bill Clinton in 1995[5], but I don't think this confers notability or satisfies WP:BIO guidelines. -- H·G (words/works) 07:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: I think he is notable. sounds like a not very coherent, rather exciteable and decidely obsessive campaigner, but he conducted a lengthy protest outide the White House and a prolonged national campaign. Sounds like a rather less effective version of Brian Haw. --BrownHairedGirl 08:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Please note that edits have been made by Powmadeak47 (the name of his website) and Toddouellette. SliceNYC 14:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete soap box city --Xrblsnggt 02:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - rather incoherent article on a rather insignificant figure. BlueValour 04:17, 8 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 10:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freckle fetishism

Put up for {PROD} by User:Xyzzyplugh under rationale, "Article is original research, unsourced. Unless some reliable sources can be found for this, it needs to go." Felt this should go through AfD. --Groggy Dice 04:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. I think that we all would agree that freckle fetishism exists, and probably most of us that there should be an article on it. The reason cited in the PROD was not that the topic was unencyclopedic or not-notable, but that there was an original research/sourcing issue. I don't find that a sufficient rationale for deletion. There has been no attempt to mark up the article with specific {fact} requests. --Groggy Dice 05:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • What do you oppose? The article or its deletion? It's either "Delete" or "Keep". CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, clarified to keep. Must have move requests on the brain. --Groggy Dice 05:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I agree that it exists, but there are a lot of fetishes that exist. I don't want to say that they're not notable, per se, or unimportant, or anything of that sort, but there does have to be some sort of cutoff, or we could get infinite fetish entries. I don't think this one is really above the Wikipedia cutoff, wherever that would be. I could be swayed by evidence to the contrary. GassyGuy 06:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only about 100 non-wikpedia ghits, of which nearly all seem to be bare listings in other wikis or smilar sites, without any more detail. This may merit listing in another article (perhaps paraphilia), but there's insfficient external evidence to suggest that it merits a article of its own. --BrownHairedGirl 08:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Every fetish cant have an article. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as this is not verified. Google hits I see are blogs and forums... not reliable source... while I'm sure there are people out there who have this fetish, this is an excellent example of what WP:V refers to when it states verifiability, not truth.--Isotope23 14:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can't have articles on everything. I'm sure there are people with dead-rat fetishes, but that doesn't mean there should be an article for it. (Okay, maybe that was a little extreme, but you get the idea.) --Larry V (talk | contribs) 14:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and per Isotope23. The articles on the major fetishes show a good deal of craft, but by the time we get to topics like this the craft is ebbing. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There are 6.5 billion people in the world, each with their own particular turn-ons. You don't need an article for every single one. --Xrblsnggt 02:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unnecessary article per above. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The same user who originally put this article up for {PROD} has been putting up a lot of fetish articles for {PROD} these past few days, this is just the first one I noticed. So those who want Wikipedia cleared of minor fetishes will apparently see their wish granted. As for this article, I know that lots of people like freckles, so I assumed that freckle fetishism was also a fairly large fetish. However, those who have run the Ghits have found relatively few hits. Perhaps there just aren't that many people whose appreciation of freckles rises to the level of a fetish. Cultural factors could be at work: a guy with a blonde fetish is simply a guy who likes blondes; a guy who likes sex dolls has a sex doll fetish (inflatable fetishism is another article on {PROD}; and perhaps guys who like freckles don't think of themselves as having a fetish. Or it may be too closely related to redhead fetishism to have a distinct identity. At any rate, its apparently small webprint comes as a surprise to me. --Groggy Dice 12:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • This is a response to your original vote on the top of this page, as well as to the immediate above comment. Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability are of paramount importance, without them wikipedia would not be an encylopedia, but instead just a bunch of people writing whatever they feel like at the moment. If a minor fetish has never been covered in any reliable source, how are we to have an article about it that anyone could trust? Making up stuff about the topic ourselves, or relying on some blogs or personal websites, does not produce an encylopedia article. --Xyzzyplugh 20:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no sources, fails google test. Whether it exists or not it must go per WP:V. Eluchil404 21:24, 6 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 00:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dynasty rap

Fails WP:VERIFY. A Google search shows no evidence of this existing. --Spring Rubber 05:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and also as a possible hoax (origins dating back to Jesus?) BigHaz 05:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator and User:BigHaz. JIP | Talk 06:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above, no sources provided in the article, leaving us to have to check Google, which mentions nothing relevant. -- H·G (words/works) 07:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for lot of evidence pointing to this being a hoax, and for a lack of Blake Carrington references. fuzzy510 07:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per all above. --BrownHairedGirl 08:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Yo! yo! yo! Blake Carrington in da house! --Xrblsnggt 02:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable, yo. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and because Alexis "A Cizzle" Carrington would want it that way. GassyGuy 08:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Because despite the naming of the creditor it is still a feasible label for a new and upcoming genre of music. Medica 10:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as this is complete bollocks. --Wine Guy Talk 04:35, 7 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 00:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simon George

Likely hoax. No relevant Google hits for "Simon George" "All Black". Author has also created other apparent hoax articles.-gadfium 05:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom--Jusjih 06:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I tried several searches on Google that turned up nothing [6][7]. The closest I came was search for '"Simon George" "player of the year" -wiki'[8], which yielded a lot of "terms only appear in links pointing to this page" hits but nothing truly substantive. Considering that grand claims are made that can't be verified, no choice but to assume a hoax until verification is provided. -- H·G (words/works) 07:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Followup: definite hoax, subject still goes to this high school, along with the other subjects of articles created by this user. -- H·G (words/works) 07:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
      • How does that make the article a hoax? The article itself states that xe is 16 years old. What makes this article a hoax is that the Wellington Hurricanes' web site makes no mention of this person playing for that team, contrary to the claims in the article. Uncle G 14:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
        • His continued presence on the high school team makes this a hoax because the article states that the subject has "made the leap" to professional circuits. Unless he's made the leap in the last five days, this pretty clearly invalidates anything in the article after his presence on the high school team. -- H·G (words/works) 20:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the two are mutually exclusive. A lot of rugby league players in Australasia were simultaneously schoolboys and club representatives (not so sure about internationals), and I'd imagine the same can be true in union. That said, it makes it look pretty hoaxy, and probably goes some way towards explaining why his purported professional team doesn't know him. BigHaz 22:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, and I won't pretend I know more than I do about the rugby leagues in New Zealand. But as an element combined with the author's other hoax articles up for AfD, nothing relevant appearing in professional team literature, unsubstantiated claims of "being the finest first five New Zealand has produced since Grant Fox," etc., I'll agree that it all adds up to an almost-certain hoax. -- H·G (words/works) 23:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I quite agree. When taken as a whole, it's a hoax. When taken in relation to any of its specific parts, it bears an uncanny resemblance to a hoax. BigHaz 01:36, 4 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 00:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Horgan

Likely hoax. No relevant Google hits for "Matthew Horgan" "All White". Author has also created other apparent hoax articles.-gadfium 05:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom--Jusjih 06:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, this page seems to indicate the subject is still in the high school listed in the article, as of 7/29/06. Nothing else relevant appears on Google, and no sources are provided in article. -- H·G (words/works) 07:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as hoax (see WP:SPEEDY general criteria No. 1), as per above and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_3#Simon_George. --BrownHairedGirl 08:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. Ziggurat 08:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per WP:HOAX Thε Halo Θ 11:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as per above Dlyons493 Talk 12:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. Does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Molerat 14:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A search of an Australian New Zealand database comes up with 0 hits for "Matthew Horgan" which would be unlikely if he was the goalkeeper of the New Zealand soccer side. Distinct verifiability problems with this article. Given that this article refers to a drinking problem, it might be eligible as an attack page.Capitalistroadster 03:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a blatant hoax. Calling this an attack page would probably be a stretch, since the article doesn't disparage its subject for having a drinking problem. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:46, 4 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 00:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Togo - text based logo

Dicdef, OR, possibly spam. abakharev 06:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. fuzzy510 07:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unsourced neologism, dicdef. --BrownHairedGirl 08:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete apparent protologism. Just zis Guy you know? 12:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — I can't see a reason to keep this around. If anyone can show notability I'll change my vote mboverload@ 20:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ridiculous protologism. Danny Lilithborne 20:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete arbitrary categorization of things you can do with a keyboard --Xrblsnggt 02:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non-notable protologism. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:46, 4 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 14:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UK Copyright Service

Article is an advert for a service that does not appear notable. Harris 12:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I knew there would be some guidelines somewhere - does not appear to meet notability requirements of WP:CORP Harris 08:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,
  • Delete as per Wine Guy. --BrownHairedGirl 08:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. They're generally accepted to be the top copyright registration service in the UK. Darksun 12:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam. Kafziel 16:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep — Results in search engines seem to confirm it's known, 18,700 on google mboverload@ 20:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. per nom and Wine Guy --Cassavau 22:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete advertisement. A private service is hardly required to establish copyright protections, at least in the U.S, but then I don't know about the UK. --HResearcher 02:35, 4 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 to K'Nex. - Bobet 13:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tallest k'nex coaster

I love this project, but unfortunately, I don't think it's really encyclopedia material. Perhaps the image could go in the K'Nex article, and the external link could be included there? It's a wonderful demonstration of large-scale projects that can be done with K'Nex, and it's great amateur engineering, but there's still a lack of notability to address. - Tapir Terrific 16:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge The K'Nex article can possibly contain a subsection to include such information as this. It definitely doesn't need its own article. --Porqin 16:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete wikipedia is not the Guinness book of records. -- Koffieyahoo 02:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,
  • Merge to K'Nex. Worth noting, but certainly not in its own article. fuzzy510 07:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. Thatdog 08:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. Michael 08:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. -- stubblyhead | T/c 15:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Would vote for merge, but the picture is lousy, shows no scale, and it just isn't notable. --Cassavau 22:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge This is not notable enough to warrant its own article. --HResearcher 03:00, 4 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. Kimchi.sg 13:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Mason (philosopher)

Article makes unsourced claims of dubious parentage, and as a philosopher and politician without a basis. Original research and reads like vanity, no ghits found. Mtiedemann 16:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Looks like a hoax article, and I believe the nominator that no relevant ghits were found. I certainly found none for the supposed forthcoming album once I eliminated Wikipedia and Answers.com from the search. Starts with "This article relates to Charles Mason, the philosopher. For Charles Mason, the astronomer, see Charles Mason." but has an intro that says "Charles Mason (born 14 September 1950) is a pro-Western political revolutionary and musician." (note - no mention of being a philosopher in intro). Later it says "Believed to be the illegitimate son of General Carlos Suárez Mason, a hardline general at the heart of Argentina's pre-Falklands dictatorship, he eschewed his grandfather's political beliefs." (There is no antecedent for the pronoun phrase "his grandfather".) GRBerry 03:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,
  • Delete, with a little hesitancy. The absence of sources or verifiaility are sufficient grounds to delete, but if half what is claimed here is rue, it's a an account of a quite remarkable person. But without sources, have to assume it's a hoax. --BrownHairedGirl 08:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. The lack of verifiable sources is a clue, but for me the giveaway is: the article states he was born in 1950 and was the son of General Carlos Suárez Mason. However, if you check the history in the original version, he is the grandson [9]. Carlos Suárez Mason died in 2005 aged 81, so would have been 26 at the time of the supposed birth: both he and his son would have had to be 12 at the time of the respective conceptions. Fairly unlikely, so it was updated to be more believable. Aside from that, without sources it is WP:OR so should be deleted anyway. Yomangani 12:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. I've seen this before though - was a version of it on AfD months ago??? Dlyons493 Talk 12:17, 3 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 04:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chongqing Xianghong TV Art Ltd

Orphaned AfD nomination. I'm pretty sure that it has been nominated for lacking notability and failing WP:CORP. Technical nomination - no opinion from me as yet.➨ ЯEDVERS 18:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,
  • Delete no reliable sources for any claim to notability, no evidence of meeting WP:CORP, reads as advertriial. Just zis Guy you know? 12:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even simplified to "Chongqing Xianghong", it gets a whopping 14 Google hits. Kill it. Kafziel 16:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Unfortunately, Chinese google for "重庆乐乐熊" gets only 41 as well. Not much in the way of news either. --ColourBurst 20:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep probably better get someone who can read Chinese. The article claims to have produced The Story Inside Forest and Happy Panda and claims Happy Panda is notable among children. Better research better into this before deleting. --HResearcher 03:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe someone else can come up with something, but for me these claims are 100% unverifiable. Those unsourced claims of notability serve to keep it from Speedy Deletion, but they shouldn't serve to keep it from being deleted here. I can find no evidence that they have produced anything of note, and the external link is in Chinese (and even if it wasn't, it's not a source independent of the subject, so it couldn't be used anyway). If the subject's notability can't be verified, it can't survive AfD. Kafziel 12:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Technically, translation from other Wikipedias is allowed, from Countering Systemic Bias here: [10], so technically it has to be nonnotable in every single wikipedia to be truly nonnotable (not just "being a Chinese website with little hits in English".) However, there's no verification of the character or the company in Chinese news sources either. --ColourBurst 17:12, 4 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, Mailer Diablo 15:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; fails WP:V. --Satori Son 16:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as it has no verified sources provided and as per ColourBurst - "there's no verification of the character or the company in Chinese news sources either".--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:28, 5 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. This is a clear abuse of Wikipedia, the author is using Wikipedia solely as an advertising medium. JIP | Talk 09:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Planeti X

Article is spam and content has no relation to title. I am also nominating the following related pages because they have the same content and author:

  • Edil Al-It

Richmeister 08:23, 3 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 10:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anarcho-monarchism

Does not cite any sources. Seems non-notable and/or made up. The Ungovernable Force 08:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, as I'm the nominator. The Ungovernable Force 08:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Michael 08:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. This sounds like a coherent (albeit offbeat) concept, and it wouldn't matter that the label is being retrospectively attached to people and movements who hadn't coined the pharse. However, google seems to throw up very little substantive on the concept, so I vote at delete as a probable neologism, without any sources. --BrownHairedGirl 09:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment It does seem coherent, but I don't think it's a term that is ever really used. I've heard this idea used by anarcho-primitivists to a slight degree, but I've never heard them call it this. I'd say it's a neologism too. The Ungovernable Force 09:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; although there are a several Google results, they don't seem to match each other or the article, and would generally seem to support the idea that this is just a term a lot of people have come up with seperately because it sounded so silly. With no meaningful usage of the term, there's no encyclopedia article to write about it. --Aquillion 09:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment As of a day or two ago I thought the term merely was a joke. Then someone linked to this page on one of the other anarchism related pages. Others who had used it thought it was just a joke too and had no idea we had an article with this name. The Ungovernable Force 09:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hector St. John de Crèvecoeur has been described as a "Monarcho-Anarchist," Dali refered to himself as "anarcho-monarchist." Clearly one can at least make a stub out of this. Intangible 09:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: if you are right, that sounds to me like an argument for inclusion on a dictionary, not as a suvject for an encyclopedic aricle. --BrownHairedGirl 11:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 09:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - I linked to the Wayne John Sturgeon article, but I can't find any further references to this term, so the article currently fails WP:OR. On the same grounds (one article from a journalist for Alternative Green) it fails WP:NEO. If Intangible can cite references for the Dali and Hector St. John de Crèvecoeur statements though, I'd be on the way to changing my mind. Yomangani 11:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete because I can't find much information about it. Like Yomangani, I would change my mind if I saw some references. Lurker talk 13:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I was one of the people who originally suggested the article be deleted, because at the time I assumed the article creator had taken the term from my own, joking, off-the-cuff use in the anarchism template talk pages. However, after digging around a bit, it looks like similar terms have been used in print at least twice. I suspect that it’s such a temptingly paradoxical concept that people keep coining it over and over again. I listed the five usages I’ve found in my comment below. Three of them appear to be independent coinages. I should also note, however, that it does not appear to bear any relationship with anarchism proper. --Aelffin 13:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Apparently serious usage: (1) Postmodernist writer Hakim Bey uses the term in a poetic essay titled Black Crown & Black Rose: Anarcho-Monarchism & Anarcho-Mysticism. Here, it is a retrospective label for the presumed phenomenon of Tsarist Narodnik anarchists among Russian peasantry of the 1850s-60s. He does not back up the claim, but reading the article on Narodniks, it seems like a reasonable proposition. (http://www.left-bank.org/bey/blackcrn.htm) (2) Myra Jehlen uses the term “Monarcho-Anarchism” as a retrospective label for an early American writer in the essay J. Hector St. John de Crèvecoeur: A Monarcho-Anarchist in Revolutionary America in the book Readings at the Edge of Literature. The book is described as being about “the central paradoxes of the American project”. (http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/14802.ctl) (3) An online article by John Wayne Sturgeon uses the term as a retrospective label for J.R.R. Tolkien’s apparently inarticulate political views, conflating them with the political situation described in the Middle Earth books. (http://www.thirdway.org/files/articles/anarchomon.html) Humorous usage: (4) Ken Brown’s link list describes Sturgeon himself as “non-violent-nationalist-British-Israelite-anti-racist-Christian-occult-anarchist-monarchism”. (http://www.cix.co.uk/~kbrown/lists/kenslinks.html) (5) Salvador Dalí used the term as a joke in a television interview. (http://www.thirdway.org/files/articles/anarchomon.html)--Aelffin 13:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Some people have used the term in the past, yes; but the problem is, almost all of them seem to think that they invented it, and none of them seem to have been using it to say quite the same thing. We could have an article here, I guess, but its content would amount to "a handful of people have used the term anarcho-monarchism, either in a humorous fashion or as a neologism to describe the views of a single person. The majority of people using the term seem to have no knowledge that it has ever been used by anyone else, and none have provided a concrete definition. Below is a quick listing of all the usages of 'anarcho-monarchism' we could turn up on Google." Ok, so we wouldn't actually say the last sentence, but you get the idea. I don't see how we could make an encyclopedic article out of that. --Aquillion 01:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. In my official capacity as Lord High Parliamentian of the Royal Anarchist Pan-African Christian Party for White Islamic European Socialist Independence in Latin America, it strikes me that there is enough attested usage of these two related words to justify an article on this ideology. Smerdis of Tlön 15:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. One cannot maintain a belief in anarchism and simultaneously support a monarch. PERIOD. It seems like either a sarcastic joke article or the ramblings of a single, confused adherent. A poem that utilized the term (as described above) is not scholarly or academic in nature but is rather art while a few comments (which have suffered no peer-reveiw) are simply conjecture and I don't think either provide adequete source material for an article on a political philosophy. Blockader 15:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Well, it shouldn't be listed as a political philosophy. That's certain. It's a (deliberately) paradoxical or nonsensical notion. However, it's been used several times either by or in reference to notable figures, and as such, it should have an article (cf Grue, Bleen, Anarcho-capitalism). --Aelffin 15:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Reply I guess the difference between "grue and bleen" and anarcho-monarchism is that the former is rather inconsequential while the latter could confuse or misinform people who are trying to find information on actual schools of anarchism. Anarcho-monarchism, while obviously paradoxical to us, may create uncertainty or bias among the uniniated. Blockader 16:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Reply I agree that it might create confusion...but only if it were linked from or associated with the Anarchism article. Likewise, grue and bleen would create confusion if they were linked to the articles on printing or the electromagnetic spectrum. --Aelffin 17:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Reply I assumed that it would be linked from the anarchism article. Before this discussion it appeared in the "traditions" table to the right of the intro. As long as its not linked to the anarchism article I don't guess I really care whether its deleted or not. Blockader 18:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Reply No, it makes no sense to link it to Anarchism. I'd say anarcho-capitalism also should not be linked to Anarchism proper. I'm discovering that there are a whole slew of alterna-anarchisms or pseudo-anarchisms that don't come out of traditional anarchism...for example anarcho-nationalism and anarcho-mysticism. These are ideas alien to Anarchism. They have a place on Wikipedia in their own right, but it would be misleading to imply association with Anarchism proper. --Aelffin 20:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, notwithstanding the objections of his honor the Lord High Parliamentian, above. At best, it's an entry in Wiktionary. Kafziel 16:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Disambiguation or writing a new page to deal with things like "anarcho-monarchism" and "nationalist anarchism" and other nonstandard uses of the word would probably be the best way to sort it all out--in which case, I would support deletion. --Aelffin 18:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you changing your previous position of keep to this, or is this in addition to that? The way you put it on a new zero-indent bullet makes it hard to tell. --Aquillion 06:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for pointing that out. --Aelffin 11:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This article cann not be deletes an in referencing the emotions of Blockader, it is more than possible to support a voluntary patriach... just as in Medieval Iceland, or in the spirit of German Kings. Anarchism calls for the destruction of coercive, involuntary rule and authority... just as Anarchists agree that people can come together to create voluntary communes, come together to forge third-party arbitration, so can they come together to form voluntary groups of people led by a patriach, who serves nominally as a leader and advisor. To delete this article would simply be giving in to pressure and supporting censorship... just as some anarchists view anarcho-capitalism as not anarchism.. it must be agreed that such theories must remain to be accessed... by the simply use of "anarcho-" or "anarcha-" we are agreeing that there are varying forms of the political theory known as "anarchism". Zadanian 18:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

emotions my ass. "spirit of German Kings"? "voluntary patriarch"? "supporting censorship"? "we are agreeing"? I'm glad someone has decided to fill the shoes of the banned TheIndividualist and Shannon in being utterly unversed in basic anarchist principles and general rationality for that matter. Piece, Blockader 19:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Thanks for your sincere and kind comment. Intangible 23:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
This discussion should be taken elsewhere. However...see my comments above. A "theory" doesn't qualify as part of the Anarchist movement just because it uses "anarch-" in its name. Anarchism is a movement, and it has a history. Anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-monarchism, anarcho-nationalism, anarcho-mysticism, panarchism, and perhaps anarcho-primitivism do not share any history within Anarchism proper, and from a traditional Anarchist point of view, they are mis-uses of the term anarchism. All of these alterna-anarchisms, pseudo-anarchisms, para-anarchisms, are separate theories and/or philosophies and/or movements. They have every right to exist and they have every right to have Wikipedia articles. But putting them within Anarchism proper is just facutally incorrect. --Aelffin 20:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, lacks enough verifiability to be anything more than a weird footnote in other articles about anarchism. Jkelly 21:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, for reasons given above. Sarge Baldy 03:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, same reasons, even if articles about ficticious people and places on wikipedia outnumber the real. --albamuth 07:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems both real and sourced and we have articles about simmilar political theories. // Liftarn 09:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I'm at work on an article about deontological utilitarianism. I trust Liftarn will support it against an Afd when the time comes. --Christofurio 14:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - FrancisTyers · 16:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- and I regret voting this way, because I love paradox. I'd like to be shown that such a movement exists and has something interesting to say in defense of the thought-halting terminology. Even a small movement with a mostly academic demographic (like anarcho-capitalism) might be of interest -- if the people using the term know one another, build on each other's works, etc. But all I've seen are a handful of references made for disparate purposes.

Sorry, no article. --Christofurio 13:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Though some of the ideas of Capitalism are in agreement with Anarchism, since both movements can trace the root of their respective ideologies to the Englightment, and Man as a Free Being with a Free will, the notion of Anarcho-monarchism is completely absurd, since one of the basic principles of anarchism is not to lead and not to be leaded. Project2501a 14:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR. BlueValour 04:10, 8 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 00:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Funny punk

  • Keep, The page serves a purpose, and is written by a credible writer.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.191.214.158 (talk • contribs).

Non-notable genre classification. Only one source and it does not look very reliable. A google search shows only 19,100 hits, almost all of which are unrelated (I know, google isn't the best source for establishing reliability but still...). I think it's probably a neologism The Ungovernable Force 08:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, since I'm the nominator. The Ungovernable Force 08:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Michael 08:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. WesleyDodds 09:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; one source of dubious reliability (a userpage at a university website) doesn't fill me with confidence. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 09:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fake subgenre. Punkmorten 15:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, the source is a reproduced article originally written by Donny the Punk, a noted writer for several top punk zines on cultural and musical criticism. How is that unreliable? Ungovernable, how can you tell that "almost all" of the google hits are unrelated? Did you look through all 19,100 results? Most of the hits on the first few pages are from huge online stores selling t-shirts. A search for "funny punk" -shirts -shirt gives about 11,700 hits. Looking through the first four pages, about two to four sites on every page use the phrase in the obvious context of a musical classification. Looking through the first ten pages, there are about five instances of the term being used in published music journalism to refer to a certain style of music. Ecto 19:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Well, yes, I only looked through the first few pages. If it really is a notable genre chances are I would have found some mention of it within those first few pages. Can you link to some of those other sources? I agree that some people may use this term, but I don't think it's really notable. Anyone can come up with a new genre classification, but I don't think this is really an accepted subgenre by many people. The Ungovernable Force 20:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Ungovernable.. yo, so this is what im thinking, "funny punk" yeah that is just... how can i say it.. FUNNY!!! what the punk man, "hey, dudes, yeah lets go to that funny punk show down the street!" , "OK".. naw that never happened... but what i think this is actually describing it what we might want to call "satirical punk" i dont want to create neologism, but there does seem to be a trend and some precedence to suggest that this exists. As you can see from the edits i made today, there are definitely a number of bands and individual songs which would apply. I use the term "satrical punk" because that is what The Dead Milkmen are called in the first sentence of their article... i dont know who wrote that but i would agree with that description, but also note that the term their is linked to the two separate works, "satrical" and "punk" individually. If we were to rename "funny punk" to "satrical punk," then we could also change The Dead Milkmen qualifer accordingly. The problem then becomes finding precedence for the existence of "satirical punk" which might be possible from the Donny the Punk article? Xsxex 22:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
      • There's a fine distinction between descritptive terms and descriptive genre terms. Just because an adjective or something appears right before the word punk (and for that matter, rock, metal, pop, folk, etc.) does not mean it is being used in a genre context by whoever wrote the piece.WesleyDodds 22:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Again, I did not say this was an actual genre, but more than anything, I think there is actually some evidence that this is a "tendency" or within punk. This evidenced by the existence of a number of bands which could fit the bill and the fact that The Dead Milkmen and Butthole Surfers and others are significantly different makes an arguement for it. Yet wikipedia is not the place to create new qualifiers. We'll just have to wait for some to appear from external sources. Xsxex 02:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • That's exactly how I feel Xsxex. The Ungovernable Force 20:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not a genre per se - if anything, it describes individual bands, but that doesn't constitute a genre any more than bands like They Might Be Giants constitute "funny rock". Tpth 23:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete another made up genre not remotely resembling punk --Xrblsnggt 02:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Never heard the term, although its mention as a genre by Donny the Punk is interesting. Also, I am unable to use my apostrophe key or copy text for some reason - apologies.--Switch 04:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I went ahead and emphasized your "delete" for you. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a made-up genre and possible neologism. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:47, 4 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 hoax. — FireFox (talk) 11:00, 03 August '06

[edit] Briefsism

Stephen Colbert-related posting, see the page. Possible hoax. SomersetWalkSand 09:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, CSD G3 systematic vandalism. Weregerbil 10:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable, if Stephen Colbert encouraged it it HAS to be notable. --Borlingf 10:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable practice, and good article too. --Bus Driver Matthew R 10:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and protect silly hoax, bordering on vandalism since it was deleted just yesterday too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Erm, this is NOT a hoax, I don't give a fig about your claims, Starblind. It's genuine and you should know that. --Borlingf 10:52, 3 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:Zanimum with deletion summary "AUTO, NN, BIO, orphan, wikify, AfD". BryanG(talk) 18:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Peifer

appears not to conform to WP:BIO. Not notable Vanity article which appears to be posted by the subject. None of the bands satisfy criteria for listing Ohconfucius 10:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 14:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • CSD'ing in a sec. This is clearly CSD material, especially since it's by "Chripei". -- Zanimum 15:00, 3 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom Pathlessdesert 18:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam. (Nothing says non-notable like prepositions represented as numerals.) --Xrblsnggt 02:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • test-test-test
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sudhakara Chaturvedi

Looks to me like an advertisement for a service, and very incoherent at that. Bp28 10:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Wow! Article has been MAJORLY cleaned up, actually makes sense now, and definitely seems notable enough -- scholar born in 1897 with direct ties to Mahatma Gandhi. I'd like to withdraw my AfD nomination if possible, or at the very least my vote. This seemed incredibly like some sort of odd advertisement before (including even a contact address!), but is completely different in its current state, and I no longer feel it should be deleted. Bp28 19:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as above, it even includes a contact address! I get 6 unique Google hits, and those mostly appear to be someone else with the same name. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless expanded and sourced. If he genuinely is a direct disciple of Swamy Shraddhanand then he may have some notability.
Weak Keep the rewrite. Expand the notability claim? Dlyons493 Talk 12:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 14:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, but requires major cleanup. The article title uses a nonstandard romanisation of his name. Suggest move to Sudhakar Chaturvedi. The Hindu, one of India's largest newspapers, has a brief bio of him[11]. Googling for this spelling gives some 45K 47 hits[12], and I am sure there are minor variations of his spelling. More and better sources can be found easily, I would imagine. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 15:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article looks very nice now (I didn't read the original version). Vedic scholars who were friends with Gandhi and have lived to be 109 years old deserve an article, assuming they have verifiable references, as this fellow does. -- technopilgrim 18:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten. Makes sourced claims to notability. Eluchil404 21:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep rewrite looks good.  ALKIVAR™ 02:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please rewrite looks nice now and has sources Yuckfoo 04:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable and verifiable. --Myles Long 16:46, 10 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 11:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Isulong SEOPH

This is already in SEO contest, I really don't think it's notable independently. It's neither the first nor demonstrably innovative. It's essentially a mirror of the contest rules anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 10:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Redundant and barely notable. Kafziel 16:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. BlueValour 04:24, 8 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 00:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hammer Scale

Original research/neologism; e.g. see no related Google hits, and the only reference was written by article's own author (c.f. Mark Hobley's website & page history) -- Securiger 11:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. --Ron 16:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete made up vanity cruft --Xrblsnggt 03:02, 4 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elmer Wood Elementary School

  • Delete All schools! Or at least the non-notable (95%) ones. Catchpole 13:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Creator's status should not be relevant to this conversation. If this is a real public school, it should be kept. If it isn't, please feel free to ignore my vote. Attic Owl 13:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Attic Owl. Please don't bring the author into this. A fact is a fact no matter who wrote it. SliceNYC 14:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:SCHOOL. --Yamla 14:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if the bit about the school winning multiple awards is indeed true. That's interesting. Kimchi.sg 14:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too many articles about elementary schools. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 15:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:SCHOOL. Schools are out! Marcus22 15:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't care for the second sentence of that nomination. If the nominator cares to remove it, I invite him or her to remove this comment at the same time. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per being a non-notable school. However, that status is completely independent of the author's prior behavior. JoshuaZ 15:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Elementary schools are not automatically notable. Also agree with Dpbsmith, above. Kafziel 16:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - per nom. WP:SCHOOL is a proposed guideline or policy and is to be considered a "work in progress". Also the status of the creator is not a reason to delete an article. Mattisse 17:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I think all of the votes, both delete and keep, have been pretty clear that they are not taking the creator's past into account. Kafziel 17:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Sorry for offending everyone's sensibilities but some of her deleted material is borderline vandalism and the history of the talk page for this article has already been identified as possible sockpuppetry. If you don't want to take any of that into account, fine by me - just ignore my comment. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, The talk page I wiped out was absolutly puppetry. WP:AGF, but I have a pretty good idea who did it and why. Contributor should be monitored closely, but a history of bad behavior doesn't have any bearing on this particular article as at the very least the school's existance is verifiable (though much of the article needs verification). Now let's all go back to the usual citing of non-accepted guidelines and general notability bickering that every school AfD has become.--Isotope23 18:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment From Author I have never "sockpuppeted" anything in my life! If there was any "sockpuppeting" going on, then it was probably my very mean big brother having a bit of fun using my user name. I apologize if he has done any of that.--Little Miss Cheerleader 17:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - There are approximately 75 California elementary schools already listed in Wikipedia. According to one link on this school's article, it has good ratings on various scales relative to other California elementary schools. Why not give this school a chance to develop it's site before a hasty deletion? The article is less than two months old. Mattisse 17:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for want of deletion criteria. Gazpacho 17:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 18:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. WP:SCHOOL is still a proposed guideline but it has been well debated and I think it's an excellent barometer of notability for schools untill a formal policy comes around. Using that this school gets an, "F". Ifnord 18:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, elementary schools fall below my threshold for school inclusion.--Isotope23 18:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The two awards mentioned in the article are verified by the California Department of Education - see footnotes in the article. Mattisse 18:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Both are minor awards given by the state, one of them seems to include 50 other schools easily. They hardly qualify as notable. JoshuaZ 18:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wow, nice job finding some semblance of notability for this. I removed my vote. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Someday, when people aren't so het up under the collar about these things, we'll have to settle down and work out what really makes a school article worth keeping. (Or maybe we'll just create wikischools and move them all there.) Until that day, I'm willing to compromise on keeping any school with a meaningful assertion of notability in the article, and deleting all others. So for now, keep, but if no better assertion of notability arises, this will be a goner once we actually have standards instead of being an indiscriminate collection of information. GRBerry 02:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I think the debate used to be between those who considered schools inherently notable (eg. as of significance to all in the community they served for several generations) and those who said 'nope, let each one have a specific claim to notability over and above that'. Generally speaking we seem to have moved on to accepting the latter viewpoint. And that is a good thing IMHO. The issue with this school is thus whether or not it meets that extra level of notability over and above being a school and thus of import to its community. Does it? Well, it would certainly appear to be a good school. (The awards tell us as much perhaps). But is it notable simply by virtue of it's being a good place to send your kids? I still think not. It may require other schools to strive to reach it's standard - and that is no bad thing - but to my mind it still requires something more in order to be considered notable. Marcus22 12:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Elementary schools generally don't cut it as far as noteworthiness is concerned, but this one has a weak assertion of notability. I say keep for now. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Weak assertions of notability are good enough to avoid speedy deletion, but aren't a criterion for passing AfD. Kafziel 13:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Delete. In that case, delete as unverifiable with reliable sources. WP:SCHOOL isn't going to be approved before this AfD closes, and this would probably fail it if it did. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Kafziel, I think you are going to find that certain areas of the country, like Merced, a migrant worker, primarily Hispanic town in California's Central Valley won't have any notable schools ever, while most San Francisco and Seattle areas schools will make the grade easily. Mattisse 15:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. That's life. The elementary school I went to as a child is not on Wikipedia, nor should it be. Schools (and people in the district) should not be seeking validation by having articles on Wikipedia. If it's a decent school, be content with that. If you love it, make an alumni site or something. Kafziel 15:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment From Author Why does it matter if the population is mostly hispanic? Marin County, California has a large population of hispanics also, and they have excellent schools. --Little Miss Cheerleader 17:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The ethnic background of the population has nothing to do with anything. Kafziel 17:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing of note distinguishes this school, as evidenced by the absence of any "what links here" links. The article itself fails to mention any thing noteworthy that would distinguish this school from others in the same county, much less against other elementary schools worldwide. -- technopilgrim 18:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all verifiable public institutions. --Centauri 03:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. School cuft. Vegaswikian 18:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per reasons provided at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. No valid reason for deletion provided by nominator. Silensor 02:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable and the article looks a lot better now. JYolkowski // talk 16:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - according to the reference the award was 2000 not 2006 as according to the article. If they got that wrong, what else is wrong? BlueValour 04:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn elementary school. Eusebeus 16:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep since notability is presented in the form of multiple awards given to this school. Yamaguchi先生 19:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - the awards listed in the school's article are not valid. One (the Title I "award") is not an award at all but a designation by the Federal government that a school has a significant number of students from low-income families. It is not based on test performance, teacher quality, or anything else. The other one (the California Distinguished School award) is expired. It is only valid for 4 years, and was not renewed for this school in 2004.[13] Without these awards, what's notable about this school? Kafziel 19:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • My feeling is that if it has won these awards, it is notable enough, it does not need to continually win the same award every year or four years, and not everyone has to agree with my opinion. Yamaguchi先生 19:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, evidently the State of California would disagree. And the Federal one isn't even an award. It's just a huge list of schools who will not be punished for failing to conform to standards. Kafziel 20:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What's your source of that information? --Little Miss Cheerleader 21:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The California Department of Education.
  • California Distinguished Schools - the award was not renewed in 2004.
  • Title I schools - this is not an award in the "hooray, we won" sense, but an award in the "we still get to keep our government grant" sense; any school not on the list has failed the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act] and will be penalized. The top link on that page is the schools that succeeded (hundreds of them). The second link is what happens to the schools that didn't. Kafziel 21:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as the information seems to be verifiable and that is key. --Myles Long 22:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 22:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No news sources outside it home region ← NN. ~ trialsanderrors 19:06, 10 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Modest Proposal

Uninformative article about a fictional document. Original Research. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stukov (talk • contribs) 17:48, 2 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. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 22:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hylian Wars

Short, meaningless, and hasn't been touched in ages. If this is referring to the Web RP which started on GameFAQs, that certainly doesn't warrant an article. OffTheWall 01:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. I'd say it doesn't even require discussion, per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Being bold. Doesn't even need a merge, since the info here is already there. Kafziel 14:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember a name being given to the conflict that took place before Ocarina of Time, at least not in the game itself. BryanG(talk) 18:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect obscure page per Kafziel. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom--Peephole 20:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Spike this sucker*. Unless Nintendo decides to make a game with more detail about this, it's barely worth maybe two sentences in the Ocarina of Time article... which would actually expand on this, wouldn't it? SAMAS 15:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not worth anything else. BlueValour 04:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ~ trialsanderrors 19:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable in itself but part of something else. Ohconfucius 08:57, 11 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 00:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laetitia Thompson

This person does ont seem notable and I believe this page should be deleted. Need comments on what to do. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 16:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete only content is On April 19, 1984, Laetitia Thompson (then 17 years old) famously asked president Bill Clinton on a live MTV appearance, "Mr. President, the world's dying to know. Is it boxers or briefs?". Not very notable to me. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 23:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete...in fact, this looks like it could qualify for Speedy DeleteAkradecki 14:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete although this article has more references than many I've seen =P --Larry V (talk | contribs) 15:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — Actually I think the question was probably more notable than the person asking it. I'd suggest a merge with the Bill Clinton article, but I don't think it's worth the bother. — RJH (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This is not speedable, since there is an assertion of notability (it says "famously"). If it made sense to merge it with anything it would be on whatever MTV show the question occured on. Does anyone know what show that was? JoshuaZ 15:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • However, there is no page specifically concerning the show, and I do not think this person has any other notable characteristics, and this page should be deleted. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 16:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes. And so too will you when you have read TV Guide and TV Land's List of the 100 Most Unexpected TV Moments and Rock the Vote. Uncle G 16:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The external links do not specifically state the name of the show that she appeared on, but it says something about a youth forum. I am unable to find any other way to prove notability. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 15:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Her 15 minutes were up a long time ago. --Xrblsnggt 03:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notable event sufficiently mentioned in TV Guide and TV Land's List of the 100 Most Unexpected TV Moments and Rock the Vote per Uncle G. -AED 05:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. That one question does not make this person notable. Fails biographical guidelines. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete anything notable probably belongs at Bill Clinton. Eluchil404 21:33, 6 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 on all. Some points: (1) it seems to be in agreement that the topic is notable. (2) No one has argued that the topic is INHERENTLY advertising, just that it is written in an advertising style. Similarly, there is not a consensus that there isn't enough verifiable information to have an article on this topic. Those issues can and should be addressed by editing. Mangojuicetalk 04:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bose Headphone Family

In what way is this not an advert? I think we can leave it to Bose to do their product marketing. There may be a kernel of encyclopaedic information in here but I'm darned if I can find it. Just zis Guy you know? 12:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This article (and the others) pass WP:CORP so the deletion nomination sould be removed.

I think that these links drawn from inside this own nomination should be enough to end the discussion. I dont care to look for links to prove it any more. others can do that if they so wish.--64.240.163.221 22:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Umh wow! Thanks for all that. I should have done this much earlier since I think this proves the point much better then I have been able to so far! Thank-you so much :) Oh and nice touch with the seperators it makes it really stand out! -- UKPhoenix79 05:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The fact that the article lists the products and their prices is certainly wrong. Wikipedia is not a shopping catalogue. Uncle G 12:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment It does seam to be the norm if you look at articles such as iPod photo, Pioneer BDR-101A and HD DVD the prices of units are clearly stated. Where is the problem in this and please suggest how to improve the article! -- UKPhoenix79 06:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • The problem is that the intent of this project is to be an encyclopaedia, not a shopping catalogue. Wikipedia articles should not be catalogue entries, giving prices and warranty information for vendors. Wikipedia is not a resource for conducting business. Then there's the problem of verifibility. Since prices vary from vendor to vendor and potentially from day to day, it is not possible to verify them. You'll note that the prices cited in HD DVD, for example, are the prices given in the initial product announcements, not the current retail prices of the products taken from some on-line catalogue, and are accompanied by cited third-party sources. You'll also note that HD DVD does not give shopping catalogue details of individual models from individual manufacturers. Uncle G 08:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Thanks for the reply :) Well this site also lists only the MSRP and since as far as I can tell the only places that you can get any Bose headphones is directly from Bose or from Apple they are always the same never changing so that isnt a problem. As I mentioned earlier listing the facts on an item shouldnt be a problem from my point of view so listing the waranty is just another fact. If it really means that much to everyone I guess it could do without it... but really I don't see any real reason not to include it. If you want we could always cite the release information that talks about them. One of the reason that they are mentioned is also because if you read the Criticisms the price is one of the main points of contentsion. Your point about HD DVD is correct it does not go into detail about the product lines but if you read Xbox 360 or the PlayStation 3 the price is all over the place. If you want to see other articles that mention price I have many other links throught this article. Also those articles, just like this article, goes deep into the Facts of the system and state what they have and I dont see why they shouldn't! -- UKPhoenix79 08:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
          • As I've already pointed out, those are not the current retail prices, and the articles are not shopping catalogue entries, unlike this one. Uncle G 12:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Comment So if they were the current retail prices it would be unencyclopedic? I honestly don't understand your point with that one. If you check out the Previous Bose Headphones you'll see that it also lists the MSRP and not the current price which I'm sure is quite a lot less now if you can find them -- UKPhoenix79 21:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Definitely Delete Not encyclopedic. Akradecki 14:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment How is it not? There are many articles on Wikipedia listing products and talking about them, since that is the topic of the article. This isn't an ad since it talks about the products and critizims about them. -- UKPhoenix79 06:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll change my vote to a qualified keep...I still believe it is not currently encyclopedic...there is nothing notable about each model of headphone that supports such detailed information in an encyclopedia. I will fully grant that the Bose technology is state of the art and it itself is definitely notable. I'll support the article staying provided that it is cleaned up, and rewritten to describe what really needs to be preserved for posterity. We don't have articles detailing the specifications of each toaster on the market, and likewise we don't need every version of the Bose product line detailed. Akradecki 19:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Thanks for seeing that the articles are worthy of editing not deleting :) -- UKPhoenix79 22:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Advertisement pure & simple. Bose is certainly noteworthy as an audio company, but this article is strictly about their current headphone lineup. To be encyclopedic, the article needs to focus on headphone history, design, etc, and avoid focussing on a single manufacturer. -- Slowmover 14:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Well it only now has the current headphones since the article had became so large that we had to split it off and create another article. This made it more much more managable. This is about a particular company so that is why they don't talk about other headphones. Much the same way that Xbox 360 doesn't start to talk about the Wii but instead links to the original Xbox and Xbox Live -- UKPhoenix79 06:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, there are now a lot of words here all saying the same thing. Yes, the writing is good. Yes, a lot of work has gone into it. As with Jeff Q, my apologies to UKPhoenix79, but I am not persuaded by his passionate pleas. It's very nice fan material and should be saved and put on a fansite. I stand by my original vote, for the reasons cited in their own responses by Uncle G, JzG, Jeff Q, and ptk (where I have indicated agreement).-- Slowmover 15:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; concur with Slowmover. -Merope 14:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • See below. Article still mirrors advertising but topic itself is just barely OK.Delete as mirroring advertising. Promotional language from beginning to end. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment So does that mean that the PlayStation 3 Article should be deleted also? -- UKPhoenix79 06:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • That's a red herring, given that PlayStation 3 does not "mirror advertising" and "contain promotional language from beginning to end", and that the comparison to this article is a stark one. The only sources cited for this article are Bose's own advertising, and thus, as Dpbsmith said, it is mirroring Bose's advertising. Uncle G 08:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment The comment was not a Red Herring but was used to point out that any product article can be called an ad. The PS3 is a great example since it talks about the specs and the prices like the Bose Headphones do, but in addition to this it also talks about the products in particular using as much info as possable. The Bose Headphone article does cite other sources than the manufacture itself. But if you want us to list all facts from Non Bose sources thats easy enough to do! Here is a quick list of places that cite info on them [17] [18] [19] [20] But even so puting us hard substantial facts about a product is not advertising. If you see advertising please help us make this article more NPOV Dont remove all the hard work done, please help us make this article great! -- UKPhoenix79 10:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
          • It was a red herring. Once again: PlayStation 3 does not "mirror advertising" and "contain promotional language from beginning to end". And no, the article only cites Bose as its sources. The citation that links to a Yahoo! web page is citing a Bose press release, for example. Uncle G 12:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
            • We're not discussing PlayStation 3. Wikipedia is inconsistent. Measuring articles against other articles is the recipe for a "race to the bottom." In AfD we measure individual articles against policy, not against other articles. Good grief, this article is one long NPOV violation from beginning to end. Not even the photographs are neutral; instead of documenting the product, they present professional models pretending to experience intense enjoyment. The "proprietary" technology, which is probably patented and therefore probably has had many details disclosed, is not discussed in any significant way. An unlikely story about Bose not being able to enjoy music on a jet flight is presented... with no references. If you omit the unencyclopedic material and the material that is not referenced to cited sources meeting WP:RS, you've blanked the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment There are only two types of photos there ones that are just of the products and the advertising ones that we are at least known to not be copyvio and do the same as the famous iPods shadow dances they make the page look much nicer and I think quite a bit more professional. Even if you want me to get poeple to take photos with their own ones on I doubt that they would look as nice. Your point about the propiatary tech is interusting where do you think we could find more detail? I thought that those things would be something akin to traid secrets and not disclosed with much detail. The origins of Dr Bose starting research on noise cancelling headphones is on the bose site itself. I guess that would need to be cited. As in most articles citing more sources is needed but the need to cite more sources doesnt mean that you remove the article itself but improve it. -- UKPhoenix79 22:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Indeed "the Bose site itself" should be cited if that's where the story came from. But that's not a terrific source, since corporations frequently concoct human-interest stories about the origin of products, and they're not necessarily the gospel truth. You know the sort of thing: the story on the Martinson Coffee can about how young Joe Martinson, displeased with the taste of even the finest coffees, worked day and night until he found the perfect blend. Occasionally the stories are quite disingenuous, as in the case of Parker Brothers saying that Monopoly was invented by Charles Darrow. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
          • "iPod's shadow dance?" At least as I look at it today, the iPod article uses... a picture of an iPod. As it should. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Comment Well I'm glad to know that you can cite the manufacture of a product. For a while it was sounding like if you have any thing from a manufactures site it was blasphomy. Now I know that your supposed to have multiple sources that can include the manufacture but it is fround uppon to have sources only from the manufacture. -- UKPhoenix79 23:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Burninate Danny Lilithborne 20:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Odd vote I must say that was the 1st time I've ever seen that one. I must say that unfortuantly for me I don't own Bose and I don't think that this article has a limited appeal outside the world of geekdom. There are many product pages out there that are not as well made as this one and I know that I would rather have help editing this then completely abandon all the hard work put into it and remove it! I know that you've made minor edits in the past to this article. Why not try to help make it a Good Article or even a Feature one! After all if Listings of TV shows can become Featured Articles why can't this? -- UKPhoenix79 11:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep All — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 21:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Reason for Modification: These articles explain the reasons why Dr. Bose had to create Acoustic Noise-Cancellation technology. No Bose Product would ever be released unless the company had an explicit reason to do so. In fact, there's enough history and reason for the article(s) to be kept. I should also point out that merging any separate Bose pages to the main Bose (audio) page would only equate to a Wikipedia article being 200KB in length! Therefore, I would keep the articles because there's always room for improvement plus there's enough history in the pages for the articles to be kept. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 02:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Follow-Up: Each Bose Headphone pair has the company's reasons why it's released, and the headphone technologies should at least be retained, because it is a piece of artwork that can't be ignored. Bose started out with acoustic noise cancellation and refined it since then so that the technology would have fewer sound artifacts PLUS less RF interference, thanks to EM-shielding technology. Furthermore, the Tri-Port technology is worthy of some explanation because it's also complex technology that enabled Bose to overtime overcome the bulkiness of the headphones, though other companies have came up with other routines to shrink the headphones. Bose also work closely with the US Military for professional communications, so I would have to say stay at Keep All. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 19:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
        • There's nothing very special about the TriPorts. I doubt they're worth mentioning. They're not anyone's standard of comparison. They're decent non-audiophile mid-priced headphones, that a reasonable person might like more or less than other good $120 headphones. They don't have any secret miracle ingredient. They're not proverbial. One of my paperback-novel references mentions "sound-killing Bose headphones," the others just mention "Bose headphones." Nobody talks about anyone "plugging their TriPorts into an iPod." Bose's sound-cancelling headphones could honestly be called innovative technology. (So could their actively-equalized speakers when they were introduced). The TriPorts aren't. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. I think this article was done in good faith mainly by a fan (Vesther), not by Bose marketing, but most or all of the article seems like copyvio of material from the Bose website. And the content is NPOV and unencyclopedic (reads like ad spam) Bwithh 03:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Thanks for seeing that this is not an ad :) But this is not a copyvo and we have done a lot to make the article as NPOV as possable to make sure that its af fair as it can be! Please help us fix it not destroy a lot of very hard work researching and incoperating material! -- UKPhoenix79 06:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep All - This is not an AD! This Article is the work of a few editors that have worked very hard to get as much information on these products, to improve this article and make it the best article it can possably be. There are many product pages out there on Wikipedia and people critisize this one in particular because of personal opinions about Bose. Each time someone says that these articles are ads we always ask for pointers to improve abut are left with no replies. If you look at other articles out there such as the iPod article they also talk about the price since that is a fact about the product. If you look at pages dedicated to a single product like the iPod shuffle or some HP Printers you get entire pages with just factual information. This page tries to blend the two together and show the fact with any source that we can use on the net. Just because something is listed on the manufactures page does in no way make it an ad! If that was true then no factual information about iPods would be allowed inside of Wikipedia! Please don't use your personal bias to ruin work that I am personally very proud of and that in no way needs to be just deleted. We always try to get critics to try to work with us to improve the article, Why not help us make them the best product pages on Wikipedia! -- UKPhoenix79 05:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep All. The prices are unattractive and unencyclopedic. However, I feel that the articles should exsist, mainly due to the fact that they contain NPOV information about a certain, notable product. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 05:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Thanks for the input :) How would you think it could be improved? Most articles talking about products naturally mention the price of the particular product. How do you suggest we improve this? -- UKPhoenix79 07:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This is not an advert! Its that simple! There are many product pages all over wikipedia I have included many links below to read and to check up on but please don't waist all the hard work that users such as myself have put into this article because you don't want to help us make this article the best it can be! Removing the article is not going to help make Wikipedia better it will only reduce the Legitimate information that is found inside of it! Please Help us don't make all the hours of work mean nothing because of a personal Bias against a company! -- UKPhoenix79 07:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • p.s. (copy and paste of previous long comment elided) I think that anyone can see that a lot of work has been put into these pages please help improve them since they are good articles and should not be tosed asside at a whim! -- UKPhoenix79 09:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete them all. I believe these were created in good faith, but Wikipedia is not a place for detailed product line information. I would say the same for iPod photo, Pioneer BDR-101A, and various Xbox supplemental articles. (HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc are technologies, not products. Broadly sourced, NPOV articles on these products are possible.) To the extent a product becomes a cultural phenomenon, reported in the mainstream press (like iPod), an article focusing on this phenomenon makes sense, but we still would need to be careful about weeding out mass dumps of brochure verbiage, which is carefully designed to be thoroughly one-sided (which you can hardly blame a company's sales organization for doing, eh?). Even apparent reviews from trade magazines must be regarded with extreme skepticism, as the authors and magazines frequently have unsavory financial connections to the companies and products they report on. (Sorry, UKPhoenix79.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Strongly agree. -- Slowmover 15:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment So would you think that we should delete those pages also? I would think that if anyone even tried to delete the Xbox page because it listed the "Detailed specifications" and prices that you'd get a torrent of angry users yelling at you at your talk page. The reason that HD DVD was mentioned is if you check out the HD DVD page within the 1st paragraph it states the prices of the 1st HD DVD players. I don't think that anyone could EVER delete an iPod product from wikipedia and that is just one article that goes on and on about that one product. This is a list of products that have had a lot of work done on them to just state the facts, state the Criticisms and make it look nice. All while making it as NPOV as possable! I don't see any reason why it would not talk about the Bose QuietComforts since they were the 1st company to make and market noise cancelling headphones to the public! If it wasnt for them doing this it might have taken another 10 years before anyone came out with Noise Cancelling headphones. Wikipedia is supposed to be a repository for all the worlds information and while it should not become an advertisement it should not be limited and not offer valid information about the evolution of technology that has name recognition and has factual & verifiable information inside of it! I cannot see any reason why this article that has much more information and credibility (even tries to cite sources) then other product stubs is being singled out! Please help us edit the article or reccomend changes instead of removing it completely!-- UKPhoenix79 08:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Products that satisfy the WP:CORP criteria for products and services indeed should not be deleted. PlayStation 3 demonstrates that it does with its references section. This article, in stark contrast (again), doesn't cite any sources at all that aren't Bose itself, let alone demonstrate that the products have been the subjects of multiple non-trivial published works that are from sources independent of the manufacturer. Uncle G 08:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Thanks for the link because the debate is now over :) From the link it says that if it is valid if one of two criteria are included including published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations So that would have to include [21] [22] [23] [24] or Professional Pilot Magazine (2004 Headset Preference Survey, Dec p 80) where the Aviation Headset X was voted #1 by a consumer survey 4 years in a Row from 2000 to 2004! This was only from a very quick search on the web and I know that I have personally seen many newspaper comments about them and many other Magazine reviews on them... Haven't you? And C|Net does a lot of independent reviews after all. I dont have a subscription to Consumer reports but I would not be surprised if they are there also! I would say that that is quite a lot and if you want the sources sited directly to there then thats an easy fix! I think that anyone can see that a lot of work has been put into these pages please help improve them since they are good articles and should not be tosed asside at a whim! -- UKPhoenix79 09:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep everything, but cleanup. Are we really trying to debate whether such a highly regarded company's products are notable enough for inclusion? --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Thanks for the boost :) I wholeheartedly agree.... Surprise surprise! -- UKPhoenix79 11:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, that is exactly what we are doing. And editors who are citing sources to demonstrate that the notability criteria are satisfied are contributing constructively to the discussion, whereas giving no rationale except to question the discussion and not discussing the article at hand is not a constructive contribution to the discussion at all. The argument that "notable company implies notable products" is highly flawed, as can easily be seen with a little thought about notable companies whose catalogues include thousands of minor products that have no independently sourced material published about them at all, or indeed have anything published about them except an entry in a product catalogue. This is why we have the WP:CORP criteria, and why we apply them. Uncle G 12:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Why have you not gone after other users that say Bose sucks get rid of it with this much energy? I do agree that I would prefere people citing sources or doing book searches but there have been many people that say very little in a negative way... just an observation, hope you don't hate me for pointing this out so here's a smile :) ok? -- UKPhoenix79 22:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I am now going to apply a personal test. I do not know how it is going to turn out. I am going to perform a search in Google Books to see whether there are references in novels to Bose headphones, much as there are references in Ian Fleming's books to Guerlain perfume, etc. If there are, I'll acknowledge that the topic is encyclopedic, although I believe there's no useful encyclopedic content in the present article and that it would need to be blanked and rewritten from scratch. Oh, by the way: I own a pair of Bose QuietComfort 2's, probably the second edition, and love them. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak, feeble, half-hearted keep but only if someone is willing to perform a radical POVectomy. 1. "next to an elderly woman who plugged her sound-killing Bose headphones into a Sony discman," Mortal Prey by John Sandford[25]; 2. also turns up a reference to a novel called Critical Conditions by Stephen White but page is restricted and can't be read. A www.a9.com search on books also turns up this gem: 3) "Grabbing her iPod, she lay down on the bed, put on her Bose headphones, and began listening to Eminem at full volume," Jackie Collins, I dunno how to link directly to a9 search results but go to [26] and "search inside this book" for "Bose headphones." Also, "Ethan was one of Don's pals, with multiple facial piercings and a set of Bose headphones." And 4) Along Came Mary: A Bad Girl Creek Novel by Jo-Ann Mapson [27]. I hate having to change my vote, particularly since I doubt the article will really be cleaned up, but there you have it. Jackie Collins, gee, who can argue with Jackie Collins? Dpbsmith (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I believe that Vesther and myself sould love some imput to help make this article better. So if you'd just go to the talk page and let us know what needs to be done to make this a better article we'll do what we can to bring it there! :) -- UKPhoenix79 21:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I think we're too far apart. Anyone who could think it was appropriate to use a photograph like Bose_QC2_person.jpg‎ rather than a picture just showing the headphones has a wildly different concept of what's encyclopedic than I do.
The things I think should be in the article would be hard to research and would involve quite a lot of hard work, and it's not my field of interest. A good article would answer questions like this: When did Bose first introduced noise-cancelling aviation headphones? Noise-cancelling consumer headphones? Were either of these the first on the market? If not, whose were and what factors account for Bose's success in outstripping them? The basic idea of active noise cancellation dates back to the 1930s, so why is it difficult to do? Obviously there much more to it than "send[ing] out the noise it receives phase-shifted 180 degrees." What were Bose's key technical innovations, as documented in patents and, probably, in the trade press, and, Bose being an academic, quite possibly in scientific journal articles? What's the difference between the technology in the aviation headphones and the consumer version? What can be said about Bose's business and marketing strategies? Does Bose sell exclusively by mail and in its own retail stores? Why? To what people is Bose trying to sell these headphones? How many have been sold? How do sales of Bose noise-cancelling headphones compare with those of other headphones in the same price range?
And, of course, the pictures should be pictures of the headphone (the steak); not the sizzle, i.e. pictures of people registering hair-raising ecstasy or smug satisfaction... people who incidentally happen to have something unidentifiable on their ears. It would be nice to have a picture of one opened up and showing the electronic components inside. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment Actually I checked out the photo your mentioning to see why it was there and it the guy was a smug man in suit and while I agee that he is in a sute he dosent look smug but actually the photo is of a man in an airplain looking in the direction of the windows and that is all. I think that it is actually in a quite apropriate location also since it is in the area that talks about the history of Bose and noise cancelling headphones and where it talks about the technology behind them. The photo does in no way look like an ad and I think is much better then taking a photo of myself on an airplain.
Some of your questions are already answered inside of the article. Including
  • When did Bose first introduced noise-cancelling aviation headphones? The Bose Series I Aviation Headset is introduced in 1989 as the first commercially available Active Noise Cancellation headset specially designed for pilots, also used by the United States Air Force.
  • Noise-cancelling consumer headphones? The Bose QuietComfort Headphones (also now known as the QC1) was the very first headphones released by the company (1989). The Bose QuietComfort Headphones retailed at $299.
  • Were either of these the first on the market? Not answered directly in the article but as stated above they were both released in the same year and from what I would gather on the same day.
  • What's the difference between the technology in the aviation headphones and the consumer version? Those are answered inside of the article where it shows the specs. But there is no section that is specifically dedicated to this question.
  • To what people is Bose trying to sell these headphones? Bose markets the QuietComfort family of headphones mainly for frequent travelers.
Some of your other questions are actually pretty good!
  • The basic idea of active noise cancellation dates back to the 1930s, so why is it difficult to do? I dont know. Thats a good question. I would have to guess it would have to do with technology.
  • Obviously there much more to it than "send[ing] out the noise it receives phase-shifted 180 degrees." What were Bose's key technical innovations, as documented in patents and, probably, in the trade press, and, Bose being an academic, quite possibly in scientific journal articles? Since bose is a privately owned company I don't know what information is out there. The suggestions on pattents might be ones best bet.
  • Does Bose sell exclusively by mail and in its own retail stores? Not answered in the article but for a long time you could only get the QuietComforts from Bose directly via the web, phone, mail order or a Bose Store. But recently it looks like you can get them also from Apple stores. The Aviations and the Triports can be purchased from Bose directly or from bose dealers.
  • What can be said about Bose's business and marketing strategies? Dont really know.
  • How many have been sold? Since bose is a privatly owned comany I highly doubt that they give out that information. But I'd like to know that one also.
  • How do sales of Bose noise-cancelling headphones compare with those of other headphones in the same price range? see previous answer.
I do like your suggestion of having one that shows the innerds of the headphones. I think there is one on the Bose Site but I dont know if its a jpeg or a Quicktime or a Shockwave image. -- UKPhoenix79 23:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per the arguments above (and also below)... Eusebeus 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


  • Keep because Bose headphones are a cultural phonomena - I came to the articles attempting to research the factual basics of what the headphone family was, without either going to a hifi-geek site or Bose's own site. Certainly no objection to careful merge activity and NPOVing - but these can all be done outside AfD. Rich Farmbrough 14:18 4 August 2006 (GMT).
    • Comment We'll try our best since we've been trying to get this article as NPOV as possable. -- UKPhoenix79 21:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete or at least NPOV and MERGE Seems to be near blatant advertising, but since consensus seems to be leaning near keep, it still neads to be labeled and heavially modified to uphold Wikipedia standards. Also, keep on the look out for Corperate sockpuppets. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elouamn (talk • contribs) 15:10 4 August 2006 (UTC).
    • Comment Never tried to be advertising. We only tried to list as much facts as we can about the headphones. I doubt that anyone here is a Bose sockpuppet but only people that have put a lot of time into this article and believe that it has a lot of worth and should be aided not removed. So I hope you wouldn't mind helping us make it better! -- UKPhoenix79 21:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Also delete all the other Bose crap. Hayford Peirce 18:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Can you try to be NPOV about this? It doesn't look like your looking at the articles about what they are, you seam to see that its by Bose and thats all that matters :( -- UKPhoenix79 21:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep all Articles about consumer products cannot be considered unencyclopaedic just because of their subject matter. This article should definitely stay. Such articles are an excellent resource for the consumer because they are purely factual rather than being biased marketing literature or an opinion-based review. It is clear a lot of work has gone into this article and the article in its present state seems very factual and an asset to Wikipedia. However, I do believe that the some of the pricing and warranty information should be removed, as despite being factual, it makes the article look a little like a product catalogue. The units of measurement should also be primarily metric, as that is the system used in most of the world. The section about good customer relations should possibly be removed or edited, as it does not reflect WP:NPOV. NFH 18:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Thanks for the good points and I'm glad that you liked it :) I never thought that simply listing the initial/current price of a product would make it look like an ad especially since it was in the Spec sections. But live and learn I guess. It looks like this article needs more work then I previously thought. If people want to help us make it better please let us know what is the problem so that we cna work together and make it truly great! -- UKPhoenix79 23:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free advertising service or a mail order catalogue. Bose can afford to buy advertising. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I agree that Wikipedia is not advertising and should not be such. But that doesn't mean that it should be deleted entiraly but edited since these are well known products that other products in their category are ruteanly matched against. Your point about Bose having the ability to purchase ads is right as sucne I doubt that they would even care about this article. I on the other hand really do care and wish it to be improved and if possable some day be considered a Good Article if not a Featured one... But that is way way off into the future. So please dont use your personal opinions of a company to cloud your judgment :) -- UKPhoenix79 23:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • massive editing is necessary! To aggressively list prices?? The thing actually reads along the television-commercials. It is not even written vaguely for this website. I, generally, oppose deleting articles; but, massive editing is necessary. I had written something on racism & handicappism; that did not even last three days. So, Bose?? Completely reformat. Thank You. < User:Hopiakuta_¡¿_doppelgänger. Hopiakuta 18:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I hope you don't mind that I helped you with formatting your comments. Never tried to aggressively list the prices only mention them allong with the specs and the Criticisms section. I have always tried to get critics involved with the article. Hopefully now they will :) -- UKPhoenix79 22:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete all, per all the reasons listed above. And please, UKPhoenix, we understand your position. Please stop pushing it every other comment. --Zambaccian 23:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I truly hope it wont upset you if I do put a comment here since it is not my intention to offend anyone with my statements. Frankly I thought that you might vote against these articles but you have shown interust before to help us make them better and many times I have tried to not only get you involved but anyone else that raised doubts about their worth. Yet Each time I leave a message asking for help to work together and improve the article it ends with no reply. I hope that in the very least this will end up being a good thing with people trying to help make them better :) And I really do hope you don't mind me commenting here -- UKPhoenix79 00:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Don't worry UKPhoenix, I'm not offended. I am absolutely interested in helping make the Bose article better - please don't misinterpret my less-than-regular involvement as disinterest, I just don't spend as much time on Wikipedia as more regular contributors. I think the lack of independent sources about Bose products is a serious problems in writing encyclopedic articles related to the company. The main Bose page is hard enough, these articles just slip completely into unencyclopedic. A revision would only work if they were stripped down to bare stubs. As for this discussion, I appreciate your comments, but you should try to keep them concise and in one place. This is meant to be a poll of opinions, and it's hard to read if the strong opinions of one or two users are make up most of the page. No hard feelings, I genuinely feel that a detailed article written entirely from promotional sources is pretty fundamentally corrupt. --Zambaccian 01:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Glad that your not upset with me replying to you :) Would you say then that you'd be ok with making this page more NPOV and listing facts from other sources? Since I'm sure that most can be found all over. The only reason we took the spec info from Bose directly was beacuse it made the most sense. The Bose headphones are always used to compare to other headphones out there on the market so wouldn't it be better to edit it rather than deleting it outright? -- UKPhoenix79 01:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment Like I said, sourcing articles about Bose is hard, because there's little information out there that isn't basically parroting Bose promotions. Serious stereo publications don't have any information about Bose products. Partly it's because Bose does not release any technical information beyond the kind of faux-scientific babble that permeates this article. Partly it's because of Bose's litigiousness when it comes to reviews that go against its sales pitch. Like others have said, if you take out the problematic sections and advertisement mirroring you're left with next to nothing, so I'm weary of claims that this can be improved. --Zambaccian 02:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Comment Well I have found other sources out there and they are placed all over this page. With those sources and others I'm sure that there would be more than enough to support what is said on the page without coming from Bose directly. What is it specifically that you don't like? Are the specifications a problem? Is it the wording on the particular products? Don't forget that I have done a lot to this page and I might be mistaking the forrest for the trees. Please let us know where the problem is since this page has never been based souly on bose sources, it was just the easiest to cite. -- UKPhoenix79 03:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
              • Comment The sources themselves are only one problem. The inclusion of detailed specifications and descriptions for many individual models of Bose products is extremely dubious, with or without a reliable source. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Without something to indicate that these individual models are all so notable as to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia, it doesn't particularly matter if the source of the specifications is Bose, Best Buy, or the Vulcan Science Academy. —ptk✰fgs 03:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
                • Comment With the possable exception of the triports Each headphone listed are (and were) the standard that others in their category are judged. Bose created the noise cancelling headphone market with the QuietComforts and the Aviation Headsets and I believe that something that is held in such high regard should be kept. I'm glad that you agree that other sources can be used. But I would also say that such notable products should be included and warrant their inclusion inside of Wikipedia. -- UKPhoenix79 03:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep all Wow there is a lot going on here. I dont see any reason why well known products should not be kept. If everyone out there compares their product to the Bose version then I believe that shows that they have a worth inclusion in Wikipedia. I didn't think they really read like ads although some articles had only a little information on it the headphones seamed well written and informative.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.240.163.221 (talk • contribs).
    • Comment It's simply not the case that Bose headphones are some kind of "standard" that other manufacturers compare themselves to. What's true that they're the most well-known active noise-cancellation headphones, but that's only because no other hi-fi headphone maker makes uses this technology, opting instead for sealed or in-ear technology, which tends to provide higher isolation (see here). The point is, there's not really anything special about these models.
      • I would think otherwise, all the reviews I read mention the Bose when talking about other headphones. I did a quick search on google for bose quietcomfort review and there are 290,000 articles using those words. From what I have read all one needs is to provide independent research on a product for it to be included. Does this not provide such proof especially since the 1st page shows much critical thinking over the headphones. [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] I think there's enough independent reviews on the net to justify such an article.--64.240.163.221 00:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Wow thanks for all the links :) I think that your right this would show that WP:CORP has been satisfied :) Since so many published reports by independent consumer watchdog organizations has been provided why is there any debate here? -- UKPhoenix79 00:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional articles

Addendum to vote above. Not main topic. Please put main vote here

  1. Previous Bose Headphones is more of the same. —ptk⁂fgs 14:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. As is Bose Computer Speaker Systems. Uncle G 15:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. And Bose Lifestyle Home Entertainment Family. My delete vote goes for them all. -- Slowmover 15:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Add Bose SoundDock Digital Music System. Holy spamcruft, Batman! Just zis Guy you know? 15:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. -- Slowmover 14:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yep. - Merope 14:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all as mirroring advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Most of those articles are taling about old products not being sold by Bose any more. Others are stubbs that have to be built upon. How is that Advertising? -- UKPhoenix79 07:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 21:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. I think this article was done mainly in good faith by a fan (Vesther), not by Bose marketing, but most or all of the article seems like copyvio of material from the Bose website. And the content is NPOV and unencyclopedic (reads like ad spam) Bwithh 03:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Thanks for seeing that this is not an ad :) But this is not a copyvo and we have done a lot to make the article as NPOV as possable to make sure that its af fair as it can be! Please help us fix it not destroy a lot of very hard work researching and incoperating material! -- UKPhoenix79 07:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep All - If they need improving improve them! Many Articles are actually informative and are NOT ADS! A couple like the Lifestyle article are essentially stubbs with only a basic amount of information listed. They need to be helped out since A LOT of work has been done on some like the Previous Bose Headphones which only recently became seperate because of the size of the original Article! And btw how is it an ad if the page is talking about products that Bose no longer sells? -- UKPhoenix79 05:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The other articles such as the Previous Bose Headphones should stay because for one thing (I hate that I don't have a link) the 1st prototype aviation headsets were used on Voyager for its no stop flight around the world in 1986. I saw an interview with them where they were talking about the prototype aviation headphones. The QuietComforts are what EVERY other noise cancelling headphones are compared too. And the SoundDock has multiple places out there that have independent reviews on it listing the specs and information about them. The computer speakers I'm not sure upon but I'm sure that places like C|Net have reviews & the lifestyle systems I havent had much time to look up but right now as it stands its basically a stubb with the prices and minor details. I'm sure that if we remove the proces even if its the MSRP from when they 1st came out they should be fine if more detail could be included from other sources. There are also many independent sources around reviewing all of these products [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] especially the SoundDock such as [40] [41] [42] [43] and many more -- UKPhoenix79 21:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Just to make it clear, I repeat my vote in the main section for this section as well. None of these additional articles are anything but product specs spoon-fed from Bose, without any decent critical analysis. The few reviews mentioned are not indepedent sources of any data in the articles, and even if the review material eventually found its way into the articles, there's still the twin problems that (A) their factual data still comes from the manufacturer, and (B) audio tests are inherently subjective and are never conducted in these reviews in a truly double-blind manner that would prevent audiophiles from coming to the conclusions they expect, positive or negative. The criticism section that turns up in a couple of these articles, as I mention below in my WP:CORP analysis, is unsourced. Bose is certainly popular, but that doesn't justify the explosion of brochure dumps with none of the content of real encyclopedia articles, and no independent sourcing. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well I say add the additional sources here is just another quick search I did on google for bose sounddock review and it came up with 236,000 websites. If places review it this much I would think that would pass the test [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51].--64.240.163.221 00:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment How many independent reviews must be given for a product to be accepted? It looks like this is becomming an argument about if bose products are good for audiophiles not if they pass the standard test to be included in wikipedia which I think has been amply shown by now. When one askes about the specs of other products like the PS3 or the Wii right now we only have the manufactures word of what it has and that is not removed because it is relevent to the article in whole. When we read about the iPod we dont say that it shoulnt be included because there are better sounding DAP's or because they dont do this or that. We include them because they are the best selling DAP's on the market and the one that all other DAPs are compared against. Such is the same when one talks about the Bose headphones or the sounddock. Why is there even a debate any longer? Hasn't the argument been proven? -- UKPhoenix79 00:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Associated redirect pages

Addendum to vote above. Not main topic. Please put main vote here

  1. Bose Headphone
  2. Bose Headphones
  3. Bose headphone
  4. Bose headphones
  5. Bose Lifestyle Home Entertainment Systems
  6. Bose Tri-Port Headphones

-- Slowmover 15:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep all — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 21:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete them all Good god, this is the worst stealth marketing I have ever seen. I'm never buying Bose. --Xrblsnggt 03:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment So this has nothing to do with the article but your personal opinion of Bose? -- UKPhoenix79 05:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep All - This is not advertising! I know because I created some of these redirects whats wrong with them? -- UKPhoenix79 05:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Well, the inclusion of prices and links to Best Buy? That's kind of problematic. —ptk✰fgs 05:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment If you follow the links it is only for factual information that Bose does not release but Best Buy for some reason does. It is not to sell the product only to cite sources. -- UKPhoenix79 05:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
        • The articles cite no non-trivial published works that are independent of Bose, and do not demonstrate that the primary WP:CORP criterion for products and services has been satisfied by these products. Uncle G 08:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Strongly agree.' -- Slowmover 15:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment I hope you dont mind if I copy and paste this from before :) (copy and paste of previous long comment elided) -- UKPhoenix79 10:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep everything, but cleanup. Are we really trying to debate whether such a highly regarded company's products are notable enough for inclusion? --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Thanks for the boost :) I wholeheartedly agree.... Surprise surprise! -- UKPhoenix79 11:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all articles and redirects. The notability of the Bose corporation is not disputed; the notability of the entirety of one company's past and present products is a gross and inappropriate exaggeration of the notability of the company. The "Bose products suite" of articles is an enormous collection of fancruft, written overwhelmingly in a style indistinguishable from advertisement, presented from a non-neutral point of view, going so far as to list prices in multiple markets and present links to one retailer where the products may be purchased. Additionally, the "Bose products suite" of articles is significantly lacking in non-trivial published references. Some in this discussion have pointed out other articles in Wikipedia which display the same fundamental problems; those should clearly be nominated and deleted as well, but this is a discussion of one particular group of related articles. It does not seem to me, however, that the editors who created and expanded these articles are being paid by the Bose corporation for the contributions. That, indeed, may be the greatest tragedy of all. It's very good advertising copy. —ptk✰fgs 11:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Thanks for agknowledging that I'm not getting money for this :) Believe me this is not the entire line of Bose products out there and stuff that is quite well known like the Wave Radio's and the 901's dont have their own article. In no way has the main article Bose Headphone Family or Previous Bose Headphones tried to be ads. I know your personal belief on Bose is low but please don't let your opinios cloud your judgment on what are otherwise good articles that might need some work on them! Can you not see that they have had a lot of work done bringing them from Stubs including all information possable to make them both factually correct and and interusting read. The Specifications are correct from all sources I have seen and stuff like the Background is well thought out. If you think parts are to much like ads then please point them out and help us make it a better article! p.s. Where does it list where it can be brought? The only like that I can see is the link to Best Buy to cite a source! Bose does not release information such as Sensitivity, Impedance or Magnet Type and for some reason Best Buy does so that is why that link is there! Is there another link your refering to? And I know that I have personally bent over backwards to make this article as NPOV as possable. Bring up your contentions to the talk page and help us improve the article not destroy it! -- UKPhoenix79 12:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I would deem an article about stereo systems in general to be encyclopedic; a series of articles about one company's stereo products can never be much else than advertising. Is a detailed list of models of headphones by a single company really so important that it needs two articles? This really cannot ever have any appeal outside a very small group. In contrast, an example of a manufacturer that probably does warrant a whole series of articles on individual products would be something like the Stradivarius violin series (and note that even there, only two prices are listed, and one is noted because it was a world record). —ptk✰fgs 12:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Strongly agree. Furthermore, the Bose 901 mentioned by UKPhoenix79 is a good example of a world famous product that probably should have an article. And the article on noise-cancelling headphones should be expanded to cover the history and development of the technology, including the contribution made by Bose, but not exclusively (Sennheiser, for example, should not be left out). -- Slowmover 15:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I would agree. It's quite possible that an article about the Bose product range would be encyclopaedic, too, if it discussed the historical development of products and so on. But what we have here is a series of articles massively larger than, say, Ford Transit, on a series of products which, from their pricing and other parameters, are not actually designed for the mass market. We have crossed the line into indiscriminate land, I fear. I do not believe that Wikipedia is or aims to be a resource for people making purchasing decisions. Just zis Guy you know? 12:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Strongly agree, again. -- Slowmover 15:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
        • It can be more than advertising if there are secondary source materials available, from sources independent of the products' manufacturer, that are non-trivial, i.e. more than simple catalogue entries but instead (for examples) histories of, analyses of, or guides to the product. This is one of the foundations that underpins WP:CORP. Uncle G 12:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This is the same way wikipedia seems to treat automobiles. Gzuckier 13:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all, per my earlier observations on the inappropriateness of both the main article and the satellites that these redirects point to. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Please check the many sources given all over this review. I think that you'd agree that they do pass the test now. -- UKPhoenix79 00:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CORP review

Uncle G asked me to review this article in light of WP:CORP, which establishes some rough guidelines on product articles. For convenience, I cite the entire relevant text here:

A product or service is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

  1. The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.
    • This criterion excludes:
      • Media re-prints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about its products or services, and advertising for the product or service. Newspaper stories that do not credit a reporter or a news service and simply present company news in an uncritical or positive way may be treated as press releases unless there is evidence to the contrary. 1
      • Trivial coverage, such as simple price listings in product catalogues.
    • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. 7
  2. The product or service is so well-known that its trademark has suffered from genericization.
— — — — — — — — — — — —
  • Note 1: Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.
  • Note 7: Two examples: Microsoft Word satisfies this criterion because, amongst many other reasons, people who are wholly independent of Microsoft have written books about it. All cars that have had Haynes Manuals written about them satisfy this criterion.

In light of this, I re-read the current article. I found it to have three basic pieces:

  1. Brochure-like detailed product information: 8 sections, approx. 1st 75% of article
    • includes segment on "very close relationship" with American Airlines
  2. Criticisms section: 1 section, approx. 12% of article; no specific source cited
  3. Ongoing improvement: 2 paragraphs that appear to be a Bose marketing response to criticism; no specific source cited

The only thing that doesn't sound like it comes straight from Bose or sources with strong Bose ties is the unsourced criticism section, which doesn't by itself support an article.

Identifying sources for the claims is problematic, as virtually none of the statements are specifically sourced. (This is understandable for most of the material if it is taken directly from brochures, but that doesn't support the notability case.) The "References" section lists the following sources:

  • 5 direct Bose sources
  • a Best Buy product page (which is very likely data copied from a Bose source)
  • a program description from American Airlines, which has a "very close relationship" with Bose
  • a biz.yahoo page that starts with the heading "Press Release / Source: Bose Corporation"

Based on WP:CORP guidelines, not one of these sources provides reliable notability evidence.

I still think the editors were making a conscientious effort to build a solid article, but its foundation is completely undermined by the lack of any independent sources, and given their efforts and the current result, I doubt enough independent material can be found to make this a proper article. I stand by my "delete" vote above. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Ditto. -- Slowmover 15:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: My review was of the current article, but I did not factor in citations that UKPhoenix79 has made in the discussion above, which are attempts to show independent sources of information on this article's subject that are not yet included in the article or factored into its text (understandable, given the pace of an AfD). Here is what I currently note from above:

  • "Bose QuietComfort 2 Acoustic Noise Cancelling headphones" review, author not specified, CNet.com.au. This review is so favorable I have to wonder if this is one of those infamous "puff pieces" written by a company and distributed anonymously as a review. The only truly critical item is about its battery, where it compares the speakers to a competitor (usually a marketing no-no, suggesting independence).
  • "Bose QuietComfort 3" review, Mike Kobrin, PC Magazine. This sounds like an independent review.
  • "Bose QuietComfort 2 Consumer Headphones" product page, PC Magazine. Points to Bose QuietComfort 3" review, Bill Machrone, PC Magazine. Another likely independent review.
  • "Bose TriPort Headphones - Glacier Blue" product page, which leads to a review with the same title, by David Carnoy and John P. Falcone. The review ends with the statement "Freelancer Steve Guttenberg contributed to this review." Fairly brief for something 3 people worked on. I'm especially concerned about the "freelancer", which is a term often used for marketing reps who contribute corporate promotional material to news agencies. Of course, it could just be a junior PCM researcher or intern.
  • "Professional Pilot Magazine (2004 Headset Preference Survey, Dec p 80) where the Aviation Headset X was voted #1 by a consumer survey 4 years in a Row from 2000 to 2004". This would seem promising if we could examine the claim (surveys are notoriously subjective and open to abuse). A Google search on '"Professional Pilot Magazine" "aviation headset"' turns up not the PPM survey but a bunch of links that cite it, starting with Bose itself. That and the lack of a link to the specific PPM mention troubles me.
  • Dpbsmith's various book citations of Bose products. These support the general notability of Bose (not contested here) but not specific products. (In fact, the Mortal Prey quote, "next to an elderly woman who plugged her sound-killing Bose headphones into a Sony discman", makes me wonder if we're looking at literary product placement.)

The biggest problem with the reviews (for the sake of this article and its associated articles) is that they don't suggest the products rise above the millions of new products from thousands of companies. I don't think that every product reviewed in every trade magazine warrants an article. In my opinion, specific products should have a substantial impact on the culture before they warrant articles, and even then, the focus should be on the impact, not the detailed product specs. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; in this case, it isn't a place to collect product specs. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

So in your judgment there is some worth to the articles if we find other sources and its not just about the headphones but how they changed the industry? It will take a bit. Thanks for doing this. I have found some places like here Where it directly talks about other headphones by initially comparing them to the Bose QC2 and even gives the user the option to compare with graphs. If you look a search of the Google Books Using the key word QuietComfort you also get books containg that phrase. I think that the reason that the C|Net review didn't list the author is bacuse it was the Australian site. Here are some more products from the official American C|Net site [52] [53]. Also there are reviews on the Aviations such as [54] or [55]. I hope that this helps. -- UKPhoenix79 01:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Bose already has an article. This is an excessively detailed treatment of some niche-market products. Wikinfo aims to provide the best information about subjects, maybe they would welcome this, but in a general enclcyopaedia the level of detail is excessive. An article on the development of noise-cancelling headphones which includes the Bose, Sennheiser and other products might be OK, but this gives a largely uncritical restatement of Bose's own spin on things. Just zis Guy you know? 08:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MSRP: $

To aggressively list prices??

The thing actually reads along the television-commercials.

It is not even written vaguely for this website.

I, generally, oppose deleting articles; but, massive editing is necessary.

I had written something on racism & handicappism; that did not even last three days. So, Bose?? Completely reformat.


< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hopiakuta_¡¿_doppelgänger >.

Thank You,

Hopiakuta 18:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

People do seem to want to literally alter other person[s]' arguements; defeating them is simpler: thereby victory for the secondary editor.

I had entitled my comment specifically w/ "MSRP: $ ", in order to stress the absurdity of listing the otherwise already borderline absurd concept of "manufacturers' suggested retail price[s]" on this website. I do, factually, know what I'd copied.

Should the tissue pages list prices f/ facial tissue, toilet paper??

If they do, I would want it edited-out.

If I've made errors here, write a comment; but, not mine. Please.

Thank You.

Hopiakuta 20:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


One annoying version of a Bose {spit} commercial was just on cnn.

Seems like the same monologue, again.

Hopiakuta 20:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

euwwww.

Hopiakuta 20:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


  • I have shifted the heading of this new section to one that incorporates it into this AfD entry. Apologies for the presumption. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • As that edit doesn't alter much of the text,... Thank You,... As compromise. No stolen text: no problem.

,... &, we now return to our regularly scheduled television-commercial-article[s],... I would be less likely to worry about this article if ^^ that text ^^ would admit to being from the commercials. Quotation!! And historical prices would not matter much, if quoting from cancelled advertizing-campaigns. As quotation. Old campaigns. If someone says "Cocacola; $00.05", we, generally, interpret that as either history, when "Coke" had been "coke--ain" {{in addition to the "sugar-fix"}}, or someone is doing a "price-war".

In either case, "manufacturers' suggested retail price" seems unjustified, unjust.

Hopiakuta 23:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Hopiakuta, if I understand what you're trying to say here, you are actually advocating for the deletion of the article Manufacturers' suggested retail price. Please note that that is not the subject of this "articles for deletion" (AfD) entry. If you wish to nominate an article for deletion, you should follow the process outlined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Let me know if you would like assistance on this. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly "not". Sorry. Every message that I put here quotes from this Bose wikiadvertizement: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

MSRP: $

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I, also, pointed-out my hearing Bose on Cnn: same monologue as this advertizement. I suppose that I'm the only one here to hear these commercials. If you took the various Bose scripts from television, overlayed them on top of this article: they would match. That's part of why I employed the similes of other ads. The prices are the other reason.

I'm increasingly wondering who these authors are. Why are they insisting on putting the television-script here? Why are the prices relevant? If they are historical prices from cancelled advertizing, then the historical relevance should be emphasized.

Otherwise they should be deleted. My opinion.

So, who are they? Are they of Bose advertizing? Next-door-neighbors to an executive? Cousins to an engineer?

Wiki should not be a television-commercial-reproduction, unless as historical-retrospective. I'm running-out of ways to say that. If I'm the only one who perceives the need for major reformat in that light, well okay. But, that is neither "delete" nor "keep". Humans are so often about "all or nothing". Well, sometimes it's appropriate; but, too much causes war, prison, other anachronism,...

as well as offensive Bose articles. That's, also, why my article was deleted. Because no one was willing to admit that any of it was worth the effort, not even the intent or perspective.

I suppose that I am incapable of perceiving like anyone else. Well, I'm stuck w/ this brain: no trades.

So, it's all about the Bose advertizing as article.

Hopiakuta 05:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Well I'm one of the main editors and I KNOW that I'm not being paid for this and I really doubt that Bose even knows of this article. Quite frankly if they did know about it and really cared about saving it don't you think that this article would have had many people loggin on defending the page saying that it should stay the same and out vote everyone here? Well as you can see that did not happen since it is really only myself and Vesther that have spent any time editing this page. All that we have ever tried to do is make the article really informative and interusting to read. It seams that the biggest sin we did was to use Bose.com as our main source of information. But every time that we had someone say that the page looks like an ad I know that I'd ask them to tell us where and to help us make it better. I'd never hear any response. The only reason the price was mentiond (as stated earlier) was in an effort to be thorough. It was mentioned in the specs section and it was mentioned in the criticisms section. It was not plasterd all over the place and like I mentioned with all the links above it doesnt seem to be that unusual inside of wikipedia. Here is an example, I'm going to quickly list Apple Computer articles that have prices included (and some even have Multiple different prices listed) IPod IPod mini IPod photo IPod shuffle IPod nano IPod Hi-Fi (which btw even references the SoundDock) Apple Mighty Mouse Xserve RAID ISight Power Mac G5 Xserve MacBook Pro IMac Mac mini IBook MacBook. As you see this seams to be a standard inside of wikipedia and all I did was adhear to it since it made sense. And no I don't live next door to an executive or anything else you think that I am and I'm not even Dr. Bose himself! I just spent a long time doing this article and I think that it shouldn't be removed because some people don't like the company even if they do make products that deserve to be included inside of wikipedia! Please try to keep a NPOV mind set when reviewing other peoples work. I'm sorry that the articles you created were deleted but I would think that you of all people would have wanted tose who voted against you to have looked at your articles in a NPOV way. So please do the same when you look at others work :) I hope that I answered your questions and any others that people might have thought of :) p.s. I was the one who reformatted your original comment and put it in the vote section. I'm sorry if that upset you since that truly was not my intent. -- UKPhoenix79 00:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Response to Hopiakuta: I apologize for my misunderstanding. One problem with your statements above is that you don't give any specifics about the commercials you're referring to (like where and when you saw it, so that others might catch the same commercials; specific quotes that are supposedly identical to the article text; possibly even a video clip from a commercial on YouTube, although this last is admittedly not a usual form of evidence). But even if these commercials are saying the same thing the article does, that doesn't mean the editors got the information from the commercials. More likely, both are getting information from official Bose product brochures, which surely should say the same thing. (If they're using the same descriptive prose verbatim, however, that's a potential copyright violation, and is a concern.) In any case, I'm reasonably sure our Bose article editors aren't shills for Bose; they just feel strongly that this information belongs in Wikipedia, and understandably don't want their work to be discarded. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Response to UKPhoenix79: Please don't confuse objection to an article with dislike of the subject. I happen to be a fan of Bose — I'm very pleased with some 20-year Bose speakers I have that have outlasted three stereo systems — but liking a product has absolutely nothing to do with whether a particular article on that product is appropriate for Wikipedia.
    It would be ideal for editors like myself, who believe in the potential for an objective, properly sourced article, to do the work to create it, but it's much more time-consuming to do this work than it is to collect brochure details and weblinks. For instance, when I fact-check a single statement from a source, I examine its supposed print and web references, note who wrote them, search for potential biases of the authors, examine the notability of the sources, and try to pursue related information to ensure that information is solidly backed up by folks without an agenda. I have neither the time nor the interest in doing so. My only interest, which I committed to by voting here, is to keep an eye on the article to see if it mutates into something useful to Wikipedia. (I see some tweaks have been made, but the major problems remain.) It is incumbent upon the editors interested in the subject to make this happen, because no one else will. This does not mean that outside editors can't judge the merits of articles on basic Wikipedia requirements, which apply no matter what the subject.
    In the specific case of audio reviews, my experience has been that professionals almost universally refuse to do independently monitored double-blind tests, which are the only way to separate true differences in audio experiences from the cachet of brand-name competitions and reviewers' personal biases. (The few I've heard of who've participated in these tend to be surprised at how thoroughly their own perceptions fool them when they know what they're listening to in advance.) For this and other reasons, I don't believe one can write an objective encyclopedia article on such products, except when discussing sourcable history and independently reported popularity, which are not the current focus of these articles. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm glad that your not like some who have turned a personal bias against a company to dictate their voting decision. After all I think that this vote has become mute after all the independent reviews found and everything else that justifies its inclusion in wikipedia. I have been holding off on doing any editing until the AfD has closed and we can get back to the article and make it better. Some people have actually for once given good suggestions on how to improve this and even given some suggestions. I only hope that we can keep some people interusted in the article afterwards so that we can all work together to make it better. -- UKPhoenix79 03:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Have to agree. There is a dearth of truly objective information about audio products (which is why this is fan material and not encyclopedic material). -- Slowmover 14:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment This article is designed to be informative just like any good article should be. We simply got facts and put it in one place. It is not fan material since we also tried to have a detailed critisms section that has now been shortened (dont quite know why) and a section following each headphone only listing the known specs of the headphones. I have provided TONS of links to MANY articles out there that do exactly the same and even go farther then that. Just look at the links, its kind of getting repetative now :( -- UKPhoenix79 03:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all - there is an encyclopaedic article on Bose headphones but this is not it. I also wonder where all this text came from? Way tto long and detailed. Delete all then produce a new article with the encyclopaedic facts. BlueValour 04:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Why not help to make the current article better? There is a lot of good information here and now that we have some people giving suggestions on how to improve it we can now make this article great :) Now that we know that although you can get information from the manufacture but there needs to be multiple sources we can make it better. -- UKPhoenix79 03:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Copyright violation - I voted fairly early in this debate, then changed my vote, and then since the discussion continues, I took a further look. There's been a lot of claims by the editors of this article that they have written this themselves and it is not Bose advertising. So I was very disappointed to find that this is not the truth. I'm not going to say that they have deliberately lied to us, but I can say I'm very disappointed. I took a random section (turned out to be from the Combat Crewman section) and copied a chunck of the text into Google, and lo, it turns out to be a complete cut-and-paste from this Bose advertising website [56] So, UKPhoenix79, you've got some answering to do. You've been less than honest with us. I have seen some cleanup of the article, but the bottom line is this IS advertising, directly from the Bose site, and therefore constitutes copyright violation. Anyreason why it shouldn't be tagged as such? Akradecki 16:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment That was a good catch and your right that should be edited, are there any other copy vios that you have found? But I'd like to ask that you Assume good faith since I have actually been very honest about everything I have said and I have not ever intentially lied to anyone here. I just seam to be the only person that edits this article that is willing to go through all this to prove the articles viability. To put things in perspective this particular headpnone your talking about is only avalable to the military and as the article says it's not available to the consumer market. So if this section was advertising its a very inafectual one at that. I have time and time again even before this AfD came up asked those that critisised the article to point out where and help us make it better only a couple actually replied, and we worked with them to do just that. I have never said that this page was perfact and it didn't need work I have instead only asked people to help us make it truly Great and I can only hope that you can help us do just that. I'm sorry that there was a copy vio and I can only hope that you'd believe me that it was never my intention to mislead anyone in any way. -- UKPhoenix79 03:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Of course, it not like Bose is likely to complain about a copyvio that helps them market their products.... :-)) -- Slowmover 16:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Why do you have a M1 Abrams tank or a Bradley Fighting Vehicle and wish to purchase one? Doubtful. Sorry about the sacrasm but this whole thing is starting to feel silly :( -- UKPhoenix79 03:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as without independent sourcing. Looks like an ad, reads like an ad, (doesn't) inform like an ad... Must be a duck. 64.26.68.82 17:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Don't understand what you mean by a duck but like said before the main source of information was from the Bose site directly. Occasionaly we would have someone say that this looked like an ad only for myself to ask where and to never recieve a reply to my question. Now we have some pointers on how to improve and (if you look thorought this AfD) you'll see that there are tons of independent sources all over the place so the page will be able to cite more and more information from places other than Bose directly. -- UKPhoenix79 03:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
      • "Duck" is a reference to the old saying, which the anon editor was paralleling: "If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck." ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I don't think the pointers on how to improve the articles warrant keeping any of them. At most, we're talking about a couple of new paragraphs for the main Bose article. Also, UKPhoenix79, I would really appreciate it if you would refrain from responding to every single comment on this discussion. It's become practically unreadable. You have made your position clear. —ptk✰fgs 06:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and userfy if someone requests it. Blatant brochurespeak. ~ trialsanderrors 19:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] As I think that this page needs more "[edit] - boxes",...

I have not read all of those responses,... I'm sorry, I have many limitations,... If I've ever written "delete this thing", well, I don't recall it. You've written about voting on my page: I never got to vote on it, myself. It's totally a "kangaroo-deletion". The page had, actually been designed for debate. Instead of de - de - debate, it got de - de - delete.

I do know that the various bose variations have been on Cnn & wherever.

Someone wants me to upload a commercial mosaic?

Well, I do suppose that I'd need to figure a wiki-photographic-upload first.

I do have many limitations.

Most newspaper - editors would recommend:

Wherever you copy substantial selections, employ "quotation-mark[s]", &/or similar devices, w/ attribution.

&, where newspapers include prices, that's, virtually always, advertizement.

As incompetent as I am, those facts I am certain of.

Please?


Hopiakuta 23:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've another guess,...

Is any of you named "Coulter"?

Hopiakuta 23:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh. Hummmm.

New concepts, to me.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wikipedia:userfy >;

< http://google.com/search?q=%22brochurespeak%22+%22%22+%22%22+%22%22 >;

< http://google.com/search?q=%22userfy%22+%22userfication%22+%22%22+%22%22 >.

Hopiakuta 23:54, 10 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Idaho Juvenile Detention Centers

Delete obvious copyvio, though I cannot find the source. It is possible to write an article on this topic - but what we have now hurts WP more than it helps. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: I agree that it reads like a copyvio, but suspicion is not proof, so I don't think "obvious copyvio" is a fair rationale. The article is certainly mostly {{unreferenced}}, un-{{wikify}}-ed, and un-{{categorize}}-d, but these are avenues of improvement, not rationales for deletion. No vote. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 15:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I am aware of those issues - and that they're no rationales for deletion - which is why I did not list them in my nomination. And yes, suspicion is not proof. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obvious copyvio, or just a polished writer submitting their first article to Wikipedia? Lacking proof of the former I think we need to assume it is the latter. This is a very nice article, although it needs wikification and references as indicated above. If the author could include one or two references at the end of the article I think we would allow a fair amount of interpolation without complaining, as there's nothing controversial or questionable about the information itself. -- technopilgrim 18:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I am the one who wrote this entire article. I wrote it somewhat from personally being in the places I wrote about as a juvenile but I tried my best to confirm all of the information with the help of the Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections and also the department of probation. I linked to the homepage of the Idaho Youth Ranch which confirms some of the information. I can promise you that not a single word in this article is a copyright violation as I wrote the entire article myself. I know I lack sources that havebeen published in writting but I admit this on the talk page for the article. It definitly needs improvment and more sources, and I am working on this, but I am having trouble finding any documentation on these various places, although as far as oral information goes from the people that work at them I could easily get this. Every word in this article is true and I can promise this. It is also not a copyright violation I can assure you of this also. It just needs more sources. I am not logged on now but my user name is tuluvas2 and I will come back online later to confirm that I am in fact the one who wrote this article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.24.244.223 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-05T18:09:08 (UTC)
    • If what you say is true, we might have a problem with WP:NOR in the alternative. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but with massive cleanup and wikifying. I'm also questioning the "notability" of this thing, but there needs to be some work done on this article to meet the "standards." I'll try to get some work done on this if I get some free time. Yanksox 03:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Prisons are under represented here. Vegaswikian 18:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Tuluvas2 17:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)I agree that juvenile facilities are highly under represented, not only here but in general. Part of the reason for this is due to federally and locally enforced confidentiality laws (especially in regards to juveniles) and the other part is most likely due to the fact that the select individuals who possess information regarding these facilities (administrators of the Department of Juvenile Justice and to a lesser extent probation officers) are not highly motivated to release it. In my (POV) experience the administrators of the Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections are a fairly secretive group of people. This combined with the fact that the information does not (to my knowledge) need to be published by law leads to a surprising lack of information regarding the entire system. As for NPOV I can see how you would get this perception but where I drew from personal experience was more on absolute truths than information which could be subjective. For example, Five County Detention Center does have a shower unit like the one I described, and my own subjective experience cannot bias this objective statement. NPOV is generally only applicable to those things which can be measured subjectively (good and evil, beautiful and ugly) and in general can not be applied to things which are stated in fact (The stick is one foot long). If any information in the article I wrote is perceived as POV I would ask that it is removed, reworded, or has a source citied. Also I believe that it is important that Wikipedia keeps this article even if the article must be restructured, reworded, reformatted and re-referenced to make it comply with the standards of Wikipedia. I am currently searching for more sources than the minimal ones I currently have listed. I would also like to apologize for my (obvious I assume) minimal skills in formatting text on wikipedia. I am still learning and have minimal time to learn =).
  • Tuluvas2 17:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC) I cleaned up everything I saw that could be seen as non NPOV.
  • Tuluvas2 19:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Okay sorry to continue adding posts but upon rereading the post by CrazyRussian I noticed that I mistook NOR for NPOV. This is the reason for my trying to explain why I did not think my article was non NPOV in the above paragraph, and also was my reason for cleaning up the article and removing any text I saw as even remotely non NPOV. Something which is original research is defined as anything to which one of the following could apply:

1. It introduces a theory or method of solution; 2. It introduces original ideas; 3. It defines new terms; 4. It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms; 5. It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; 6. It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; 7. It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

I would have to say that the vast majority of the article does not fall under one of these classifications.

1. The article does not introduce a theory or a method of solution.

2. It does not introduce original ideas seeing as it does not really introduce ideas at all (assuming one would define an idea not as an objective fact but as theoretical pondering or thinking).

3. The article does not define new terms, I would say that some of the terms could be considered neologisms but there are reputable sources that would define them (For example “IDJC” and “JCC” and “commit” are not commonly used words, but a simple Google search will show several websites that use them in proper context.)

4. It does not provide or presume new definitions of any pre-existing terms.

5. It does introduce an analysis or synthesis of established facts, but they most certainly are not presented in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor (or anyone for that matter). Also they are verifiable (Despite the fact that some of them are not currently verified in the article. As I said before more sources are needed, but they are out there I am sure, few as they may be.)


6. I can see how the sentence "it is a highly subjective decision and fully up to the judge if a juvenile gets committed" could be considered original research under the 5th rule listed above seeing as I have no source and it could be considered to be an argument. For this reason I will remove that sentence and instead add only that it is up to a judge whether or not to commit the juvenile, as this states objective fact and does not try to present something that could be perceived as an argument.


As I have said before I know that this article needs more references, and this is reason for improvement, but it is not in my opinion non-npov nor is it original research. It just states objective facts that need more sources.

  • Tuluvas2 15:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 15:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a few informative sources to the list and referenced two things to a very reliable source. I know that many more sources are still needed but I hope that this adds some amount of quality to the article so that maybe people will think it is a good contribution to wikipedia and doesn't need to be deleted. Once again I am not sure if I am doing everything correctly or not and if I am doing anything wrong I would like it if someone would inform me so that I can correct anything I am doing wrong. thanks! (Opps, forgot to sign on) Tuluvas2 15:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, as no one has been able to provide any proof of copyvio after several days of listing in AfD, this rationale is without merit. Author shows a commendable commitment to understand and adhere to WP policies. Subject (prisons) is inherently notable, and my original comment about verifiability has begun to be addressed. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 17:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Tuluvas2 14:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC) I have referenced even more things to reliable sources. I have found actualy a wealth of information on some of these programs, which I added links to at the end of the article. There is actually probably enough information from those links for somebody to add several paragraphs of referenced information to the article if they so desire, but at the moment I do not have the time to do so. Also due to my poor skills at formatting wikipedia I think that some of the reference subscripts are showing up a bit out of order. I don't know if this is the correct place to put this or not, but I think that the article is clearly referenced now. How do I request that it is taken off of the list for deletion page? Wait 5 days?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Rat Look

Term with little results on Google, unreferenced, and could be a dictionary addition at most. Should an encyclopedia article be necessary? Ethii 12:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. An article on a certain kind of dirty? Come on. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 15:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN neologism, with few relevant ghits Lurker talk 15:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "the owner of the Rat Look is usually an interlecual (sic) person." Is this like the rich white kids who rip up their $80 jeans to be cool? --Xrblsnggt 03:26, 4 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 22:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philip Solo

Previously this was a resume (autobiography) with little or no claim to notability. When it was put up for speedy deletion the author (subject) claimed to be notable. I have no strong opinons, other than those cited at WP:AUTO, so I'll bring in other eyes.

  • Delete Unless someone else wants to adopt the article, and can provide 3rd party external references as to notability, I don't like the idea of people posting auto-biographies. StuffOfInterest 13:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • comment - Previously?? It only went on last night. And whoever rushed to condemn it didn't read much of the content which is mostly unchanged apart from my requested reply on the talk page.
I suggest you Google 'Takeover Radio Philip Solo' and see how many external references you get as there are a great many
I posted the info AFTER people already posted my name with a link. I thought that was the idea here to make content for links and who is better able to do that about me than me. I work entirely voluntarily without remuneration in fact have donated tens of thousands of pounds to charity radio and raised hundreds of thousands so I do not see why I should not post an informed and relevant biography.. try reading the many articles about the only kids radio station ever to win a full time radio licence in the UK and the scope of my work.
- PS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philip solo (talk • contribs) 14:22, 3 August 2006. -OK so I hadn't learned your posting system..--Philip solo 17:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


  • Delete Google searches all depend on where you put the quote marks. A lot of pages contain the words "takeover", "radio", "philip" and "solo", but are totally irrelevant here. Try a search for Takeover Radio "Philip Solo". It returns 10 results. There are about 20 more if you use "Phil" as the first name. -- Fan-1967 14:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google results:
  • "Takeover Radio Philip Solo" — zero results
  • "Takeover Radio "Philip Solo" — 14 results
  • "Takeover Radio" "Philip Solo" — 19 results
  • "Takeover Radio "Phil Solo" — 21 results
Try reading Wikipedia:Autobiography. If you really are as notable as you say, someone else will write an article about you, sooner or later, and there would be no reason to worry about your status on Wikipedia. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 15:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • comment - solo says: Well I didn't set out writing my page to 'prove myself more or less notable than anyone else' I was responding to the fact that OTHER people posted entry about my award-winning kids radio station and made reference to me and my radio achievements. I saw an empty link on my name and filled it with content in my own style. Doing that, I seem to have walked into a flood of resentment from some people.. I am not 'worried about my status' here. I am just posting what is known truth and frankly I thought people might be interested in the person behind the idea. Takeover Radio is a unique and enduring creation which is known to many thousands of people in UK and around the world --Philip solo 17:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No insult meant, but given the precedents that have evolved regarding many such pages, I have to agree that this page serves more as a CV and would be better suited for a User page. The Takeover Radio article gets the main idea out there about this type of children's programming, and of course Mr. Solo is mentioned in that article. -- technopilgrim 18:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • comment - solo says: Actually after reading all your rules and regulations and restrictions on 'expression' I have already reduced my article to mostly factual references (making it less personal as a result). I have included a lot of links to other RSL stations currently not listed here with entries which are valid material, which I intend to fill with factual entries and site links which is new valid content creation isn't it?. I must say you are an unfriendly bunch with new content contributors ..pretty much seems like a closed club where your rules on grammar and construction are more important to you than encouraging people to contribute .. I guess you have your own world and want it all so so, and anyone who arrives and doesn't fit in or gets too flamboyant in style is gonna take a hammering.. so be it...Perhaps if I take it down to a link to a blank page some of you will be happy then--Philip solo 01:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • comment - I think it's only fair that we presume (even though he fails to state it) that Philip solo (talk • contribs) votes keep. -Harmil 16:50, 5 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 17:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Googlefart

Non-notable neologism. Google turns up 70 hits for googlefart, of which 24 are unique. Kimchi.sg 13:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. One would think that a google-based neologism would bring up a ton of Ghits: internet based phrases should have tons of internet search results. The phrase "Googlefart is a term used almost exclusively in Southeast Texas" seals it. Srose (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per both above. AdamBiswanger1 13:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Googlefart? Are you kidding me? --Larry V (talk | contribs) 15:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as I think if an article admits the non-notablitity of its subject, why bother keeping it around even for another week? Lurker talk 15:42, 3 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 01:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banklacticos

  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]}}

Non-notable football (soccer) team that plays in a park in London. Does not participate in top ten levels of the National League System, which general consensus on what makes a team notable (see previous discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football). Previously nommed for speedy but anon IP (presumably originator) objected. Qwghlm 13:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom. (BTW, I think you should have left the CSD notice up.) Mr Stephen 13:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article says "we do not know the names of the players themselves, as they prefer to keep a low profile, but we do know that they all work in the city at an unknown bank", which implies that this article is unverifiable. --Metropolitan90 13:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete. I can get (some of) their names and their workplace tonight or next week as our team plays nearby —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.33.207.242 (talk • contribs).
  • (repeat)Don't Delete. I've heard of them and I don't even like soccer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.33.207.242 (talk • contribs).
  • Delete. Two things, 217. One, this isn't a vote, so saying don't delete twice won't help your cause. Two, how can you dislike soccer and still know about these teams? Picaroon9288|ta co 15:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This is irrelevant to the discussion of whether the page should be deleted or not —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.111.123.118 (talk • contribs) 10:14, August 5, 2006 (UTC).
  • You only have to look at the article title to see it is relevant. I have restored my comment - please do not censor other users' contributions to talk pages, it is considered unacceptable behaviour. Qwghlm 12:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless they all turn out to be celebrities. Just adding their names won't make the team worthy of an article on here ChrisTheDude 15:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless the majority of the team are famous... Marcus22 15:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Metropolitan90. NawlinWiki 15:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete I created the article with the help of a couple of people who organise the events at Regent's Park. We can assert that this team have blown most of the Thursday teams away, and according to their registration a number of the players play in Saturday leagues. We don't know which divisions they play for, but comparing them to usual Regent's standards, they're very good indeed. We can find out names etc and provide them to the article (if they give us permission). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Catisfit (talk • contribs). (article creator)
    • Have a read of WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR before you put in too much work. Mr Stephen 15:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
      • No original research? I didn't realise this was an academic paper. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.33.207.242 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 3 August 2006.
        • Actually, it's an encyclopedia article. Picaroon9288|ta co 16:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Actually, academic papers require original research. Encyclopedias cannot. --ColourBurst 20:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable +/- vanity. Ifnord 18:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Metropolitan90 and because Thursday is a non-notable soccer day. -- Slowmover 18:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete non-professional, no references provided to even prove their existance, can't find anything else online. Probably a vanity article by some bored bankers. The claims about Total Football seem particularly suspect. --Robotforaday 19:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 00:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. "Unofficial name?" No Google hits, totally unverifiable. And I don't give out "strong deletes" easily. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 03:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, non-notable non-professional sports team. Fails verifiability policy. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong don't delete, because something doesn't appear on google, it should be deleted? Why not just redirect wikipedia.org to google.com? Besides, footballers are not the most likely of people to add to online encyclopedias - and computer geeks are not the most likely of people to be found playing football —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.33.207.242 (talk • contribs) .
    • Hello again 217.33.207.242 - in fact, you'll find that there are a lot of active footballers who contribute to wikipedia- the difference is, they don't necessarily think the team that they play for is notable enough to be included, and so include information about actually notable teams. I do understand that you shouldn't just include stuff that's found on google- I was recently arguing against deletion of another article where poor returns from google were one of the reasons being cited for deletion. But what is essential is that the information is verifiable, as wikipedia is a tertiary source. That means, it must appear somewhere- e.g. in a book, a reputable newspaper, etc., and usually not just as a footnote in passing. This team of bankers seems so non-notable, I can't even get a foothold on where to start. If we include it, then we might as well include the football team I play for as well. I'm sure I can happily make claims about our adventurous style of Total Football as well.--Robotforaday 11:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If anything I would guess the Banklacticos are pranksters, not world-class football stars playing incognito on Thursday nights. -- technopilgrim 19:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No delete. I say it's not the kind of thing to appear on google, but keep it unless the article can be proven to be false. There must be a way of verifying this through the end-of-season reviews of lower leagues, maybe they have a blog? To suggest they are unbeaten means there must be records of the matches played Mangochutney88 10:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment: This is mangochutney88's first and only edit. Vickser 15:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
A personal blog wouldn't count as a reputable source, and thus the information still wouldn't be considered as verfified. Wikipedia's policy is that things must be proven true to be included, not that they must be proven false to be excluded. Vickser 14:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as none of the information is verifiable by reliable sources, and even if it were, I don't think they're notable. Vickser 14:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Sring Delete - likely hoax and even if not, NN. BlueValour 22:10, 7 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 01:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beyond the Mist

Article was previously deleted in September of 2005, prod removed by author. Book seems to be non-notable, recently printed, no hits on Amazon or Amazon (UK). Wildthing61476 13:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete a Google search for the ISBN listed in the article shows it to be self-published (through lulu.com). Googling "Beyond the Mist" +McGhee brings just 15 hits, and a lot of those aren't even relevant. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. per previous AfD. The book is available via Amazon, but seemingly nowhere else. Mr Stephen 13:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Amazon.co.uk Sales Rank: None" Add that to lulu.com as the publisher. About as non-notable as you can get. Fan-1967 14:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. NawlinWiki 15:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. For some background, check out the author's own AFD. --Calton | Talk 01:08, 4 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 of the debate was Redirect to Hockey rink. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 18:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hockey Arena

No indicated notability, seems to fail WP:V, WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Some additional info: Alexa ranking is 21,550. Peephole 13:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect to arena hockey rink as likely search term. BoojiBoy 13:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete any reference to this product. Is this an ad? The first section is a verbatim copy from the site in question. Redirecting to arena is reasonable. ccwaters 13:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Hockey rink, the most likely goal of such a search. -- Scientizzle 19:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like an ad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krm500 (talk • contribs).
  • Redirect as above Feedyourfeet 20:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect. This ain't Eastside Hockey Manager, guys (oh yeah, that's also free too.) --ColourBurst 20:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. Doogie2K (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to hockey rink Masterhatch 17:44, 8 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 OR. DS 17:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vision Development

Reads like a confused piece of original research / pseudo-science. At the end of the article it turns out that it may be the teachings of a religious organisation. Unencyclopedic. -- RHaworth 13:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Original research (as if any actual research is involved). Dipics 13:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete OR and mumbo-jumbo Lurker talk 13:58, 3 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 01:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seasoft

No information given about notability, couldn't find any with Google or other resources. Seems to fail WP:SOFTWARE. Crystallina 13:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I'll go with a simple delete per nom. -- Kicking222 13:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Akradecki 14:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless some serious information arrives Mdcollins1984 17:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think I'll go against the grain and go with speedy delete A7 since there's no notability asserted. --ColourBurst 20:17, 3 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 11:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blow Everything Up Net

A freeware game created by Seasoft, also listed for AfD. No information given about notability and seems to categorically fail WP:SOFTWARE. In addition, the article has a slight advertisement tone. Crystallina 13:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Once again, delete per nom. -- Kicking222 13:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • DeleteAkradecki 14:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Can't speedy this one, unfortunately, so delete. --ColourBurst 20:21, 3 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 there's really no assertion of the club's notability I can see. Kimchi.sg 14:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Central Blues

Non-notable amateur sports club who have played a total of nine games ever. Prod removed by Bluesman7 as their first edit with no explanation. --Pak21 13:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete completely non-notable. Akradecki 14:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is why I can't stand the "prod" system. Kafziel 14:32, 3 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 16:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Penumbra (game)

I prod'd this yesterday, and it was removed without comment by a new user, so I will simply copy-and-paste my prod reasoning: an article on a non-notable game made by non-notable developers (which the article admits is a "small team of students as a technology project"); the article is an advertisement; Penumbra+"Frictional Games" gets about 260 unique Google hits, but the vast majority are from sites from which the game (and tens of thousands of other free games) can be downloaded; none of the external links come from reliable sources. -- Kicking222 13:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete we're not a game advertising service. Akradecki 14:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (software). Shimeru 20:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a student project, as they admit. It'd have to be exceptional to pass the standards required an article here. --ColourBurst 20:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • DO NOT delete This has been included on several disks in european magazines including LEVEL —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.76.30.78 (talk • contribs).
  • DO NOT Delecte.This game is / was a school project . I dont see why it should be deleted . it's not using wikipedia as an advertising agency . it's info! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.227.72.90 (talk • contribs).
  • Comment. If it's a student project, then it's almost guaranteed to not be notable enough as there are billions upon billions of student projects. What makes this one so special? "It's info" doesn't suddenly make it notable, per the notability policy. The fact that it's been included on several disks in European magazines might be, but you can't prove it (do you even have the issues in question? Can you name them?). --ColourBurst 17:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have more nn article than this one. --Haham hanuka 10:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    That's no reason to keep this one. You are more than welcome to nominate them as well. alphaChimp laudare 21:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • DO NOT delete. Just because this is a free game, it doesn't mean that it should be deleted! We have heaps of commercial game on Wikipedia, so if anything they are advertising. Don't get rid of it!
  • Delete. No evidence of meeting WP:SOFTWARE. alphaChimp laudare 21:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • DO NOT delete. The software is/was innovative, significant, or influential in some specific way, yes it is, especially when you know it has been created by a team of volunteers and is free to play and download, and this is verifiable from reliable sources independent of the software developer, that is the difficult part... although some game sites think it's quite good:
    http://www.pcmweb.nl/software_review.jsp?productid=1093
    http://www.playwhat.com/GameDetails/frictionald/penumbra.html
    http://www.planetfreeplay.com/interview/12/
  • Delete - Does not pass WP:SOFTWARE requirement. It's that simple. CastorQuinn 15:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • DO NOT delete. The software is innovative, significant, or influential in some specific way. Some other game may have the same innovative gameplay. Domsau2 15:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • DO NOT delete - The software is unique in that there are very few games like it, and has graphics on par with commercial FPSes. Wanlorn
  • DO NOT delete - This game is notable for a number of reasons. It has quickly gained a strong following in the freeware scene. It boasts rather unique gameplay elements and it has a custom built 3D physics engine, similar to Half Life 2. There are many games that are listed in the freeware games' page that are far less deserving than this. The entry could possibly be cleaned up but marking it for deletion seems too extreme in my opinion.Slumlord
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus defaulting to keep. Computerjoe's talk 19:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phil Kerpen

  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]}}

The article should be deleted because its subject is not notable. The only links to the page are from the User: namespace. This appears to be a vanity page. —ptk⁂fgs 13:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep - writing for fairly important newspaper and magazine is notable, marginally. Certainly needs cleanup--Pyroclastic 13:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment – I would offer that this is an analogue to someone who fails the "professor test" described at WP:BIO. Many, many people write for fairly important publications, and I question whether Kerpen is notable in this field. —ptk⁂fgs 13:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - having one's material accepted regularly as a columnist for a major publication is notable enough for me. Akradecki 14:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Two hits for a Major Papers search on Lexis-Nexis for author "kerpen"; five hits on Google News (four "phil kerpen" and one "philip g kerpen"). If he's being published in notable amounts, it's not being indexed. —ptk✰fgs 00:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Knew you were a debater. You need to work on your lexis skills though--"Phil! /3 Kerpen" has 14 hits in "Major Papers" and 88 in "News - Previous Two Years." Google News only goes back 30 days; 5 in a month is plenty. --ΦΓ 16:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete A guy who dropped out of school and started a blog. This is notable? --Xrblsnggt 03:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete linked nowhere in mainspace, non-notable. Fails WP:BIO clearly. Deleuze 05:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep He has hundreds of major publications, is frequently quotes in news stories, has tens of thousands of google hits, and has held high positions in influential political organizations. I am here because of a forum post, but really, this deletion effort seems like it's being done by people from the same site, not acting objectively. --ΦΓ 06:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I have never made or read any forum post regarding Phil Kerpen. —ptk✰fgs 06:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Then why the sudden interest in deleting an article with such a lengthy history? --ΦΓ 06:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Why is there ever interest in deleting an article? This insinuation would apply to almost any AfD. Deleuze 08:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
        • — Possible single purpose account: ΦΓ (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. —ptk✰fgs 06:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep He meets the Google Test and is well-known within the Policy debate community. That most Policy debate articles are under-developed, and the topic as a whole is poorly covered in Wikipedia, should not count against this article. A well-developed article on Policy debate evidence authors/publishers would include references to Mr. Kerpen. He also travels in "think tank" circles writing and shaping policy for major groups. Liffer 23:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment ΦΓ has added a list of publications to the article. Is this a comprehensive (or near-comprehensive) list? —ptk✰fgs 00:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment No, it isn't. I restored it from the history. It is incomplete. --ΦΓ 00:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep Philip G. Kerpen is a notable figure in both in the worlds of academic debate and public policy. He is directly responsible for administering and facilitating a large share of the tournament operations, interleague and intersquad communications and runs the second largest educational supplement materials company in the area. Mr. Kerpen's innovations in the area of academic policy debate include published essays on his website and in magazines serving the activity, such as Rostrum, and also include developing new models of research and information distribution through the internet. Modern academic policy debate would not be anywhere near as advanced as it is without Mr. Kerpen's contributions.

Moreover, Philip G. Kerpen is a notable author of op-eds, white papers, briefing books and books, having worked for the Woodhill Foundation, The Cato Institute, The Club for Growth and The Free Enterprise Fund. He was instrumental in founding the latter, and was the primary mover in The Club for Growth. His recent works have included candidate interviews, candidate endorsements, political strategy decisions, major gift and donor relations, authoring of position papers and authoring columns for publication in several newspapers and opinion magazines. He has been published and interviewed in media as diverse as Black Enterprise and The Wall St. Journal, and recently, Doublethink. Mr. Kerpen is also a Contributing Editor to The National Review and a regular columnist in The New York Sun.

Deletion of Philip G. Kerpen's page is about as sensible as deleting Dick Morris'. His page should be renamed, though, to make it easier for readers to find. His professional nomme de guerre is Philip G. Kerpen, not Phil Kerpen. Texasyellowdog

  • Delete - Seems highly suspect that the subject of the biography posted the article on Wikipedia as an ad for his websites. Naming cross-x as leading website is very opinionated. --Hero27 20:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am the subject of this article. A few points: 1. I had nothing to do with its creation, though I have edited it several times to remove prejudicial and inaccurate material. 2. I have no interest in advertising my web sites, which are already universally known and used by their target audience. 3. I'm secure in the knowledge that I'm notable enough to be widely quoted as an expert on economic policy issues in major media outlets, regardless of whether you judge me "not notable." Whatever your decision is regarding deletion, please do be more vigilant in removing the accusations of bestiality, Nazism and such that appear on this web site from time to time. Thanks. --Phil Kerpen 00:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am the owner of the texasyellowdog account. I am not a single purpose user, but I had never seen a page that I really wanted to edit before. Mr. Kerpen is a colleague from the halcyon days of debate, as well as a professional colleauge, and his contributions to both fields are quite well known. A Wikipedia page on him is quite justified, which is why I wanted to weigh in. Texasyellowdog
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of the top national universities

Borderline copyvio of US News, no meaningful content otherwise. Anything worth having already exists at College and university rankings. Also major NPOV and US-bias issues Pyroclastic 13:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, as nom.--Pyroclastic 13:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as nom. If someone thinks it's worth keeping, at least move it to List of the top ranked American universities WilyD 14:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is an encyclopedia, not a directory of Universities. Akradecki 14:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A list of national universities is one thing. However, subjective rankings have no place here. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 15:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, a link to the U.S. News website is enough.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leafgrafica, Graphic Design Studio, Bangalore

  • Delete, been prodded as advertisment, not written in NPOV at all. Created by Leafgrafica (talk • contribs • logs). So advertisement/vanity.--Andeh 13:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, clearly an advertisement Akradecki 14:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Kafziel 14:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete obvious ad Lurker talk 14:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as an advertisement, and in first-person too! --Larry V (talk | contribs) 15:41, 3 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 11:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tamara Tarasiewicz

Notability not established for this painter who really hasn't been painting that long. Only thing comes close is that she established her own gallery, which is like publishing your own book. Article creator removed speedy tag twice without following proper WP procedures Akradecki 14:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable artist (article does not meet requirements for speedy deletion). Kafziel 14:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment How does it not meet A7? Importance is not asserted in the article. Even so, the creator doesn't have the right to arbitrarily remove speedy tags. Akradecki 14:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
      • How does it meet A7? Clearly, the bit about the gallery is intended to be an assertion of notability. Whether or not it qualifies is a matter for AfD, in my opinion. We shouldn't be too slapdash with the "no assertion of notability" clause. Kafziel 14:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't say I agree with nom on the "hasn't been painting that long" part, as the article says she's been painting for almost 20 years. In any case, unreferenced, unverifiable, WP:BIO, etc etc etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Speedy or otherwise as not notable. Marcus22 15:26, 3 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 16:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EMJAE

Non-notable DJ, prod removed by author Wildthing61476 14:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. No notability asserted and none found. Note to other vanity authors: phrases like "captured the attention of" and "found a home with" are always dead giveaways. Kafziel 14:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as no notability asserted. Molerat 14:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I would say the release list is an assertion of some notability at least. Wickethewok 14:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Are Lost Language and/or Release Records major indie labels? They just seem like minor indie labels to me. Molerat 14:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I suppose I would call Lost Language a "major indie" label. Its certainly "major". Release Records might be, I dunno what the definition of a "major indie label" is exactly - Release has certainly featured records from popular artists if that means anything. Also he apparently had releases on other labels including System Recordings and Dust Traxx Records. Wickethewok 19:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep with cleanup per Wickethewok. Molerat 21:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - The article is badly written/formatted, but this artist has had several releases on notable labels such as Lost Language, Release Records, and a few others. The release list does appear to be accurate from my searching on Discogs and music review websites, though "Emjae" is often misspelled as "Emjay". Wickethewok 14:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I noticed this AfD was a week old, shouldn't it have been closed? Wildthing61476 15:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No reliable sources given, search turns up one gushy blog review, no non-trivial coverage, nothing on Amazon. ~ trialsanderrors 19:22, 10 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 11:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabetical list of NES Rom Hacks

List with no criteria for inclusion (eg. this includes anyone whose ever "hacked" a ROM. No reliable sources, verifiability attesting to the notability/popularity of any of these games. Also nominating List of NES ROM hacks. Wickethewok 14:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete not maintainable or encylopedic.--Andeh 14:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic red-link farm. Of the entire list, only 4 are bluelinked: 2 of those are accidental mislinks, and 2 are currently up for AFD. Sadly, those looking for articles on "Super KKK Bros. 2", "The Naked Little Mermaid", or "MegaFAG" will have to look elsewhere. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ROM hacks are well outside the scope of Wikipedia, as they can't meet any measure of notability. The results of many recent AFDs support this. The products of some dude mucking around with a hex editor are not relevant to anyone except the tiniest fraction of hardcore video game players. A list of these ROMs is equally non-encyclopedic. SubSeven 19:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pretty sure this is vanity as many of the hacks are done by User:RyanVG and the editor is User:GVnayR. RyanVG redirects to GVnayR. --ColourBurst 20:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete listcruft. Danny Lilithborne 20:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 02:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per unfortunate general unverifiability, as the many other ROM hack AfDs this week. --SevereTireDamage 02:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per norm Newspaper98 06:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable. They're just ROM hacks. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Stellmach 13:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. ROM hacks which are notable enough to warrant mention (because of their extensiveness) can probably be covered in the ROM hacking article. UOSSReiska 15:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Peephole 15:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)--
  • Strong Delete. While I don't agree with the blanket assumption that ROM hacks are automaticallly speediable like some people seem to, this is listcruft. Furthermore, looking down the article, 95% of these ROM hacks aren't considered notable in the ROM hacking community, much less on Wikipedia. Normally I'd suggest a move to [57] or another ROM hacking Wiki, but this list is pretty much useless. --Gau 08:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as listcruft. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 13:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, or redo from scratch. While I do not agree with some of the above commenters on ROM hacks generally being too unnotable to be mentioned by Wikipedia - calling them just ROM hacks in a derogatory way is certainly off place, seeing as many of them have very few left to do with the original game both in gameplay and technical aspects; some outstanding examples even surpass anything that was released for the NES in its time by far in quality -, this list, as it is now, is pretty much worthless, and, by having picked quite the worst possible examples, puts the whole subject in a worse light than it belongs into. --Blackhole89 17:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very few of these games are actually notable, and I bet another dozen are being created as we speak- in other words, it would be far too difficult to keep up. Sonicrazy 04:00, 8 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 16:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spraci

Article reads as advertising/psma/possible vanity as well. Prod removed by author Wildthing61476 14:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • what about Eventful, Upcoming and others that have put pages on here? ...

    spraci predates those by a decade...

    It was seeing those other pages that made me think of adding a page about spraci here.

    surely if this is spam then those other pages are spam too. (or is there some kind of double-standard here?)

    ...fair is fair!...

    I do understand that it is important to prevent spam but please be fair in your judgments!

    All rules should apply equally to everyone.

    —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MichaelMD (talk • contribs) 2006-08-03T14:58:22 (UTC)

    • Note: multi-line unsigned comment reformatted to standard format — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 15:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. MichaelMD, if you feel the other articles are equally non-notable, feel free to nominate them for deletion. Kafziel 16:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: For further clarification on why this is not notable yet the others are, see the Alexa comparison here. Upcoming.org is ranked around 8,000th. Spraci is ranked around 148,000th. Notability is not determined by age alone. My eBay account has been around longer than half the websites out there, but it doesn't get many hits. Kafziel 17:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
      • The Alexa Test is not one of the WP:WEB criteria. Uncle G 17:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
        • So? The Google test isn't an official part of any criteria, either. It's still a reasonable gauge. Kafziel 17:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
          • So giving the results of running the Alexa Test is not an explanation of why something does not satisfy the notability criteria. And as Wikipedia:Google Test explains, the Google Test is not a reasonable gauge. Counting hits is not research. Uncle G 17:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Oh, give me a break. I'm trying to give a new user a pointer. If you actually read the page you keep posting, you'll also see that "Some editors use the Alexa ranking to determine whether Wikipedia should have an article, arguing that we should certainly have articles on top 100 sites, possibly have articles on top 1,000 sites, and usually not have articles for sites not in the top 100,000." I'm one of those users. Absolutely nowhere did I say it was an official criterion, just that if he wants to see why one is more popular than the other, that's where he can take a look. I also told him that he's welcome to nominate all those other articles for deletion. So how about you get off your high horse and let me try to give a new guy some help? Kafziel 17:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
              • You are giving a new user a wholly erroneous pointer. Explaining that an article is not notable because a web site ranks low in the Alexa Test is an entirely false explanation, given that that isn't a criterion for notability. If you yourself are using the Alexa Test to determine notability, then you are applying a test that isn't a criterion, and (as discussed extensively on Wikipedia:Alexa Test and Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)) shouldn't be a criterion. Please stop. You aren't actually helping the new editor at all. You are giving xem a false explanation. Uncle G 18:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
                • So you think this site is notable? You think it should be kept? Of course not; not even the original author thinks so. So what, exactly, is your point? The website fails WP:WEB, and Alexa's findings are in line with that. It's a pretty common test, not just something I pulled out of my ass, and it never hurts for users to have more information. If you don't like it, fine. Don't use it. But it's out there, and I have every right to tell him about it. And, yes, the link to WP:WEB should have been posted by the nominator. I thought he did, so I didn't include it in my original post. This was meant to be information in addition to WEB. Kafziel 18:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Dark Shikari talk/contribs 16:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because it's an advertisement. -- Whpq 17:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • ok Dark Shikari and Uncle G thanks for posting the WP:WEB link

    ... it brings some sanity to this ...

    I am not independant of spraci so I would accept that as a fair reason for it not being accepted (without providing other references)

    If that is the real reason I'll accept that.

    regarding the "because it's an advertisement" stuff:

    I could say that those other pages are too and that kind of comment in this situation just gives a bad impression.

    (an impression that "size of funding" influences "notability", which is bound to upset people)

    The WP:WEB page Dark Shikari and Uncle G mention explains the criteria so why not just point me to that right from the start?

    • Mentioning the notability criteria that they are applying is one of the things that we indeed encourage people to do when nominating articles for deletion. Uncle G 18:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I also recommend reading User:Uncle G/On notability#Tips_for_editors and the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. This isn't a vote. It is a discussion. People's opinions are not set in stone. If you can cite multiple non-trivial independently sourced published works, or show that any of the other WP:WEB criteria are satisfied, and thereby demonstrate that an article can be written based upon those sources, you can change editor's opinions. Uncle G 18:54, 3 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 CSD A1. Kimchi.sg 14:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bradford Networks

My god, the spam. Text is lifted from http://www.bradfordnetworks.com/products/overview.html; company appears to fail WP:CORP. Prod tag removed by creator of article. -Merope 14:44, 3 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 16:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sprawling

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks).

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Note to editors: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts should be tagged using <small>— Possible '''[[Wikipedia:Single purpose account|single purpose account]]''': [[User:username|username]] ([[User talk:username|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/username|contribs]]) {{{2|}}} has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.</small>.

Nominated for deletion, but nominator seems not to have created a deletion page (and its an IP so no point trying to contact them). So I'll nominate it. This is a non-encyclopaedic article whose function seems to be to get people to read the relevant site on Pbwiki Lurker talk 15:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete This is a copyvio, I've taken a look at the website and its not GFDL as I originally thought it was Lurker talk 15:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per failure of WP:OR and Wikipedia is not a how-to guide WilyD 15:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non-notable, and does not establish notability Halo 16:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - why not just simply rewrite it first, giving it a chance, before deciding to delete it? The link to the webpage can always be deleted and added later once it's in a encyclopaedic format. Smoothy 16:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Because there are no sources that can be employed to rewrite the article. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Uncle G 16:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Already familiar with those links, thank you, however, I was hoping that someone (maybe the original author) could find some proper source or knowledge in order to rewrite the article. If not then fair enough, but I would like there to be a chance first, hence the comment. Smoothy 19:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep temporarily - It may be worth seeing if the entry is mproved over and above that currently existing before deleting. Tim 16:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Not if it's a copyvio (see pbwiki article). If its not deleted, then we'll have to get rid of much of the content anyway. Lurker talk 10:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The article cites no sources, and what sources I can find deal with the concepts of sprawling that are covered at sprawl, to which this used to simply redirect. This is original research, a novel definition of the concept of sprawling that is peculiar to a single website, which is a wiki and not even a reliable source. Revert to the redirect. Uncle G 16:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because it is unsourced original research -- Whpq 17:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I can't see it gaining any worthwhile information in the future - it is all non-verifiable. Mdcollins1984 17:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, because it's non-notable, unsourced original research, and it's not a how-to guide (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for details). --Bigtop 17:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Amusing, fun to read over my first cup of coffee (it was on the wikify list), and a good example of creative writing. Delete per nom. SB_Johnny | talk 09:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless sources are added as to its noteworthiness.--Daveswagon 01:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom -- Reaper X 22:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - needs some re-working watch that space, give it a chance to develop. Delete in haste, repent at leisure.,7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom -Ladybirdintheuk 11:09, 9 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 due to notability standards at WP:TVS. TrackerTV 01:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KTFL

A minor affiliate station that the article states is off the air. Not notable, seems to have existed only for a few years. Lurker talk 15:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 15:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep! They're going digital only. If you delete this, put KQBN-LP in there too. Come on! TrackerTV 18:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment If you want to have an article deleted, please nominate it for deletion. Lurker talk 18:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment Or lump it in with this one. Morgan Wick 18:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All TV stations are notable, per precedent, WP:TVS, consensus on WT:TVS, and proposed notability criteria for broadcasters. This even applies to former stations. Morgan Wick 18:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep Regardless of how minor a station is, all free-standing (or semi-free-standing) TV stations should be represented. azumanga 00:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This nominator needs to read the above comment. --CFIF (talk to me) 19:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I am the original editor for the article in question. KTFL is a licensed full-service station, and has been for about 17 years, in one form or another. I know that it's currently off the air, but I doubt that situation will continue forever, given the history. --AlexDW 19:07, 3 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 spam. DS 18:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carmodities

Spam, vanity, crystal ball. Author of article removed prod and prod2 tags. -- Merope 15:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per above reasons. Also note that the companies website runs off of what looks like a webhost for small businesses. The term returns 12 google hits (non-distinct) and google asks if one has mispelled commodity so protologism also. JoshuaZ 15:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom and per JoshuaZ Marcus22 15:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanityspamcruftnon-notableneologismisment Seems to be an ad disguised as a NN neologism Lurker talk 15:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete without question. Boy, it'd sure be nice if we had a way to speedy this kind of obvious spam! VoiceOfReason 15:57, 3 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, as per WP:SNOWBALL. The Anome 00:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evil owen, Evil Owen, Evil Owen.

Deprod2; prod reason was WP:NN and WP:VAIN, and I agree. --ais523 15:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • As the first prod tagger, I have to say delete. --Merope 15:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. (I was prod2er). Upcoming movie from an unknown director, from a studio that doesn't seem to exist (website is an "under construction" page from Network Solutions). IMDB has never heard of film or director. Neither has Google. Non-notable, crystal-ballism, unverifiable. Fan-1967 15:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the faster the better Wildthing61476 15:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment PHANTOM FEATURES appears to be a near duplicate of this. --ais523 15:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Fan1967, I've listed PHANTOM FEATURES below. NawlinWiki 15:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as its a crystal ball article Lurker talk 15:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; can always be recreated in the unlikely event that this movie becomes a big hit. --M@rēino 16:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and crystal ball --Wafulz 17:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Author created Evil Owen. with the same content, which I have added to the deletion list. -- Merope 19:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • ... and Evil Owen (without a period). Fan-1967 19:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Interestingly, his user talk page says he's been blocked. I guess it didn't stick. -- Merope 19:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Just a 24-hour block. It ended an hour or two ago. Fan-1967 19:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Update. He just bought himself another 48, for removing the AFD tag from one of the clone articles. Fan-1967 19:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless stuff we're dealing with here. Might as well delete and protect it all, and figure out some way to get this guy to contribute meaningfully to Wiki. Logical2u 19:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I speedied the dot one (idiotic), and redirected the bad caps one to the proper caps one. Syrthiss 19:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Anyone want to lay odds we're going to need to salt the earth eventually on this one? Fan-1967 20:36, 4 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, as per WP:SNOWBALL. The Anome 00:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PHANTOM FEATURES and Phantom Features

Nonnotable independent film/production company, not on IMDB, see above entry for Evil owen. NawlinWiki 15:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete Sniff, sniff. I smell spam. Dipics 15:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete See Evil owen, also currently in AfD, and with near-identical content (I haven't checked to see whether it's exactly the same, although that seems probable). --ais523 15:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Basically the same content as Evil owen, also in AFD. Film company that doesn't seem to exist, unknown to IMDB and Google, apparently run by unknown director to create unknown film. Fan-1967 15:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising of apparently nn production company. -- The Anome 15:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as ad/vanity.--M@rēino 16:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delte per nom as an advertisement and vanity. --Bigtop 17:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • He also cloned the article at Phantom Features. I've added it here. Fan-1967 19:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per most of above logic and per crystal ballism since it isn't even out yet and there is no compelling evidence it will come out. JoshuaZ 20:10, 4 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 11:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rockfords

Prod removed by author, article is about a non notable nightclub Wildthing61476 15:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - looks like an advert -- Whpq 17:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete no assertion of notability. Eluchil404 21:38, 6 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 16:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jo Good

Article has been proposed for deletion due to concerns over notability. I made this due to people using the wrong template so I abstain SenorKristobbal 15:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete merely being on telly does not make for notability. Plus article is a tiny stub, nothing worth keeping. --BrownHairedGirl 16:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per BHG - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO. --Satori Son 04:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete presenter of a very minor program. WP:NN Ohconfucius 09:00, 11 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 11:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solotash Island

Nonnotable defunct website; 47 unique Ghits. NawlinWiki 15:47, 3 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 11:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Travel City Direct

Very obvious spam, another article showing why we need to change the Speedy Deletion criteria to include this kind of clear-cut spam Lurker talk 16:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Blatant advertising. And they didn't even remember to include a link to their wonderful service! SnurksTC 20:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete parent company Excel Airlines has no article, probably fails WP:CORP, and page is advertisemnt. Eluchil404 21:41, 6 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 22:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zionist Regime

minimal content. not a unique phrase. Barbamama 16:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

      • The person who set up this Afd is a sockpuppet of a user who is wiki-stalking me. This Afd needs to be deleted. Zeq 05:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep hundreds of thousands of google hits. Zeq 17:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This appears to be a dicdef. Any information that could be added to this article is probably already covered somewhere else in Wikipedia in the relevent articles. Dark Shikari talk/contribs 17:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Israel. --Gray Porpoise 18:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Israel. --Yas121 18:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - It apeares that the orginator of this Afd is somewhat of a mystory to me. Please avoid voting until it is clarified. see this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Barbamama - kind of strange for first edit......... Zeq 21:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    • How does my being a mystery to you, or the number of edits I've done, have anything to do with whether or not your article deserves to remain in wikipedia?Barbamama 23:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
      • It may have some relevancy because you are the sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned user.--Mantanmoreland 13:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment wouldn't redirecting this be a very bad idea? Redirecting Zionist Regime (which is often seen as an insult or disparaging term) to Israel would be like redirecting "miserable failure" to George W. Bush, or "capitalist pig dogs" to the United States. Dark Shikari talk/contribs 22:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know, maybe redirect to Anti-Zionism. --Metropolitan90 01:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete dict def, attack page, and the contents is wrong: it refers the leaders of Israel and not to the state itself. -- Koffieyahoo 01:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete somewhere between a speediable attack page and a dictionary definition. Not suitable for wikipedia, not suitable for wiktionary. GRBerry 02:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dicdef, attack page. Jayjg (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Zionism - if you are searching for Zionist regime, you are probably looking for Zionism. Megapixie 04:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't disagree with any of the comments above. Under normal circumstances (and if this article was more than a few hours old when nominated) I would vote delete. However, this AfD was initiated in bad faith by the sockpuppet of a banned user, and I think that needs to be taken into consideration. Judging from his brief edit history he seemed to be stalking Zeq for some reason.--Mantanmoreland 13:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as dictionary definition. Consider redirecting to Zionism --Wafulz 15:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as propagandist rhetoric that fails to move the discourse toward consensus. --Beware of Cow 16:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Since when is that a criteria for deletion ? Megapixie 00:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Based on everything I've read, the need to reach consensus is at the core of the Wikipedia philosophy. We discuss until we reach consensus. Under what circumstances will a reasonable Zionist and a reasonable anti-Zionist ever agree on the content of an article called Zionist Regime? This is nothing but a revert war honeypot. Some people live for that stuff, while I'd personally like to see much less. That'll leave us more time to spend reaching consensus on issues that that actually bear upon real people. This isn't it.--Beware of Cow 01:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per GRBerry. If a redirect is wanted, Zionist Occupation Government seems best to me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with ZOG. This expression is exactlu what the article sais about it. It has hundreds of thousands of google hits. look it up Zeq 05:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Even Iran's Ahmadinejad wants to delete the article. Not long after it was created, he said: "The real cure for the conflict is...elimination of Zionist regime."[58]--Beware of Cow 17:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect as dicdef to Arab-Israeli conflict or suchlike, I guess, but not to Israel, as this could be seen as support for this appellation. It's not an attack page, IMHO, as this slur is indeed widely used by e.g. Iranian officialdom, but certainly it's not an euphemism, either... Sandstein 20:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unsuitable as a redirect, not really notable as a stand-alone phrase. Eluchil404 21:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. Eusebeus 16:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Zionism. Notable as phrase, but there's no possible content. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:14, 10 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 - removing AfD to be more precise. Please feel free to relist if necessary, but preferably at a later time. At the moment, there are auxillary issues surrounding the José is Fluid account. See this for example. In this case, it would be better for this AfD to be impartial to the situation, hence the removal. HappyCamper 23:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don Bell (reporter)

This person seems to be a minor local television figure of little note. Please note that User:CFIF has branded me a sockpuppet for feeling that articles of his that I think should be deleted. José is Fluid 16:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep obviously a sockpuppet of Spotteddogsdotorg, why else would you come on as a newbie and start mass attempts to delete TV personality articles? --CFIF (talk to me) 16:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that your only reason for thinking that? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I am absolutely certain of the fact that he is, however, and have indefinitely blocked him as a result. -Splash - tk 19:22, 3 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 16:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Own Terms

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 16:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Subject does not yet meet notability requirements of WP:MUSIC. --Satori Son 17:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Kchase T 21:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • delete EP just out, no album and no hits, fails WP:MUS Ohconfucius 09:02, 11 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 11:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John U. Hofstetter

Doesn't seem to be notable enough. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. The grounds cited for notability include being a local politician and the owner of a brewery that is apparently so non-notable it isn't even mentioned by name in his article. Erechtheus 16:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy? No real assertion of notability made. --DarkAudit 17:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete He might measure up if sources can be found and notable claims adduced, but as it stands it is borderline A7. Eluchil404 21:45, 6 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. Userfy allowed upon request. - Mailer Diablo 23:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jack White (musician)/Temp

This page on a notable musician is not necessary because he has a properly named page at Jack White (musician). I didn't notice anything in particular that should be merged into the correct article, and there should be no need for a redirect from this page. Erechtheus 16:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Userfy under Esprit15d (talk • contribs)'s page somewhere. This looks like a planned rewrite that never got finished. Zetawoof(ζ) 05:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I think that's exactly what it was supposed to be at first, but other people seem to have embraced it as their own alternate Jack White biography. That's the concern here. Erechtheus 12:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Satori Son 21:08, 10 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. Mangojuicetalk 04:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charlotte Martyn

Not notable enough. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. I agree that it looks unlikely that the subject is notable, but this page is under construction and has even been noted as such with the proper template. It has been less than a week since the template was added. I don't support sending up articles so tagged for AfD so quickly. If it had been a month, go ahead with it. Erechtheus 16:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - the article needs to more clearly establish the importance of the subject. I'm not sure that tossing it into AFD so quickly is a good idea. Better to work with the original author to establish that, and failing that effort, bring it here. -- Whpq 17:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Nlu should post to talk that the author needs to state more clearly her special notability. Then allow the author to more clearly address that. Nlu should withdraw nomination in the meantime, as a stub here will probably only lead to more piling on, and an untimely deletion. Wjhonson 17:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • But the thing is, as stated, I don't believe that the subject can satisfy the notability requirement whatever is added about her. She's a magazine article writer of no particular notability, and adding works that she has written will not add to her notability. --Nlu (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. The article on Charlotte Martyn has two claims: 1) she's the Production Editor for ONM, and 2) she was a contributor to Games Magazine. [59] specifically admits she's one of the lesser members of the team, and being a contributor to Games (of which there are many) probably doesn't meet the threshold either. If you can dig up independent news sources about her accomplishments then I'll be happy to take it back, but for now, Delete.
  • Delete. It isn't that the article needs to flesh out or verify claims of notability. There simply aren't any claims of notability. She's a production editor for a magazine. If somebody can add some fact about her not currently hinted at, I'll be glad to revisit, but right now it looks like a CSD-A7. Fan-1967 21:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing in the article, no matter how rewritten will add up to notability. There's nothing on Google that suggest notability. Dlyons493 Talk 00:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Had extensive knowledge of Arcane words is not a claim to notability. Borderline hoaxy. ~ trialsanderrors 19:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • delete asserting her importance on the ground that "Without Charlotte's work the magazine would feature a lot more mistakes and errors and thus not reach the standard that Nintendo fans request from the official magazine" is utter rubbish. That's the editor's job. Nintendo magazine's Editor does not seem very notable to me. Ohconfucius 09:14, 11 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 homophobia. I consider merging and unimplementable mandate here; Homophobia covers a similar topic already, and it's totally unclear how to combine the two articles. Mangojuicetalk 04:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homophobic hate speech

Is there really a need for separate article. Should go under Homophobia, and in any case most are regurgitate from elsewhere i.e. Westboro Baptist Church. Linesman 16:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. In the current state, the article does not appear to establish the need for a separate article. I do think it's likely a strong separate article could be written on the topic. It may be best to give an eventual author of such a page a clean slate with which to work. Erechtheus 16:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom, this makes more sense to merge whatever is mergeable into Homophobia. -- Whpq 16:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Molerat 20:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge dposse 22:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Homophobia. Eluchil404 21:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. Agne 18:25, 11 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 16:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A-Systems Corporation

Advertorial article for a company which scores a whopping 86 unioque Google hits. No evidence of meeting WP:CORP. Just zis Guy you know? 16:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There are articles on other software companies. A ranking on Google shouldn't influence whether or not an article is deleted. There is a difference between popular and important. The CPA Technology advisor thought it was important enough to give 5/5 stars http://www.cpatechadvisor.com/article/article.jsp?id=1100 .
Maybe we should consider making it less "advertorial," rather than just delete it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikapedia (talk • contribs).
  • Delete Less advertorial would eliminate the problems with WP:NPOV, but not the clear fact that the company fails WP:CORP by a lot. Wikipedia is not a business directory. Fan-1967 18:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
It's up to you, chief.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikapedia (talk • contribs).
  • Delete per nom; advertising and does not establish that it meets WP:CORP. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:07, 3 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 22:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Control deck

This is a strategy guide and thus falls under WP:NOT please note I'm not saying Magic is not notable which it clearly is but the fact that this article is a strategy guide. Whispering(talk/c) 16:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Nintendo Entertainment System. The "control deck" was what the main hardware unit was called in the US. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Where's the strategy guide or "manual" that you are talking about? And why should it be redirected to Nintendo Entertainment System which is of no relevance to the article? The control deck article does not include any step-by-step instructions for how to play or build any given control deck, it merely outlines how both historical and modern control decks work, and gives examples of basic functional elements of the most popular control decks. And besides, the other magic the gathering deck archetypes already have their own existing articles. --130.233.16.188 23:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and if the gathering deck archetypes have articles, delete them also. Dlyons493 Talk 00:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As the anon points out, this is in line with the other four types listed at Magic: The Gathering deck types. The lack of sourcing is troublesome, but this article manages to stick to a description of the topic without prescriptive (how-to) content. Zetawoof(ζ) 05:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Though I contributed much of the content, I see extreme similarities between Magic: The Gathering deck types + subarticles and Chess strategy and tactics + subarticles. I believe WP:NOT applies more to U/G Madness and Secret Force, but not Midgame deck or Aggro-Control deck. NorrYtt 19:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with Norytt, this is not a strategy guide but a description of an existing phenomenon. --Akhonji 17:59, 12 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 11:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Special Operations units of the United Kingdom

Article is a list of organisations with no foundation in British Military philosophy. Detailed objections to the content, which will result in the deletion of the majority, if not all of the article content:

  • There is no clear indication of what is meant by Special Operations. The Joint Doctrine of the UK Armed Forces as developed by the Joint Doctrine and Concepts Centre does not include this, the division being Special Forces and Regular forces.
  • The UKSF Reserve logo is inappropriate, since the UKSF are dealt with in that article.
  • The first main section covers SF, which are dealt with in the UKSF article and should accordingly be removed.
  • Brigade Patrol Troop is dealt with elsewhere, as is FPGRM. It should be clear from the FPGRM that their role is protection of the Nuclear estate, this is not an SF role. BPT patrol beyond the Forward Edge of Battle Area, this is a conventional activity in the strategic and tactical doctrine of the UK.
  • Mountain & Arctic Warfare Cadre no longer exists and in any case was a training organisation. Mountain and Arctic warfare is not an SF role, but rather one of the prime roles of 3 Commando Brigade.
  • Pathfinder Platoon is a Parachute Regiment unit, part of 16 Air Assault Brigade, a regular army formation.
  • 8 Flight AAC is an element of the Special Forces Air Wing and therefore dealt with under the SF article.
  • 148 Battery is an element of 29 Regt Royal Artillery, a Commando trained element of 3 Commando Brigade
  • The section on Reserve Special Operations units refers to only one unit that is not handled under the SF article eg the HAC. 21 Regt and 23 Regt SAS, 63(V) Sqn R.Sigs a component of 18(SF) Sigs Regt and the SBS Reserve are all discussed in the SF article. HAC is an ISTAR asset which operates in beyond the Forward Edge of Battle Area, That is a regular army role and is fulfilled by other 'Green Army' Artillery units as well.
  • The elite units section does not justify why these units should be considered in a Special Operations context, accepting that at this time SOF remains undefined.
  • With reference to support units. 18 Sigs Regt is an element of UKSF and discussed in that article. The remaining units are elements of 3 Commando Brigade and discussed in that article.
  • The section Former Special Forces could be discussed under the SF article, not in a specious article. Notwithstanding that, Commachio Group was a precursor to FPGRM, its role was protection of the Nuclear estate. British Commandos were a Commando force and discussed under that article. Whether 95th Foot, as an early proponent of the skirmishing approach to infantry tactics could be considered as Special Forces or not is an interesting debate, I would tend to disagree but this is not the place for that discussion. 14 Int Coy could be considered as an SF unit, not a SOF unit.

This is subject of an attempted mediation, discussed here however the initial complainant has made no effort to actually engage in the mediation. Once the vairous points above have been addressed the article is virtually content free and non notable.

ALR 17:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:OR as "Special Operations" is not defined in the context of the UK military. -- Koffieyahoo 01:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. I've looked throught the edit history, talk page and MadCab case, and I don't think there is anything to salvage here. Consider turning this article into a redirect to UKSF, to help our american readers find that page. WegianWarrior 04:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. I have added anything remotely relevant to United Kingdom Special Forces#See also: not because I consider them to be "Special Operations Forces" but because a casual reader may be looking for the likes of Pathfinder Platoon and stumble to the UKSF article. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 08:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Collateral merged into UKSF, making the article redundant. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 18:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into UKSF. Addhoc 13:10, 7 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.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 11:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mobile Construction Vehicle

We don't need articles for every unit of Command & Conquer (haven't we decided that already?). There is nothing that makes this unit more special than any other video game unit. Wickethewok 17:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep The Mobile Construction Vehicle is perhaps the most important unit and it appears in all the command and conquer games except Generals. Very much can be written about the Mobile Construction vehicle. For example, we could write about how the Mobile Construction vehicle's appearance changed throughout the games, how Westwood first thought of the idea of the Mobile Construction Vehicle, and why it isn't included in Generals.--Taida 18:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT as a game guide and WP:NOR as original research. Whispering(talk/c) 20:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Command & Conquer.Dark Shikari talk/contribs 22:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom (or merge) Dlyons493 Talk 00:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Whispering. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 16:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, WP:OR, WP:NOTE and WP:NOT (a game guide). Daniel.Bryant 06:15, 13 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 11:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doomsday(game)

Non-notable game, prod removed by author Wildthing61476 17:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Bigtop 17:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom along with Queen Melanie and Racial Union. Wickethewok 18:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Related articles created by same author (which all deal with the same fictional universe created by the author and his/her friends) are Racial Union and Queen Melanie. -- Merope 19:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 22:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Stellmach 13:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Peephole 15:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)--
  • Delete per nom. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 13:34, 6 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 with XETRA-FM.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 12:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reggae Makossa

This is a non-notable local radio show available on only one radio station. It has been airing for 21 years, but that should not make this program notable. Many television and radio stations have had long running local programs that aren't notable and should not have their own article. A mention in the station article should suffice. Erechtheus 04:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment -- It is a show on XETRA-FM, which is very likely the largest English-speaking station in the San Diego/Tijuana radio market. I don't think it can be dismissed as totally nonnotable, but I also don't think I know enough about it to have a vote. The article does need serious cleaning up. Haikupoet 00:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Rje 17:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. Akradecki 18:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to XETRA-FM. SnurksTC 18:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vegaswikian 18:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to XETRA-FM. I disagree with Haikupoet, the station itself is currently rated 23rd in the San Diego market (Radio and Records Ratings for 18Jul2006). I think the show itself is notable enough to be mentioned on the XETRA-FM page, but not by itself, at least not without a lot more information about the show and it's history. Maybe create a Programs heading on the XETRA-FM page, add Makeda's name to the Personalities list, and the Reggae Makossa URL to the external links on the XETRA-FM page. Spicyjack 00:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge onto main radio station page. Daniel.Bryant 06:16, 13 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 11:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discourses by Thakur Anukulchandra and Messages of Thakur Anukulchandra

Source material. Wikisource probably won't take them but User:Sawantve is strongly encouraged to put this stuff on their own website and link to it from the Thakur Anukulchandra article. -- RHaworth 17:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete; in spite of my request on his talk page, the author has never clarified the copyright status of this document, and wikisource won't take material with unclear copyright status (Liberatore, 2006). 17:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if Anukulchandra died in 1969 his writings are likely still under copyright. Fortunately we stopped this series before we got around to Answering-Machine Messages of Thakur Anukulchandra and Grocery Shopping Lists of Thakur Anukulchandra. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: I don't care what happens to these things, but they themselves don't belong in an encyclopaedia. Byrgenwulf 20:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete would be a sympathetic service to all our existential uphill momentum Dlyons493 Talk 00:51, 4 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. SynergeticMaggot 05:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acceptance (band)

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 18:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep they meet notability by albums published. Akradecki 18:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Akradecki. --Gray Porpoise 18:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes, they only have one album on Sony Records and WP:MUSIC wants two, but I think deleting the article because of that is a bit pedantic. SnurksTC 18:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above, one album released by a major company like Sony is worth more to me than a couple from an indie label. DrunkenSmurf 18:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. PT (s-s-s-s) 19:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per DrunkenSmurf. Acyso 22:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep indie bands need the coverage of a few dedicated fans and future music lovers who want to broaden their horizons —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amygal (talk • contribs).
    • This comment doesn't seem relevant. Wikipedia is not for advertising and "getting coverage." --Wafulz 14:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep based on the Sony album. --Wafulz 14:55, 4 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 doesn't meet WP:BIO and verging on attack page. - FrancisTyers · 01:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jason A. Haap

to me is not apparently notable, exists solely as a web personality localized to the Cincinnati area —WAvegetarian•(talk) 18:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete article has 3 references... so far so good, let's see what they are... his blog, somebody else's blog, his website. Hmm. Not so good. "Jason A. Haap" gets 3 unique Google hits, "Jason Haap" gets 80 unique Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • questionable keep not notable in his own right, but may be by association with Justin Jeffre and the Cincinnati Beacon. Perhaps someone should put Cincinnati Beacon under the spotlight too! Ohconfucius 11:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete does not meet WP:BIO. Can be mentioned in Cincinnati Beacon if that article stays but doesn't need one of his own. Eluchil404 21:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • As I am Jason Haap, I am troubled that Wikipedia would allow such defamatory material a place on their page. The material listed is not true. For example, I am not unemployed. I am not "self-styled" in that the moniker "The Dean of Cincinnati" was given to me by associates. (That final point is admittedly a bit absurd.) I am not a racist because one person says I am (Nate Livingston, who has said that about many activists in the Cincinnati area. I would like to note there are plenty of entries on his blog where I am praised -- all dated AFTER the post linked here.) Additionally, the "outrage" described about an old blog comment is nothing more than this single person -- who has trolled all corners of the internet trying to broadcast inaccurate information about my personal life. Though I am partially a public figure in the Cincinnati community, I hardly am such on a national or international level. Lastly, I do not deserve to be dogged this way by an angry politico in the Midwest -- at least not on Wikipedia's servers.
  • Delete, preferably speedily, for making unsourced negative statements about a living person. —xyzzyn 01:39, 7 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bastard Sons of Dial-Up

De-proded. Article makes no claims to meet WP:WEB. Google search for "Bastard Sons of Dial-Up" gets 58 hits, only 9 original. Scientizzle 18:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 19:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The external links are not notable enough. --Sbluen 03:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep If improved, it could be useful... Needs a fair bit of improvement though, a lot of self-gloating. --58.6.64.79 06:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I agree that removal of POV material would help, but the article would still suffer from a lack of established notability. -- Scientizzle 18:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I removed the POV material, and fixed some spelling etc. The main reason for the lack of credibility would be the 'revolving' name. The show is widely advertised as BSoD, rather than Bastard Sons of Dial-up, which would affect notibility through Google, Yahoo, etc. --58.6.64.79 07:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article provides no info that would satisfy any of the three criteria listed under WP:WEB. --Satori Son 04:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge content into IPTV if relevant there. Fairsing 16:43, 10 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 11:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TRsRockin.com

Site fails WP:WEB. Alexa rank of 409,416. Jacek Kendysz 19:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 19:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I was actually wondering how long it would take for someone to AfD this article. (I hope the guys over there don't kill me for doing this). Page was created and edited mostly by forum moderators (including me, I admit), see also [60] Abwayax (contribs :: talk) 20:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom (and per the graceful way Abwayax fell on their sword) Yomangani 23:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. NeoJustin 00:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Pokémon glitches and possibly Team Rocket? This fansite is also known in the WP:PCP group as a good glitch site. I hate glitches, but for the sake of the Collab, please? TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 21:52, 6 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 11:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simoka.com

Non-notable site, fails WP:WEB. Alexa rank of 368,288. Jacek Kendysz 19:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom. Shimeru 20:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete' as WP:SPAM. Eluchil404 21:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. Carson 04:15, 8 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 11:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Pinkston

Fails WP:BIO. No evidence of significant contributions in government or of notable publications. A few online interviews and mentions of his name within other articles (of which he is not the subject). Seems to have been created to fill out the claims of notability of a different article, also up for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Dale Cearley. Kafziel 19:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. Does seem to be acknowledged as an expert in his field, but no evidence of major policy impact or of important publications. I'm not convinced he merits an article. Shimeru 20:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete some of the article is copyvio - cut 'n paste from [61] Dlyons493 Talk 00:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, but could be a keep if there's more. I've tagged it as a bio-stub Ohconfucius 10:57, 4 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 22:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terry Kilrea

Never held public office, just an also-ran. Fails to meet WP:BIO guidelines. Delete Atrian 19:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, per discussion below. Meets WP:BIO. Kafziel 12:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Delete per above. He gets a lot of Google hits and he's mentioned quite a bit in several independent articles, but I don't see any major sources doing stories solely about him. No contributions to government, no published work. Kafziel 19:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Usgnus 19:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I never thought I'd say this, because I believe Terry Kilrea to be a complete and utter %#*!$#!, but I would have to say keep. He has received a lot of press coverage in the Ottawa area, most recently about the troubles he's having running for office as a public servant (he's employed by the province). He got a lot of coverage the last time around too, since he served as a bit of a lightning rod on a number of issues (anti-smoking by-law, bilingualism, rural discontent, etc.), and he didn't disappear from the media between elections the way some candidates do. Sadly, I think he meets WP:BIO. --Skeezix1000 20:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep If you lived in Ottawa, you would know why  :) --curling rock Earl Andrew - talk 01:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Earl Andrew. The guy is quite notable. Ardenn 01:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I try to keep an open mind but there is nothing in this article that makes him notable. As per Atrian, he doesn't rate an article. Maybe after he gets elected. --Suttungr 04:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry you feel that way. The article could use some additions. He is certainly more notable than say Donna Upson who ran for mayor last time and survived deletion. The point is, Kilrea has raised quite a bit of controversy and is quite notable in the city. Anyone familiar with local Ottawa politics will know who Kilrea is because of this. I must say I am baffled as to why this is being deleted, but as I can see, it's just people who are not from Ottawa who are unable to understand the notability of Mr. Kilrea. --curling rock Earl Andrew - talk 04:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, in what way does he meet WP:BIO? It doesn't seem that he "has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." As I said, he's mentioned in quite a few things, but not as the main subject. He has not had his own work published. He has not done important things in government, since he has never been in government. He may be notable, but that needs to be verifiable. Saying, "If you lived in Ottawa, you would know why," is not a valid reason for keeping the article. If nobody can come up with sufficient sources, my delete vote will stand. Kafziel 12:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Given his controversial stands on a number of issues, he has been the main subject of significant media coverage over the years. In many ways, the media has treated him as a spokesman for right-wing views on local issues. Page one of my Google search located the following recent coverage ([62], [63], [64], and[65]), the focus of which is on Kilrea. He meets WP:BIO. His name is, unfortunately, in the news all the time. --Skeezix1000 12:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Those results are very different from the Google search I performed yesterday. I couldn't find a single article with his name in the headline. Okay, since this is verifiable, I will change my vote. Kafziel 12:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
          • I agree with Kafziel that the statement "If you lived in Ottawa, you would know why" is pretty ambiguous. To somebody not from Ottawa, taking the article at face value, there is nothing remarkable about this person. So it would improve the article to cite these sources mentioned by Skeezix1000 in the article itself. --Atrian 13:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Agreed. Since I am such a big fan of Mr. Kilrea, I will leave the edits to another user. In the meantime, I have slapped an importance template on the article. --Skeezix1000 19:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It should be kept definitely, there are numerous other articles on people similar to his situation, so the deletion tag should be VANISHED IMMEDIATELY Look also at the last sentence too family member of a famous coach ,it's like the same thing as you put a celebrity's sister or father, so another reason why Terry Kilrea should be kept, not to mention his contreversial platform or views--

P.S : One may want to add LArry O'Brien, the Calian chairman who just entered the race - may have some similarities, like been Anti O-Train

JForget 22:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:BIO (Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage) --Purplezart 23:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep definitely notable -- Samir धर्म 16:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP The mayors race in Ottawa is heated this year, and Terry will be certain to play a significant role, even if he is not a high scoring entrant. His name has been in the news at least every couple of weeks so far in the lead up, and with out a doubt folks will be looking for an article to ansewer the question "who is this guy"cmacd 19:57, 8 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 22:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cardomain

Spam from non-notable website with no pretense to satisfying WP:WEB Valrith 19:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. A high-traffic and popular site (2521 on Alexa but popularity alone doesn't make it encyclopedic. SnurksTC 20:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertisement. Shimeru 20:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete spam Just zis Guy you know? 20:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advertisement/spam. NeoJustin 00:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a company as real as any other listed on Wikipedia. Cardomain is an active company within the automotive aftermarket industry, is well-known by young auto enthusiasts and even works with other popular auto businesses like DUB Magazine. To provide some additional context around the business I added some external links to independent outside media who have covered CarDomain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grseattle (talk • contribs).
  • Keep. A high-profile site seems to have some reference value. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep if claim of "largest online community for auto enthusiasts" can be verified, regular ol' Keep if not. I've de-POVed it and now it's a valid stub of a popular site. -- Scientizzle 17:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment the "largest" claim is on the fornt page of the site, with the citation of "Source: * ComScore, August 2005" -- Scientizzle 17:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please ranking in the 2000s on alexa is very notable Yuckfoo 16:11, 11 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 22:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Avery

Ryan Avery is apparently a local musician and comedian. He has received a few writeups in local papers. He/his bands are, as yet, unsigned. Google returns quite a few results for the name, but, on the first few pages at least, they appear to be for a different individual. Most of the supporting references are to pages created by or for Ryan Avery. I do not feel the subject is noteworthy or encyclopedic. Shimeru 19:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I should probably also note that this is a contested prod, for the record. Shimeru 19:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, speedy if nom withdrawn. Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (not to mention on Mark Mothersbaugh's website). Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style AND the local scene of a city. That's two pieces of WP:MUSIC criteria right there. There's a bit more to it than that, of course... Google hits, AMG.com entries, and Amazon sales really don't apply in this case, nor do major labels. Avery has performed with or has working relationships with other acts listed here on Wikipedia, such as Quintron, Miss Pussycat, Captain Ahab, Kimya Dawson, Brodie Foster Hubbard, and Aquabats. He is an important figure in the music, art, comedy, and improv scenes of a major American city. And, he is an unusual individual, which was the main reason I decided to write an article about him (not to mention the fact he was on the cover for Phoenix New Times, which convinced me it was time for this article). Note: I have informed some of my fellow editors, who have worked on articles about similar subjects, about this article and this AfD to get their opinion. PT (s-s-s-s) 19:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Of local interest only. Very few Google hits, blank entry on AMG, fails every test on WP:MUSIC. —Chowbok 20:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • What of the criteria it has met, as listed above? It meets those, therefore does not fail WP:MUSIC. I have already covered my thoughts about AMG above. PT (s-s-s-s) 20:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: If it is kept, it should of course be moved. Why was this created under Ryan avery instead of Ryan Avery? —Chowbok 20:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I have fixed that. PT (s-s-s-s) 20:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable. However, I have to ask, you aren't Ryan Avery, are you, Parsssseltongue? --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 20:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • No, I am not. This is not the first AZ-related article I have written, nor the first to be put up for deletion, and probably not the last. PT (s-s-s-s) 20:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete seems to be of merely local interest Dlyons493 Talk 01:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - local interest, up-and-coming, maybe, but not until 2008 according to the article. John (Jwy) 03:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • No. He has been active for years. 2008 is when he will be returning from Portland. PT (s-s-s-s) 16:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I just got spammed by Ryan Avery asking me to visit his Wikipedia page. This isn't MySpace. --Infamous30 05:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • No. First of all, I am not the subject of this article. I have written many Arizona related articles, this is just one. Second of all, I asked you to read this article and comment on the AfD because of your edits to articles which I felt were related. I do not appreciate your incivil personal attack, which certainly did not assume good faith. I will take this conversation to your talk page, but I request you strike out your misapprehension above. PT (s-s-s-s) 16:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh...my mistake. I've never heard of Ryan Avery. Can't help you. --Infamous30 17:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
        • As I have said before (and this is not intended for Infamous, just a general principle he/she reminded me of), just because you haven't heard of someone doesn't make them non-notable. My whole reason for letting other editors know about this article and the corresponding AfD is because I was hoping they'd read the article, see the associations the artist has made, activities he has participated in, check out the sources I have cited, and then hopefully vote for a keep. However, in no way was I trying to influence anyone's vote (I have informed plenty of editors about other AfDs that they disagreed with me on), merely putting the article in front of them and seeing what they might think. I just think AfDs on music should be voted on by people who have an idea on what the music scene is actually like, not people who only know pop music and think because someone isn't on the radio, that it isn't notable. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of all musicians, etc., just the notable ones. Other databases/websites exist to list everyone in entertainment. It's all about quality, not quantity. Rklawton 19:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I am well aware that this is not a musician directory. I have asserted notability in the article, with reliable, cited sources. PT (s-s-s-s) 20:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Must you reply to every delete vote? You've stated your case, now please just let the vote continue. —Chowbok 23:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Actually, AfD pages are not all about voting but about discussing the matter at hand. Votes are secondary. Replies, civil discussion, and thoroughly exploring the issue are the order of the day. Is there some reason you feel it important to cut the discussion short? Rklawton 04:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Thank you, Rklawton. We may disagree, but at least you are letting me disagree. :) And as far as why I responded, I respond when I feel a comment is based on bad logic. Yes, Wikipedia is not MySpace, but I feel that doesn't have anything to do with this debate. I don't vote keep or write an article on every band I come across. I would not have put the article up if I did not have sources and an assertion of notability in the article. Arguments like "this isn't MySpace" or "delete, I've never heard of the guy" don't seem relevant. PT (s-s-s-s) 14:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
            • First of all, I am a little disturbed that PT feels the need to argue with every person who votes for deletion. I understand you are trying to save your article from being deleted, but you aren't Floyd Landis. This debate shouldn't be taken personally. And if saying that means I am being incivil and not assuming good faith, then so be it. From what I can tell, Avery is not a nationally recognized artist. He isn't listed on any major music databases. I can't find references to him in any national sources on performance art or experimental music...maybe someone else can? However, I've seen numerous Wikipedia pages on artists who are known only locally or regionally. I guess it depends on whether Ryan Avery represents enough of a unique phenomena in Phoenix to warrant his own page. From what I can gather, he may meet that criteria. --Infamous30 15:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
              • Not every person. Only when someone says something that I felt needed a response. User:Dlyons493 voted and said something I disagreed with, but I did not respond to him/her. PT (s-s-s-s)
  • Strong Keep, Ryan Avery has permeated the culture of Art Link First Fridays, which has galleries that show artists from all over the country, not just from Arizona proper. It represents an art movement that just happens to be taking place in a city not steretypically art-centric. The claim "Local interest only" is only a superficial claim in this case, as galleries such as Perihelion and The Trunk Space frequently welcome artists from New York, California, New Orleans, etc. Anyone as prolific as Ryan Avery is within this community (see list at beginning of first "strong keep" entry, as well as the links within disputed article) have ties to, and/or has toured and traveled to many other states, making their impact more than just a "local" impact, without mention of the Mission in Portland he will be undertaking, or of Mark Mothersbaugh's diary entry, worthy of note as more than anecdotal evidence of his impact across the state/city. Otherwise, under such scrutinous criteria, those other local artists listed would be disputable as well (and--given ample evidence through more sources than just google or a recording artist database--they are not). In short, I argue "up-and-coming" versus "local interest only," being that his career has essentially just started, and has already undergone an exponential impact, with a diverse history in multiple art areas, given its incredibly short span. With regards to the responding to deletes, that is the modus operandi of civil discussion; comment or question, then response. If each delete request was not followed by a comment or elucidation as to the logic behind it, it would not warrant a response, it would be a simple "yes" or "no" vote. Dain Quentin Gore 07:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • One edit wonder - Dain has one edited in Wikipedia, and you just read it (above). Rklawton 14:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
      • See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Parsssseltongue. —Chowbok 14:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I am not a sock puppet. I don't use aliases on the internet, this is my real name and always has been. Dain Quentin Gore exists under no other alias on Wikipedia. In addition, I had to research the html uses, etc. of this site just to enter my vote. I had to copy/paste any markups I used such as "strong keep," and I avoid using excessive linking/hrefs to save time and avoid mistakes. This issue has made me join wikipedia because I have seen many artists sites here that have ultimately been kept under similar circumstances. I know about this topic through an email I received (not from Ryan Avery). I have, however, painted sock puppets. Dain Quentin Gore 15:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
          • As I recall, that fits the definition of a "meat puppet". Rklawton 15:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
            • I don't have an agenda. Labelling tends to misdirect the actual debate at hand. There was no "call to action" on the part of the email, it was a link to Ryan Avery's wikipedia entry. I made the decision myself to add to the debate. Dain Quentin Gore 16:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
              • By "meat puppet," the above is refering to something described here Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppets. This is a sort of thing that is to be avoided in these debates. Yes, you have joined the debate now and are welcome to make comments. It will be up to some administrator who closes the debate, however, to decide how to weigh these comments. -MrFizyx 17:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
                • I'd just like to add... I'm not Ryan Avery, I'm not Dain Gore, I'm not the man (or woman) on the grassy knoll, and I never leave Wikipedia's pages to talk about anything Wikipedia, so I don't know about the e-mail being referred to. PT (s-s-s-s) 18:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep-It may be inappropriate for me to comment on this entry as I am mentioned in the entry. If it is inappropriate I apologize. I recommend a strong keep as Ryan was the cover story in the New Times-Phoenix edition. The New Times is a collection of alternative weekly’s based out of Phoenix and should be considered a major new source. It is the same company that currently owns the Village Voice. Here is a link to the article.....http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/Issues/2006-08-03/news/feature.html... Kevin Patterson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.98.115.138 (talk • contribs).
  • Delete nn, topic fails inclusion guidelines. {{RPA}} Sock (or Meat) -puppetry clearly likely being used in a bid to keep this. (Update: let me amplify my vote: I agree with Chowbok, RKLawton, et al wrt notability.) Eusebeus 16:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Your statement that the article fails inclusion guidelines is just plain wrong. Read WP:MUSIC it meets notability criteria, as asserted in the article, on the talk page, and in this AfD. So, pray tell, since I have refuted the "nn" claims, what else do you have? PT (s-s-s-s) 19:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I'm restoring the above comment as I don't feel it was obviously personal (no one was named). At the same time I feel the need to disagree. The accuser in the case of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Parsssseltongue appears to have recanted so it would be wise not to jump to any conclusions here. It would be better to focus your comments on the reason that you feel it is "nn". -MrFizyx 18:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • For what it's worth, I was convinced by the comments there that there wasn't enough evidence to bring forth a sock puppet accusation, and decided that I had made a mistake for that reason. I'm still very suspicious of the sudden appearances here. —Chowbok 18:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
        • What is so difficult to understand? People found out about the article and the fact that it's up for deletion, so they decided to chime in. Is this the first time this has ever happened on Wikipedia? And is it really my fault, especially considering I do not discuss Wikipedia with people who are not on Wikipedia? (First rule of Fight Club and all that...). PT (s-s-s-s) 19:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Uh huh. So you sent messages to a bunch of unfamiliar Wikipedia users that you hoped would vote to keep this, and at least two people who had never used Wikipedia again just happened to "find out" about this AfD, but you had nothing to do with that. —Chowbok 19:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Yes, I left notices on the talk pages of editors who had worked on articles relating to the subject, hoping they would vote keep on this article. The two new Wikipedia editors who began their time on Wikipedia by voting keep first came to Wikipedia on their own. I had something to do with it only in the fact that I created the article on the subject that attracted them here in the first place, but there is no collusion between us. This is the third time you have made an incivil bad faith accusation towards me. My next step will be dispute resolution. PT (s-s-s-s) 19:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
              • It's not bad faith: I really, honestly don't believe you. My accusations may be incorrect, but they are brought forth with the purest of motives. And I don't see why you're accusing me of incivility; I've said nothing against you personally. How exactly could one bring forth such suspicions in a manner you would consider civil? —Chowbok 20:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
                • I would say by the fourth time I have told you "NO, I DIDN'T," I would say it's incivil to keep it going. I have a good history here of editing and playing by the rules in the AfDs. You're past the point of good faith issues and venturing into dickish territory. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Rebuttal - What's so clear about this? Your accusation is baseless and in bad faith. I cannot control the fact that people familiar with the notability of the subject have decided to chime in on the AfD. I have not contacted anyone about the article or its deletion outside of other Wikipedia editors, and I am not in breach of Wikipedia policy. PT (s-s-s-s) 16:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • QuestionI have been reading over the rules for qualification to see what is allowed/not allowed and proper in these conversations. I have not been able to find a definition of sock puppet. From the above comments I can get the jist, but is there definition availible? Kevin Patterson
        • Go to WP:SOCK. PT (s-s-s-s) 20:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
        • So long as we identify them as such, the admin reviewing the discussion can take it into consideration. They are under no obligation to simply tally the votes. As a result, it's not really necessary to delete a sock puppet/meat puppet's votes. In fact, the admin may want to take this sort of misbehavior into consideration when making the delete/keep decision. Rklawton 21:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
          • But none of that type of misbehavior is happening on this AfD. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Correction: this AfD has seen the appearance of several "meat puppets" - editors whose only contribution to Wikipedia has been to come forward in this AfD in support of the "Keep" vote. Rklawton 19:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
              • Tally so far: So far we have seen PT vote twice to keep, and we have seen two meat puppets vote one time each to keep. We have seen six other editors (not including the nomination) voting to delete. Rklawton 19:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
                • Correction: I voted once. Another editor, Ginkgo100, voted once for Keep, as well. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia. But I did not do this, so there is no misbehavior. Frankly, I think all the bad faith accusations taint this debate far more than two new editors who showed up for the AfD, and I don't see a real consensus here. PT (s-s-s-s) 20:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Question: Is NN synonymous with "Local Interest Only?" If so, no strict criteria exists to delete. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability: "this is not an actual policy or guideline."

Note that the verification (Search Engine) test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_ways_to_verify_notability_of_articles) comes with the same caveat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Non-notable_topics_do_not_belong:

"The word notable is often used as a synonym of "unique" or "newsworthy." Many vanity articles are deleted because the people discussed are non-notable. Sometimes, there is some content in a non-notable article that can be merged into another article. For example, If a British boy wins an award from his police station for creating a new organization scheme for the British Police Cadets, he may write a vanity article about himself. It may be judged that the new organizational scheme was notable while the details of the award ceremony and the identity of the boy were non-notable. In this case, the notable content in the vanity article on the British boy can be merged into a larger article on cadet schemes in Britain."

Presents a potential case to merge with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_New_Times under "noteworthy articles."

Also, the "meat puppet" charge stands unproven. I have so far presented arguments that have yet to be refuted or even brought up/mentioned again. Edit: deleted comment not pertaining to the debate. Dain Quentin Gore 00:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • What do you mean unproven? This is the definition of meat puppet[66]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by rklawton (talk • contribs).
    • I clicked the link, rklawton, and it showed me that Dain Quentin Gore has been active on Wikipedia. He may be a new editor, but I don't think that makes his vote less relevant. The article on this subject he has an interest in attracted him to Wikipedia and has inspired him to join the community. Unless you are looking to exclude new editors, then you must look upon this as a point in favor of the article. PT (s-s-s-s) 18:29, 10 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Symmetrical Relativity

This is original research which lacks reliable sources and hence verifiability. I would hesitate to call it complete bollocks, because I do not wish to offend the author. (It is alsocomplete bollocks, apparently compounded by an inability to deal with criticism or concern). The related article, Relativity (consistent with the general principle), which is substantially identical and was created through a "cut-and-paste" page move, thus contravening the GFDL, is also being nominated. Byrgenwulf 19:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment The second article has been speedied per WP:CSD#G7. If this article is kept then the AfD then the author can move it to his preferred title. --Craig Stuntz 20:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, that one was speedied. But now there is another one, with the word "the" in the title. It must go too. Byrgenwulf 07:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that the article has been moved to Relativity (consistent with the general principle) by User:Danras, rather than cut-and-pasted as indicated above. Symmetrical Relativity is now a redirect. --Mike Peel 10:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm not sure I understand the GFDL argument, but they're both OR and should go. As I explained on the Talk page, the term "symmetrical relativity" appears to be entirely made up, and the assertion that general relativity and special relativity are "equivalent" is an un-verifiable misunderstanding. I asked the author to cite sources, but instead he did a copy-and-paste move of the article and twice accused me of vandalism for trying to help fix the mess. --Craig Stuntz 19:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • So far as I understand, part of the agreement under which we contribute, unless we stipulate otherwise, is that an edit history, which tracks what is contributed by whom, is kept. An article without an edit history doesn't have this record. I could be wrong, but that's how I read it. Byrgenwulf 19:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I don't know enough about quantum mechanics to determine the accuracy of the article, but it's a whole lot of information to be completely unsourced. If someone can provide evidence that this is established in scientific publications, I'd be willing to reconsider. On the other hand, if someone can establish that this is, in fact, complete bollocks, I'd be willing to remove the "weak" from my position. Kafziel 19:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    See my "strong delete" vote below. I believe that you will find justification for making this a non-weak delete there. --EMS | Talk 22:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete, after review of EMS's points. Thanks for the clarifications. Kafziel 01:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (unless peer-reviewed references for it are found). OR. The concept of binary stars being created from a single star splitting is quite cute, but it sounds like the author's just gotten his astrophysics confused with his nuclear physics. --Mike Peel 20:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Although I am leaning strongly toward a delete "vote," I'm going to hold back to give the author a chance to tell us where this information has been previously published. It may merely need to be renamed. However, for the article to be kept, the references must be published in a reliable publication -- not another Wikipedia article, not someone's website, but preferably a peer-reviewed journal or scholarly textbook. Delete in consideration of comments below, by both EMS and author Danras. Sounds like OR to me. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 03:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete This article reflects a series of fundamental misunderstandings about relativity and astophysics. to wit:
    • "GR is the same as SR" is quite false. GR is explains gravitation through the use of curved spacetimes, while in SR spacetime is flat.
    • The article refers to an "inertial force". However, inertial motion is how an object moves in the lack of a force.
    • "The general principal states that gravitational acceleration is equivalent to inertial acceleration." -- The general principle of relativity states no such thing. Instead this is a reference to the equivalence principle which states that free fall is inertial motion, and conversely that being at rest on the surface of the earth is being in an accelerated frame of reference.
    • "In Einstein's theory of gravity, gravitational mass is assumed to be equal to inertial mass." -- This is not assumed, but instead is a consequence of the equivalence principle.
    • "The gravitational mass of any object is determined by its gravitational field" is false. Gravitational mass is determined by how an object responds to an external gravitational field. (Note that this refutes the related quantum-mechanics based argument.)
I can easily go on. Overall this is an unsourced bunch of erroneous speculation. --EMS | Talk 22:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Response

    • Einstein's GR is not the same as SR. I specifically stated I was not using GR in that sense, and it is only the same on an abstract level. Even if you feel GR is not the same as SR, the general principle implicitly says they are. The article title is Relativity (consistent with the general principle). The article does not attempt to prove the general principle.
    • Inertial force is a valid term. Forces that accelerate objects to inertial motion or change such motion are implicitly inertial forces.
    • I added end article references to the general principle of relativity. Einstein and others have formulated it differently in different writings but they all say the same thing. Your statements about free fall and being at rest on the earth are true, but they are no principle.
    • The equivalence of gravitational mass and inertial mass was added to Einstein's GR theory. It did not follow from any formulated principle. As I remember, Einstein agonized some over adding it, because it was uncalled for.
    • Both statements regarding gravitational mass are correct. One does not refute the other. There is no action at a distance. Knowledge of gravitational mass is transmitted through the field

Your statements are very concrete and suggest that you are unable to deal with the complexity of relativity. --Danras 01:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Added to first and third points. --Danras 03:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Response

EMS may be a nice person, but if you look to him to think for you, you are in trouble. --Danras 01:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per EMS. linas 00:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Response

Ditto regarding EMS. --Danras 01:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I thank EMS for giving reasons. I think most others will not give specific criticisms for fear of appearing stupid when their criticisms are knocked down. I think it can be agreed that most admit to being unqualified to make knowledgable assertions on this article.--Danras 02:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that the largest critisism of your article (with respect to it being on wikipedia) is that it is unreferenced, and unverified - and wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. While I agree with EMS's comments above, they are secondary to the fact that your work isn't verifiable. If you can provide reputable sources for your article (e.g. peer-reviewed journal articles), and show that it is notable, then this AfD would most likely end in a 'keep'. Otherwise, your work is original research, which has no place on Wikipedia. --Mike Peel 08:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The article is about physics, not about ancient history. If I stated that the Sumerians started painting their pottery around 2250 BC, that fact would need to be verified. Experimental evidence about the physical world is generally known, especially to individuals who would read a Wikipedia article about relativity. Special relativity is well known. The general principle of relativity is stated differently in different places, but is fairly well known in the history of relativity. It is often cited as the key idea that led Einstein to begin work on developing a general theory of relativity. Perhaps I can provide better references to that, but I do not think that is what you are looking for. I think you do not perceptually grasp relativity, and you want a peer-reviewed journal to explain mathematically why a square peg will not fit into a round hole. There may not be many, but I think readers with a high perceptual intelligence will have much trouble understanding this article. You seem to feel that common sense of intelligent people is original research. --Danras 03:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Danras, perhaps you should look over my user page. I am not afraid of looking stupid, and I actually *am* knowledgable in the topic. I have a PhD in physics, I studied general relativity, and some fair amount of geometry since then, and I thought that EMS summed things up just fine. linas 00:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
You should be smarter than me. I only have a B.S. in Physics. I went to graduate school for Physics, but dropped out after a year. One reason is I was being taught too much mathematics and too little about physical concepts. Mathematics would be fun as paid work for say, NASA, calculating rocket trajectories, but it is work. In general, I thought math was more of a trade skill, useful for the hired help. From outside reading, I knew about quarks, the color force, and related concepts such as asymptotic freedom, but there was never any mention of quarks. One time Steven Hawking came and gave a general lecture. After it, in the elevator, I mentioned to Dr. So-and-so, the Asst. Physics Dept. head, my admiration of Hawking's work on the thermodynamics of black holes. He thought that topic was too advanced. In addition, some of the instructors treated me and other students like children.
Since you accept EMS's reasoning, I have no problem calling you stupid. I would say it your face. Your PhD status does not mean anything to me, only whether your argument has merit. I find that many do not accept the dualistic reasoning implicit in relativity and quantum mechanics. For example in QM, light can act as a particle and as a wave. Some concretize the dualism and insist light is "really" one or the other. They will get into an argument about it. If you give an "it depends" answer, you are being purposely vague, and not answering the question. Mentally, "dummies" cannot keep track of two interpretations at the same time, and one can spot them when they insist on simple, singlistic, semi-classical interpretations. Other interpretations are heresy, or at least non-standard, because they allegedly imply the falsity of accepted interpretations. There is a threat of social ostracism for those who think dualistically, as such thinking confuses high status dummies within the science community.
You probably are better at math than I am, especially if you know much about tensor equations. I will look over your stuff and comment further if anything catches my interest.--Danras 16:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Mike Peel, I don't think any amount of references can save this article from a delete. Don't even bother asking for them, because all that you will get is a cascade of justifications and defenses, each more time-consuming than the last. The article is just plain wrong. Lets delete it because its wrong, not because its unreferenced. linas 00:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Linas, I ridicule you publicly. It is a particular pleasure, because you say you have a PhD in Physics. You are going to take the ridicule, because you are more afraid of appearing stupid if you defend yourself. However, maybe you will tire of being a sissy and I can provoke you into defending your position. You are like a retart that claps its flippers and says, "It's wrong." --Danras 17:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Danras, please read WP:NPA. The manner in which you are addressing Linas could hardly be described as civil, either. The thing is, Danras, there really is no need to "defend the position of orthodoxy", because the thoughts put forward in the article don't really pose any threat to its logical integrity. This "symmetrical relativity", or whatever its current epithet is, is just a series of misconceptions and blurrings of meaning. I understand, Danras, that you are of the opinion that mathematics is not necessary to do physics. That is fine (although totally contrary to what physical science has been since Galileo). But, even if one is using words to describe physical theories, certain standards of rigor and proof must still be adhered to, and the article does none of that. And Linas, I think that deleting something because it's just plain wrong is a splendid idea. I wish there was more of that.
Also, Danras, please don't put headings using "=" signs into AfD discussions, because they play havoc with the format of other, unrelated discussions. Byrgenwulf 18:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
My manner of addressing Linas is civil where I live in the United States. I realize that you live outside the U.S., and in your culture, people may feel a deep sense of shame at criticism, but I cannot help that. I have no problem with being addressed that way. The theory presented is Relativity (consistent with the general principle). Its absolute truth is not really an issue, only whether it is consistent with the general principle. Other Wikipedia articles reference the general principle, so the principle is generally accepted. I do not feel obliged to prove the general principle and its associated theory, although I present evidence (binary stars, etc.) which support the them. I do not berate the usefulness of mathematics, but the general principle is a physical concept, not a mathematical one. You state that there are misconceptions and blurrings of meanings in the article, but unless you articulate what you mean, one would be dubious to believe that you know what you are talking about. --Danras 05:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Before reading EMS's comment here, I had arrived at the same conclusion. I thank EMS for expressing the point succinctly. As I have mentioned elsewhere, this article begins with a factual inaccuracy and segues into Original Research after that. Anville 15:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. The author is pretty clear that this is "his" pet theory. Wikipedia is not a place to post your pet theories. --Fastfission 23:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I do admire Einstein's special relativity and general principle of relativity on which the article is based. Perhaps these can be characterized as my "pets." However, I reject anyone's flattery that by explaining what they mean, I share originality with him. --Danras 02:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete now muahhaahahahha, and what EMS saidKmarinas86 19:31, 6 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 22:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brettbits

Completely non-notable website. Prodded twice, both times removed. -- Merope 19:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Michael 20:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • My argument for allowing this article on Wikipedia: On Wikipedia:Notability_(web), criterion 3 states that "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators...". BrettBits.com has 4 pieces of content distributed on AlbinoBlackSheep.com, and one content piece that has been accepted and posted on AddictingGames.com, both of which are independent of BrettBits.com, and both of which are well known (each website is notable enough to have their own article on Wikipedia). -- Midget3 20:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. History section is unverifiable, and without it there's really nothing to this article. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 20:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • How is the History section any less verifiable than Albinoblacksheep's History? -- Midget3 20:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 16 unique Google hits for "Brettbits", of which half (8) are DeviantArt pages. AddictingGames and AlbinoBlackSheep host thousands upon thousands upon thousands of games (and movies); if every person with content posted at these sites had WP articles, we'd cross the 1.5 million English articles mark room to spare. In addition, as the article's creator has no other edits, I have very little doubt that this page violates WP:VAIN. -- Kicking222 21:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. From WP:VAIN: "An article should not be dismissed as 'vanity' simply because the subject is not famous." Furthermore, Armor Games has even less content to it, none of which is useful. Why is that article not up for deletion? How do we know that the author himself did not simply write an article for self-promotion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Midget3 (talk • contribs).
Comment. The amount of content an article has is not the criterion used for determining whether it is up for deletion; its notability is. The policy on vanity was brought up as it is suspected that you, Midget3, have a connection to the creator of the website (if you are not the creator himself). --Merope 13:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If there is concern regarding vanity, is there a way I can instead submit a request for an article on this website? Midget3 14:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. Notability of other articles isn't an issue here. DJ Clayworth 15:01, 8 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 11:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Legened of Zelda: The Wind Waker enemies

Misspelled title, and the article seems to be a very incomplete strategy-guide style list of enemies. None of the other Zelda articles have such a list, although they all have lists of characters (such as this one). SnurksTC 20:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a strategy guide, though I believe this article should be re-written with all the enemies and strictly factual information. Michael 20:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT GameFAQs Just zis Guy you know? 20:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 22:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Game guidery. Precedents: 1 2 3 4, and a large number more. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 00:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a game guide. I have little doubt an encyclopedic article about Legend of Zelda enemies can be written, but this isn't it. BryanG(talk) 05:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Useless in its current form and mispelled. One probably could do an encyclopedic article on the topic, but not point in saving this. Ace of Sevens 07:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Stellmach 13:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Peephole 15:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)--
  • 'Delete for different reasons: These characters should be covered in other LoZ character articles. Delete only if they are. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:21, 5 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 11:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Poughkeepsie Tapes

If this article has merit, more identifying information is needed (e.g. connecting the subject to other articles, expansion of the topic, etc.) Else, delete. CPAScott 20:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete If they are indeed "considered by many to be the most graphically violent collection of images ever assembled on video" and "they have quickly become something of an underground phenomenon" I can find no mention of such a thing by doing a google search. I get 14 hits for "The Poughkeepsie Tapes" and none of them have anything to do with what this article describes. Without sources and/or some connection to another article I smell a strong hoax. DrunkenSmurf 20:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have left a note on the article creator's talk page asking him/her for to provide some additional information on this article if there is any. DrunkenSmurf 20:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Possible hoax, or possibly the OP was misled by a marketing gimmick; there's a feature film with this title apparently due for release late this year. Either way, I find no evidence to support the article as it stands. Shimeru 20:34, 3 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 16:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proto-active imagination

Wikipedia page is the only result on google. Non-notable neologism. --mboverload@ 20:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, OR, neologism, borderline nonsense. Shimeru 20:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Shimeru.--Kchase T 21:45, 10 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Computer and video games that have been considered the greatest ever

The article's premise is inherently POV, and since "someone thought it was great" is the only criteria for inclusion, this is a pretty indiscriminate collection of information. wikipediatrix 20:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Nifboy 20:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As long as there a strict ruleset and every entry is cited by a major publication or website, I don't see a problem with this staying. See also Films that have been considered the greatest ever and List of video games considered the worst ever, both of which have survived AfDs (especially the second one) but also have very clear rules set on the talk page about what can be added, even going so far as to "nominate" entries before they get approved for the article. --SevereTireDamage 20:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Inclusion on the page means a game must meet specific criteria, and everything must be verifiable. In addition, as noted by STD above, many of these lists have been up for AfD and all have been kept (and I've voted keep on all of them). I don't consider the info in this article POV, especially if everything is sourced, and especially if its sister article for the worst games ever exists (which it does). -- Kicking222 21:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, list is strongly referenced and has definite inclusion criteria (which is what all of our lists should look like). It is not POV to say what other people have said. -- nae'blis 22:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The POV comes in the editors' decision to arrange them in a list in the first place. Surely you wouldn't allow a List of reasons the Jews have been considered evil, filled with anti-semitic hate-speech quotes, with sources? Just because a list is sourced doesn't mean there's no POV being pushed. wikipediatrix 13:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe that you are correct in assuming that hate speach would not be allowed in article however, there is nothing in this article that even apporaches hate speach. I don't see any connection and I find it to be a bad comparison. --Edgelord 17:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Um, no one said or even implied there was hate speech in this article - you're completely missing the point of the comparison, which is that just because some people say certain things, and just because we can cite them as sources and arrange them in a list, doesn't mean it isn't POV to do so. wikipediatrix 13:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Straw man arguments don't convince me; a verifiable, well-sourced list of anti-Semitic quotes doesn't exist on Wikipedia currently. If/when it does, let me know. In the meantime, you seem to be missing the part where it's not our POV that's being represented. We're simply reporting what others have said. -- nae'blis 18:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Articles that take sourced quotes and arrange them in a list to meet to a predetermined conclusion (in this case, "great") is still POV. Since the anti-semitic example seems too confusing, instead ask yourself if you would also support List of movie stars that have been considered really sexy or List of instances in which Woody Allen has been considered to be the worst director ever. wikipediatrix 13:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The latter is way to specific to be a useful list and former way too broad. If it were something like List of people conisered to be the sexiest alive and properly sourced, I'd be fine wtith it. Ace of Sevens 15:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
That would be like List of sex symbols, right? Already deleted. -- ReyBrujo 15:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I read the AFD in question and there are many comments that state that the article was not cited and that many of the selections were the personal choices of the editors. A quick reading of the AFD will demonstrate that being the case. This is not the case for this article and is a key difference between the two articles. This argument also goes against the peremise of your original argument because the deleted artice was not well sourced as the proposed anti-semetic article was said to be. This does not support you position because a badly sourced artilce deleted as POV cannot possibly prove that a well sourced aticle can be deleted for that reason. --Edgelord 19:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article has sourced all of the statements made. I also don't see anything different between this article and similar articles article that have survived deletion that warrents deletion for this article. --Edgelord 22:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - There's no POV here. Crappy title, yes, but it's all referenced facts. --PresN 22:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Everything looks to be sourced. Needs a more elegant title? Maybe. Needs deletion? No. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete All the article is a list with some descriptions as is it's not really a article. I'm particularly disturbed by this sentence: While there is no universal standard by which to judge the quality of games... Whispering(talk/c) 22:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment I doubt that there is a universal way to judge anything. I also doubt that there was one for best movies and worst video games and they both survived deletion. Also while a judgement may not be universal I believe that the article does a good job by using well known sources and large polls and not from noname websites etc. --Edgelord 22:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Its sourced, and it works. All one has to do is restrict sources to reputable, high-circulation sources, to avoid the list becoming too cluttered with games that were considered the best ever by a blogger with 2 readers. Dark Shikari talk/contribs 22:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep how many times do we need to have this exact same discussion? Twenty times for each article? Intelligent way of approaching a notable concept. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - This entire article is POV. dposse 23:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
How is this POV. Everything is sourced and the information comes from well known sites, magazines and polls. If it came from small time sites and blogs I would agree but that is not the case here. Also this article does not appear to be diffrent that similar articles where this argument was defeated each time. --Edgelord 00:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The article is relatively well sourced. It won't get a Good or Featured status for sure, and some references could be polished (The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past was noted as the best game by Entertainment Weekly.... Edition? Year? Critic's name? Anything?), but the article has been up for over a year and, so far, prevented spam non notable polls from being inserted. -- ReyBrujo 02:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I found and added this for the Entertainment Weekly reference [67]. I think this will be helpful. --Edgelord 03:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Some sections could be better referenced, but I don't really see anything different between this article and the ones mentioned by SevereTireDamage that were kept. As long as there's strict inclusion criteria as far as what sources should be used, it's fine. BryanG(talk) 05:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Not PoV. Whether a game is good or not is subjective, but whether reviewers in general liked it is quite verifiable. Ace of Sevens 06:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Verifiable, yes, but is it notable? I can verify that my Uncle Ned likes Pac-Man, but does anyone really care? wikipediatrix 13:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, no one would care about your uncle, however, none of the sources in the article comes from family memebers. Also, most if not all of the citations come from well known websites and magazines. --Edgelord 17:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete I hate wikipedia articles which have the title "x considered the y ever". They are lists of opinions, often one person or a small group. Although they tend to be sourced, second-hand POV is still POV. I submit that any article which consists entirely of entries whose inclusion is based on one person's opinion, or a poll, is inherently unencyclopaedic. Lurker talk 12:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. The fact that people like things doesn't make lists of them notable for an article, whether it's sourced or not. If allowed to stand, this opens the door for a whole new realm of passive-aggressive "consumer reports" style articles, like Brands of chewing gum that have been considered the greatest ever, etc. wikipediatrix 13:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Do magazine and online publications frequently publish list of the top 50 best brands of chewing gum ever? THat's the difference. Ace of Sevens 15:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, due to sourcing and rigorous inclusion criteria. I don't know that the current article name is the best possible one, but I can't think of a better choice right now. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - My reasons don't include anything that hasn't been already said. I would say the same things as SevereTireDamage and kicking222. I would also add that this article IS in need of some clarification and organization. With (a lot of) work, this article could look much better, and could be quite encyclopedic. We should make a movement to strengthen this partial work to something great, not delete it because it's unfinished. Scytheml 15:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Original research. --Peephole 15:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)--
'Comment How is this OR? Everything has sources and therefore cannot be original research. This is not a legitimate argument in this case. --Edgelord 17:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree if I say, for example, Gigli is the greatest movie ever made, that doesn't mean anything. However, if Roger Ebert says it is, that is notable. Same thing here; it's not the editors who are saying they're the greatest games, it's the professional reviewers who are. Stev0 17:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Every game here has been sourced and cited-- this isn't someone just randomly making a list of games the writer considers important. ekedolphin 04:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
comment No, its a someone choosing from lists of games the writers consider important. Having a source does not make an article encyclopaedic. Any subject can have an article to cite, but there's a difference between front page of The Times (for example) and a list of games some people have voted the greatest ever. The problem with this sort of thing is that there are so many of those kind of lists, one is not really an authority. Also, because of the sheer amount of lists of this nature, inclusion in this article does tend to be a matter of opinion. Lurker talk 09:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Precedent is against you on this. If you think the editors have overlooked game with significant representative on top X games lists, bring it up on the talk page. Ace of Sevens 21:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per discussions above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for all the reasons given. So long as additions are cited, I can't see a problem with this. Korinkami 22:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONG rename title has a strong POV slant to it. --Kunzite 23:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • What would you call it? The current title doesn't claim the listed games are the best ever, just that soemone has said so. Ace of Sevens 23:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • "Greatest ever" is very POV. "Most highly rated computer and video games" would be good. Or "Critically acclaimed computer and video games" would be just as good as it defines who's doing the claiming. --Kunzite 18:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Critically acclaimed does a much better job of setting the standard out there from the start. I like it. -- nae'blis 03:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Lots of games are critically acclaimed. Only a few have major publications call the the greatest game of all time. The list would be ten times the length and much less maintainable if it were critically acclaimed games. Ace of Sevens 03:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
          • But lot of magazines apparently publish "best games ever" lists. As long as the criteria are narrow (as suggested will happen in this AfD) it should be fine. It's very superlative and the title is ultimately untrue. Lists are bound to change and be updated when the best game since sliced cheese comes out. --Kunzite 15:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Yes, that's why this is a list of best games instead of good games. Unless the criteria were far tighter than the title implied, List of critically acclaimed games would have many hundreds of titles. Ace of Sevens 22:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
            • You're playing semanics. Of course the criteria would be mentioned in the lead of the article. "Most highly rated computer and video games" does the same thing without getting your whole red-herring about loosening standards. And apparently the critria are pretty loose for the current article. There are many unsourced and poorly sourced entries. Someone needs to do some pruning. Also, wouldn't it be better to put titles together instead of the willy-nilly fashion that they're arranged in? Also Some of they claim to be "#1" or the "best" in issue #whatever of some redlinked magazine with no indication that the top ranking goes into perpetuity. How do we know that Redlink Gamers is not some Fanzine produced by Martha Snodgrass of Moosejaw, Canada? The notability standards really need to be enforced. --Kunzite 22:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONG Keep title is not POV, since "that have been considered" is not point of view. The arguement for deletion is specious at best, since there are few to no examples of games of "disputed" greatness.24.245.2.230 02:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep everything has a source and saying the game was chosen as the best ever could NOT possibly be considered POV.BackInBlack 12:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Individual articles can link what the basic public thoughts about the game were, but I don't really think we need an article like this. Gaming does not have as much as an influence on the media as other mediums (such as film), so it's not as widespread and we're going to end up getting far too many games to consider.--Mythi 05:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Two problems with this argument. First, the article requires verifiable sources so that means that only certain sites can be included. By not using small blogs etc this helps keep the number of games on the list down. I also strongly against the nom manistream agrument for several reasons. First, games have become much more popular over the years and as mentioned earlier a similar article about worst games has passed 3 AFD attempts. This shows to me that people consider video game lists important enough and mainstream enough to be on wikipedia. --Edgelord 19:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per earlier reasons. Note that this article isn't POV. POV in Wikipedia *doesn't* mean that an article favors certain views over others. Wikipedia official policy in fact is preference for the majority view over the minority view so long as the minority view receives decent coverage, if the minority is vocal. In other words, what I'm trying to say is, for those of you who complain blah blah blah, go make another page labeled "Computer and video games that have been considered underdogs" or something. I'd contribute to that. -- Solberg 08:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Solberg
This argument is totally non-sequitur. --Kunzite 15:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
No it's not. The first few sentences are facts. Look up the policy if you don't remember. The last bit follows because there should be a "vocal minority" view as stated earlier. Duh. -- Solberg 02:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Solberg
  • Weak keep. I don't think the article promotes any particular POV, and every inclusion appears to have been from some article or poll or another. I think that it would benefit from some links to online poll results or citing specific magazine issues/articles, though. -- stubblyhead | T/c 16:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This article is in parallel with List_of_films_that_have_been_considered_the_greatest_ever, and uses the same criteria: best-selling (cf highest-grossing) and top lists by prominent magazines and other media (cf critically-acclaimed). If there are POV elements, then they absolutely should be cleaned up, but deleting the page is out of the question, unless the films article be deleted as well. --Cevlakohn 8 August 2006
Also another simliar article that I recently found, Films considered the worst ever have survived 5 attempts at deletion. [68] I think it safe to say if three similar lists have survived this many attempts this one should too. --Edgelord 20:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Doesn't seem to have POV problems, information is sourced, and similar lists have survived previous AfD nominations, so precident is in this article's favor. - Bootstoots 04:00, 9 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 11:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lebrecht Music & Arts Photo Library

WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox: The article is advertising/spam. The only contributor is User:LebrechtWiki, a user with no other contributions. Kjetil_r 20:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep: Other picture libraries are listed on wikipedia. Maybe it can be edited?

  • Delete NN. In addition, this seems to be a copyvio of [69] as such I am listing for Speedy Delete. SteveHopson 17:02, 4 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 11:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arkway

Non-notable proposal with no media or governmental coverage (as per User:Cfred) -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and probably made up at University (UCL) or WP:HOAX. 23 Ghits for "arkway thames gateway" none of which mention it (apart from the WP ones). The editor has also inserted a mention into Thames Gateway. - Yomangani 23:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per...well, me when the deletion was proposed. There's no media coverage, no governmental coverage, nothing that's really a good, verifiable source. —C.Fred (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Terminal emulator 13:12, 4 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 11:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baca Grande

This doesn't strike me as notable. --Spring Rubber 20:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


Seems fairly noticable to me, needs a stub tag 198.150.66.2 20:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete ugh. Looks enormously like spam. Just zis Guy you know? 20:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - it's just a plot of land right now. to be deemed notable, a lot of expansion required into the spiritual connection with the religious sects listed. Nothing to justify keeping it for the moment, based on what's there. Ohconfucius 10:49, 4 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 a bio that does not meet WP:BIO. Yanksox 00:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feras Moussa

Article about a non-noteworthy web developer. Suspect vanity. Possibly also advertising for his websites. OP deleted two prods (one by me, one by someone else), so I'm putting it here. Shimeru 20:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I dont see an issue with this article. If you were a web developer, you would know who he is. I am a web developer and I regard him pretty highly, because he's actually a very prominate webmaster in the community and I felt he deserved a wikipedia page. csmaster 3 August 2006
  • Delete Well I'm a web developer and I have never heard of him. The other web developers that I work with...wait for it...never heard of him. In addition, apparently google has never heard of him either seeing as I get about 15 unique hits for his name. The best one was a forum talking about how bad the content on one of his sites is. [70] Show me how he is notable in anyway and I'll change my opinion but having 35 bucks to buy a couple domain names really doesn't cut it. DrunkenSmurf 02:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't find any news/book references either. I also went ahead and removed the school image, since it's a Fair Use image and this article doesn't meet the requirements. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it. I did some research, and his name returns 123 google results, not 15... Also, I found out his online codename is csmaster2005, which, if you google, returns 16,900 results. This guy obviously has some sort of power in the web community...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.240.193.110 (talk • contribs). Note user has 3 edits, one to article in question and two to this AfD
  • Comment Thanks for doing your "research", this article clearly is a vanity piece as the creator of it is csmaster. In addition, the fact that he signed up for a bunch forums with his "online codename" does not make him notable. Please take a look at WP:BIO for guidelines. DrunkenSmurf 15:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Is known... Not sure about everything in the article, but I personally would consider him to be a pretty noteable web developer, he's really active on most places and actually has a large profile from what I've read... I know he sells and buys sites constantly, but not sure how much he has at one time, but from experience it does seem to be alot of domains that he holds. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.43.237.131 (talk • contribs). Note that users only edit is to this AFD
Comment Please DO NOT delete comments from other editors as you did when you added the comment above. In addition, I'm glad you consider him a "pretty noteable web developer", but you must provide sources so we can all verify his notability. DrunkenSmurf 15:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment (Keep) Wow I randomly ran into this article, and some of these comments are interesting. Anyone here that claims to actually be part of the web community and hasn't heard of him is obviously not a real webmaster or he/she doesnt frequent the main forums. It's kind of hard not to hear about him, because sometimes he gets annoying on forums showing off his profile of sites etc. Although I personally dont like the guy myself, he is an actual webmaster, not like the 90% of kiddies that have a site or 2 and think they're webmasters.Sorry I cant login, I'm at a library and wikipedia wont log me in! 17:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.7.253.254 (talk • contribs).
  • Speedy delete per failure to assert any kind of significance and per all the IP socks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - vanity. I'm a webmistress and have never heard of him...and I've been designing for 7 years. No claim of notability. Srose (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Fails WP:BIO. Matches WP:Vanity --Abu Badali 23:09, 10 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 11:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brandi Latimer

Non-notable persion, and page is not encyclopedic but a list of facts Jeff3000 20:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom. Acyso 22:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NOONE CARES WHAT YOUR STAR SIGN IS! ViridaeTalk 23:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep needs cleanup, but meets most of the criteria for actors under WP:BIO (she's even been in FHM which is specifically used as an example). However it does seem that most of the text may be a copyvio from her official site. Yomangani 23:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - less an encyclopedic entry than a list of..stuff?Pinkstarmaci 05:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. may be a good looking pinup model, can't see how much can be written about her listed info - Pig's ear into a sow's purse, maybe. Ohconfucius 10:44, 4 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. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 22:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charlie chang

neologism better off in urban dictionary i kan reed 20:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as a dicdef for a neologism. -- Kicking222 21:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wiktionary as dicdef. They love our castoffs. Yomangani 23:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism dicdef. --ColourBurst 00:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect (no merge) to Charlie Chan, as a plausible search string for an unrelated topic. A delete wouldn't break my heart, either. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:28, 4 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 11:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Bags to Riches

Advertising, article reads like a press release, also prod removed by author Wildthing61476 21:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment AfD tag has been removed numerous times by author and been replaced. Wildthing61476 21:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Doesn't seem notable as a company or website (and it's a blatant ad). Fan-1967 21:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above. Acyso 22:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, ditto. First prodder. -- Merope 22:39, 3 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cypress Woods High School

I'm not very familiar with the notability standards when it comes to articles about schools, but this one just doesn't seem notable. At all. --Missmarple 21:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep as is customary. Gazpacho 21:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    Delete since it's not open. Gazpacho 04:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a notable school. Carioca 22:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Custom is that High schools are kept, lower schools have to be notable in some other way. --PresN 22:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete precedent isn't binding in AfD. Wether or not it is notable should be decided on a case by case basis, not as a blanket assumption. Consider what wikipedia would be like under the "every high school is notable for being a high school" policy. With every single school accross the english speaking world having their own article. Thousands of articles that are utterly useless to everyone except those in the immediate area. Wikipedia would be one big education guide. Yes, I understand the argument that we spend a large amount of our lives in there but why does that make them notable? We also spend a large amount of our time sitting on the toilet in our house - do you think that makes it notable enough to write an article about? (extreme example obviously, if you try and pick holes in the arguement soley because of this example you don't have a leg to stand on) Some schools are notable, as a melbourne example the big private schools that everyone knows about are notable ie. Scotch College, Melbourne, Melbourne Grammar School, Methodist Ladies' College, Melbourne and Trinity Grammar School, Victoria. But what exactly makes your local high school notable on its own? ViridaeTalk 22:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as is customary with non-notable secondary schools. Must have some proof that it is worthy of recognition. User:Lord Hawk 23:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per wikipedia is not a webdirectory (of schools in this case) and not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Koffieyahoo 01:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete In addition to the usual lack of an assertion of notability; we also get the special bonus of contradicting the one fact about it in the school district article, so there is a WP:V failure to boot. The school district article says that this school hasn't even opened yet, thus bringing in Wikipedia is not a crystal ball concerns to go with the usual Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. GRBerry 02:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, the school is going to open in 2006 - It's not like this is just a plan in the CFISD school office - the school will open in 2006. WhisperToMe 05:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Viridae Pinkstarmaci 05:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the school apparently has not opened yet, and there is absolutely no assertion of notability. Fails verifiability policy for being contradictory (established in 2005, opens in 2006?). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of crystal balls or information. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Uninteresting, non-notable high school. Doesn't even have a band. Catchpole 07:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete with no prejudice against future re-creation. — Only because the school is apparently not open yet and so doesn't meet my personal criteria for notability. But it's covered on the school district page, so that's good enough for now. :-) — RJH (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - The school is almost finished construction and scheduled to open in a few weeks. - IMO, if delete passes, I'd instead merge and redirect into the district page. WhisperToMe 05:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have added a substantial amount of information to this article, complete with citations. WhisperToMe 20:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep all verifiable government-funded public institutions. --Centauri 03:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • And why does that make it notable? ViridaeTalk 03:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Notability is subjective, irrelevant and not established as a formal WP policy. WP:V is among the most important - if not the most important - of all Wikipedia's policies. --Centauri 12:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I can verify that a public toilet exists in melbourne. Does that make the information worthwhile of inclusion on wikipedia? While WP:N is not a policy, there are many guidlines for notability. ViridaeTalk 12:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
          • An article on Melbourne public toilets would indeed be a good thing, as a number of them are certainly of more than passing historical interest - however public hygiene facilities are of much less significance than schools, which are funded to the order of many millions of dollars, over many dozens of years, employ hundreds of staff, and impact large slabs of the lives of whole communities of people across many generations. --Centauri 11:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Schools and the education system are notable indeed. But like the few public toilets of historic interest, only a small subset of schools are notable on their own. So what is it about schools that makes them inherantly notable? The majority of school articles contain unverfied (and possibly unverifiable for wikipedias purposes, discounting original research) information about the number of classrooms the names of many of the teachers and the students favourite after-school activities or other random, uninteresting, non-notable and often un-verifiable facts about the school. ViridaeTalk 12:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the reasons listed at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. The article is well written and the school is opening next week. Silensor 02:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Silensor and my belief that secondary level educational institutions and above are notable. Yamaguchi先生 19:10, 8 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 - Richardcavell 23:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ilaria Alpi

This page was deleted once under speedy deletion for insignifance (db-bio). Although there is more content now, has it reached "significant" yet? CPAScott 21:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. I wish I could translate faster from my mother language, but my skills in English allow me in few minutes to write only these two lines about an important (and somewhat controversial) journalist of our country. On the Italian article there isn't much more information, just where she studied, what languages she knew and a paragraph about the process following her and Miran Hrovatin's death. I saw the film about them (Ilaria Alpi - Il più crudele dei giorni, "Ilaria Alpi - the most cruel day") about two years ago and their story really fascinated me. I just can't explain it as I would like, but I think the information I wrote can be considered a stub. --Daĉjoпочта 21:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
In the future please consider developing pages within your User Pages (you can create as many subpages as you wish) until they are fully written and developed, and then publish them to the Wiki article space. This will prevent the articles from being tagged for deletion while you continue to add to them. Best --CPAScott 21:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually I didn't want to add anything to it, I just thought it could be a stub as I wrote it. ;) Will the tag be removed? (I don't know how the deletion procedure works here on en.wiki) --Daĉjoпочта 21:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
After a few days of merge discussion, the majority will rule. If the article is to remain (as it looks like it will) the tag will be removed then. CPAScott 23:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment. An AfD is a debate, not a vote. Majority does not necessarily rule. The closing admin decides based on the strength of the arguments presented. Jokestress 02:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough to be the subject of an IMDb-listed biopic. Jokestress 22:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. as per above. Biographies establish notability. IMDB a big plus. NYcine 7:00, 3 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 16:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Test Theory

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 21:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 21:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and add Between superego & id to AfD nomination An independent band which has recorded nothing but EPs; their upcoming EP (which will be "independently printed, pressed and released") has just as little notability asserted by its article as the band's article. -- Kicking222 22:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Check one of the revisions in history: 01:36, 2 August 2006 Stifle (Talk | contribs) (album releases == assertion of notability). I thought this might be relevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wafulz (talk • contribs).
    • Comment The problem with that statement is that, unless albums are released by a major label or a very large indie, album releases in no way assert notability. These guys self-releasing a couple of EPs does nothing to prove that they're a significant band. -- Kicking222 16:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Ok, can someone clear this up for me? I cleaned up the article to read less like an advertisement and more like simple information, but I want to know if this isn't good enough. If somewhere in the Wikipedia rules it clearly states that unless a band is momentus and signed to a large label it's viable to be on Wikipedia, then I want to know about it. Otherwise, what exactly is the issue? The EP will be released soon, I truly believe that at least a few people in Australia will be interested about the release date and content of the cd itself - regardless of whether we're signed or not. Is this not what Wikipedia stands for as far as being a source of information, facilitated freely by the public? --Testtheory 09:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:MUSIC gives guidelines for notablility for bands. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We don't document the future. Only notable stuff in the past and present. -Nv8200p talk 14:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • delete as per nom. NN, no claims of notability in artcle, (and, note to User:Testtheory. fails to meet the standards set in WP:MUSIC) Pete.Hurd 22:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Alright, I've read the page on notability for music, and have found something that we definitely come under. 'Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city' - Test Theory is not only the only hard rock / screamo band in Darwin, the capital city of the Northern Territory - but the entire Territory. We are literally the only band playing this type of music, and are trying our hardest to build up the Northern scene enough to support more bands like us. What proof do I need to show the admins that we are the most prominent representation of our genre in our city? --Testtheory 05:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The "local scene" criterion refers to Seattle Grunge or the Dunedin Sound, not to being the only band of a given genre in one city. I also prodded the EP. ~ trialsanderrors 20:49, 10 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 22:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of people from San Francisco

Delete as it is a list that would become unmanageable and never ending. WP is not a list of indisriminate information. Prod removed with a tag added to the talk page stating, "This article is part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's articles related to California." Content could be moved to the San Francisco article. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 22:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. This is what we have Category:People from San Francisco for. --LambiamTalk 22:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as perfect example of what should be a category. Dark Shikari talk/contribs 22:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Lambiam. ViridaeTalk 22:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The purpose of a list is to supply additional information beyond simply names. This list will do that. It is currently underpopulated because I am going through the effort of verifying the name of every individual added to this list, as well as others, as per wikipedia guidelines. Also, as the list grows, it will be clearly obvious that it could NOT be added to the San Francisco page without making that page itself unbearably huge. And, yes, the proposer of this deletion did make the exact same comments earlier. Evidently, s/he did not read the reply I posted then, which contained substantially the same information as this statement. MAYBE he will now. Similar lists for other major cities already exist, and there is no reason to think that San Francisco should not receive the same level of attention and respect as those other major cities. Badbilltucker 16:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment - as the "proposer of this deletion", yes I made very similar statements in my prod listing as I did in this AfD nomination -- the reason does not change simply because the prod was removed. The statement that I "did not read the reply" is true, not because I did not want to, but because I could not find it; I would assume it would have been on Talk:List of people from San Francisco or my own talk page but it is not. If you direct me to it, "MAYBE" I will be able to!--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 19:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment - The wikipedia is not about specific individual posters, such as possibly the poster above, getting in a hissy-fit because their own self-importance is not recognized by others. The poster states that he himself has only been on wikipedia for approximately a month. He would thus not be aware of the huge number of similar lists, many of which are completely unreferenced, which already exist, and which this self-styled "deletionist" has NOT challenged. If he can contain his comments to the matters at hand, I think that we would all be very appreciative. Badbilltucker 20:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
We have both been rather uncivil to each other; perhaps we can both just step back and let the AfD process run its course.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 20:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC) -----> I guess that did not work. [71] --Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 13:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Use the category Category:People from San Francisco for this purpose. Let's get rid of this and all other similar lists. --Richard 06:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Stong Delete redundant to category. Eluchil404 22:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Categories don't annotate. This list is incomplete but that is easily corrected. And if the list gets too big, it can be broken down into separate articles. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Lists and categories both have their place. This list is properly annotated and is a good branch from the main article San Francisco. --Dystopos 16:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, expand, and reorganize. As a purely alphabetical list, it would be redundant to a category on the same topic. However, if expanded so that each entry in the list explains what the individual's connection is to the locality, and organized in a meaningful manner, there is no redundancy; see List of people associated with Albany County, New York and List of people associated with Columbus, Ohio for my attempts at this. If all you have is a locality category, you have people who were born in a city but left it as a young child lumped in indiscriminately with people whose very reason for having an article is strongly tied to that city. Also, organizing chronologically helps turn the list into a history of the people of a place rather than a mere list of trivia or local vanity. Postdlf 16:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This isn't a particularly good list of people from a city, but that's for the editors to improve. There are many lists like these on several city pages, and they need to stay on their own page, otherwise the city pages will get too long. Its not like people are going to be able to click on to a category of people from San Francisco on the main San Fran page, because it wouldn't apply to the city, nor could they type in "List of people from San Francisco" in the search and find the information they wanted if it was a category. If they wanted a category they would have to track it down from a notable resident or something. For ease of information, a separate page linked to the main one is preferable. Vertigo700 16:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, lists of notable residents are a common feature of city pages on wikipedia. for larger cities, which tend to have a larger number of notable residents, it makes sense for organizational reasons to make such lists seperate articles. If this specifric list is a mess, by all means clean it up. But please do not set a precedent that would imperil the many similar and by and large useful lists across wikipedia. Justinpwilsonadvocate 16:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. These People from ... lists are useful for researchers and writers delving into a particular city. The article format allows a more intuitive, resoned and organic (like the human mind) flow to these articles rather than the alphabetical lists of categories. Davodd 16:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment: This page has only been in existence since last week. If the vote is for the page to continue to exist, this list and other lists of people from given cities will continue to be my top priority of development and expansion. Badbilltucker 17:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Richard. If you're worried about adding a description, that's what the article of the person listed is for. Else, why bother listing the person? --KHill-LTown 17:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Although this particular list is pretty shabby, here's an example of one that is better implemented: List of notable Nashvillians. I agree that such lists are difficult to maintain, and for a city as large as San Francisco they are probably pointless unless specifically limited to natives (people born in the city). Kaldari 17:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Justinpwilsonadvocate and Davodd. Squamate 18:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Annotated lists are valuable. Powers 20:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful. (Though IMO where such list articles really show their value over categories is when they display red links of articles we still need.) -- Infrogmation 21:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A regular Wikipedia visitor should not be forced to view categories, which can be confusing for a newbie.- -newkai t-c 23:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I really don't see a problem, require a source for each person and it's fine. There are plenty of lists on Wikipedia that will never be complete. --Liface 23:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Violates WP:NOR as attaches 'importance' to 'persons listed' as a subset of all articles in WP on persons from that place (or born in that place, a criterion that is not / will never be met by all the lists. Annotation suffers a similar fate). Categories, on the other hand, at least in my mind, are content-neutral and AUTOMATICALLY MAINTAINED. all of them, which is to say where is the verifiable source that these is an agreed upon list of notable/famous/important/persons people from that location. Also delete all the other lists in Category:Lists of people by U.S. cities, arghh look at List of famous people from Baltimore AND List of people from Baltimore, pending merge). The discussion on deleting the rest of the pages should move to a policy discussion (should as in I don't know how to start it). Cheers --Clappingsimon talk 23:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If I may extend your argument, no one should attempt to author any article on Wikipedia, because it might violate WP:NOR by attaching importance to the thing written about at the expense of something not yet written about. Categories may be more "content neutral" (though I don't really agree), but they are also more "content impoverished". The proper course of action for an incomplete article is its expansion, not its deletion. --Dystopos 23:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Um, the "important" persons from that location are simply everyone who as individuals merit an article. Think of it as implicitly titled "List of people from San Francisco who have or should have Wikipedia articles." This is hardly radical here. Postdlf 01:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, my extension was facetious, but it aptly illustrates my argument. In any case, I have made some changes to List of people from San Francisco to demonstrate how a list can become much more informative than a category. The subject is of interest to readers and the information will not be handled well by the alternatives given here (deletion, inclusion in San Francisco, or reference to Category:People from San Francisco). The editors' time would be better used expanding the article rather than defending it. --Dystopos 01:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Now pare the 200 pages of entries in the category down to a manageable list of Notable San Francisco people. I would expect several thousand individuals to be listed. Cheers --Clappingsimon talk 01:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You have mistaken the number of entries for the number of pages. There are less than 400 entries in Category:People from San Francisco. It is more important that the list be informative and useful than manageable. --Dystopos 02:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oops, yes, my mistake. Well summarise and categorise all 400 then. This Google search 'site:en.wikipedia.org "People from San Francisco" +musician' shows 22 musicians who should be listed - is that different from what the list will achieve? Cheers --Clappingsimon talk 02:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You're really worried about this size issue, aren't you? I suggest you look around Wikipedia to see the variety of list articles and how size is dealt with. But be careful, List of people by name might give you a heartattack. Postdlf 03:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No. I'm not. Just set some rules for inclusion and exclusion. If it's to be all inclusive, make it so. Still believe I'm better off doing my own research, now I've worked out how to search for multiple categories. Cheers --Clappingsimon talk 03:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No one has said that the list should NOT be made more inclusive. That's what we do here on Wikipedia. The issue before us is deletion. Talk:List of people from San Francisco is the place for suggestions about article improvement. --Dystopos 03:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dystopos as this is a well annotated and quality list worthwhile of inclusion. Yamaguchi先生 21:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with most of what was said. Yes, the information is redundant from the category, but if the page is well-organized, annotated, and updated regularly, I don't see a problem. Ellipsis22 20:34, 12 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 11:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Credit Despair to Credit Millionaire

Subject is a non-notable book with a Amazon sales ranking of about 1,781,703 (down from yesterday's ranking of 1,700,035). The article also has a certain NPOVish, advertising quality to it, with a bit of huckster dashed in the gaps. hateless 22:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - purely advertising. — ERcheck (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and ERcheck. Dark Shikari talk/contribs 22:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom (I love the optimism of the inclusion of Category:Books by Carl Hampton though) Yomangani 23:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete How to get rich quick: write a book like this and get suckers to buy it. NawlinWiki 23:11, 3 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 11:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mondomedeusah

Blatant spam, fails WP:CORP, fails WP:SPAM, spammer contested prod so we get to do it the hard way. VoiceOfReason 22:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete 3400 google results, mostly related to blogs. ViridaeTalk 22:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Yomangani 23:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Spam. Advertising. Non notable company --Ageo020 01:32, 4 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parker T. Williamson

Non-notable individual: "Parker Williamson" achieves less than 700 google hits, while layman.org has an Alexa ranking of greater than 330'000. Prod tag removed. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 03:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete fails WP:BIO, one book is self-published the other is published by the company.--Crossmr 03:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. ---J.S (t|c) 08:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I relatively puzzled by the logic here. Since when is 700 google hits too few? Especially since they rather firmly establish that the claim he was the editor was valid-you can read the editorials. And the notoriety earned which resulted in his expulsion is also noteworthy. I'm hardly fond of religous types, but that doesn't make them unnoteworthy. Unequivocal keep as meeting WP:NO. Let's put the prod back. Williamborg (Bill) 15:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    Since the fact that there are only 131 [72] or so unique hits (my name for example gets well over twice that and I stopped going) and he fails to satisfy WP:BIO, as an author or otherwise. The two books are not published by any notable company.--Crossmr 15:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —C.Fred (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability is limply established in the article, but it needs to be firmed up and verifiable sources added. This is a candidate for cleanup, not deletion. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    Until the notability is established per WP:BIO it IS a candidate for deletion.--Crossmr 01:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is work to be done but there are hundreds of articles in the same general shape as this one. Stormbay 01:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    There has been no provided evidence that he passes WP:BIO, and using other articles in a poor state to justify another is not a valid argument.--Crossmr
I believe in the collective time spent on this discussion, each of us could have taken an article like the one in question, and given it the elements needed to prevent this type of exercise. I stick with my original reason. Stormbay
Unless you're going to go out and generate notability for this individual I don't see what work is to be done here.--Crossmr 22:30, 3 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, --Crossmr 22:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete He'll never pass WP:BIO as it stands. I had a look around to see if I could fix this article up, but even referencing the current facts wouldn't help, and I can't see that his books have received multiple independent reviews or awards which might have saved him. That said, WP:BIO is only a guideline, so I could be swayed if somebody did a really good job on him Yomangani 23:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, as I see nothing that would put him in the ballpark of WP:BIO. -- Kicking222 23:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete primarily self-published and no evidence of wide readership
  • Weak keep as per refs belowDlyons493 Talk 01:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. He sounds like an interesting schismatic, in the tradition of Marcel Lefebvre and various antipopes. I think he's notable, particularly in light of various theatened or real splits in the Presbyterian/Reformed tradition. His 1996 book shows up in the Library of Congress catalog http://catalog.loc.gov , but not the later one. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO. -AED 05:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't know enough about theology to expand the article in sensible fashion, but he's got a pretty respectable number of media mentions.
  • "Presbyterian activist seeks funds cutoff", The Washington Times.[73]
  • "Passages: Deaths, promotions, and other tidbits from the religion world.", Christianity Today.[74]
  • "Standing Firm: Reclaiming Christian Faith in Times of Controversy", Theology Today.[75]
  • "PCUSA unit may void gadfly's credentials", Christian Century.[76]
  • "Minefields of pluralism - General Assembly Council of the Presbyterian Church decides not to censure pastor for his remarks", Christian Century.[77]
  • "Presbyterians address salvation issues", The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.[78] (brief mention, but cited as expert)
  • "Feminists' crusade sparks holy war: a national conference designed to bring women closer to God by questioning traditional worship only caused greater alienation", Insight on the News.[79] (brief mention, but cited as expert)

There may be more, but those were enough to satisfy me, so I stopped. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. I second Hit bull, win steak and others, this guy has grown to become a prominent spokesman for an important dissedent wing of his church. If he merits inclusion in all these articles from respected journals and newspapers, he merits an article on Wikipedia. technopilgrim 19:14, 4 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 11:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Hampton

Non-notable, smells a bit hoaxish as well. Subject has a ridiculous set of degrees from a college which has no web presence, and is a syndicated columnist found in only one publication that I could find online, the Culver City News, which suspiciously looks a bit too much like his homepage. hateless 22:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - even if this is not a hoax (especially with the education section), it fails the reliable sources test.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 23:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No opinion, but as stated on the discussion page: "If this page remains, it needs to be seperated from "Carl Hampton" as listed on the Police brutality page. See "What Links Here" CPAScott 19:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)"
  • In response to the consideration, Carl Hampton seems to be all over the internet and people want to know who he is. RandalMason 23:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • In response to the consideration, I have hard copies covering dates over the last 3 months of different Culver City News and Blue Pacific News that are running his column. RandalMason 23:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I visited the [Culver City News] online paper and looked at the newspapers details including their contact information. Mr. Ron Meyer, the publisher confirmed that Carl Hampton is a columnist for a number of his newspapers. His company recently purchased this newspaper which had no web presence, so Carl Hampton supplied them free of charge a web presence during their development stages. RandalMason 23:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The impression I get is that this Culver City News site was set up to promote Mr. Hampton and his book, while this Culver City News site is meant to bring you news. --LambiamTalk 00:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like primarily a vehicle to promote his book (also in AFD) which is published by a vanity press and has an Amazon rank over 1.7 million. Per whois, the owner of allculvercity.com is Carl Hampton, and that site seems pretty much devoted to him. I also notice that, aside from Hampton and his book, the only other edits by RandalMason were to insert linkspam for lienexchange.com, which is owned by, you guessed it, Carl Hampton. Fan-1967 01:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I normally don't bother voting on obvious spamvertisement like this which will be deleted anyway, but in this case it feels so good. Stev0 17:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like pure self-promotion. There's nothing here but quotes. --DarkAudit 23:18, 4 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 17:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restaurante los roques

An article about a restaurant in the Canary islands. I cannot find any evidence of notability. The article states that "The restaurant was opened in October 2005, by two businessmen from London and is notable for its design, its location and its food. None of which have previously existed in Tenerife before." This statement does not establish any substantial notability beyond that of thousands of other restaurants. ScottW 22:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete and I doubt food has not existed in Tenerife before. Dlyons493 Talk 01:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am the originator of this article. Notability is a really tricky one and certainly subjective. So what makes a restaurant notable?

On Tenerife, an island that I trust both the proponents for this article’s deletion have visited in some capacity, the food hadn’t changed for 500 years until the arrival of Northern European Tourists in the 1970s. Unfortunately for the island these tourists were not interested in local issues and only wanted what they knew, so within 20 years the food became Fish & Chips washed down with lots of beer…

While some of the better hotels have attempted to provide a better experience it is still true to say that the food, the dining experience and design of Restaurante Los Roques is quite unlike any other restaurant on Tenerife and is most certainly notable for this. Just ask their customers. I’m one of them.

I’m also a little concerned about the whole issue of notability. This in my mind is the same as editorial policy. A task that really should be left to trained editors who would have to spend quite some time investigating issues such as these.

Has ScottW been to Tenerife? Visited several restaurants to judge our statements? Or has he in fact spent a couple of minutes sitting at a desk making a snap decision based on content found on the internet.

Is this really how Wiki intends to police its content? Because it will not be long before the content of Wiki represents a rather blinkered and self referential view of the world.

No need to mention the comment from Dlyons493, they obviously haven’t visited Tenerife. Potatoes are food aren’t they?

Gilfrid 08:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Please refer to WP:CORP for guidelines for notability of a company (including restaurants). If you can provide verifiable information to show this restaurant meets these guidelines, I will gladly change my opinion. ScottW 14:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it's a 3-star eatery. (Can't access find it on the Michelin site.) We're not a restaurant guide. ~ trialsanderrors 21:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non-notable restaurant. And no, I've never been to Tenerife, either.--Kchase T 21:49, 10 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 nomination withdrawn, all deletes also withdrawn. Computerjoe's talk 19:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darryn lyons

Per the external link, the guy is a British paparazzi. I don't think that's notable, which is why I didn't copyedit the article. NawlinWiki 23:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Withdrawing nomination on rewritten article, notability is clear now, nice work Hit Bull! NawlinWiki 15:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, seems to fail WP:BIO. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 23:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed to keep, after seeing the new revision that asserts his notability. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 22:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. Delete. --Natalie 23:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • With the changes to the article, this meets notability. So I'm okay with keeping it. --Natalie 15:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup, including a move to Darryn Lyons. Not all paparazzi are notable, but this particular one (along with the agency he owns/runs) is the subject of a regular TV series on the BBC.[80] He's also been the subject of frequent media mentions, like this biographical article at The Age[81], along with appearances on ABC radio's "The World Today"[82] and George Negus Tonight[83], etc. Oh, and there are a bunch of sources quoting him as an expert on paparazzi, such as this Associated Press article about media coverage of the Jolie-Pitt baby. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I went ahead and moved it to the proper title, then noticed that he was listed at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and Economics under that name. I've also gone ahead and expanded it into what I believe to be a workable stub. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:23, 4 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 11:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Messianic prophecies (Apocrypha)

This page is quite idiosyncratic has no real content; it should be deleted. Bob A 23:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - if it's a template for a reorganisation of an article (which is itself a redirect at the moment), it should be done in the user's sandbox, surely. BigHaz 23:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 00:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per BigHaz --Ageo020 01:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and User:BigHaz, the article should be brought back when it's ready for prime time. --Richard 06:37, 5 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 11:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jay's Hurricane Page

Notability not established, yet another unexplained prod removal. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable Geocities page. ... discospinster talk 23:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • delete. It's a page with a bunch of images from other websites. Bob A 23:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable AdamBiswanger1 00:36, 4 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, csd g7, author request. - Bobet 00:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dimitаr Petkov

Created by error during move, not needed. Cyrillic A instead of Latin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dstoykov (talk • contribs).

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

The result was speedily deleted by Enochlau. User talk pages go on WP:MFD. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Aric.bright

This user no longer exists. The username was deleted for privacy reasons. Please also delete this former user's user talk page PBF 23:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prettyboyfloyd (talk • contribs) 2006-08-03T23:46:25 (UTC)

  • Speedy close. AfD not the place for userspace deletions, and request not made by owner of said account. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 00:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you, if you could supply a link to instructions for how I could most easily have the User talk:Aric.bright page deleted I would be grateful. The username has already been deleted, the usertalk page remains without purpose.PBF 00:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    For userspace deletions you should use one of the speedy deletion templates (the preferable choice) or bring it to miscellany for deletion (the last ditch choice if nothing else aplies). If you are the former User:Aric.bright, then you should tag User_talk:Aric.bright with {{db-owner}}. Note that since there is no obvious link between User:Prettyboyfloyd and User:Aric.bright, your request for deletion may not be honoured. It is best to add the {{db-owner}} tag while logged in as User:Aric.bright. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 00:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your time. I will follow your suggestions.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gogroups

I prodded this earlier with the reason "Advertisement for non-notable software." and the prod was removed with the reasoning "There is no basis for judging this software non-notable. Has this commentor used the software?" The article doesn't establish notability, the term gogroups gets 41 unique google hits, of which I could tell that 3 were about this, which really isn't good for a piece of software. - Bobet 23:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. 41 unique google hits AdamBiswanger1 00:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Looks like article written by the product's creator. Most of the google hits do not refer to the software. Even if it's good and well conceived, its not well known. Ohconfucius 10:32, 4 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_3_abda.html"